QUESTION FIVE. 81 



In the treaty of 1794, between Great Britain and the United 

 States, there was the following clause (British Case, App., p. 23) : 



" Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods 

 belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other to be taken within 

 cannon shot of the coast, nor in any of the bays, ports, or rivers of 

 their territories, by ships of war or others having commission from 

 any Prince, Republic, or State whatever. But, in case it should so 

 happen, the party whose territorial rights shall thus have been 

 violated shall use his utmost endeavours to obtain from the offending 

 party full and ample satisfaction for the vessel or vessels so taken, 

 whether the same be vessels of war or merchant vessels." 



It was clearly intended that the word " bays " in this treaty should 

 apply to all the bays on the United States coast, although wider than 



six miles. Clearly it was intended to include Delaware Bay 

 92 (with headlands of 10^ miles) for in the year immediately 



preceding the treaty (1793), the United States had maintained 

 (in the case of the " Grange ") the territorially of the waters of that 

 bay. 



BAYS " OF HIS MAJESTY'S DOMINIONS IN AMEBICA." 



It has been suggested that the natural meaning of the term " bays " 

 may be limited by the words which follow, namely, " Of His Britan- 

 nic Majesty's dominions in America." Great Britain contends that 

 these words are merely descriptive of the locality of the bays, and 

 that they have no other significance. In the Counter-Case of the 

 United States the attitude of Great Britain on this point has been 

 misunderstood. It is there stated that " the British Case is based 

 on the assumption that the words 'bays, creeks, or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America,' as used in the renun- 

 ciatory clause of the treaty, were intended to be descriptive of ter- 

 ritorial waters of Great Britain," and an argument is thereupon 

 formulated on that issue. This is a misapprehension. The conten- 

 tion of His Majesty's Government is stated quite clearly in the Brit- 

 ish Case, and has been stated in the same way on many occasions 

 during the last seventy years. It is that the treaty relates to all 

 bays on the British coasts. In that view no question can arise as to 

 territorial jurisdiction: the words of the article are read in their 

 natural sense as referring to all the tracts of water known as bays 

 on the coasts of the British dominions in North America. It is 

 abundantly clear that all the bays on these coasts were within Brit- 

 ish jurisdiction, but, in the view that His Majesty's Government 

 presents, the question is not material. (United States Counter-Case, 

 p. 69.) 



That the words "of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in Amer- 

 ica " were merely descriptive from a geographical point of view is 

 clear from an examination of the treaty. It will be observed that 



