1316 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



MR. EWART: No, Sir. That is the only letter that refers to that 

 matter, and there is just the one reply saying that no such instruc- 

 tions existed. 



JUDGE GRAY: You understand, Mr. Ewart, do you, that the head- 

 land theory, so called, was distinct from the " bay " contention? 



MR. EWART: Oh yes, Sir. 



JUDGE GRAY: You are not speaking of the headlands of bays, but 

 headlands out quite a distance along the coast? 



MR. EWART : It is to that that I am referring. A seizure had been 

 made which was really objectionable; and that is what Mr. Bayard 

 referred to in his letter of the 14th June asking whether instructions 

 had been given which would have warranted that seizure. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : What seizure was that ? 



MR. EWART: I cannot give the name of the vessel, if that is what 

 the honourable Arbitrator wants. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: It is not material. 



MR. EWART: It will appear in that letter. 



794 Then, passing to Lord Rosebery's statement, the United 

 States Argument at the foot of p. 194 has this passage : 



" The Earl of Rosebery, then Her Majesty's principal secretary of 

 state for foreign affairs, on July 23, 1886, advised the British minister 

 in the United States : 



" With regard to Mr. Bayard's observations in the same note re- 

 specting a customs circular and a warning issued by the Canadian 

 authorities, and dated respectively the 7th May and the 5th March 

 last. I have to acquaint you that these documents have now been 

 amended so as to bring them into exact accordance with treaty stipu- 

 lations; and I enclose, for communication to the United States Gov- 

 ernment, printed copies of these documents as amended" 



That document itself is found in the United States Case Appendix, 

 at p. 823, and, if the Tribunal is afterwards working out this some- 

 what tangled matter, it may be of advantage that I should enable 

 them to make marginal notes of where the documents are referred 

 to in that letter of Lord Rosebery's at p. 823 of the United States 

 Case Appendix, he commences by saying : 



" I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 46 

 (treaty) of the 30th of May " 



The members of the Tribunal will look in vain for one of the 30th 

 May ; it is one of the 29th May which was enclosed in a letter of the 

 30th. It may be found at p. 774 of this same volume. 



In the second sentence : 



" In reply I inclose an extract of a dispatch from the governor- 

 general oi Canada, containing observations on the subject." 



That will be found at p. 785 of this volume. 



" I have to add that Her Majesty's Government entirely concur in 

 the views expressed by the Marquis of Lansdowne in this extract, of 



