ARGUMENT OP CHARLES B. WARREN. 1027 



parties. But they cannot agree to renew the privilege, granted in 

 the Treaty of 1783, of allowing the Americans to land and dry their 

 fish on the unsettled shores belonging to His Britannic Majesty, such 

 privilege having been annulled by the war " 



And really that after all is what the discussion was about, and 

 what worried Great Britain after* the war of 1812 the right claimed 

 under the treaty of 1783 by the inhabitants of the United States " to 

 land and dry their fish on the unsettled shores belonging to his 

 Britannic Majesty"; not that other questions had not also become 

 involved, but that was the question which was largely discussed. 



Continuing reading 



"such privilege having been annulled by the war, and it being the 

 undoubted right of the British Government to refuse to renew it." 



Referring to another statement of the position of Great Britain, 

 Sir Charles Russell, later Chief Justice of England, stated, as will 

 be found in vol. 13 of the American reprint of the Proceedings of the 

 Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris, known as the Fur Seal Arbitration, 

 on p. 320 



" Of course, when the United States became an independent Power, 

 one of the family of nations, it would have, in virtue of its sover- 

 eignty, the right to claim the free use of the high seas ; but the point 

 is this : " 



And I would call this statement to the notice of the Tribunal 



" that, from 1783 down through the whole of this negotiation, Great 

 Britain has never asserted, and the United States has never alleged 

 that she was asserting, that the right of fishery in the non-territorial 

 waters was not a right that belonged to every independent nation. 

 That is the point." 



JUDGE GRAY : Is there any contention on that point now ? 

 618 MR. WARREN: Your Honour, the position of Great Britain 

 is here that these are geographical bays, that territorial jurisdic- 

 tion is in no wise involved, that they do not have to prove what the ex- 

 tent of the territorial jurisdiction was admitted to be by the United 

 States prior to the negotiation of 1818, but that they are permitted to 

 take some map, not referred to in the treaty, or, as stated in the Brit- 

 ish Argument, that they are permitted to call in people that reside in 

 the districts especially involved in this arbitration, and have these 

 people determine the bodies of water from which United States fisher- 

 men were excluded : 



JUDGE GRAY: It is so long since you made that statement of the 

 British position that I had lost sight of it in connection with your 

 present statement. 



MR. WARREN : Continuing my reading on p. 321 of the same volume 

 from the argument of Sir Charles Russell : 



"I leave this branch of the subject by expressing my agreement 

 with the opinion stated on p. 157 of the United States Argument, 

 that there can not be one international law for the Atlantic, and one 



