1198 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



cussion of this treaty became a political issue in the Senate of the 

 United States. This committee was practically the same committee 

 which divided on the question in 1888, when the treaty came up 

 before that committee. I would like to read from the report of that 

 committee, which, so far as the records here show, was the unani- 

 mous report of the committee, and was not a report which involved 

 political differences of opinion arising from the fact that the Presi- 

 dent of the United States was then the head of the Democratic party 



in the United States, and a majority of the Senate of the 

 722 United States belonged to the Republican party. That report 



appears on p. 390 of the Appendix to the British Case, and 

 was the deliberate judgment of that committee on this question. I 

 read from the report of the committee as follows : 



"And by the same article "- 

 That is, this article 1 of the treaty of 1818, 



"And by the same article the United States renounced any lib- 

 erty ' to take, dry or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of 

 the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Do- 

 minions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits ; 

 provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to 

 enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of repair- 

 ing damages therein, and of purchasing wood, and of obtaining 

 water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under 

 such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, 

 or curing fish therein, or in any manner whatever abusing the privi- 

 leges hereby reserved to them.' 



" The committee is of opinion, in view of this history and of the 

 plain language above quoted, that this article was intended to deal, 

 and did deal, only with the subject of the admission of American 

 fishermen within the territorial jurisdiction of His Britannic Majesty, 

 as defined by the public law of nations. 



" The first question for consideration, then, is whether the preten- 

 sion that has been sometimes asserted by the Government of Great 

 Britain, that American fishing vessels or others have no right, except 

 at the pleasure of the British Government, to be in or to prosecute 

 lawful pursuits in the great arms of the sea extending between parts 

 of the mainland belonging to the British, and which are more than 

 6 marine miles broad, is well founded. 



"The committee cannot doubt that any such pretension is ill 

 founded. It is plain that such a pretension is an invasion of the 

 principles of public law now almost universally recognized by all 

 civilised Powers, and one which, it is believed, the British Govern- 

 ment would be indisposed to accede to when applied as against its 

 subjects. It would seem to be clear that by the universally recog- 

 nized public law among civilized nations, territorial jurisdiction of 

 every nation along the sea is limited to 3 marine miles from its coasts, 

 as they may happen to be, whether embracing long lines of open 

 coast or embracing great curvatures of sea-shore, which may, and 

 often do, almost surround vast bodies of the waters of the ocean. The 

 phrase of the treaty, therefore, speaking of bays, creeks and harbours; 



