44 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



pondence 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 presumption ; 



(e) Because it is difficult to explain the words in Art. Ill of the 

 Treaty under interpretation "country together with its bays, har- 

 bours and creeks" otherwise than that all bays without distinction as to 

 their width were, in the opinion of the negotiators, part of the territory ; 

 (/) Because from the information before this Tribunal it is evident 

 that the three mile rule is not applied to bays strictly or systematically 

 either by the United States or by any other Power ; 



{g) It has been recognized by the United States that bays stand 

 apart, and that in respect of them territorial jurisdiction may be exer- 

 cised farther than the marginal belt in the case of Delaware bay by the 

 report of the United States Attorney General of May 19, 1793; and the 

 letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Genet of Nov. 8, 1793, declares the bays 

 of the United States generally to be, "as being landlocked, witliin the 

 body of the United States." 



5". In this latter regard it is further contended by the United 

 States, that such exceptions only should be made from the applica- 

 • tion of the three mile rule to bays as are sanctioned by conventions 

 and established usage ; that all exceptions for which the United 

 States of America were respofisible are so sanctioned ; and that His 

 Majesty's Government are unable to provide evidence to show that 

 the bays concerned by the Treaty of 1818 could be claimed as ex- 

 ceptions on these grounds either generally, or except possibly in one 

 or two cases, specifically. 



But the Tribunal while recognizing that conventions and established 

 usage might be considered as the basis for claiming as territorial those 

 bays which on this ground might be called historic bays, and that such 

 claim should be held valid in the absence of any principle of international 

 law on the subject; nevertheless is unable to apply this, a contrario, so as 

 to subject the bays in question to the three mile rule, as desired by the 

 United States : 



(a) Because Great Britain has during this controversy asserted a 

 claim to these bays generally, and has enforced such claim specifically in 

 statutes or otherwise, in regard to the more important bays such as 

 Chaleur, Conception and Miramichi ; 



(h) Because neither should such relaxations of this claim, as are in 

 evidence, be construed as renunciations of it ; nor should omissions to en- 

 force the claim in regard to bays as to which no controversy arose, be so 

 construed. Such a construction by this Tribunal would not only be 



