ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1051 



And the other article material to this Question is the proviso 

 clause of article 19, which is printed on p. 25 of the same Appendix. 

 It reads: 



" Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belong- 

 ing to the subjects or citizens of the other to be taken within cannon 

 shot of the coast, nor within the jurisdiction described in Article 12, so 

 long as the provisions of the said article shall be in force, by ships 

 of war or others having commissions from any prince, republic, or 

 state whatever. But in case it should so happen, the party whose 

 territorial rights shall thus have been violated shall use his utmost 

 endeavors to obtain from the offending party full and ample satis- 

 faction for the vessel or vessels so taken, whether the same be vessels 

 of war or merchant vessels.*' 



The jurisdiction described in article 12 and referred to in this clause 

 was " within five marine miles from the shore," as appears on p. 22 

 of the Appendix to the United States Counter-Case, in the passage 

 which I have just read to the Tribunal. 



It therefore is manifest that the words " coast " and " shore " were 

 used interchangeably by the two Governments in this treaty. For 

 in one place in the proviso clause it is stated that the ships or goods 

 belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other should not 



" be taken within cannon-shot of the coast, nor within the jurisdiction 

 described in Article 12," 



and the jurisdiction described in article 12 is 5 marine miles from 

 the shore. 



If the coast was something outside and apart from the shore, there 

 could not be an extension of the 3-mile limit to a 5-mile limit. The 

 limits started from the same base, and therefore the " shore " and the 

 " coast " were used synonymously. 



This treaty between the United States and Great Britain recog- 

 nised the extent of maritime jurisdiction to be limited to a cannon- 

 shot from shore, which was in that treaty formally identified by the 

 Commissioners on behalf of the United States and Great Britain 

 with the 3-mile rule, unless the extent of maritime jurisdiction should 

 be modified by convention or by long-continued usage and acqui- 

 escence. The customary jurisdiction was stated to extend a cannon- 

 shot or 3 marine miles from shore. 



I desire here to bring to the attention of the Tribunal the fact 

 and it seems, I submit, a most important fact that Lord Stowell, 

 Great Britain's greatest Admiralty judge, sitting in the High Court 

 of Admiralty in Great Britain, in July 1800 and in November 1801, 

 had, in the cases of the " Twee Gebroeders," Alberts, master, and the 

 " Twee Gebroeders," Northolt, master, reported in third Robinson's 

 Admiralty Reports, at pp. 162 and 336, identified the 3-marine-mile 

 rule with the cannon-shot rule, and had decided that 3 marine miles 



