288 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



ciation clause. Canada asserted the territorial right, Nova Scotia 

 asserted it, but Great Britain never. There was an express assertion 

 of a right to exclude Americans from the waters of these bays on 

 the part of Canada, in a formal commimication to Great Britain. 

 It occurs in the letter from Lord Falkland to Lord John Russell 

 of the 8th May, 1841, which appears in the British Appendix at 

 p. 127. Over on p. 128, in stating the views of the law oflScers of 

 the Colony of Nova Scotia, in the third paragraph. Lord Falkland 

 says: 



"On this point the law officers of the Crown in the colony express them- 

 selves very strongly both on the general principle of international law and the 

 letter and direct spirit of the Convention. They deem it to be a settled rule, 

 that the shore of a state lying on the sea is determined by a hne drawn 

 from the projecting headlands and not by following the indentations of the 

 coast" — 



Referring to Chitty: 



" (vide Chitty — vol. ist, pages 99 and 100, an extract from which is contained 

 in the paper marked No. 2 herewith transmitted) and therefore think it a 

 necessary consequence that the three miles fixed upon by the Convention 

 should always be measured from such a Une." 



But they also say that the words of the convention would put 

 an end to the question, if any could be raised on the general rule. 



Great Britain never adopted or mentioned that first proposition 

 of the law officers of the colony. She has always stood solely upon 

 the construction of the renunciatory clause. And the Tribunal 

 will observe that she has been admitting from time to time that it 

 was exceedingly doubtful — the construction of the renunciation 

 clause. I began by reading to the Tribunal letters in which they 

 said it is exceedingly doubtful, it is a matter for compromise, and 

 they went so far as to say, among themselves, that we were right; 

 but never did they support themselves by saying: "These are 

 territorial waters of Great Britain." It would have ended the 

 question if they could have established- that. What a powerful 

 support that would have brought to the contention based upon the 

 doubtful construction of the renunciation clause, if they had been 

 able to say: "You have renounced this; but alsb, this is the territo- 

 rial water of Great Britain, and you have no business here, anyway." 

 But they never did — never. That is what makes important the 



