ARGUMENT OP JOHN S. EWART. 1319 



Of course it is out of the question that Mr. Bayard would have 

 made this proposal if he thought that Great Britain had reduced her 

 claim definitely to 3 miles. 



Some correspondence took place with reference to this letter, and 

 after Great Britain had made some comments upon the various pro- 

 posals upon the memorandum which Mr. Bayard had sent to Mr. 

 Phelps in the letter that I have just quoted from, Mr. Bayard made 

 certain counter-observations, and these, together with the original 

 memorandum, are found very conveniently set in three columns on 

 each page, commencing with p. 416 of the British Case Appendix. 



In the first column will be found the arrangement as proposed by 

 Mr. Bayard. 



In the second column is the British observation on Mr. Bayard's 

 memorandum. 



In the third column is Mr. Bayard's reply to the British observa- 

 tions p. 416 British Case Appendix. 



It was the first article that dealt with the subject of " bays," and the 

 general effect of it is as indicated in the letter which I have just read. 



The British reply, or the " observations," as the document is spoken 

 of, on Mr. Bayard's memorandum, in the second column, took ex- 

 ception to reduction of the bays to 10 miles wide, upon the ground 

 that it would involve a surrender of fishing rights which had always 

 been regarded as the exclusive property of Canada. 



And, in Mr. Bayard's reply, he made a statement that I desire to 

 call the attention of the Tribunal to. It is on p. 416, the third col- 

 umn, and perhaps I had better read from the commencement: 



"A prior agreement between the two Governments as to the proper 

 definition of the 'bays and harbours' from which American fisher- 

 men are hereafter to be excluded, would not only facilitate the labours 

 of the proposed Commission, by materially assisting it in defining 

 such bays and harbours, but would give to its action a finality that 

 could not otherwise be expected. The width of ten miles was pro- 

 posed not only because it had been followed in Conventions between 

 many other powers, but also because it was deemed reasonable and 

 just in the present case;" 



796 It is very evident that Mr. Bayard, as also Mr. Webster, 

 had never heard of the settlement in 1806 and 1815. 



That correspondence resulted in the unconfirmed treaty of 1888. 

 I am not going to more than mention it, because Sir Robert Finlay 

 went fully into that matter. 



I now, Sirs, am at the end of my references to the historical facts, 

 and I hope that what I have said in opening has been justified to the 

 full, by the more complete reference to the documents. 



So far, as will be observed, I have been dealing with the construc- 

 tion of the treaty, the question being whether a bay means a terri- 



