ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1313 



Now, Sirs, while the Tribunal looks at this amended clause in the 

 United States Argument, may I read to them from a letter of the 

 8th June, from the Marquis of Lansdowne in Canada to Earl Gran- 

 ville, informing him of the amendment? The Tribunal will, in that 

 way, be able to see what the comparison brings out. This is a letter 

 in the British Case Appendix, p. 318, from Quebec to London, tell- 

 ing about the amendment. In it, Lord Lansdowne says: 



"This point has been considered by my Government with every 

 desire to revise the Circular in such a manner as to remove all reason- 

 able objections to it upon these or other grounds, and I have much 

 pleasure in informing your Lordship that the Circular will be re- 

 issued with the following concluding paragraphs in lieu of those 

 referred to above." 



I am going to read to the Tribunal the amendment that was made 

 prior to the 8th June, and therefore prior to the only protest that 

 was made by Mr. Bayard with reference to bays, or to seizures within 

 3 miles from the shore: 



"Having reference to the above you are requested to furnish 

 any " 



That word is different 



" foreign fishing vessels, boats or fishermen found within three 

 marine miles of the shore within your district with a printed copy of 

 the warning enclosed herewith. 



" ' If any fishing vessel or boat of the United States is found fish- 

 ing or to have been fishing or preparing to fish, or if hovering within 

 the three mile limit, does not depart within twenty-four hours after 

 receiving such warning, you will place an officer on board of such 

 vessel and at once telegraph the facts to the Fisheries Department at 

 Ottawa and await instructions.'" 



I think that with the exception of two words, " every " for " any," 

 and the insertion of the word "please," the language is identical. 



That amendment was made prior to the 8th June. 

 792 In order that I may show what the nature of the amendment 

 was, and that it is not at all such an amendment as is indicated 

 by the United States Argument, I wish to read the circular as 

 originally issued. I refer to the British Case Appendix, pp. 298 

 and 299; and in order that the Tribunal may be the better able to 

 follow me, let me indicate what the effect of the amendment was. 

 The clause in the circular as originally drawn was too wide. It 

 applied to every foreign vessel, instead of to the vessels of the United 

 States only; and the only change in the circulars was to limit its 

 application to United States vessels. That was the only change 

 that was made. It was previously too wide, it included all foreign 

 vessels, and the amendment that was made protest or no protest 

 was to make it specifically applicable to the United States vessels and 

 no others. 



