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



Sir Richard Webster. — Entirely; but before tliat Act with refer- 

 ence to what I call the embayed and enclosed waters of the Bristol 

 Channel, the question would depend upon the coninion law i)rinciple, 

 and the principle of international law, that enclosed and embayed 

 waters may become part of the dominion of the particular couutry; 

 and I say with great respect to any argument that may be addressed 

 on the other side, I do not think that my learned friends will find any 

 authority to suggest that the Avaters in such a place as that shown on 

 the chart, between ten and eleven miles wide at the mouth, extending 

 50 miles into the country, would not be regarded as otherwise than 

 inland, embayed or enclosed waters. And the fact that they widen 

 out to 35 miles among the islands would not remove that presumption. 

 Of course, I do not Avithdraw the argument that I addressed to the 

 Tribunal yesterday on the Treaty. The real object of that line was to 

 determine to which nation the particular islands belonged on the one 

 side and the other of the line laid down. 



I was going to mention that a similar question arose with regard to 

 Passamaquoddy Bay in the Bay of Fundy, and <^here are three or four 

 cases where similar views have been adopted where the question turned 

 upon the configuration of the land, the degree to which the sea was 

 enclosed, and exactly the same considerations, Mr. President, as M. de 

 Poletica had in his mind when, in that passage to which you called my 

 attention yesterday he thought fit to say, erroneously it must now be 

 admitted, the \Yhole Pacific Ocean down to latitude 51° on the coast 

 of the United States and of America, and latitude 47°, on the coast of 

 Asia, had all the characteristics of shut seas and mersfermees. 



The President. — Before you leave that subject, Sir Richard, I think 

 it is my duty as the President of an International Tribunal, as this is, 

 to remind you of the suggested distinction which you made and which 

 you must keep to, between jurisdiction as it is fixed by internal law 

 and international law — what may be and ought to be considered as 

 international law. I perfectly admit that in such instances as this 

 strait of Juan de Fuca and also in the case of the Norwegian fiords, 

 that any nation, as far as it concerns its own nationals, has a right to 

 fix the limits of her jurisdiction. That, 1 believe, everyone who has 

 studied international law and every lawyer who is competent on the 

 question, will admit. As to the international validity of such a pre- 

 tension, that is another question, and I believe that we must stick to 

 the point that it is a question in each particular case how far the gen- 

 eral assent of ])articular seafaring nations may go. That is an open 

 question ,and may be solved differently, not only in different cases, but 

 in different times. It may account for the ancient ])retensions put for- 

 ward by Great Britain in the time of Selden, which the Russians seem 

 to have put forward as regards the Behring Sea in the time of M. de 

 Poletica. It may account also for your explanation of the Treaty, 

 which is also an explanation of Mr. Senator Morgan, between the 

 United States and Great Britain as concerns the straits of Juan de 

 Fuca. I myself will ask you not to accept any definite opinion about 

 it, and I put my own reservation forward, inasmuch as I do not know 

 how far this necessary regard of other nations may go. I will say, with 

 all due respect for my very learned. colleague Mr. Gram, that I would 

 give it as an answer concerning the fiords of Norway. 1 find nothing 

 incompatible with the extension of a three-mile limit principle to a 

 larger extent, if and when the assent of other nations is secured. 

 That is a question of fact; that is a question of tradition; that is a 

 question open to examination. Under those reservations, I will ask 

 you to proceed. 



