ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWABT. 1297 



Webster's letter proclamation, as he spoke of it, in which the con- 

 cession had been made that England was right, and he commences 

 that speech with the question: 



"Is England right? If we trust the Secretary of State, in the 

 view which he takes of her claims, it would seem, as if the terms, the 

 letter of the Treaty, were on her side. This, Mr. Webster most per- 

 emptorily admits, while others but debate it upon mere technicalities 



of language. 

 782 " Mr. Webster says that ' it was undoubtedly an oversight 



in the Convention of 1818 to make so large a concession to 

 England, since the United States had usually considered that these 

 vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to American fish- 

 ermen, as free as the sea itself, to within three miles of the shore.' 

 Here the whole is surrendered ; there is no escape from the admission. 



IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT TO MAKE SO LARGE A CONCESSION TO ENGLAND ! 



" The concession was then made, was it not ? If so, the dispute is 

 at an end; and yet, even then, it were a hard task to justify the 

 summary process through which England has sought to compel us 

 to compliance with the concession, 



and so on. Then he proceeds to argue, from the words " His Maj- 

 esty's dominions," in support of his view that territoriality only 

 extended to bays not more than six miles wide. That is developed at 

 p. 177. On a subsequent day, the 14th August, Senator Seward made 

 a reply and, as Mr. Sabine says, he was evidently speaking on the 

 part of the Government. Mr. Sabine says something to that effect 

 I forget the exact words in the United States Case Appendix, at 

 p. 1257. Senator Seward's speech will be found in the British Case 

 Appendix, commencing at p. 181, and I only remind the Tribunal, 

 for I am sure they will have it in view as a most notable statement, 

 that Senator Seward said (p. 187) that Mr. Soule's argument went 

 much too far, and that it would react most injuriously upon the bays 

 of the United States ; that it would surrender the harbour of Boston, 

 Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, Albemarle Sound, Chesapeake 

 Bay- 



" and I believe it would surrender the Bay of Monterey, and perhaps 

 the Bay of San Francisco, on the Pacific Coast." 



He also said (in the middle of p. 185) this: 



" I am surprised that any doubts should be raised as to the procla- 

 mation " 



That is, Mr. Webster's notice - 



" being the act of the Government. I do not understand how a Sen- 

 ator or a citizen can officially know that the Secretary of State is at 

 Marshfield, or elsewhere, when the seal and date of the Department 

 affirm that he is at the capital. I would like to know where or when 

 this Government or this Administration has disavowed this procla- 

 mation ? " 



