ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2153 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT: I was reading this portion only as a statement of 

 what I conceive to be the actual condition of law under which these 

 gentlemen stood at the time they were making this treaty. I shall 

 return to it for another purpose. 



Upon attentive consideration of this long and voluminous record 

 I have become satisfied, and I think that the Tribunal must become 

 satisfied, that 



First, Great Britain never, down to the final conclusion of the 

 treaty of 1818, claimed or asserted a right to the extension of her 

 jurisdiction beyond the cannon-shot, and over the waters of any of 

 these bays that exceeded double the cannon-shot distance, or its com- 

 muted length of 3 miles. That may be qualified, and as to that I 

 shall say something particularly, but my general statement should 

 be qualified by a reference to the fact that it may be that there were 

 certain municipal statutes which related to Chaleur and Miramichi 

 that are open to discussion as to whether they did not amount to an 

 assertion of jurisdiction. It is claimed by Great Britain that they 

 did amount to an assertion of jurisdiction. We say they did not. 

 But as to all these others, laying aside Chaleur and Miramichi. to 

 which these municipal statutes related as to all these others, Fundy, 

 St. George, Fortune, Placentia, Notre Dame, White as to all of 

 them, so far as I can ascertain upon the most painstaking examina- 

 tion, there never was an election by Great Britain to regard them as 

 being within her jurisdiction, there never was any prescribing for 

 them, there never was any claim to them. That is the first thing 

 that I think will be established. 



The second is, that the United States insistently urged upon Great 

 Britain the inclusion within the conventional limits of the maritime 

 jurisdiction of both countries of bays, chambers within headlands; 

 and Great Britain refused to permit it, expressly. 



The third is, that Great Britain not merely refrained from making 

 any claim, not merely refused to permit the United States to get 

 into the treaties a statement of jurisdiction over these large bays, but 

 she industriously and expressly excluded it. 



Of course when I say Great Britain made no claim, I have to de- 

 pend upon a negative. There is none here that I can find, and the 

 only way I can prove that is by reading all these documents, from 

 which I am sure the Court will excuse me. 



JUDGE GRAY: I think, Mr. Root, it was with reference to that ab- 

 sence that you speak of in evidence of the assertion or recognition 

 of these other large bays, that Mr. Ewart seemed to depend upon 

 what he called the conventional recognition or agreement between 

 the two parties. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 37 



