ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1133 



Government that the fisheries along all the coast of Nova Scotia were 

 more than 3 miles from the shore they necessarily included the por- 

 tion of the coast of Nova Scotia within what is designated as the 

 Bay of Fundy as much as they included the portion of the coast of 

 Nova Scotia which lies on the other side of the province. 



I have before referred to the fact that in the treaty of 1763 between 

 Great Britain, France and Spain, known as the Treaty of Paris, the 

 very language of the treaty demonstrates conclusively that, histor- 

 ically, in this region of the world, the word " coasts," when used in 

 these treaties, signified the curving shore-line of the entire coasts. 



JUDGE GRAY : Your contention is that, if you took the shores of the 

 bays out, there would be very little coast left? 



MR. WARREN: I should like to see a mathematical calculation of 

 what there would be left on the coasts of Newfoundland, Nova 

 Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Cape Breton 

 if one confined the word " coasts " to the points that project out into 

 the sea and called everything else bays. Such a calculation would be 

 most instructive. It would not require much time to add the 

 distances. 



It may be inferred that, by reason of the treaty of 1818 being nego- 

 tiated in London, the British negotiators forwarded no reports to 

 Lord Castlereagh, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for 

 Foreign Affairs, other than the one which appears on p. 86 of the 

 Appendix to the British Case. Only one such report is printed in 

 the British Appendices or produced here, but the evidence shows 

 that others were made. 



The instructions to the British Commissioners, disclosed in this one 

 report, were to take the proposals of the United States as to the 

 fisheries ad referendum. The report made in September 1818, before 

 the treaty was signed by the Commissioners in behalf of Great 

 Britain, which appears on p. 86 of the Appendix to the British Case 

 submitted to this Tribunal, is most instructive and enlightening upon 

 the interpretation of this treaty as to what was understood by the 

 term " British jurisdiction," and as to whether or not this report of 

 the United States Commissioners is, as contended by the distin- 

 guished counsel, Sir Robert Finlay, quite immaterial. 



I conceive that if it is shown that the report of the British Com- 

 missioners agrees with the report of the American Commissioners 

 as to this Question, it would become quite material to make an in- 

 quiry as to what the understanding was. 



If the Tribunal please, I will read from this report from the 

 British Commissioners, about fifteen lines from the beginning: 



" With respect to the fisheries they observed " 



this being the report of the British Commissioners to Lord Castle- 

 reagh, and referring to the American Commissioners as " they " 



