ABGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WAEEEN. 1003 



marine miles specified in article one must be measured, in the case of 

 unindented coasts, from the shore line at low tide; and, in the case 

 of all bays, creeks, or harbours, from a line drawn across the mouths 

 of such bays, creeks, or harbours." 



In the Argument presented in behalf of Great Britain, at p. 85, the 

 contention is stated in this wise : 



"The contention of His Majesty's Government is that the word 

 ' bays ' includes all those tracts of water which were known under the 

 name of bays in 1818, and were so marked in the maps of that time ; 

 and that the three marine miles must be measured from the outer 

 limits of those waters that is, in accordance with the general prac- 

 tice in such cases, from a line drawn between the headlands." 



And at p. 92 of the same volume, the position is stated with dis- 

 tinctness and precision. I read from the first paragraph on p. 92 

 of the British Argument: 



" It has been suggested that the natural meaning of the term ' bays ' 

 may be limited by the words which follow, namely, ' Of His Britan- 

 nic Majesty's dominions in America.' Great Britain contends that 

 these words are merely descriptive of the locality of the bays, and 

 that they have no other significance. In the Counter- Case of the 

 United States the attjtude of Great Britain on this point has been 

 misunderstood. It is there stated that ' the British Case is based on 

 the assumption that the words "bays, creeks, or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America," as used in the renuncia- 

 tory clause of the treaty, were intended to be descriptive of terri- 

 torial waters of Great Britain,' and an argument is thereupon formu- 

 lated on that issue. This is a misapprehension. The contention of His 

 Majesty's Government is stated quite clearly in the British Case, and 



has been stated in the same way on many occasions during the 

 603 last seventy years. It is that the treaty relates to all bays on 



the British coasts. In that view no question can arise as to 

 territorial jurisdiction." 



Now, if that language means anything, it means that it is not for 

 this Tribunal to make any inquiry into the extent of the exclusive 

 territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain in respect of the fisheries in 

 the North Atlantic Ocean in 1818, admitted by the United States of 

 America ; but that that question is outside and quite apart from the 

 issue before this Tribunal. 



Proceeding with the reading from p. 92 of the British Argument : 



" the words of the article are read in their natural sense as referring 

 to all the tracts of water known as bays on the coasts of the British 

 dominions in North America. It is abundantly clear that all the bays 

 on these coasts were within British jurisdiction, but, in the view that 

 His Majesty's Government presents, the question is not material. 



" That the words ' of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in Amer- 

 ica ' were merely descriptive from a geographical point of view is 

 clear from an examination of the treaty. It will be observed that 

 the language of the renunciation of 1818 follows closely the lan- 

 guage of the grant of 1783." 



