ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2169 



be construed as the Courts of England have always construed stat- 

 utes, that by their terms extend beyond the limits of British juris- 

 diction, as applying only to British subjects, and not applying to 

 Norwegian subjects. 



I now have to state what seems to me a very interesting fact, that 

 this proposal of the Americans, which was the basis of the 

 1311 negotiation of 1806, to include the chambers within headlands 

 in the maritime jurisdiction of the two countries, and to con- 

 strue the territorial zone as passing outside of a line drawn from 

 headland to headland, was repeated in the negotiation of 1818. 



The proposal was included in the same paper, which included the 

 proposal by the Americans of the fishery article. That is a paper 

 which Avas submitted by the American plenipotentiaries at the con- 

 ference of the 17th September. 1818. It is included in article G of 

 that paper, which is not printed in the appendices. Both countries 

 have the paper, and both have printed extracts from the paper, but 

 neither printed this particular part of it. In that proposition which 

 the Americans submitted, article A referred to fisheries, article B 

 related to boundaries, article C related to imports and exports, article 

 D related to slaves, article F related to the general system of impress- 

 ments, and article G related to limits within which or out of which 

 certain acts of sovereignty by the two countries in respect of the treat- 

 ment of vessels should be exercised. 



Paragraph (d) of article G provided, as proposed by the Ameri- 

 cans: 



"(d.) In all cases where one of the high contracting parties shall 

 be at war, the armed vessels belonging to such party shall not station 

 themselves, nor rove or hover, nor stop, search, or disturb the vessels 

 of the other party, or the unarmed vessels of other nations, within 

 the chambers formed by head-lands, or within five marine miles from 

 the shore belonging to the other party, or from a right line from one 

 head-land to another." 



You will see that is a substantial repetition of the proposal of 1806, 

 which was rejected, and in place of which the maritime jurisdiction 

 was fixed as not extending beyond 5 marine miles from the shore. 

 This also was rejected in the negotiation of 1818. 



So Great Britain not merely refrained from asserting jurisdiction 

 over bays generally, however large, however small, unless they came 

 within the territorial zone measured from the shore ; but she refused, 

 both in the negotiations of 1806, and in the negotiations of 1818, to 

 accept the proposal of the Americans which would include chambers 

 between headlands within the limits of the maritime jurisdiction of 

 Great Britain. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: What have you just read from? I do 

 not think you gave a note of it. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 38 



