1894 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



said they belonged to Great Britain, and that Great Britain had 

 granted them a title which she was bound to maintain. 



That is the whole case. Of course, these weiv bays on the treaty 

 coast. The renunciation clause refers to the bays on what are called 

 the non-treaty coasts. But that makes no difference, as the word 

 " bay " has the same meaning throughout the article. So that it is 

 not open to my leaned friends on the other side to say: "Oh, these are 

 treaty coast bays, and we got them under the treaty." That only 

 means that the word " bay " under the treaty carried the signification 

 for which I contend. 



I shall just draw very brief attention to the contention of Mr. 

 Warren as to the ground on which he claimed an exception for Dela- 

 ware Bay. I dealt with that yesterday, pointing out that Mr. War- 

 ren had planted himself in a vicious circle, saying that the United 

 States had Delaware Bay because we had acquiesced. And then it 

 turned out that our acquiescence was founded upon his argument, or 

 rather upon the United States argument, that they were entitled to 

 that bay by reason of its conformation and the then state of interna- 

 tional law in British North America. 



But I desire now to examine the grounds upon which he claimed 

 Delaware Bay as an exception, because they are grounds which com- 

 pletely dispose of all his case. This is what he says, on p. 4334 [p. 

 724 supra] : 



" No nation had jurisdiction over any bay, gulf, or other extension 

 of the sea into its territory exceeding twice the width of its territorial 

 zone, except " 



Now comes the exception : 



" by force of an affirmative international assertion by that nation of 

 such a right over that particular body of water." 



1146 And these are the grounds which he thinks give a nation its 

 bays : 



" an affirmative international assertion by that nation of such a right 

 over that particular body of water based upon the existence and aver- 

 ment of facts constituting good reasons for allowing the claim in that 

 particular case." 



So that, apparently, if any nation can allege what it considers good 

 reason for allowing a claim in a particular case, it has a right to tin- 

 bay. That is rather different to the twice three makes six rule: 

 rather different to the territorial zone. That appears to vanish, now. 

 All that is wanted is : 



"An affirmative international assertion . . . based upon the existence 

 and averment of facts constituting good reasons for allowing the 

 claim in that particular case: such, for example, as the relation be- 

 tween the extent of. the penetration of the water inland and its 

 width." 



