92 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ing at custom-houses, or any similar conditions would be inconsistent 



with the grounds upon which such privileges rest and therefore is 

 not permissible. 



And it is decided and awarded that such restrictions are not permissible. 



It seems reasonable, however, in order that these privileges ac- 

 corded by Great Britain on these grounds of hospitality and human- 

 ity should not be abused, that the American fishermen entering such 

 bays for any of the four purposes aforesaid and remaining more 

 than forty-eight hours therein, should be required, if thought neces- 

 sary by Great Britain or the Colonial Government, to report, either 

 in person or by telegraph, at a custom-house or to a customs official, 

 if reasonably convenient opportunity therefor is afforded. 



And it is so decided and awarded. 



Question V. 



From where must be measured the " three marine miles of any of 

 the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours " referred to in the said article ? 



In regard to this question, Great Britain claims that the renuncia- 

 tion applies to all bays generally and 



The United States contend that it applies to bays of a certain 

 class or condition. 



Now, considering that the treaty used the general term " bays " 

 Avithout qualification, the Tribunal is of opinion that these words of 

 the treaty must be interpreted in a general sense as applying to every 

 bay on the coast in question that might be reasonably supposed to 

 have been considered as a bay by the negotiators of the treaty under 

 the general conditions then prevailing, unless the United States can 

 adduce satisfactory proof that any restrictions or qualifications of 

 the general use of the term were or should have been present to 

 their minds. 



And for the purpose of such proof the United States contend : 



(1) That while a State may renounce the treaty right to fish in 

 foreign territorial waters, it cannot renounce the natural right to 

 fish on the high seas. 



But the Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention. Because 

 though a State cannot grant rights on the high seas it certainly can 

 abandon the exercise of its right to fish on the high seas within cer- 

 tain definite limits. Such an abandonment was made with respect 

 to their fishing rights in the waters in question by France and Spain 

 in 1763. By a convention between the United Kingdom and the 

 United States in 184G, the two countries assumed ownership over 



