ARGUMENT OP CHARLES B. WARREN. 1155 



It was of course natural that differences of opinion would arise in 

 specific cases, as to whether or not any particular vessel was in need 

 of wood or water ; but the great and important fact remains, that by 

 the instructions of the Government of Great Britain, shown by these 

 orders issued to the " Dotterel," the treaty was being construed, as to 

 the great outer bodies of water, in accordance with the interpreta- 

 tion always put forward by the United States, and not in accordance 

 with the interpretation originated in Nova Scotia in 1841. 



The Case of the United States, on pp. 77 to 82 inclusive, reviews 

 the various seizures made between 1821 and 1824, and, as I have 

 stated, no seizure was made after 1824, prior to the passage of this 

 Nova Scotia Act in 1836. I shall not refer therefore to the seizures 

 in detail. They were all made, I repeat, within the 3-mile limit. 



The Case of the United States, in discussing each one of these 

 seizures, locates the vessel with particularity and discusses its loca- 

 tion in great detail. 



If the Tribunal please, the Government of Great Britain could 

 have produced and can now produce before this Tribunal the orders 

 issued to these vessels, and if the statement, made in the Case of the 

 United States served upon the Government of Great Britain in Oc- 

 tober last, that those orders were that no seizures should be made in 

 these great bodies of water unless the vessel was within 3 miles of 

 land, was not accurate, and if that statement did not represent 

 697 the fact, then it was and is the duty of the Government of 

 Great Britain to produce the orders issued to those vessels. 

 These orders are not in the possession of the Government of the 

 United States; but I maintain that it is conclusively to be presumed, 

 in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence, that the produc- 

 tion of the orders would not at least assist the contention now made 

 by the Government of Great Britain before this Tribunal. 



In the British Counter-Case, on p. 47, the following statement is 

 made : 



" that so far from freely asserting and exercising the right of fishing 

 in the bays, they did not, until after 1836, frequent the bays for any 

 such purpose." 



In order to establish that, at least in the opinion of one American, 

 the treaty of 1818 surrendered the right to fish anywhere within the 

 Bay of Chaleurs, the British Case, the Counter-Case, the Argument, 

 and the counsel before this Tribunal cite Mr. Lyman's book on Di- 

 plomacy, written in 1828, in which it is claimed that the statement 

 is made by Mr. Lyman, that we, meaning the United States, had 

 "lost the Bay of Chaleurs fishing, so important formerly as to con- 

 fer a name on a particular description of fish 'as well as vessels." 



The British Case neglects to explain why a book published in 1828 

 contained the statement that fishing within the Bay of Chaleurs had 



