ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWABT. 1261 



sufficient!} 7 in mind so that I need merely mention it in Mr. Adams' 

 statement that the American Plenipotentiaries in 1814 embodied in 

 their report this remark : 



" ' The extent of what was considered by them as waters peculiarly 

 British, was not stated. From the manner in which they 

 760 brought this subject into view, they seemed to wish us to under- 

 stand, that they were not anxious that it should be discussed.' " 

 (British Counter-Case Appendix, p. 163.) 



I desire also, as preliminary to what I have to say about the Rush 

 and Gallatin report, to make a reference to the treaty (p. 25 of the 

 United States Case Appendix) ; and to ask why the words " on or 

 within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours 

 of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included with- 

 in the above-mentioned limits " were used, instead of " in any part 

 of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included 

 within the above-mentioned limits." There had been a grant, in the 

 first part of the treaty, of fishing limits within certain parts of His 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions, and one would have naturally ex- 

 pected to find a renunciation of the liberty to take, dry, or cure fish 

 " in any part of His Britannic Majesty's dominions not included 

 within the above-mentioned limits." But these words were not 

 used for the reason that I have already indicated. 



Now, I turn to the report, to be found in the British Case Appen- 

 dix, p. 94. The first remark that I make upon it is that its usefulness 

 has passed, so far as the United States is concerned. As long as the 

 United States was upholding the fishermen's theory, of 3 miles from 

 the shores, the United States could cite this report in their favour; 

 because Rush and Gallatin do say that they insisted upon the renun- 

 ciation clause in order to make sure that the renunciation was 3 miles 

 from the coast. And our friends from the United States could say: 

 " There is what the United States Plenipotentiaries intended only 

 3 miles from the shore." But, inasmuch as that is not what the 

 United States now themselves contend, the report does not help 

 them. What the United States now contend is that the 3 miles should 

 be measured from bays not more than 6 miles wide, and 3 miles from 

 the heads of bays at the points at which those bays so converge that 

 the shores are only 6 miles apart. 



Waiving that point, let me say that if one reads this report nar- 

 rowly it will be found that it is full of inaccuracies. For instance, at 

 the very beginning 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: To what page are you referring? 



MR. EWART : P. 94 of the British Case Appendix, under the head- 

 ing of " Fisheries " : 



" We succeeded in securing, besides the rights of taking and curing 

 fish within the limits designated by our instructions, as a sine qua 



