ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1263 



What did they mean ? No doubt that the fishing grounds were 3 

 miles from those headlands from the line of those headlands, there, 

 on Nova Scotia. Where are the fishing grounds ? Here they are, all 

 marked on this map (indicating). What did Kush and Gallatin 

 mean ? That the fishing grounds were 3 miles from the sinuosities of 

 the coast? Not in the slightest. What were they interested in 3 

 miles from the sinuosities? No, Sirs. They were interested in the 

 fishing grounds which were 3 miles from the coast. If one says 

 that he is 3 miles from the shore, he does not mean that he is 3 miles 

 from the end of a bay. He means that he is 3 miles from the nearest 

 point of land that he is 3 miles to there (indicating on map) ; not 

 3 miles to there (indicating). And so when the negotiators said that 

 the fishing grounds were 3 miles from shore, they meant exactly what 

 they meant in the previous sentence, when they said that they had re- 

 nounced 3 miles from the coast in both cases, that the 3 miles was 

 from the headlands. It was in this way that they settled the point 

 that they had in view, the point that they were there to determine, 

 namely: Where was the territorial line? That was the point that 

 they were anxious about, and apprehensive about that they were 

 anxious to settle ; and the reason that they did not use the words " in 

 any other part of His Majesty's dominions," as I suggested, was that 

 such words would not have suited their purpose. They put in the 

 " 3 miles " for their own purposes ; and now the United States wishes 

 to change the effect because the mackerel changed their purposes 

 also. 



I pass from that, Sirs, and take up the next piece of evidence, 

 namely, Mr. Rush's letter, which is to be found in- the United States 

 Case Appendix, at p. 549 and subsequent pages. That letter was 

 written in answer to the one which precedes it on the same page of 

 the United States Case Appendix. Mr. Marcy, who was then Sec- 

 retary of State, had asked Mr. Rush what his view was. Mr. Rush 

 commences his letter by recounting what Mr. Marcy had said to him, 

 and amongst other things he says: 



" On the other hand you inform me, that our construction of the 

 convention is, that A.merican fishermen have a right to resort to any 

 bay and take fish in it, provided they are not within a marine league 

 of the shore." 



Well, Sirs, that is the fishermen's theory. In so far as this evidence 

 is useful, it supports the discarded fishermen's theory ; but it does not 

 give any support whatever to the new idea of territoriality. There is 

 not a word in Mr. Rush's statement, as there is not in Rush and 

 Gallatin's report, about territoriality, or about territorial bays only 

 6 miles wide. Mr. Rush goes on to agree with Mr. Marcy's view, 

 that the true construction of this treaty, and what they intended, was 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10 24 



