ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM BOBSON. 1819 



that bays and seas and land had all gone with it. So they call it the 

 " said bays," although " bays " had not been particularly mentioned, 

 and then it gives this enormous stretch of maritime jurisdiction, 

 30 leagues from the coast an enormous stretch of jurisdiction. 



Again I ask, as I come to each step (there are not many of them, 

 so that I want to be particular as to each), can anybody here pretend 

 that a bay is used in some limited sense, meaning small bays, 6-mile 

 bays? Nothing of the kind. There was not even a 3-mile limit 

 talked of then. Only a few jurists here and there had been talking 

 of cannon-shots, and certainly nobody in Paris or London had ever 

 heard anything about them. 



Then I come to clause 13, the cession of Newfoundland, and there 

 also it gives an immense stretch of maritime jurisdiction : 



" But it shall be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish, 

 and to dry them on land, in that part only, and in no other besides 

 that of the said Island of Newfoundland," 



and then it defines the French right. 



Then we come to 1763 ; 1763 was the cession of Canada. 



There we have got the treaty between France and Spain. I do not 

 think anything is said about " bays," but the antecedent treaties of 

 1686 and 1713 are repeated, and 15 leagues are indicated as the mari- 

 time jurisdiction around Cape Breton. 



The Tribunal are familiar with the terms of that treaty. It does 

 not deal with ' ; bays " and does not need to deal with them. They 

 pass with the land, and so there is no occasion to say anything about 

 them, and nothing about them is said. 



Then we come to 1783, which is the one with which we are all so 

 familiar. There you get a distinction drawn in the treaty itself. 

 And, one must not treat that distinction as immaterial, unless there is 

 some good ground for doing so. 



I am going to pause here and deal very shortly with the 

 1100 authorities at this time, 1783. I am not going beyond them. 

 I am not going to trouble about authorities which are already 

 put in evidence, but just going to refer to a particular word or two. 

 I am only going to put in two new authorities. I think they will 

 show beyond a doubt what the state of international law was at that 

 time, and how completely the consideration of the authorities nega- 

 tives the suggestion that at that time " bays " were treated as open 

 sea, or parts of the open sea. 



In the treaties relating to that part of the world it is quite clear 

 there is not a word or syllable to support any such contention. They 

 support the opposite contention, that every power claimed and kept 

 its own bays and treated them differently from the rest of the coast. 



Now, first of all we have had Grotius. I do not need to refer ex- 

 cept to two points in what he says. He says bays may be part of the 



