cxii INTRODUCTION 



miles width sliould be considered as those wherein the fishing is reserved 

 to nationals." 



After establishing the general principle and recommending the ten 

 mile rule the Tribimal delimited, in general accordance with the unrati- 

 fied Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty of 1888, various important bays of the 

 non-treaty coast and recommended that the lines thus drawn be accepted 

 by the two governments. 



In presenting the case for Great Britain to the Tribunal Sir Robert 

 Finlay stated that "the language of the treaty must of course be read 

 by the light of all- the circumstances as they existed at the time when it 

 was entered into, and the history at that time is, for that purpose, very 

 material." ' 



Accepting this statement as a just canon of interpretation, it will be 

 necessary to examine not merely the language of the renunciatory clause, 

 but the differences between the two countries which gave rise to it and 

 which it was intended to adjust; the acts of the two governments between 

 the conclusion of the War of 18 12 and the negotiations of the Conven- 

 tion of 1 81 8; the views of the statesmen charged with the problem 

 between these two periods; the intent of the negotiators as it appears 

 in the convention itself, in their official reports to their respective 

 governments and as they may be collected from subsequent discussions 

 of the convention, and finally the official interpretation placed upon 

 the convention by the two governments when the nature and extent 

 of the renunciatory clause were the subject of discussion. 



The language of the renunciatory clause is at least upon the surface 

 favorable to the contention of Great Britain, because the United States 

 expressly renounced "any liberty heretofore enjoyed Qr claimed [under 

 the Treaty of 1783] to take, dry, or cure fish on, or within three marine 

 miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic 

 Majesty's dominions in America not included within" the treaty coasts. 

 That is to say, the United States renounced the right to fish on bays or 

 within three miles of bays on the non-treaty coasts. Great Britain 

 maintained that the language was clear; that it meant what it said and 

 that it said what the negotiators meant, and that there was no need for 

 interpretation. Indeed, it must be admitted that the language means 

 what it says. But it does not follow, however, that it says what 

 the negotiators meant. The United States maintained that a careful 

 reading of the clause led to a different conclusion; that while the 

 United States renounced the right to fish on or within three marine 

 miles of bays the renunciation was not general but specific, for the bays 



' Oral Argument, Vol. I, p. 3. 



