2 70 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



word "bays" in this renunciation. We can put a limit to them. 

 We have drawn a line around the field to which it is possible to 

 apply the word "bays" or "harbors" or "creeks." The proposition 

 I am now engaged upon is that the matter in controversy was, in 

 fact, limited to the territorial waters, to the maritime limits, what- 

 ever they were, and that that is what the negotiators had in mind 

 when they were settHng rights about those particular waters. 



Mr. Ewart has been very frank, and clear upon that; he regarded 

 it as a step in his own argument. He said [p. 756] : 



"Then I come to one that bulked very largely in Mr. Warren's argument: 

 That the negotiators understood that they were dealing with waters 'within 

 the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain,' 'within British sovereignty,' and 

 so on. I had made a collection of excerpts for the purpose of proving that 

 to be true, but my list is not nearly so long or so fuU as Mr. Warren's, and I 

 therefore do not trouble the Tribunal with it. If, however, there is any way 

 in which I can emphasize what he said, I should like to do so. It seems to 

 me important. It seems to me, Sirs, that when the negotiators went to nego- 

 tiate about this treaty, even if they had had no instructions at all, they would 

 have known that they were going to deal with waters in British sovereignty. 

 Nor would the British imagine that the Americans were going to renounce 

 parts of the high seas." 



Further down he repeats the same proposition. 



Judge Gray: I was very much interested in that point of Mr. 

 "Ewart's argimient. Mr. Ewart further said in that connection, 

 if I recollect his argument, that the treaty is a convention between 

 Great Britain and the United States, and that by the fact of its 

 being a convention it estabUshed between them the conventional 

 territoriality of all bays. 



Senator Root: I remember that Mr. Ewart did subsequently — 



Judge Gray : He said that it was a conventional establishment 

 of the territoriality of bays. I merely call it to your attention. 



Senator Root: That proposition of Mr. Ewart has the fatal 

 vice of depending entirely on ascribing to the word "bays" his own 

 meaning — a meaning which is in question here. If the word 

 "bays" in the treaty means what Mr. Ewart says it does, that is 

 true; if it means what we say it does, precisely the contrary result 

 is accomplished. We are now engaged in trying to find what it 



