1414 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir, and because of those words, I suggest that 

 there would be the right to regulate. The United States does not 

 seem to think so. They think that 27 contrasts with 26 and 28 be- 

 cause there is the reservation in 26 and 28, and there is no such reser- 

 vation in 27. 



My submission is that those clauses are all identical, and are the 

 same in their effect with reference to this question of right to regu- 

 late ; and with regard to the words " terms of equality " one 

 854 must remember that that is the phrase which the United States 

 suggests conveys the meaning of the words " in common." In 

 various places in the United States Argument, and in Senator Tur- 

 ner's address, insistence is placed upon this very point that the 

 words " terms of equality " have the same meaning as the words " in 

 common." 



May I ask the members of the Tribunal to turn back to sections 18 

 and 19 of the same treaty, because if we have under section 27 a right 

 to regulate with reference to the canals (because of the words " terms 

 of equality ") then when we get back to the fishery clauses (18 and 

 19) in which words are used which have the signification of " terms 

 of equality " namely, " in common "I submit that we must give 

 to those clauses the same interpretation with reference to the right to 

 regulate. Sections 18 and 19 are those which give reciprocal rights 

 to the inhabitants of the two countries to fish in one another's waters, 

 and the words used there instead of " on terms of equality " are " in 

 common." And, my argument is that just as in section 27, because 

 of the words " terms of equality " there was a right to regulate, so 

 under sections 18 and 19, by virtue of words having the same mean- 

 ing, there was also the right to regulate. 



While referring to the Halifax proceedings, I ask to be allowed to 

 interject here a quotation from them in reference to "bays," a quota- 

 tion that I should have given, of course, when speaking upon that 

 subject. It will be remembered that the United States took up for 

 the first time the position of territoriality of 6-mile bays in these 

 Halifax proceedings. I read now from the reply which was put in 

 by the British Government to the contention that I have just referred 

 to. It is to be found in the publication that I have the British 

 publication of the Halifax Fishery Commission, vol. i. It is in the 

 American reprint, at p. 169. I will read two paragraphs. That 

 portion of the answer which first claims attention embodies the views 

 presented by the United States as to the area of the British North 

 American fisheries. Two things are relied on : first, it is submitted 

 by the United States that independently of treaty, and for the pur- 

 poses of fishing, the territorial waters of every country extend 3 

 miles from low-water mark to be measured along the contour of the 

 shores of the bays, and according to their sinuosities; and the rule 



