INDEX TO ORAL ARGUMENTS. 2527 



Warren, Honorable Charles B. Continued. 

 tion 5 Continued. 



3-mile limit, 1215. Stoerk, in Holtzendorff, II: 474, cannon-shot rule 

 is 3-mile limit, 1208. Taylor, U. S. A., 218-220, jurisdiction, continued 

 exercise and international acquiescence therein, 1221; sec. 217, p. 263, 

 sec. 228, p. 277, maritime jurisdiction includes bays, creeks, harbors, and 

 3-mile belt, 1060. Testa, p. 69, cannon-shot rule is 3-mile limit, 1216. 

 Twiss, p. 292-5, cannon-shot rule is 3-mile limit, 1208, 1213. Vattel, I: 23, 

 cannon-shot rule is 3-mile limit, 1210. Westlake, I: 187-8, cannon-shot rule 

 is 3-mile limit, 1217; I: 187, 6-mile bay, 999. Wheaton, U.S. A., 218-220, 

 jurisdiction, continued exercise and international acquiescence therein, 

 1221. 



Interpretation of 1818 treaty: British concurrence in American interpreta- 

 tion of jurisdiction, 1023. Change in British, Rush to his executors, Dec., 

 1854, U.S.C.Ap., 547, 1141. 



Interpretation of renunciatory clause, Kent, 1200. 



"Intersection of 3-mile lines" theory, 1136-7. 



Introduction, 997. 



Jaseur incident: 1100-1101. Baker-Monroe correspondence, 1815, 1100. 

 Monroe to Adams, July 21, 1815, U. S. C. Ap., 263, 1101. 



Jay treaty, 1794, no extended jurisdiction over bays, 1064. 



Jefferson to Genet, Nov. 8, 1793, B. C. Ap., 56, 3-mile limit, landlocked 

 bays, 1081. 



Jefferson to Hammond, Nov. 8, 1793, B. C. Ap., 57, 3-mile limit, landlocked 

 bays, 1081. 



Jefferson to Secretary of Treasury, Sept. 8, 1804, B. C. Ap., 59, "sight" as 

 test of jurisdiction, 1081. 



Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cases, 926, jurisdiction, continued exercise and 

 internationat acquiescence therein, 1221. 



Johnston, attorney general of Nova Scotia, Sept. 17, 1844, B. C. Ap., 139, 

 herring, mackerel, shad, and cod in Bay of Fundy, 1159. 



Joint high commission, Thornton to Fish, Jan. 26, 1871, U. S. C. Ap., 6S2, 

 1026. 



Jurisdiction : American contention at fur-seal arbitration no more than 3-mile 

 limit, 1120-26. American interpretation concurred in by British, 1023. 

 Bathurst made no claim to extended, 1048. British limits, Castlereagh 

 to Adams, May 7, 1817, U. S. C. Ap., 295, 1107. British, over St. Georges 

 Bay not admitted, Franco-American controversy, 1152. Broad, British 

 claim of: Alverstone, fur-seal arbitration, Proceedings, IS: 544, 1099; Can- 

 ning to Wellington, Sept. 27, 1822, fur-seal arbitration: Proceedings, 5: 574, 

 1078-9; Madison to Monroe, Jan. 5, 1804, B. C. Ap., 58, 1054; Russell- 

 Adams controversy, 1095-98; Russell at fur-seal arbitration, Proceedings, 

 13: 320, 1076-8, 1098; Salisbury, fur-seal arbitration, Proceedings, 5: 572, 

 1079-80. Continued exercise and international acquiescence therein: Cope 

 v. Doherty, 2 De Gex. & Jones, 614, 1221; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cases, 

 926, 1221; Kent, U. S. A., 218-220, 1221; "Le Louis," 2 Dodson, 239, 1221; 

 Mass<, sec. 105, 1227; not involved here, 1220-1; Regina v. Keyn, L. R. 

 2 Ex. Div., 210, 1221; Taylor, U. S. A., 218-220, 1221; Wheaton, U. 8. A., 

 218-220, 1221. Exclusive British: 1044; American renunciation in 1818 

 referred only to, 1018. Fishing, drying, curing, within, cause of differ- 

 ences prior to 1818, 1041. Fishery rights outside British, GRAY, 1134. 

 Fishery within exclusive British, American commissioners to Monroe, 

 Dec. 25, 1814, U. S. C. Ap., 256, 1072. Maritime, Alaskan boundary 

 tribunal did not concern, LAMMASCH, 1094. See Maritime jurisdiction. 



