XIV TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



Argument of the Honorable Blihu Root Continued. 



Question 1 Continued. Page. 



Salisbury-Evarts correspondence, 1880-2 1264-7 



Admissions of the British position claimed to have been made 

 by United States 1267 



1. Marcy circulars, 1855-6 1268 



2. Cardwell letter, 1866 1268-9 



3. Boutwell circular, 1870, 1872 1270-4 



British admissions of position of United States IL'T.") 



1. Lord Bathurst's position, 1815 1275 



2. Lord Malmesbury's letter, 1852 1275 



3. Fish-Thornton correspondence, 1873-4 127H 



4. Lord Salisbury's admission, 1880 1276 



Right to regulate cannot be read into the grant liiTii 



Treaty right is a real right 1:277 



United States concurrence requisite even if only an obligation-- 1278-9 



Great Britain concedes test of "reasonableness" 1280 



" Iter " and " via " in Roman law 1278, 1280-1 



Attorney-General's admission that international law may be read 



into the contract IL'vJ :j 



Concept of State servitudes 1284 



Text-writers quoted in proof 1283 



Bluntschli, Bonfils, Calco, Chretien, Clauss, Despagnet, 

 Diena, Fabre, Fiore, Hall, Hartmann. Hefftor. Ilcilhorn, 

 Holtzendorff, Klfiber, Lomonaco, G. F. de Martens, Neu- 

 mann, H. B. Oppenheim, Phillimore, Rivier, Ullmanu. 



Artopseus, Wolff, Vattel 1284-8 



Did negotiators have servitudes in mind in 1818? 1288 



American cases cited by Great Britain 1289 



Extracts regarding French treaty rights handed in IU'.MI 



Practical application of United States view 1290-1 



Parties would easily agree in making regulations 1291-3 



Question 5 1293-1325 



United States position 1293-4 



Lord Stanley took United States position in 1845 V_".4 



The "Washington" and "Argus" l-'l .'. 



View taken by Lord Kirnberley, 1871 1295-<> 



Everett-Aberdeen correspondence, 1845 1296 



Words of renunciation clause must be construed solely with ref- 

 erence to the matter in controversy 1296 



Both parties agree that negotiators were dealing solely with ter- 

 ritorial waters 1 297-9 



Mitchell's map merely used for fixing boundary 129S-9 



Jurisdiction over waters must be claimed 1299-1300 



Position of parties in 1806 1300-1 



Some conclusions necessarily to be drawn 1301 



Great Britain before 1818 never claimed jurisdiction over 



bays in dispute beyond reach of cannon-shot 1301 



Possible exception as to Chaleurs and Miramichi Bays 1301 



Treaty of 1806 1302-5 



Old theories of maritime jurisdiction 1306 



Lord Falkland's position, 1841 1306 



Duke of Newcastle's position. 1863 1307 



Lord Holland's position, 1806 (Attorney-General) J 1308 



