1902 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



And so on. The Tribunal has seen Mitchell's map, with those great 

 lines marked on it, showing the 90-mile zone, and of course I do not 

 need to refer to that again. There was plenty of material at the 

 time upon which the parties could agree as to bays if they liked. 

 But it does not matter to my argument whether a map was used or 

 not. If the parties choose to agree without a map the agreement is 

 equally good. If without any map whatever they choose to sit down 

 and say: " Each country shall keep its own bays, just like counties 

 within its own territory, and have complete control and authority 

 over them and be at liberty to grant rights over them or to withhold 

 rights, to take or to renounce," that is quite good enough, although 

 nobody takes the trouble to look at a map at all. 



I now refer to a United States work, " International Law Di:<-t." 

 which again is by Moore, the author of the volume on " International 

 Arbitration," who quotes in vol. i, p. 705, under the heading " the 

 Marginal Sea," what Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. 

 Jordan on the 23rd January, 1849. It is a State Paper, of course : 



" ' The exclusive jurisdiction of a nation extends to the ports, har- 

 bors, bays, mouths of rivers, and adajacent parts of sea inclosed by 

 headlands; and, also, to the distance of a marine league, or as far as 

 a cannon-shot will reach from the shore along all its coasts.' " 



Mr. Buchanan was Secretary of State then, and afterwards Presi- 

 dent. His name is one with w r hich on this side of the Atlantic we are 

 familiar as that of a great American. 



There he is laying down my principle in a form which suits me 

 perfectly, because he is there not merely saying we have got the 

 " bays," but he is pointing out that each nation has the " bays," and 

 he draws the distinction which I have been insisting upon, I am 

 afraid at such nauseating length the distinction between territorial 

 jurisdiction as comprising the bays, and the 3-mile limit as being 

 something quite additional, and quite separate, and applying to 

 something other than " bays." 



There he says it has jurisdiction over the bays, and also as if it 

 was something totally different, to the distance of 1 sea league along 

 the shore, showing that those are the two elements of jurisdiction 

 " bay " first ; " marine league along the shore " next. 



Well, now, my friend Sir Robert Finlay opened he did not 



1151 wait to have it brought against him but he opened as part 



of his case the fact that there have been in some measure 



contradictions and diversities and inconsistencies on the part of 



British statesmen in regard to " bays " generally. 



There have, I venture to say, been no inconsistencies none with 

 regard to " bays " in this part of the world. They stand on the foot- 

 ing of the treaty, and Great Britain has always maintained that 

 whatever may be the international law, whatever may be the case 



