"'"^ 



ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 289 



fact that never, in all this long history, has Great Britain given 

 an instruction to a naval officer, and never has a British naval 

 officer made a seizure of an American vessel outside a Une measured 

 3 miles from the shore. Two seizures were made, the "Washing- 

 ton" and the "Argus," based upon this theory of the colonial law 

 officers — made by colonial vessels, under the command of colonial 

 officers; and upon those two going to arbitration, both of them 

 were decided in favor of the United States and against Great Britain. 



The President: If you please, Mr. Senator Root, is there 

 any treaty, or any act of parliament, or any other public act, 

 in which the limits of British territorial waters have been fixed 

 for every purpose, in a general way — not only for fishing pur- 

 poses as in some treaties, or for the purpose of detaining neutral 

 vessels as in other treaties, or for criminal jurisdiction as in the 

 Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act? Is there any public act 

 in which these Hmits of British maritime sovereignty have been 

 regulated in a general way ? 



Senator Root: The only information I can give your Honor 

 on that subject is derived from two communications which appear 

 in the record. One is a report of the Committee of the Privy 

 Council for Canada in June, 1886. I think the report was actually 

 made by Mr. Foster, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada. 

 It is on p. 812 of the American Appendix. Near the foot of the 

 page the first of a series of statements of fact which he makes 

 occurs, and I wiU read it: 



"In the first place the undersigned would ask it to be remembered that 

 the extent of the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada is not limited (nor 

 was that of the Provinces before the union) to the sea-coast, but extends for 

 three marine miles from the shore as to all matters over which any legislative 

 authority can in any country be exercised within that space." 



It goes on to say: 



"The legislation which has been adopted on this subject by the ParUa- 

 ment of Canada (and previously to confederation by the Provinces) does not 

 reach beyond that limit." 



It is quite true the Nova Scotia Act of 1836, under which they 

 made seizures, merely reproduced the language of the treaty, and 

 contained no assertion of jurisdiction outside of the 3-inile Umit, 



