ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 477 



Sir, if, as I have said, more than ouce today, the courage and convic- 

 tions of the Senator had inspired the minds of those who framed the 

 Case, and they had nailed their colors to the mast, and had brought up 

 mare clansum in this Tribunal, I think that ])0ssibly then, a very slight 

 argument might have been founded upon the Straits of Fuca Treaty; 

 but I confess when mare clansum has been repudiated and scoffed at by 

 my learned friends on the other side, I do not think they can get much 

 argument in favor of their contention. Two great countries desiring 

 to settle matters amicably agree as between their two ]30ssessions that 

 the boundary of their territories should be a certain channel and a 

 certain meridian. 



As a matter of fact, sir, it was a case very parallel to the 1867 agree- 

 ment. There were a large number of islands at the eastern end of that 

 map. When you go towards the right hand end of the channel or the 

 eastern end of the straits there are a very large number of islands. I 

 think that map has the award line upon it, Mr. President. There was 

 a discussion as to which channel was meant and the only effect of the 

 treaty for our purpose was again to determine whether the islands upon 

 one side of the channel should be British and the islands on the other 

 side of the channel should belong to the United States. 



Senator Morgan. — You cannot abrogate the three mile limit. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — That is so. 



Senator Morgan. — I merely mention this. Sir Richard — that in 

 places the shores are 40 miles away from each other, and that has been 

 considered the open sea ever siflce the discovery of the country, that is 

 the place where pelagic hunting of seal Avas first i)ractised and to which 

 they resort now. It is a proper consideration for this Tribunal, I think, 

 whether the parties have made it so by their pleadings or not. .As 

 suggested by the President of the Tribunal, it is a proper consideration 

 as to whether that is not a part of the open sea which has been dis- 

 posed of by two countries who claim the right to abrogate the three 

 mile limit aud claim the i^roperty on either side of the line in the open 

 sea. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Well, Mr. Senator, it may have a bearing 

 on the argument. If I could see it I would try and apj^reciate it, and 

 if I could appreciate it I would deal with it; but answering your ques- 

 tion to the best of my ability, I am unable at present to say that what 

 might be called the three mile limit is abrogated in the section; but 

 even if it were it would amount to nothing more than that as between 

 those two nations, and as to that particular place, there should be a 

 conventional line of division and a conventional line of territorial 

 waters. 



But may I be permitted for a moment to say that thepoint about that 

 line was not the question of the right side or the left side, the starboard 

 hand or the port hand of the line that went up and down the channel. 

 It was the islands up at the eastern end ; and that is shown by the 

 subsequent discussion. Unfortunately the clever men who framed that 

 treaty thought they did understand what the channel meant. It turned 

 out they did not and accordingly the United States claimed a great 

 many more islaiuls than Great Britain thought they were entitled to. 

 The Emperor of Germany made an award, laying down that line, the 

 result of which was that the islands on the right hand looking up 

 passed to the United States, and the islands on the left hand passed to 

 Great Britain, 



Senator Morgan. — You remember that the proviso in Article 1 of 

 that Treaty does not reserve the right of fishing. 



