1888 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITBATION. 



land. She has come through territorial waters in accordance with 

 her right. So that the step that he takes of assuming that the 

 entrance is locked because the territorial lines meet there is quite 

 a fanciful supposition upon his part. Nobody ever imagined such a 

 bay; no international lawyer has ever defined such a bay. You 

 cannot take out the plain geographical word " bay " in this clause and 

 substitute for it a thing which the parties themselves had never heard 

 of and did not intend when they made their contract. The moment 

 you leave the plain sense of the term you get into difficulties. The 

 United States have marde two or three attempts at devising some 

 kind of bay which they think will enable them to meet the difficulties 

 of their argument. First of all they dropped bays out altogether and 

 said : " You simply follow the coast-line in its indentations and pay 

 no attention to bays." They could not keep that argument up 

 1142 (that is the argument with which I have already been dealing 

 at such length), because they could not explain the passages 

 in the clause which relate to entering the bays. If you tirke what Mr. 

 Ewart called the " fisherman's theory " and follow the sinuosities of 

 the coast, you keep on entering the bays. But these clauses say in 

 1818 that you may not enter the bays you shall only be admitted 

 to enter for particular purposes. So the United States thought they 

 must drop that theory. And they dropped that. 



Next they took up the theory that I have just been dealing with, 

 of the 6 miles between the headlands. Then that began to give them 

 difficulty, because again, the bay might open out beyond the head- 

 lands, and they could not see them upon what principle they were 

 going to deal with a vessel that finds itself there within the bay more 

 than 3 miles from the shore and desirous of fishing. 



And then at last, in the argument here, when every other alterna- 

 tive had been exhausted, they said : " Very well, we have got still a 

 new kind of bay another kind of bay which nobody has ever heard 

 of, had not even been heard of in these Arguments, in the printed 

 Arguments, namely, a bay at the end of a bay." That is not likely to 

 be accepted as the thing that was meant by these parties. Because 

 what we have got to determine here is not what international lawyers 

 may consider as a convenient kind of bay to treat as territorial. That 

 is not the point. The question is: What these parties meant? And 

 what these parties, Great Britain and the United States, meant in 

 1818 was what they meant in 1793. They meant a bay such as Dela- 

 ware Bay is and such as Chesapeake Bay is; they meant that and 

 nothing else. 



I have very little more to add, and perhaps, if the Tribunal 

 will allow me to look over my notes, I may be able to condense 

 my remarks so that, I think, I shall easily finish by to-morrow at 12 

 o'clock. 



