ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1013 



over six marine miles in width at its entrance. Such a bay, creek, or 

 harbor was to be a closed bay ; and the three marine miles were to be 

 measured from the shores, and from the lines, determined by this 

 measurement from the shores, across bays, creeks, or harbors within 

 His Majesty's admitted jurisdiction." 



The words " and from the lines, determined by this measurement 

 from the shores " show what was being considered in the Case of the 

 United States, because the lines from the opposite shores mark the 



6-mile bays. 



609 The learned counsel for Great Britain contended that this 



was not the historic position of the United States, but that 



on the contrary the position of the United States in the past had been 



that the 3-marine-mile line should follow the sinuosities of the shore. 



It is quite true that when the diplomats, or other men in public 

 life concerned with this question, were discussing the right of the fish- 

 ing-vessels of the United States, they usually asserted the right of the 

 fishing-vessels of the United States to fish within the large bays 

 within 3 marine miles of the shore that is, by large bays I mean 

 non-territorial bays of Great Britain. 



This effort of counsel to show a conflict between the position taken 

 in the Argument, and the position taken in the Case of the United 

 States, is undoubtedly made for the purpose of making it appear that 

 this position taken j.n the Argument is something new. 



I refer now to the Argument which was printed and filed on behalf 

 of Great Britain before this Tribunal, in which the opposite position 

 is taken, when the counsel who drafted that printed Argument 

 thought that the United States was taking the other position in its 

 Case. So that whichever position the United States assumed, counsel 

 for Great Britain were ready to contend that it was not the historic 

 position of the United States. 



I refer to the printed Argument of Great Britain in this submis- 

 sion at p. 128. The Argument of Great Britain there refers to an 

 instruction forwarded by Mr. Seward, when Secretary of State of 

 the United States, to Mr. Adams in 1866. That was, of course, not 

 John Quincy Adams. I shall start at the middle of the citation in 

 order to shorten the reading. 



JUDGE GRAY: That Adams was Charles Francis Adams? 



MR. WARREN : Yes, your Honour, who was then Minister at Lon- 

 don. In this instruction it was proposed to have a commission ap- 

 pointed with a view of drawing lines across these bays, which no- 

 body could draw on the British theory, but which were perfectly 

 capable of being drawn on the theory of the United States. 



The instruction was accompanied by a letter written by Mr. Rich- 

 ard D. Cutts, who had acted as United States Commissioner under 

 the treaty of 1854. I suppose in marking the rivers and estuaries 



