ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWABT. 1243 



at all the theory advanced in its printed Argument, or the theory 

 advanced by Mr. Warren. 



The United States Case supported its contention, as one would 

 have expected. They said that the British Government had always 

 agreed to this. It was not at all probable that the British Govern- 

 ment had ever agreed to that theory, that theory which is so plainly 

 contradictory of the treaty, but the United States was able to quote 

 some of these detached phrases, in some of the letters, about "'three 

 miles from the coast." Lord Bathurst had said something about 3 

 miles from the coast. 



JUDGE GRAY: Do you mean " coast " or " shore?" 



MR. EWART: Sometimes one, and sometimes the other. That sort 

 of expression. They were able to quote expressions of that sort, and 

 so they argued that we had never claimed more than 3 miles from 

 the shore. Of course if we did not do so, we were always claiming 

 something less than our rights as now admitted by the United 

 States ; because according to the present United States contention, we 



are entitled to more than that. 



749 At pp. 65, 66 and 76 of this United States Case, the Tribunal 

 will find the arguments by which they supported this " fisher- 

 man " theory. To those pages I will add also pp. 77 and 95. 



We of course were very much surprised at the reversion to the 

 " fishermen " idea, but in our Counter-Case we attacked this new 

 idea new idea so far as the pleadings are concerned, although a very 

 old one as we now know and in our Counter-Case at p. 43 we stated 

 the new contention of the United States : 



" The contention of the Government of the United States, on the 

 other hand, is that the 3-mile limit must be measured from low water 

 mark following the indentations of the coast of each bay. In the 

 proceedings before the Halifax Commission in 1877 the assertion of 

 the United States was different. It was then contended that the 3 

 miles ought to be measured from the shore only in cases of bays 



which exceeded 



" ' six miles in width at the mouth upon a straight line measured 

 from headland to headland,' 



" and the same ground was taken in the Report of the Committee of 

 the Senate on Foreign Affairs in 1888. This argument has been dis- 

 cussed in the British Case, and the observations which are now pre- 

 sented to the Tribunal will be supplementary to the arguments pre- 

 sented in the British Case, and directed more particularly to the new 

 and different case now put forward on behalf of the United States." 



And so we went on, and argued, as best we could, against this view. 



The United States Counter-Case left us in a good deal of doubt. 

 It seemed to re-affirm the " fishermen " theory, but it declared that 

 we had put forward territoriality, and that they took issue upon the 

 question of territoriality. We had only put forward territoriality in 



