2164 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



THE PRESIDENT: But there seems to be no law or no treaty in 

 which the limits of British territorial waters were exactly 

 1308 fixed for all purposes. These laws, or these treaties lix the 

 limits, as it seems, only for specific purposes: One for the pur- 

 pose of fishery, the others for the purpose of limiting the activity of 

 war-ships in time of war, and others for criminal jurisdiction, as is 

 the case in the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act. 



SENATOR ROOT: The broadest is that statement by Mr. Foster re- 

 garding the jurisdiction of Canada; but I do not know of any -inrle 

 instrument which undertakes to lay down any theoretical rule. 

 They were dealing with practical questions as they came up. I may 

 say, in passing, that the same limitation exists in the United State-. 

 Reference has been made to a Delaware statute. The jurisdiction of 

 Delaware does not go beyond 3 miles. There was a letter of Mr. 

 Jefferson, speaking about the States having passed laws regarding 

 the subject that he was speaking of. The laws are limited to 3 miies. 



THE PRESIDENT: Then may I ask: Is it to be ascertained when the 

 pretensions of Great Britain concerning the King's Chambers have 

 been abandoned? Is the year to be fixed? I do not know whether 

 the year is to be fixed when these pretensions have been abandoned, 

 or approximately fixed. 



SENATOR ROOT: I should think, Mr. President, that the best view 

 of that subject to be obtained would be in the opinions of the judges 

 in the case of the Queen v. Keyn, in L. R. 2 Exchequer Division, p. G3. 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They have never been abandoned. The 

 claims of Great Britain to the King's Chambers stand perfectly 

 good. There was nothing in the case of the Queen i\ Keyn to dimin- 

 ish or retract those claims. 



I hope before Mr. Root leaves this subject I may be permitted to 

 draw attention to one paragraph of one of the letters, which has 

 not yet been read, which I think it is fair I should read before he 

 leaves the subject. It is the fourth paragraph in Lord Holland's 

 letter (British Case Appendix, p. 61). In the earlier part of the 

 letter Lord Holland spoke of the maritime jurisdiction as being lim- 

 ited to a league. Now, says Mr. Root, that fixes the extent of the 

 maritime jurisdiction. But in the other paragraph, relating to the 

 space between headlands. Lord Holland there first mentions bays. 

 He says that they, even at 90 miles' distance between headlands, are 

 " necessarily dependent on and belonging to the adjoining territory " : 

 showing that he distinguishes between territorial jurisdiction over 

 bays which are in the body of the county, and the maritime jurisdic- 

 tion which he limited to the 3-mile zone around the coast. Mr. Root 

 has treated maritime jurisdiction, which is an expression applicable 

 solely to the maritime zone around the coast, as though it covered 

 bays. Lord Holland and Lord Auckland, and everybody else, treat 



