QUESTION FIVE. 199 



It has been established that the Government of Great Britain 

 abandoned all broad claims to extensive jurisdiction, in respect of 

 the fisheries, over the waters adjacent to the coasts of the British 

 possessions in North America, with the recognition of the independ- 

 ence of the United States in 1782; that under the provisions of the 

 treaty of 1783, the right of American fishermen in the waters of all 

 bays, creeks, or harbors, of whatever extent, in the North Atlantic was 

 co-extensive with the rights of British subjects; that from the 

 year 1783 until the close of the War of 1812 the Government of 

 Great Britain never asserted any exclusive jurisdiction over bays, of 

 whatever dimensions, against the fishing vessels of the United States, 

 for such waters were subject to the common use of the fishermen of 

 both countries and there was no opportunity, on the one hand, for 

 the assertion of exclusive jurisdiction, or on the other, for the ac- 

 quiescence in such assertion of jurisdiction; that, after the War of 

 1812, and prior to the treaty of 1818, there was no assertion by Great 

 Britain of jurisdiction over all bays of whatever magnitude, but that 

 the complaint was against the use of the shores, and against the in- 

 vasion by American fishing vessels of waters lying along the shores 

 of the British possessions within three marine miles from the shores. 



The present position of Great Britain, in the Case presented to 

 this Tribunal a , is that the negotiators used the term " bays " with- 

 out any qualification whatever, and that the inference is, therefore, 

 irresistible that the term was intended to apply to all the waters 

 which were known to the negotiators and to the public and were 

 marked on the maps at the time as " bays ; " and that if it had been 

 intended that the term should apply only to a limited class of the 

 waters which were then called "bays" an express limitation would 

 have been inserted to give effect to that intention. 



This position entirely disregards the intention of the negotiators, 

 the remedy sought, the practical difficulties to be overcome, the actual 

 construction of the treaty by both Governments for many years, the 

 principles of international law, the word " coasts," and the limiting 

 terms in the treaty. 



It will be recalled that after the War of 1812 Great Britain only 

 asserted jurisdiction, against the fishing vessels of the United States, 

 over waters within three marine miles from the shores, and that the 



c British Case, 104. 



