ARGUMENT OF ELIHtT ROOT. 2177 



SENATOR ROOT: There is no distinction between the two places 

 except that the width of the chamber between headlands in the 

 " Argus " case was much greater than the width of the chamber 

 between headlands in the " Washington " case. The " Washington " 

 was seized between headlands in the Bay of Fundy and the " Argus " 

 was seized up here (indicating on map) in an indentation between 

 Cape North and some other point. 



THE PRESIDENT : Would the place where the " Argus " was seized, 

 in the geographical sense, be called a bay? 



SENATOR ROOT : I could not say whether it would or not. It might 

 as well be called a bay as the Gulf of Lyons or the Gulf of Genoa 

 might be called gulfs. Many quite shallow indentations in the shore 

 are called bays. 



JUDGE GRAY: There is Egmont Bay, a very shallow bay on Prince 

 Edward Island, a mere little cove or horse-shoe, and yet it is called 

 a bay. 



THE PRESIDENT. Mitchell's map does not call it a bay, but Jefferys' 



does call it a bay, if I am not mistaken. 



1316 SENATOR ROOT: I think it is probable that the use of the 

 words " chambers between headlands " is appropriate to de- 

 scribe bays and perhaps indentations so shallow that they might not 

 be ordinarily called bays, but it is a very comprehensive term and 

 it certainly would include all the bays along these coasts. 



It would have included Massachusetts Bay, it would have included 

 Cape Cod Bay many bays along the coast of the United States to 

 which the United States has never claimed jurisdiction, any more 

 than Great Britain ever claimed jurisdiction to these bays here (indi- 

 cating on map). 



Of course, this term, used in this letter to Baker, which limits the 

 maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain to the maritime league, plainly 

 uses the word " coasts " as identical with the word " shores." That 

 had been the general usage of the parties. I will again call the atten- 

 tion of the Tribunal to these two papers of later date, the letter of the 

 Earl of Kimberly to Lord Lisgar, and the memorandum of the For- 

 eign Office which used the term " three marine miles from the coast " 

 as equivalent to " three marine miles from the shore." The Tribunal 

 will remember that the term was used in the treaty of 1906 " five 

 marine miles from the shore," and an interior line was spoken of as 

 " three marine miles from the coast." Plainly, they were using the 

 two terms convertibly. The Tribunal will remember also that in the 

 report of the American negotiators, which is in the American Appen- 

 dix at p. 307, they use the term " three miles from shore " as con- 

 vertible with " three miles from the coast." On p. 307 the report of 

 Messrs. Gallatin & Rush to Mr. Adams, 20th October, 1818, contains 

 this language, in the second paragraph on the page : 



