ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WABBEN. 1041 



If the Tribunal please, if it is agreeable, I. will stop at this point 

 for the recess. 



[Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the Tribunal took a recess until 2 

 o'clock P. M.] 



AFTERNOON SESSION, THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1910, 2 P. M. 



MR. WARREN (resuming) : I shall not occupy time in re-stating any 

 part of what I had stated before the Tribunal adjourned for the 

 recess. However, I desire to re-state that these differences, referred 

 to in the treaty of 1818, between the two Governments arose entirely 

 from the assertion on the part of the Government of Great Britain 

 on the one hand that American fishermen could not fish or dry and 

 cure fish " within the exclusive British jurisdiction"; and, from the 

 claim by the United States on the other hand, that all the rights 

 recognised by the treaty of 1783 were still to be enjoyed by the in- 

 habitants of the United States irrespective of the war of 1812. 



This brought into question at once, and for the first time, the 

 determination of the extent of the exclusive British jurisdiction in 

 respect to the fisheries, as against the people of the United States. 

 That is why, in reply to a question by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick on 

 Tuesday, I stated that there was no connection between the " bays " 

 mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and the "bays" subsequently men- 

 tioned in the treaty of 1818. because in 1783 there was no attempt 

 to define the jurisdiction of Great Britain, whatever it may have 

 been, inasmuch as the fishermen of the United States had the right 

 to approach the British shores in North America in all of the bays, 

 creeks and harbours, of whatever extent. 



Although, when the consideration of the negotiations of the treaty 

 of 1818 is reached in the statement and presentation of this particu- 

 lar question, it will become necessary to go into detail to disclose 

 clearly the position and demand of the Government of Great Britain, 

 as to the extent of its exclusive maritime jurisdiction in respect of 

 these fisheries, as against the inhabitants of the United States, never- 

 theless I desire at this stage in the Argument that the position taken 

 by the Government of Great Britain, following the close of the war 

 of 1812, be made most clear, if it is possible for me to make it clear. 



The Tribunal will recall first the letter of Lord Bathurst, of the 

 18th October, 1814, appearing in the pamphlet from which I read 

 this morning ; and also will recall that at p. 10 of the same pamphlet, 

 Lord Bathurst stated, in substance, that the usual maritime jurisdic- 

 tion of 1 league, that is 3 marine miles, was recognised in the absence 

 of some particular arrangement to the contrary. 



After the war of 1812 had closed, Lord Bathurst, in an interview 

 with John Quincy Adams, then Minister for the United States in 



