ARGUMENT OP CHARLES B. WARREN. 1069 



4. In the British Counter-Case, p. 43 : 



" There is no qualification of any kind in regard to bays, and the 

 necessary conclusion is that the treaty meant what it said and ap- 

 plied to all those tracts of water on the British American coasts 

 which were known as bays at the date of the treaty." 



5. In the British Argument, p. 92 : 



" It has been suggested that the natural meaning of the term ' bays ' 

 may be limited by the words which follow, namely, ' Of His Britan- 

 nic Majesty's dominions in America.' Great Britain contends that 

 these words are merely descriptive of the locality of the bays, and 

 that they have no other significance. In the Counter Case of the 

 United States the attitude of Great Britain on this point has been 

 misunderstood. It is there stated that ' the British Case is based on 

 the assumption that the words "bays, creeks or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America," as used in the renuncia- 

 tory clause of the treaty, were intended to be descriptive of terri- 

 torial waters of Great Britain,' and an argument is thereupon formu- 

 lated on that issue. This is a misapprehension. The contention of 

 His Majesty's Government is stated quite clearly in the British 

 Case, and has been stated in the same way on many occasions during 

 the last seventy years. It is that the treaty relates to all bays on 

 the British coasts. In that view no question can arise as to terri- 

 torial jurisdiction: the words of the article are read in their natural 

 sense as referring to all the tracts of water known as bays on the 

 coasts of the British dominions in North America." 



THE ATTORNE Y- GENERAL : I will just add to the extract that my 

 learned friend, Mr. Hoot, has read the last sentence of that passage 

 on p. 92 of the British Argument. It follows on : 



" It is abundantly clear that all the bays on these coasts were 

 within British jurisdiction, but, in the view of His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment presents, the question is not material." 



I think I may add to that passage the answer to the question that 

 the learned President put in very simple and concise terms. It is 

 that Great Britain, while contending that the bays in question 

 (referred to by the President) are in fact territorial, says also that 

 the United States, by the terms of the treaty, have renounced for 

 their fishermen the right to enter these bays, except for the purposes 

 mentioned in the treaty itself whether apart from the treaty these 

 bays be territorial or be not territorial. We say they are territorial, 

 but we say that, in view of the terms of the treaty of 1818, which 

 contain an express renunciation, their territoriality is immaterial so 

 far as this Tribunal is concerned. 



THE PRESIDENT : Now, Mr. Warren, please continue your argument. 



MR. WARREN : Mr. President, immediately preceding the adjourn- 

 ment at the last session I had shown that the provisions of the Jay 

 Treaty of 1794 relative to the questions now being considered would 



