1882 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



property, and that we have a right to say what the treaty says, that 

 they shall not fish therein. 



That was our renunciation clause, but of course it was not, perhaps, 

 quite as good as theirs, and what they were differing about was not 

 the form of that renunciation clause. Everybody agreed that there 

 had to be a renunciation clause. What they were differing about 

 was the extent of the fishing rights that were to be granted. We 

 had cut them down. 



In reading hurriedly a moment ago, I missed some words which 

 are important: After saying that they shall enter the bays for the 

 purpose of shelter, &c., and for no other purpose, it continues : 



** and all vessels so resorting to the said bays, and harbors shall be 

 under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, 

 drying, or curing fish therein. 



So that it was not a question of their taking fish within 3 miles from 

 the shore. It was a question of their taking fish in a bay; making 

 good what I said that in these negotiations in 1814 and up to 1818 

 the paramount word is the " bay," just as in the earlier negotiations, 

 up to 1783, the paramount word was " coast," or " shore." There 

 you were including everything. Here you are definitely and spe- 

 cifically excluding from bays. And, in my humble opinion, there 

 really is only one construction open on such words. They are not 

 to fish on the bay, which means they are not to fish in the bay. They 

 are not to enter it. And then, by going still further, for a particu- 

 lar purpose they may enter, but that purpose is strictly limited, and 

 they may not avail themselves of any other advantage of their 

 presence there. 



THE PRESIDENT : If the British formula of the renunciation clause 

 had been accepted, would there have been any strict disposition, any 

 clear disposition concerning the extension of the maritime belt? 



SIB W. ROBSON : Well, I think, Sir, it would not have affected the 

 maritime belt at all, as far as bays are concerned. 



THE PRESIDENT : No ; not as far as bays are concerned. 



SIR W. ROBSON : It did not fix the 3 miles. 



THE PRESIDENT : It did not fix the 3 miles ? 



Snt W. ROBSON : No. 



THE PRESIDENT: The great difference between the British formula 

 and the American formula is that the American formula contains 

 the 3-mile limit? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



Now, let us look at that 3 miles and see whether that made any 

 difference. The Americans have been contending here very strenu- 

 ously that in 1806 Great Britain was demanding 3 miles as the limit 

 of territorial jurisdiction, because in those days Great Britain wanted 

 to have as little territorial sea as possible, because it was mistress of 



