ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2185 



final form which grew out of this in the difference which the Presi- 

 dent has already called attention to, between the singular use of the 

 word " coast " and the plural " the coasts, bays, and creeks of all 

 other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions." 



THE PRESIDENT: That was a great success of the American nego- 

 tiators, that they obtained all the whole coast. 



SENATOR ROOT : Yes ; it certainly was. 



THE PRESIDENT: But I thought, Mr. Senator Eoot, that you were 

 referring to this passage as explaining the word " any " in the 

 treaty of 1818 ; and I found 



SENATOR ROOT : No ; I was referring to the treaty of 1783. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT : I think the use of the word " any " carries the dis- 

 tributive idea, shows that chey were thinking of these things not en 

 bloc, but as separate elements of consideration, and that it also carries 

 the idea of the completeness of the renunciation. After reciting that 

 differences had arisen, and after providing that the inhabitants of the 

 United States shall have liberty to take fish within certain specified 

 limits, then the purpose of the renunciation was to cover everything 

 else, and to make it a complete renunciation. They must either say: 

 " The United States renounces the liberty heretofore enjoyed or 

 claimed to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of 

 all the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of His Britannic 

 1321 Majesty's dominions not included within the above-mentioned 

 limits," or they must say: " Renounces the liberty to take, dr^. 

 or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of," &c. Either use of 

 words serves to accomplish the effect of completeness of the renuncia- 

 tion. To use the word all would have carried the idea that they were 

 looking at them en bloc. To use the word any accomplishes the com- 

 pleteness of the renunciation equally, but carries the idea that they 

 were looking at them as separate elements. 



I wish here to make a few further remarks. If the Tribunal will 

 give me a very few minutes more I can complete what I have to say 

 on this subject to-day. 



Something has been said here about the relaxation of the British 

 position regarding the Bay of Fundy in 1844 constituting an arrange- 

 ment between the two countries. That is negatived positively by 

 Lord Malmesbury in a letter to Mr. Crampton, the British Minister 

 at Washington, on the 10th August, 1852, which appears in the 

 American Appendix at p. 518, where he says that everything but 

 the Bay of Fundy was left for further negotiation. 



Quite an argument has been made here to the effect that the 

 French order ordering the American fishermen off the coast of Nova 

 Scotia in 1820 and 1821, and which was the subject of diplomatic 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 39 



