APPENDIX 421 



(&) Because the opinion of jurists and publicists quoted 

 in the proceedings conduce to the opinion that speaking 

 generally the three mile rule should not be strictly and sys- 

 tematically applied to bays ; 



(c) Because the treaties referring to these coasts, ante- 

 dating the treaty of 1818, made special provisions as to 

 bays, such as the Treaties of 1686 and 1713 between Great 

 Britain and France, and especially the Treaty of 1778 be- 

 tween the United States and France. Likewise JAY'S 

 Treaty of 1794 Art. 25, distinguished bays from the space 

 "within cannon-shot of the coast" in regard to the right 

 of seizure in times of war. If the proposed treaty of 1806 

 and the treaty of 1818 contained no disposition to that ef- 

 fect, the explanation may be found in the fact that the first 

 extended the marginal belt to five miles, and also in the 

 circumstance that the American proposition of 1818 in that 

 respect was not limited to "bays," but extended to "cham- 

 bers formed by headlands ' ' and to ' ' five marine miles from 

 a right line from one headland to another," a proposition 

 which in the times of the Napoleonic wars would have af- 

 fected to a very large extent the operations of the British 

 navy; 



(d) Because it has not been shown by the documents and 

 correspondence in evidence here that the application of the 

 three mile rule to bays was present to the minds of the 

 negotiators in 1818 and they could not reasonably have 

 been expected either to presume it or to provide against its 

 per sumption ; 



(e) Because it is difficult to explain the words in art. 

 Ill of the Treaty under interpretation "country . . . 

 together with its bays, harbours and creeks" other- 

 wise than that all bays without distinction as to their width 

 were, in the opinion of the negotiators, part of the terri- 

 tory; 



(/) Because from the information before this Tribunal 



