ARGUMENT OF ELTT1U ROOT. 2167 



zone outside of the line drawn from headland to headland. It was 

 the same policy which led Great Britain to refrain always, during 

 all these discussions, from ever asserting that the fishermen o/ the 

 United States were to be excluded from these bays because they were 

 territorial waters, or within the maritime jurisdiction of Great 

 Britain, and to stand always narrowly upon the construction of the 

 renunciation clause. 



There was a subsequent reference to this subject in the course of the 

 same debate which is contained in a pamphlet that has alreacty been 

 brought to the attention of the Tribunal, containing the report of the 

 debate for Wednesday, the llth November, 1907. In that Lord 

 Fitzmaurice explained that in particular places, where what may 

 be called the facts of nature have made difficulties in applying that 

 principle, there are some slight modifications in practice. This does 

 not affect the general principle or the general policy which was 

 stated. It is in strict accordance with the proposal I started with, 

 that in each case whore the necessities of protection make the posses- 

 sion of a particular sheet of water seem to a nation desirable 

 1310 and necessary, she may assert the particular circumstances 

 which make it reasonable that she should appropriate to her- 

 self that particular place. 



That is quite a different thing, you will perceive, from a general 

 principle that bays indenting the coasts of a country are to be re- 

 garded as being within the jurisdiction of the country, because they 

 are indentations running into the territory between headlands. 



That special principle would apply to the Bay of Miramichi, and 

 the Bay of Chaleur, if the significance is to be ascribed to these 

 local statutes which my learned friends on the other side ascribe 

 to them. That is the assertion of particular reasons for appropriat- 

 ing and asserting jurisdiction, prescribing, and claiming, in the 

 particular case the right of sovereignty over a particular area of 

 water; but, it brings out in clear relief the general policy, not to 

 regard these indentations as coming within maritime jurisdiction, 

 unless a specific cause is given, and a specific claim made. 



Such was the claim made by the United States over Delaware Bay. 

 It, at the instance of Great Britain, and against France, asserted 

 reasons why the principle of protection made it just and necessary 

 that in that particular place the United States should exercise juris- 

 diction. It did not apply to bays generally, and so, when the agree- 

 ment was made upon the 5-mile limit, measured from the shore, as 

 the limit of maritime jurisdiction, it was quite consistent with the 

 claim to Delaware Bay. and was an expression of the same policy 

 of Great Britain, thus authoritatively stated by Lord Fitzmaurice 

 in the House of Lords. 



