476 ORAL ARGIWENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



Senator M(;rgan. — The case that I had the lienor of referring to on 

 that occasion was a Treaty agreement between the United States and 

 Great Britain for the division of the Straits of Fnca, which are in the 

 North Pacific Ocean, an open sea, and where the lines of demarcation 

 between the two countries is sometimes 50 miles away from the shore, 

 and never as close to the shore as 6 miles. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Mr. Senator, I think your recollection is a 

 little inaccurate. But really, from the point of view I am contending 

 for, I do not desire even to criticise what you have said. I only desire 

 to say that the observation having fallen from you, 1 endeavoured to 

 make myself acquainted with the matter. The Treaty you referred to 

 is the Treaty of Washington, of 1846, which provided: 



" That the 43th parallel should be the international boundary between 

 the United States and British IS^orth America, from the liocky Moun- 

 tains to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from 

 Vancouver Island." The following is the text of Article one of said 

 Treaty : 



From the point on the 49th parnllfl of north latitude where the boundary laid 

 down in existing treaties and conventions between Great Britain and the United 

 States terminates, tbo line of boundary between the territories of Her Britannic 

 Majesty and those of the United States shall be continued westward along the said 

 49th parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the con- 

 tinent from Vanconver Island; and then southerly through the middle of the said 

 channel of Fuca Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: provided, however, that the naviga- 

 tion of the whole of the said channel and straits south of the 49th parallel of north 

 latitude remain free and open to both parties. 



I do not know whether I have read it absolutely correctly. It has 

 been extracted for me from the Treaty. 



Senator Morgan. — That is right. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I ought to mention that there was a sub- 

 sequent dispute as to what channel w^as meant. That was referred to 

 His Majesty William I, Emperor of Germany, who made an award with 

 regard to the actual lines of the channel. 



I should have thought it very doubtful — but of course I speak with 

 great deference — whether the description given by the Senator as to 

 this being clearly non-territorial waters was quite sound. Here is the 

 map. Perhaps, Mr. President, you will take it before you. I remem- 

 ber it well enough. Remembering that which is undoubted, that many 

 of the fiords of Norway and Sweden running up into the country for a 

 great many miles, have been regarded as inland waters, embayed 

 waters, I should have thought it very doubtful whether against other 

 nations there was not what was regarded as territorial waters belong- 

 ing either to one country or two countries, according as there might be 

 one or two. But for my purpose, I really do not care to discuss it. I 

 think you will find, Mr. President, that the Southern Boundary is Cape 

 Flattery; there is alight-house there; and I am told that the widest 

 place across is 40 miles, but it really makes no difierence to my argu- 

 ment. I will take it from the Senator if he says I am wrong. In 

 various places it is less, and in various places it runs up to 40 miles. 

 It runs a very long way up into the land, Mr. President. From my 

 recollection I should think it would be some hundred miles, at least. 



What happened was this: that Great Britain and the United States 

 agreed that there should be a boundary line between those nations, and 

 that the navigation, as I read just now, should be left oi)en. Has that 

 any bearing whatever upon the question of what I may call interna 

 tional law with regard to the high seas'? 



