ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1039 



THE PRESIDENT : May I interrupt you a moment, Sir ? 



MR. WARREN : Certainly, Mr. President. 



625 THE PRESIDENT : You said the fisheries became the joint pos- 

 session of both parties. Is this idea, that the fisheries are the 

 joint possession of both parties, expressed in the treaty of 1783 in an 

 equal manner as it is expressed in the first drafts of this treaty which 

 had been proposed by the United States? If you will have the kind- 

 ness to compare the American draft, the first draft, which is found 

 on p. 217 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, and the 

 final treaty, I shall be obliged. Is this idea of joint property ex- 

 pressed in an equal manner in the first draft and in the final treaty? 



MR. WARREN : Mr. President, I was not in my submission referring 

 to the history of the acquisition of the fisheries as a national posses- 

 sion for the purpose of drawing conclusions therefrom bearing on 

 Question 1. And if you will permit me to confine myself to the ques- 

 tion that I am undertaking to discuss, I should prefer that the dis- 

 tinguished senior counsel for the United States should answer the 

 question put to me. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then we limit ourselves now to the discus- 

 sion of the bays, and to the discussion of whether bays are territorial 

 waters or not. 



MR. WARREN: I have made this brief statement of the history of 

 the acquisition of these fisheries, for the purpose of showing that this 

 was and is a great national right in which the people of the United 

 States took and do take an enormous interest ; and for the purpose of 

 explaining why the Commissioners in behalf of the United States in 

 1814, at Ghent, and why the Commissioners for the United States in 

 1818, who helped to frame the treaty now before this Tribunal for 

 interpretation, considered these fisheries as a national possession, and 

 in part the property of the United States of America, and also as 

 bearing upon the statement made in his Argument by Sir James 

 Winter, who comes from the Island of Newfoundland, that a part of 

 these fisheries has some peculiar value to the people of Newfoundland. 

 Of that I have no doubt. But I wish to emphasise the fact, and have 

 undertaken to do so, that this fishery was of peculiar value to the 

 people of the United States in 1783, and in 1814, and in 1818. The 

 demand for the enjoyment of these fisheries was no mere unexplain- 

 able or capricious demand upon the part of the Commissioners of the 

 United States during these various negotiations in 1782, in 1814, and 

 in 1818. The possession of these fisheries constituted essentially a 

 part of the national possessions, which the nation acquired by virtue 

 of becoming an independent nation. All of this history bears upon 

 the way in which, if it please the Tribunal, I think the Tribunal 

 should look at this question. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10 1Q 



