1094 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



limit for these bodies of water and laid down the line between the 

 islands lying off the mainland of Alaska, as shown by this statement 



in the Counter-Case of the United States. The line followed 

 659 in and out between these islands always crossing from island 



to island where the width was 10 miles or less. The very 

 words of the Counter-Case of the United States, on p. 32. when care- 

 fully read demonstrate that the line did not cross between these 

 islands at the places designated on the charts submitted by Great 

 Britain in this Tribunal. If the line, as stated in the Counter-Case 

 of the United States before the Alaska Tribunal is laid down on the 

 chart now submitted by me to this Tribunal, it will be clearly seen 

 that the lines on the British charts in this submission, No. 15 and that 

 part of No. 16 north of 54 40' are drawn on an entirely erroneous 

 basis. 



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

 o'clock p. m.] 



AFTERNOON SESSION, FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1910, 2 P. M. 



Just before the recess I was referring to the statement made in 

 the Counter-Case of the United States before the Alaska Boundary 

 Tribunal as to the lines in between the islands outside the mainland 

 of that portion of Alaska south of Cape Spencer, and had observed 

 that that line, as plainly appears from the extract on p. 32 of the 

 Counter-Case of the United States filed before that Tribunal 



THE PRESIDENT: If you please, Sir; Had the Alaska Boundary 

 Arbitration a direct bearing on the extent of maritime limits, or the 

 limits of territorial waters? 



MR. WARREN : None whatever, Mr. President. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



MR. WARREN : And I am discussing the Alaska Boundary Arbitra- 

 tion because the counsel for Great Britain relied upon the alleged 

 position of the United States before that Tribunal, as one of the 

 grounds to prove, that the United States has made broad assertions 

 of maritime jurisdiction ; and for the additional reason that extracts 

 from the proceedings before that Tribunal were printed in the Ap- 

 pendix to the British Case in this submission, with the evident in- 

 tention of showing that the United States took a position before the 

 Alaska Boundary Tribunal inconsistent with the position taken be- 

 fore this Tribunal on this Question 5. 



THE PRESIDENT: Was it a question concerning the boundary on 

 the sea, or the boundary on land? 



MR. WARREN: On land, Mr. President. And the question was as 

 to whether or not the boundary-line on mainland should be measured 

 in acordance with the contention of the United States from the 



