2162 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the part of Canada, in a formal communication to Great Britain. 

 It occurs in the letter from Lord Falkland to Lord John Russell 

 of the 8th May, 1841, which appears in the British Appendix at p. 

 127. Over on p. 128, in stating the views of the law officers of the 

 Colony of Nova Sootia, in the third paragraph, Lord Falkland 

 says : 



" On this point the law officers of the Crown in the colony express 

 themselves very strongly both on the general principle of interna- 

 tional law and the letter and direct spirit of the Convention. They 

 deem it to be a settled rule, that the shore of a state lying on the sea 

 is determined by a line drawn from the projecting headlands and not 

 by following the indentations of the coast "- 



Referring to Chitty 



"(vide Chitty vol. 1st, page 99 & 100, an extract from which is con- 

 tained in the paper marked Xo. 2 herewith transmitted) and there- 

 fore think it a necessary consequence that the three miles fixed upon 

 by the Convention should always be measured from such a line." 



But they also say thab the words of the convention would put an 

 end to the question, if any could be raised on the general rule. 



Great Britain never adopted or mentioned that first proposition of 

 the law officers of the colony. She has always stood solely 

 1307 upon the construction of the renunciatory clause. And the 

 Tribunal will observe that she has been admitting from time 

 to time that it was exceedingly doubtful the construction of the 

 renunciation clause. I began by reading to the Tribunal letters in 

 which they said it is exceedingly doubtful, it is a matter for com- 

 promise, and they went so far as to say, among themselves, that we 

 were right; but never did they support themselves by saying: " These 

 are territorial waters of Great Britain." It would have ended the 

 question if they could have established that. What a powerful sup- 

 port that would have brought to the contention based upon the 

 doubtful construction of the renunciation clause, if they had been 

 able to say : " You have renounced this ; but also, this is the terri- 

 torial water of Great Britain, and you have no business here, any- 

 way." But they never did never. That is what makes important 

 the fact that never, in all this long history, has Great Britain given 

 an instruction to a naval officer, and never has a British naval officer 

 made a seizure of an American vessel outside a line measured 3 miles 

 from the shore. Two seizures were made, the " Washington " and 

 the "Argus," based upon this theory of the colonial law officers 

 made by colonial vessels, under the command of colonial officers; 

 and upon those two going to arbitration, both of them were decided 

 in favour of the United States and against Great Britain. 



THE PRESIDENT: If you please, Mr. Senator Root, is there any 

 treaty, or any Act of Parliament, or any other public Act, in which 



