1250 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



this bay, and wherever you come to a place where it is only 6 miles 

 across, you draw a line." How does he know it is a bay? He looks 

 at the map, and he finds something on the map which is not a bay, 

 something which is a mere curvature in the shore, and he declines to 

 draw his line. Why? because it is not a bay. But he has to say 

 first whether it is a hay or not. If it is a bay, he draws his line; and 

 if it is not. he does not. So, I say that in order to ascertain whether 

 he is to draw his line or not, he has to decide the question which we 

 have at issue. Not merely that, but a still further difficulty con- 

 fronts Mr. Warren's new theory, and it is that he divides bays into 

 parts, and he says that one end is a bay and that the other is not. 

 For instance, take the Bay of Chaleur. I had always called the 

 Bay of Chaleur, the Bay of Chaleur, but Mr. Warren says: No, it 

 is not the Bay of Chaleur until you come to 6 miles from the inner 

 end; then it is a bay, and, being a bay, you draw your 6-mile line 

 across it. The construction of the treaty according to that theory, 

 is that you do not draw a line 3 miles from the bay, but you draw 

 a line 3 miles from a part of the bay. If that is what the nego- 

 tiators meant, I am inclined to think that there would have been 

 some traces of it in the language which they employed to express 

 their idea. 



Now, Sir, having, as I hope, fairly stated, in so far as I am able 

 to do it, the views held by the United States, I think the Tribunal 

 will agree that I was not inaccurate when I said that within the last 

 nine months we have had three separate and inconsistent views ad- 

 vanced by the United States the fishermen's theory in the Case; 

 the idea of territorial bays and a line drawn across the entrance in 

 the Argument; and Mr. Warren's idea that you draw a line, not 

 across the entrance, but wherever the bays converge to such an 

 extent that you get a distance of 6 miles between the shores. 



I pass on now, before presenting my own view of the facts, to deal 

 with the principal arguments which have been advanced by Mr. War- 

 ren, and upon which he seems most strongly to rely, in order that, 

 having, as I hope to, displaced these arguments, I may then go on 

 almost uninterruptedly with a statement of the case as it presents 

 itself to my mind. 



And, Sirs, at the outset, I admit that there is one line of statement- 

 I cannot properly call it argument which I cannot meet, and that 

 is the appeal based upon the laxity of the British Government in 

 enforcing its view of the treaty. If it be the fact that this is an 

 argument capable of affecting the decision of this case, I might as 

 well at once cease speaking. For I admit that I cannot answer it 

 so far as it relates to matter of fact. I can say, and I do say, that 

 it is not an argument, but if I thought the Tribunal, or any member 

 of the Tribunal, took it as an argument and would give any effect 



