1012 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



At a later time in the progress of the argument of Sir Robert Fin- 

 lay, after he had first stated that this difference existed, he answered 

 the argument himself by finding that in the Counter-Case of the 

 United States at pp. 67 and 69 the position taken in the Argument 

 is stated. 



If the Tribunal please, I will refer to these pp. 67 and 69 of the 

 Counter-Case of the United States, because they were, subsequently 

 to the first statement of the counsel for Great Britain, referred to by 

 him, as appears in the report of his oral argument. 



The extract on p. 67 to which it is necessary briefly to call the at- 

 tention of the Tribunal is as follows : 



"A knowledge of the situation existing prior to and at the time of 

 making the treaty of 1818 is essential to a proper understanding of 

 the true intent and meaning of the renunciatory clause. The Case of 

 the United States, therefore, presented a full review of the historical 

 conditions leading up to that treaty and of the circumstances in 

 which it was made, and the controversy and differences which it was 

 intended to settle. It was shown that the antecedents and surround- 

 ings of the treaty and the language used establish beyond question 

 that the negotiators intended, in adopting the renunciatory clause, 

 that it should apply only to the exercise of the liberties, therein men- 

 tioned, on or within three marine miles of the shore, and that the 

 bays, creeks, and harbors referred to were those inside of such limit 

 of three marine miles." 



At p. 69 of the Counter-Case the passage which I desire to 

 read is : 



" On the issue thus presented by Great Britain the United States 

 maintains, as it has maintained ever since the question was raised 

 under the headland theory, that, at the time this treaty was entered 

 into, none of the waters on the non-treaty coasts more than three 

 miles from shore were regarded as territorial waters of Great 

 Britain, whether considered with reference to the position taken by 

 the two Governments in the negotiations which led up to this treaty, 

 or with reference to British jurisdiction over such water at that time; 

 and consequently that the territorial waters of Great Britain did not 

 include any bays which were more than six marine miles in width." 



In the Case of the United States the extract referred to as being 

 in conflict with the Argument presented by the United States, but 

 subsequently acknowledged not to be in conflict with the position 

 taken in the Counter-Case, had reference only to what is here im- 

 portant to be considered, namely, whether or not the fishing vessels 

 of the United States have a right to invade the bays which are not 

 territorial bays, unless they fish nearer than 3 miles to the shores. 



On p. 145 of the Argument of the United States this statement is 

 made : 



"A bay, creek, or harbor of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in 

 America was, therefore, well understood to be a body of water not 



