QUESTION FIVE. 77 



dent that these contentions will find no support either in international 

 law or in the facts of this particular case. But it is respectfully 

 submitted that the office of this Tribunal is to construe the treaty as 

 it stands, and not to read into it qualifications and stipulations which 

 were not inserted by those who framed it*. (United States Counter- 

 Case, p. 69.) 



WOBDING OF THE TBEATY. 



Turning first to the actual wording of the treaty it is to be 

 observed that the words "bays, creeks, or harbours" are used 

 generally. There is no limitation or qualification. They include, 

 therefore, in their natural sense all the bays, creeks, or harbours on 

 the coasts in question. It has been shown in the British Case that 

 the negotiators of the treaties of 1783 had before them a map of 

 these coasts published by one Mitchell in 1755, and that there were 

 maps by Jeffreys also available at the time. Some of these maps 

 have been reproduced, and copies form part of the Appendix to the 

 British Cace. The numerous bays and other indentations of the 

 coasts were clearly shown on them. The negotiators of the treaty 

 of 1818 were well aware of the existence of these bays. It cannot 

 be supposed that they would have failed to insert some express limi- 

 tation, if their intention had been to confine the renunciation clause 

 to bays of a certain size only. 



The word " bays " is not a term of jurisprudence. It has no legal 

 significance. It is a term used in geography to describe tracts of 

 water between headlands, and it is used of those waters irrespective 

 of their extent. 



A further reason for believing that the negotiators of the treaty 

 intended to use the word "bays" with cartography reference 

 88 is to be found in observation of its use in other parts of the 

 article of the treaty. 



It must necessarily have the same meaning throughout the article, 

 and a comparison of the various passages in which it occurs shows 

 that it could not have been used throughout in the limited sense con- 

 tended for by the United States, 



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES CONTENTION". 



The contention of the United States that the distance of three 

 marine miles must be measured from low water mark following the 

 indentations of the coast, is inconsistent with the language of the 

 treaty. It is open to the obvious and insuperable objection that it 

 gives no effect whatever to the words "bays creeks or harbours." 

 According to this contention, the area renounced is to be measured 

 in the same way from the shores of enclosed waters as from the 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 8 23 



