149 





an assault," Sic, decided that the place where the murder was committed (tlie 

 vcijsel lyi»<>' nt sucii time between certain islands in the mouth of the Boston River), 

 was an mm oi" the sea. 



"An arm of the sea," lie I'urthc; said, "may include various descriptions of 

 waters, where tiic tide ebbs and flows. It may be a river, harbour, creek, basin, or 

 bay." (United States v. Crush, 5 Mason, 299.) 



It would thus appear that the word "bay" has received a positive definition 

 as a term of jurispruder.ee, which is in accordance with the common use of the 

 term in text books on the Law of Nations, wiiich invariably speak of "bays" 

 as "portions of sea inclosed within indents of coasts," and not as indents of coast. 



Assuming, therefore, as established beyond reasonable doubt, that the word 

 " bay " signifies an arm or elbow of the sea inclosed within lieadlands or peaks, and 

 not an intlent of the coast, we may consider what is the true intention of the 

 expression " within three marine miles of a bay.'' Are sucii miles to be measured 

 from the outer edge or chord of the bay, or from tlie inner edge or arc of the bay ? 

 In the first place it may be observed that the inner edge or arc of a bay touches 

 tlie coast, and if the distance is to be measured from the shore of the bay, the word 

 " bay ' itself has virtually no distinct sigiiitication from "coast," and has no 

 supplemental force; prima facie, therefore, this interpretation does not recommend 

 itiseif on the grounds already stated. 



Again : the interpretation which is given to the measure of distance from 

 bays, must be given to the measure of distance from creeks and harbours, both of 

 which, by the Municipal Law of the United States, equally as of Great Britain, 

 are l}fra corpus coniitatus, anri whoso waters are subject to the provisions of the 

 Municipal Law precisely as the shores of the land itself. But it may assist in 

 (leterniining this question to keep in mind the rule that in contracts, "on doit 

 interpreter une clause par les autres clauses contenues dans I'acte, soit qu'elles 

 precedent ou suivent." (Pothier, Oliligat;:>as, No. 90.) In other words, a subsequent 

 clause may serve to intcr|)ret a forraer clause, if the latter be at all ambiguous. 

 Accordingly, we find the renunciation of the liberty to fish within three marine miles 

 of any of the bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic .Majesty's dominions, 

 followed by the proviso that American fishermen shall he permitted to enter such 

 bays and harbours for certain specified purposes other than taking fish. In other 

 words, they may prosecute their voyage for other purposes than fishing within the 

 entrance of any bay or harbour, but may not take fish within three marine miles 

 of any bay or harbour, (. c, within three marine miles of the entrance of any 

 b.vy or harbour. If this interpretation be not adopted, the proviso would be 

 absurd; for if American fishermen are impliedly permitted to fish within three 

 marine miles of the shore of any bay or harbour, they arc permitted to enter such 

 bay or harbour, if the breadth of th^; mouth be more than six miles, and the 

 distance of the head of the bay or harbour from the entrance be more than three 

 miles, for another purpose than for the purpose of shelter, or of repairing damages, 

 or of purchasing wooci, or of obtaining water. But the Convention expressly says, 

 "for no other purpose ichatevcr." If, therefore, they cannot enter any bay or 

 harbour for the purpose of prosecuting their occupation of fishing, it cannot be 

 intended that they should be allowed to fish within three marine miles of the shore 

 of any bay or harbour, as the two provisisons would be inconsistent. Accordingly, 

 as the question resolves itself into the alternative interpretation of shore or entrance, 

 it ibllows that the correct interpretation which makes the language of the entire 

 .Article consistent with itself, is within three marine miles of the entrance of any 

 bay, such entrance or mouth being, in fact, part of the bai/ itself, and tlie bay being 

 approachable by fishing vessels only in the direction of the mouth or entrance. 



'I'hat a bay of sea water wider than six miles at its inoutli may be within the 

 body of a county, is laid down by Lord Hale in his Treatise T)e Jure Maris et 

 Brurhiorum ejusdnn (Hargrave's Tracts, chap. 4): " An arm or branch of the sea 

 whicli lies within the fauces terra, where a man may reasonably discern between 

 shore and shore is, or at least may be, within the body of a county." This doctrine 

 has been expressly adopted by Mr. .lustico Story in Dc Lovio f. Boit (2 Gallison's 

 Reports, page 42(), second edition), in which, to use tlie language of .^Ir. Wheaton's 

 argument in United States i;. Be vans (3 Wheaton's Reports, page 358), "all the 

 learning on the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Admiralty is collected together." 

 There is, consequently, no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Law over 

 bays is not limited to bays which are less than six miles in breadth, or three miles in 

 depth, since the general rule is, as was observed by the same eminent Judge in United 

 12^0] Y 



