"^-.arxm-rr .'■:•. . 



I,, Hjiv^iiiffirPinii 



266 



cntcrprisinn^ and skilled fisbormcn, who bad fished in their vessels and sent their catclies 

 to the Anicrican market. It drew tliein awdv to the American vessels, where they 

 were able, as members of American crews, to take their lish into the market tree of 

 duty. 



There was, at the same time, a desire ijrowinp; on both sides for reciprocity of 

 trade, and it became apparent that there eonld be no peace between these countries 

 until this attempt at exclusion by imaginary lines, always to be matters of dispute, was 

 sjiven iiji — until we came back to our ancient rights and position. It was more expensive 

 to tirrat Britain tliaii to us. It made more disturbance in the relations between Great 

 Britain and her ]irovinces tlian it did between (Jreat Bvitain and ourselves ; but it put 

 every man's life in jieril ; it put tli( i>stdts of every man's labour in ]ieril ; and for what ? 

 Vor the imaginary rii;;lit to exchid ■ a deep-sea fislierman from dropjiinc; his hook or his 

 net into the water lor the free-swiiumin<;- tish, that have no habitat, that are the property 

 of nobody, but wliich are created to be caught by lisliermen, prwdw humnnl generis. 

 So at last it was determined to jirovide a Treaty by which all this matter slumld 

 be set aside, and w should fail back upon our own early conilitlon. 



Now, vour H( nours will allow ni<^ a word, and I hope you will not think it out of 

 ])lace — it is an iutiM'cstin^- subject ; I do not tliink it is (inite out of place, and 1 will not 

 he Ions;' ujxm it — on the natiu-e of this rif^ht which En^^land clainuHl in 1818, to exclude 

 us from tin; tlu-ee miles, by virtue of soiue siipposi'd princijile of international law. I 

 have stated my opinion upon it, but your Honours will be pleased to observe, tiiat on 

 that, as upon the subject of headlands, nn essential part of it, without uhich it can 

 never be put in execntion, there is no fixed international law. I have taken pains to 

 study the subject ; have examined it carefully since I came here, and I think I iiave 

 examined most of tlie authorities. I do not find one who piedijes himself to the tliree mile 

 line. It is always " three miles," or" the cannon shot." Now, '• the cannon shot " is the 

 more scientific mode of propoundinp,- the (luestion, because it was the leuijth of the 

 arm of th(> nation borderintf upon the sea, and she could exercise luir riu^ht so far 

 as the leuijtli of her arm could be exti'mled. Tiiat was the cannon sliot, and thai, 

 at that tinu', was aluiut three miles. It is now many more miles. We soon be£;;an to 

 find out that it would not do to rest it upon the camion shot. It is best to have 

 sometliiui;- certain. But international writers have arrived at no further stage than 

 this : to siiy that it is '• tlirce miles or the camion shot."' And upon the question, 

 "How is the three-mile line to be determiiie<l," we find everything utterly atloal 

 anil iindfcidcd r I\ly jmrpose in inakins;- these remarks is, in part, to dhow you'- 

 Honours what a preearious position a State holds wliieli undertakes to set up this 

 ris'ht of exclusion, and to put it in ("Xecution. The international law makes no 

 attempt to detine what is "coast."' We know well enough wliat a straight coast 

 is ami what a curved coast is, but the moment the jurists come to bays, harbours, 

 gulfs, and seas, tliey are utterly atloat — as much so as the sea-weed that is swimming 

 u[) and down the channels. They make no attemiit to detine it, eillnM* by distanct! 

 or by pnlitical or natural geography. They say at once: "It is dillicult, where 

 there are seas and havs." Names will not help us. The Hay of Bengal is not 

 national ]u*o]ierty ; it is not th(! King's chamber; nor is tiie Bay of Biscay, nor the 

 Gulf of St. Lawrence, nor the (iulf of Mexico. An inlet of the sea may be called a 

 "bay," and it may be two miles wide at its entrance; or it may be called a " bay," 

 and it may take a montii's passage in an old-fishioned sailing vessel to sail from 

 one headland to the other. What is to be done about it ? If there is to b(> a three- 

 mile line from the coast, the natural result is, that the three-mile line should follo-v 

 the bays. The result then would be that a bay more than .six miles widt; was an 

 international bay ; one six miles wide, or less, was a territ<irial bay. That is the 

 natural result. Well, nations do not seem to have been contented with this. France 

 has made a Treaty with Krigland saying that, as between them, anything less than ton 

 miles wide shall be a territorial liay. 



The dillicidties on that subject are inherent, and, to my mind, they are insuperable. 

 F]nglaiul claimed to exclude us from fishing in tlie Bay of Kundy, and it was left to 

 refer(M's. of whom .Mr. .losliua Bates was umitire, and they decided that the Bay of 

 Fundy was not a territorial bay of (Jreat Britain, but a part of the high seas. This 

 decision was put partly upon its width, but t!ie real ground was, that one of the assumed 

 headlands belonged to the United States, and it was necessary to pass the headland in 

 order to get to one of the ports of tin; United States. Kor these special reasons, the 

 Bay of Kundy, whatever its width, was held to be a public and international bay. 



Then look at Bristol Channel. That c|uestion came up in the case of Quf-fin v. 

 CunniiKjhain, — Bell's Cr. Cas. p. T2. A crime was committed by Cunningham in 



