AKGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2147 



is ended by the war. If there were a controversy about where the 

 limits were that would be quite a different controversy, dependent 

 upon facts and different rules of law. All I am addressing myself 

 to now is the proposition that the words of the renunciation clause 

 must be construed as applying solely to the matter which was in 

 controversy then, and that that controversy was solely about the right 

 to be exercised or not exercised within the territorial limits, whatever 

 those limits were, and I am about to proceed to the further propo- 

 sition that it follows that if we can ascertain what those limits were, 

 the limits of sovereignty, of jurisdiction, the maritime limits, the 

 territorial limits, whatever those varying expressions may be. we have 

 an infallible guide to ascertain the meaning of the word " bays " in 

 this renunciation. We can put a limit to them. We have drawn a 

 line around the field to which it is possible to apply the word " bays " 

 or " harbours " or " creeks." The proposition I am now engaged upon 

 is that the matter in controversy was, in fact, limited to the territo- 

 rial waters, to the maritime limits, whatever they were, and that that 

 is what the negotiators had in mind when they were settling rights 



about those particular waters. 

 1298 Mr. Ewart has been very frank and clear upon that; he 



regarded it as a step in his own argument. He said [p. 756] : 



" Then I come to one that bulked very largely in Mr. Warren's 

 argument : That the negotiators understood that they were dealing 

 with waters ' within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain,' 

 ' within British sovereignty,' and so on. I had made a collection of 

 excerpts for the purpose of proving that to be true, but my list is 

 not nearly so long or so full as Mr. Warren's, and I therefore do not 

 trouble the Tribunal with it. If, however, there is any way in which 

 I can emphasise what he said, I should like to do so. It seems to 

 me important. It seems to me, Sirs, that when the negotiators went 

 to negotiate about this treaty, even if they had had no instructions 

 at all, they would have known that they were going to deal with 

 waters in British sovereignty. Nor would the British imagine that 

 the Americans were going to renounce parts of the high seas." 



Further down he repeats the same proposition. 



JUDGE GRAY: I was very much interested in that point of Mr. 

 Ewart's argument. Mr. Ewart further said in that connection, if 

 I recollect his argument, that the treaty is a convention between 

 Great Britain and the United States, and that by the fact of its 

 being a convention it established between them the conventional terri- 

 toriality of all bays. 



SENATOR ROOT : I remember that Mr. Ewart did subsequently 



JUDGE GRAY : He said that it was a conventional establishment of 

 the territorially of bays. I merely call it to your attention. 



SENATOR ROOT : That proposition of Mr. Ewart has the fatal vice 

 of depending entirely on ascribing to the word "bays" his own 



