AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 95 



could not reasonably have been expected either to presume it or to 

 provide against its presumption; 



(e.) Because it is difficult to explain the words in Article III 



123 of the treaty under interpretation " country .... together 



with its bays, harbours and creeks " otherwise than that all 



bays without distinction as to their width were, in the opinion of the 



negotiators, part of the territory; 



(/.) Because from the information before this Tribunal it is 

 evident that the three mile rule is not applied to bays strictly or 

 systematically either by the United States or by any other Power ; 



(g.) It has been recognised by the United States that bays stand 

 apart, and that in respect of them territorial jurisdiction may be 

 exercised farther than the marginal belt in the case of Delaware Bay 

 by the report of the United States Attorney-General of May 19th, 

 1793 ; and the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Genet of November 8th, 

 1793, declares the bays of the United States generally to be " as being 

 landlocked, within the body of the United States." 



5. In this latter regard it is further contended by the United 

 States that such exceptions duly should be made from the application 

 of the three mile rule to ba^s as are sanctioned by conventions and 

 established usage; that all exceptions for which the United States 

 of America were responsible are so sanctioned; and that His Majes- 

 ty's Government are unable to provide evidence to show that the bays 

 concerned by the treaty of 1818 could be claimed as exceptions on 

 these grounds either generalh^ or, except possibly in one or two cases, 

 specifically. 



But the Tribunal, while recognising that conventions and estab- 

 lished usage might be considered as the basis for claiming as terri- 

 torial those bays which on this ground might be called historic bays, 

 and that such claim should be held valid in the absence of any prin- 

 ciple of international law on the subject, nevertheless is unable to 

 apply this, a contraiio^ so as to subject the bays in question to the 

 three mile rule as desired by the United States : — ■ 



{a.) Because Great Britain has during this controversy asserted a 

 claim to these bays generally, and has enforced such claim specifically 

 in statutes or otherwise, in regard to the more important bays, such 

 as Chaleurs, Conception and Miramichi; 



(6.) Because neither should such relaxations of this claim, as are 

 in evidence, be construed as renunciations of it ; nor should omissions 

 to enforce the claim in regard to bays as to which no controversy 

 arose be so construed. Such a construction by this Tribunal would 

 not only be intrinsically inequitable, but internationally injurious, in 

 that it would discourage conciliatory diplomatic transactions and 

 encourage the assertion of extreme claims in their fullest extent; 



(c.) Because any such relaxations in the extreme claim of Great 

 Britain in its international relations are compensated by recognitiona 



