ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2149 



We must ascribe that force to it. Lord Stowell had already so de- 

 scribed it in the "Twee Gebroeders" case, and the treaty of 

 1299 1806 had already fixed the normal zone at 3 marine miles. 

 Lord Bathurst, in his instructions to the Ghent Commissioners, 

 had already said that a limit of 3 marine miles must be observed. 

 Then by 1818 all those vague, old claims which nobody was quite sure 

 about and everybody was very insistent upon or against, had disap- 

 peared, and they had come down to the 3-mile limit. The zone of 

 jurisdiction which, as a matter of course and without any assertion, 

 is accorded to every country for the protection of its coast, and this 

 " three marine miles " plainly refers to that 3-mile territorial zone. 

 You must suppose that the bays which are talked about here are bays 

 which are within the territorial zone wherever it lies, and the renun- 

 ciation is of the right to take fish, &c., on coasts, bays, creeks, and 

 harbours that are within this territorial zone. I say that there is a 

 natural conclusion to be drawn from these words perfectly in accord 

 with the conclusion that, by another line of reasoning, another route. 

 Mr. Warren and Mr. Ewart reached the agreement as to the propo- 

 sition that the subject-matter in controversy, the matter to which the 

 words " bays, creeks, harbours " apply is the territory within, and 

 not additional to, the territorial limit, the territorial jurisdiction of 

 Great Britain. 



THE PRESIDENT : Would it not then have been more natural to have 

 expressed it as you have expressed it just now by putting in the 

 words, " within three marine miles " behind " coasts, bays, creeks and 

 harbours," instead of before ? You said, " coasts, bays, creeks or har- 

 bours within three marine miles " ; would it not have been natural to 

 have expressed it in the treaty in the same way as you now express it 

 in your argument? 



SENATOR ROOT: I do not think any more natural than this. I 

 think it is merely a matter of style. It would have involved the use 

 of one .more word. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Style and meaning. 



SENATOR ROOT: I cannot see that there would be any difference in 

 the meaning: 



" The United States hereby renounce, for ever, any liberty hereto- 

 fore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or 

 cure fish on the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic 

 Majesty's dominions in America, or within three marine miles 

 thereof " 



would be the President's suggestion. That is a very good way to ex- 

 press it, but I think it is merely a question of style as to whether 

 you make an additional clause or incorporate the words in the same 

 line. 



