112 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



So the use of the ten mile bays so constantly put into practice by 

 Great Britain in its fishery treaties has its root and connection with 

 the marginal belt of three miles for the territorial waters. So much 

 so that the Tribunal having decided not to adjudicate in this case the 

 ten miles entrance to the bays of the treaty of 1818, this will be the 

 only one exception in which the ten miles of the bays do not follow. 

 as a consequence the strip of three miles of territorial waters, the 

 historical bays and estuaries always excepted. 



And it is for that reason that an usage so firmly and for so long a 

 time established ought, in my opinion, b? applied to the construction 

 of the treaty under consideration, much more so, when custom, one of 

 the recognised sources of law, international as well as municipal, is 

 supported in this case by reason and by the acquiescence and the 

 practice of many nations. 



The Tribunal has decided that : " In case of bays the three miles " 

 (of the treaty) " are to be measured from a straight line drawn across 

 the body of water at the place where it ceases to have the configuration 

 characteristic of a bay. At all other places the three miles are to be 

 measured following the sinuosities of the coast." But no rule is laid 

 out or general principle evolved for the parties to know what the 

 nature of such configuration is or by what methods the points should 

 be ascertained from which the bay should lose the characteristics of 

 such. There lies the whole contention and the whole difficult}^ not 

 satisfactorily solved, to my mind, by simply recommending, without 

 the scope of the Award and as a system of procedure for resolving 

 future contestations under article 4 of the Treaty of Arbitration, a 

 series of lines, which practical as they may be supposed to be, can- 

 not be adopted by the Parties without concluding a new treaty. 



These are the reasons for my dissent, which I much regret, on 

 Question Five. 



Done at The Hague, September 7th, 1910. 



Luis M. Drago. 



The President then asked the agents of both Parties whether they 

 wished to make any declaration or communication to the Tribunal. 



The Honorable Chandler P. Anderson, agent for the United 

 States, said that in case he should desire to present any communica- 

 tion to the Tribunal, on behalf of his Government, in regard to the 

 Award or any part of it, he would do so within the period fixed by 

 article 10 of the special agreement, reserving any rights which his 

 Government might have in the premises. 



The Eight Honourable Sir William Snoavdon Robson, Counsel 

 for Great Britain, said that he had nothing to add. 



The President then spoke as follows; 



