ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1229 



lion of the meaning of the words " three miles from bays," after 

 hesitating for language in which to express it, they merely have to 

 say " three miles from bays." 



Now, Sirs, that contention of the British Government must not in 

 any way be confused, with the headland theory which, as known in 

 international law, was the peculiarly British idea that lines were to 

 be drawn between headlands even widely distant headlands 

 whether the intervening water formed a bay, or was a mere curvature 

 in the shore. 



The position of the British Government has been completely mis- 

 understood by the United States, and I find in their Counter-Case at 

 p. 68 a wholly erroneous statement of what that position is. In fact, 

 Sirs, we have had no theory; we have had an interpretation of the 

 treaty, or, rather, we have merely said " there is the treaty." That 

 has been spoken of by the United States as though it were the head- 

 land theory ; and at p. 68 the Tribunal will find this statement : 



" Under this headland theory Great Britain, instigated by the 

 Province of Nova Scotia, contended with apparent reluctance that 

 the three mile limit of exclusion for American fishing vessels should 

 be measured from a line drawn across the outside portion of the bays, 

 instead of from their shores, and that the bays referred to in the 

 treaty comprised all the indentations of the non-treaty coasts, irre- 

 spective of their width. In other words, under the headland theory 

 wherever headlands could be found on the non-treaty coasts, re- 

 gardless of their distance apart, a line connecting them was to serve 

 as the base from which to measure the three mile limit of exclusion." 



Not a word, Sirs, is said there as to the intervening water being 

 bays. But our whole contention is that, according to the words of 

 the treaty, you do not draw lines from headlands irrespective of the 

 character or conformation of the water in between, but from the 

 headlands of bays. 



It may be said in reply to what I have urged, that this has not 

 always been the view of the British Government, because in the case 

 of the "Argus " a seizure was made, based upon the British view of 

 the headland idea. That is perfectly true. The seizure was made 

 upon that idea. But as soon as it was made it was repudiated by 

 the British Government in a letter from the Right Honourable Lord 

 Stanley to Governor Falkland, of Nova Scotia, in British Case Ap- 

 pendix, at p. 151. That was a letter in which Lord Stanley an- 

 nounced that the proposal of the British Government to open all the 

 bays had been withdrawn. He urged, however, scrupulous observ- 

 ance of the treaties, and went on to say the eighth line from the 

 bottom of the letter: 



" The case of the 'Argus ' is an exemplification of my meaning that 



" vessel having been seized by a provincial revenue cruizer, under 



741 the plea of illegal encroachment, in a spot where she was not 



