PEOTOCOLS OF THE ARBITKATION. 51 



61 Protocol XXL 



Meeting of Friday, July 8th, 1910, 



The Tribunal assembled at 10 a. m. 



The Honourable Elihu Root, Counsel for the United States, reply- 

 ing to the question put by the President at the end of the preceding 

 sitting, read the following statement: 



The Counsel of the United States have the honor to answer the 

 question asked b}' the President, in behalf of the Tribunal, on the 

 7th of July, as follows : — 



They understand the position of Great Britain to be that under the 

 renunciation clause of the Treaty of 1818 the United States has re- 

 nounced the right to have its inhabitants take fish in bays in the 

 geographical sense of the word, without referring to their territorial- 

 ity, as stated : 



1. In the British Case, page 83 : 



His Majesty's Government contend that the negotiators of the 

 treaty meant by " bays," all those waters which, at the time, everyone 

 knew as bays. 



2. In the British Case, page 103 : 



His Majesty's Government contends that the term " bays," as 

 used in the renunciation clause of article one, includes all tracts of 

 water on the non-treaty coasts which were known under the name of 

 " bays " in 1818, and that the 3 marine miles must be measured from 

 a line drawn between the headlands of those waters. 



3. In the British Case, page 104: 



The negotiators of the convention were dealing, therefore, with 

 tracts of water on the shores of His Majestj-'s dominions which were 

 known to ever3'one under the name of "• bays " — tracts of varying 

 size and of varying conformation, some with greater and some with 

 less width between their headlands, ranging from inclosures of con- 

 siderable extent to inlets of small size. They used the term 

 62 " bays " without any qualification whatever, and the inference 

 is irresistible, as His Majesty's Government submits, that the 

 term was intended to apply to all the waters on those shores which 

 were known to the negotiators and to the public, and were marked 

 on the maps at the time, as " bays." If it had been intended that the 

 term should apply only to a limited class of the waters which were 

 then called " bays," an express limitation would have been inserted 

 to give effect to that intention. 



4. In the British Counter Case, page 43 : 



There is no qualification of any kind in regard to bays, and the 

 necessary conclusion is that the treaty meant what it said and applied 

 to all those tracts of water on the British American coasts which were 

 known as bays at the date of the treaty. 



