78 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



unindented shores, and in that view the clause would have precisely 

 the same effect if the word "coasts " had stood alone, and the words 

 "bays creeks or harbours" had been altogether omitted. This 

 objection was pointed out by Lord Aberdeen in his correspondence 

 with Mr. Everett so long ago as 1844, and no answer has ever yet 

 been made to it. It is submitted that the treaty should be con- 

 strued so as to give effect to these words. (United States Case, 

 p. 248.) 



But there are further objections: 



First: The renunciation is of any liberty (British Case. App.. 

 p. 31)- 



" on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, 

 or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not 

 included within the above-mentioned limits : " 



It cannot be argued that United States fishermen were prohibited 

 from fishing " within three marine miles " of a bay, and yet that they 

 were to be at liberty to fish in the bay itself. If they could not go 

 " within " a certain distance of the bay, they could not go within the 

 bay itself. 



The preposition " on," moreover, was no doubt intended to pro- 

 vide specifically for this very point. United States fishermen were 

 not to fish " on " the bays, or within three miles of them. 



It appears, therefore, to be quite clear that the renunciation of the 

 treaty included the bays as well as three miles from the bays. For 

 not only is the exclusion specifically applied to the bays, but it pro- 

 hibits approach within three miles of the bays. 



89 EFFECT OF UNITED STATES CONTENTION. 



And if so, it is quite impossible to contend that three miles 

 from the bays meant three miles from the shore of the bays. 

 That distance would exclude the central part of the bay, which, 

 according to the language of the treaty, was included. Indeed, the 

 curious result would follow that three miles from a bay would mean 

 three miles from the shore into the bay. 



If the United States contention were correct, the words "or within 

 three marine miles from the bays " would have a limiting instead 

 of an enlarging effect upon the word "on." For a renunciation of 

 liberty to take fish " on " a bay would certainly include the whole of 

 the bay ; whereas it is said that the addition of the words " or within 

 three marine miles " of the bay would cut down the renunciation to 

 a strip around the shore of the bay. 



Secondly, it will not be contended that United States fishermen 

 were to have liberty to fish in " harbours " on the non-treaty coasts. 

 And it can hardly be disputed that the three miles were to count 



