130 



APPENDIX D. 



Reply on beualf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government to tug Answer 

 OF THE United States of America. 



PART I. 



CANADA. 



THAT portion of the Answer which first claims attention cnilmdies tlic views 

 presented by the United States as to the area nf the British North American 

 fisheries. 



Two things are relied on — 



1. It is submitted by tlie United States that "independently of Treaty," and 

 for the "purposes of fishing," tlie territorial waters of every country extend three 

 miles from low-water murk, to be measured along the contour of the siiorcs of bays 

 according to their sinuosities, and tliut the rule upon which this assertion is main- 

 tained is believed by the United States to have r««ceived a traditional recognition 

 from other Powers, including (Ircat Britain. 



2. It is urged that it is the duty of the Commissioners to '• treat the question 

 practically, and proceed upon the basis of the status actually existing when the 

 Treaty of Washington was adopted," according to " the practical extent of the 

 privileges enjoyed by American fishermen " at and before that date. 



The Commissioners arc thus invited to dismiss from their consideration all 

 claim to compensation for the privilege of fishing in such portions of British 

 American bays greater than six miles in width at their mouths as are beyond three 

 miles from the shore. 



It is not understood that the Answer either raises or invites the discussion of 

 any rules or doctrines of international law, save such as bear upon the (|uestion ol' 

 what are to be considered the territorial waters of a maritime State for the purposes 

 of exclusive fishing. The contention of tlio Answer in relation to these doctrines 

 which requires special attention, is that which asserts tiiat Great Britain and other 

 Powers have traditionally recognized a rule, by which foreigners were excluded 

 from fishing in tliose bays only which arc six miles, or less, in width at their 

 mouths. 



It is distinctly asserted on the part of Her Majesty's Government that this alleged 

 ride is entirely unknown to, and unrecognized by, Her Majesty's Government, and 

 it is submitted that no instance of such recognition is to be found in the Answer, or 

 the Brief accompanying the same, and that none can be produced. 



And while abundant argument, supported by authorities, will bS found in the 

 Brief to be submitted to the Commissioners, to establish the view never abandoned 

 by (ireat Britain, and entirely adverse to that now advanced by the United States, 

 the admission by the United States that it is not the province of the Commission to 

 decide upon (juestions of international law, does not seem to be at variance with 

 the views of Her Majesty's Government, as to the mode of conducting the present 

 inquiry, because it is clear that, entirely independent of the unsettled doctrines oC 

 international law, the rights of Great Britain and the United States, respectively, 

 are to be ascertained by Commissioners who are directed to confine their inquiry 

 [380] T 



