622 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



bays, creeks, or harbours." This was interpreted by the British 

 and Colonial Governments as meaning that the boundary of 

 three miles was to be drawn, not everywhere along the coast 

 following all its sinuosities, but, where bays or creeks existed, 

 from a straight line passing from one headland to another 

 across their mouth or entrance that is, according to the 

 principle now known as the headland doctrine. The United 

 States, on the other hand, generally contended that the words 

 meant that the three-mile limit was to be measured every- 

 where along the coast from the line of the shore, following it 

 in all its curves and indents, thus eliminating altogether any 

 special treatment for inlets or bays, and dealing with all parts 

 of the coast as if it were an open coast. There is little doubt 

 that the British interpretation was the correct one. This is 

 evident from the previous usage with regard to bays as 

 shown by the rules relating to the King's Chambers and the 

 practice of the Admiralty Court in England, and the reserved 

 firths in Scotland, and by the claim advanced by the United 

 States with respect to neutral rights in 1806. It is also 

 evident from the language of previous treaties. That of 1686 

 between France and Great Britain referred to "havens, bays, 

 creeks, roads, shoals, or places"; in that of 1783 between Great 

 Britain and the United States, " coasts, bays, and creeks " are 

 spoken of; and in that between the same Powers in 1794, 

 with respect to neutral rights, it was agreed that ships should 

 not be taken " within cannon-shot of the coast, nor in any of 

 the bays, ports, or rivers of their territories." It is clear 

 that a distinction was drawn between coasts and bays a 

 distinction which is now and always has been recognised in 

 international law, which is made in the North Sea and other 

 fishery conventions of recent times, and is claimed by the 

 United States with regard to their own coasts. 1 If no such 



1 Had the coasts of the United States been visited by British fishermen, it is not 

 unlikely that the Government of that country would have been more willing to 

 admit the ordinary interpretation with regard to bays. British vessels do not, 

 however, fish on the coasts of the United States, and the United States fishermen, 

 having exhausted the once productive waters of their own coasts of the New 

 England States, go to catch a large part of their fish to the waters on the coasts of 

 British North America, and hence it is to their interest that the limit of exclusive 

 fishing on the latter should be as small as they can get it made. The position is 

 very similar to that of the English trawlers who, having impoverished the North 

 Sea, now go to foreign coasts, as Iceland, to keep up the supplies. See p. 707. 



