82 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



the language of the renunciation of 1818 follows closely the language 

 of the grant of 1783 (British Case, App., p. 13), 



"on the Coasts, Bays, and Creeks of all other of His Britannic 

 Majesty's Dominions in America ; " 



The word " bays " was therefore undoubtedly intended to be 

 93 used with the same significance in both treaties. And con- 

 sideration of the language of both documents shows clearly 

 that the words " of all other of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions 

 in America " were employed as words of locality, and not of owner- 

 ship. The words were used as a geographical limitation; they were 

 merely a convenient form of denoting the bays on those parts of the 

 British coasts which were not referred to by name. It would be 

 difficult to suggest any other form of words which would so com- 

 pletely give effect to the construction for which His Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment contends. On the other hand, if it had been intended to 

 limit the waters in the manner suggested by the United States, it 

 would certainly have been necessary, in view of the great uncer- 

 tainty of the law on the point, and the large claims which both 

 Great Britain and the United States were maintaining at that time, 

 to come to some express agreement on the extent of territorial juris- 

 diction over enclosed waters, and to give effect to that agreement in 

 the treaty. 



CONTENTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO 6-MILE LIMIT OF 

 TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 



The suggestion that the treaty is limited to territorial bays orig- 

 inated not with Great Britain but with the United States. The 

 argument of the United States on former occasions has been that the 

 article refers only to bays over which Great Britain had jurisdiction 

 in 1818, and that according to international law no nation in 1818 

 could have jurisdiction over bays more than six miles in width. That 

 was the contention put forward by the United States at the time of 

 the Halifax Commission in 1877. It was adopted and renewed by 

 the Committee of the United States Senate in 1887. 



It cannot possibly be urged before this Tribunal that the state of 

 international law was, in 1783, or in 1818, such as to render every 

 bay in British North America, wider than six miles, open ocean 

 (British Case, pp. 160, 107). 



But if that contention be put forward, it is sufficiently met by the 

 argument set out at pages 106 to 122 of the British Case, to which 

 the attention of the Tribunal is respectfully directed. The existence 

 of any such rule is absolutely negatived by the usage of nations and 

 the opinions of jurists. It is not thought necessary to repeat in this 

 place the detailed statement which has been already presented, on 



