1002 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ABBITRATIOIT. 



602 MR. WARREN : We have the decision of the lower court. 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the decision in question 

 was one by the highest court of criminal appeal in Scotland, and I 

 do not think there is any appeal to the House of Lords. In fact, I 

 do not think, as the matter was a criminal case, that any appeal 

 would lie. Still, we will make enquiry, and if there is any further 

 report than that which is submitted to the Tribunal by Mr. Warren, 

 the Tribunal shall have it. 



MR. WARREN: It seems desirable now to state the contentions of 

 the two Governments on this question. I shall read from the British 

 Case and Argument, for while this question was discussed at great 

 length in the oral argument, the position of that Government has 

 only been amplified and illustrated, and in no wise altered. 



On p. 83 of the British Case, just above the sub-division entitled 

 " History of the Question," the position of Great Britain is stated : 



" His Majesty's Government contend that the negotiators of the 

 treaty meant by ' bays,' all those waters which, at the time, everyone 

 knew as bays." 



On p. 103, the position is again stated, under the heading " British 

 Contention " : 



" His Majesty's Government contends that the term ' bays,' as used 

 in the renunciation clause of article one, includes all tracts of water 

 on the non-treaty coasts which were known under the name of bays 

 in 1818, and that the 3 marine miles must be measured from a line 

 drawn between the headlands of those waters." 



On p. 104, in the last paragraph on that page, the position is thus 

 stated : 



" The negotiators of the convention were dealing, therefore, with 

 tracts of water on the shores of His Majesty's dominions which were 

 known to everyone under the name of ' bays ' tracts of varying size 

 and of varying conformation, some with greater and some with less 

 width between their headlands, ranging from inclosures of consider- 

 able extent to inlets of small size. They use the term ' bays ' without 

 any qualification whatever, and the inference is irresistible, as His 

 Majesty's Government submits, that the term was intended to apply 

 to all the waters on those shores which were known to the negotia- 

 tors and to the public, and were marked on the maps at the time, as 

 ' bays.' If it had been intended that the term should apply only to 

 a limited class of the waters which were then called ' bays,' an ex- 

 press limitation would have been inserted to give effect to that 

 intention." 



I call attention to the expression : " which were known to the 

 negotiators and to the public" maps not being sufficient, but the 

 public being included, as a witness to be produced. 



On p. 122 of the British Case, the position of the British Govern- 

 ment is stated as follows reading the " Conclusion " on that page : 



" Great Britain, therefore, contends that the treaty applies to all 

 bays on the coasts of British North America, and that the three 



