52 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHEKIES AEBITRATION. 



5. In the British Argument, page 92 : 



It has been suggested that the natural meaning of the term "baj^s" 

 may be limited by the words which follow, namely, " of His Britan- 

 nic Majesty's dominions in America." Great Britain contends that 

 these words are merely descriptive of the locality of the bays, and 

 that they have no other significance. In the Counter-Case of the 

 United States the attitude of Great Britain on this point has been 

 misunderstood. It is there stated that " the British Case is based on 

 the assumption that the words, 'bays, creeks or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America,' as used in the renun- 

 ciatory clause of the treaty, were intended to be descriptive of terri- 

 torial waters of Great Britain," and an argument is thereupon formu- 

 lated on that issue. This is a misapprehension. The contention of 

 His Majesty's Government is stated quite clearlj^ in the British Case, 

 and has been stated in the same way on many occasions during the 

 last seventy years. It is that the treaty relates to all bays on the 

 British coasts. In that view no question can arise as to territorial 

 jurisdiction : the words of the article are read in their natural sense 

 as referring to all the tracts of water known as bays on the coasts 

 of the British dominions in North America. 



The Right Honourable Sir "William Snowdon Robson, Counsel for 

 Great Britain, spoke as follows: 



I will just add to the extract that my learned friend, Mr. 

 63 Root, has read the last sentence of that passage on page 92 of 

 the British Argument. It follows on : 



It is abundantly clear that all the bays on these coasts were within 

 British jurisdiction, but, in the view that His Majesty's Government 

 presents, the question is not material. 



I think I may add to that passage the answer to the question that 

 the learned President put in very simple and concise terms. It is 

 that Great Britain, while contending that the bays in question (re- 

 ferred to by the President) are in fact territorial, says also that the 

 United States by the terms of the treaty have renounced for their 

 fishermen the right to enter these bays, except for the purposes men- 

 tioned in the treaty itself — whether apart from the treaty these bays 

 be territorial or be not territorial. We say they are territorial, but 

 we say that in view of the terms of the Treaty of 1818, which contain 

 an express renunciation, their territoriality is immaterial, so far as 

 this Tribunal is concerned. 



The Honourable Charles B. Warren then resumed his Argument. 



At 12 the Tribunal took a recess. 



The Tribunal reassembled at 2 p. m., when the Honourable Charles 

 B. Warren continued his Argument. 



At 4.06 p. m. the Tribunal adjourned until Monday, July 11th, at 

 10 a. m. 



Done at The Hague, July 8th, 1910. 



The President: 



Lammasch. 



