ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 



297 



paper, but neither printed this particular part of it. In that 

 proposition which the Americans submitted, Article A referred to 

 fisheries, Article B related to boundaries. Article C related to imports 

 and exports, Article D related to slaves. Article F related to the gen- 

 eral system of impressments, and Article G related to limits within 

 which or out of which certain acts of sovereignty by the two coun- 

 tries in respect of the treatment of vessels should be exercised. 



Paragraph (d) of Article G provided, as proposed by the 

 Americans: 



"(d.) In all cases where one of the high contracting parties shall be at 

 war, the armed vessels belonging to such party shall not station themselves, 

 nor rove or hover, nor stop, search, or disturb the vessels of the other party, 

 or the unarmed vessels of other nations, within the chambers formed by head- 

 lands, or within five marine miles from the shore belonging to the other party, 

 or from a right hne from one headland to another.'' 



You will see that is a substantial repetition of the proposal 

 of 1806, which was rejected, and in place of which the maritime 

 jurisdiction was fixed as not extending beyond 5 marine miles from 

 the shore. This also was rejected in the negotiation of 1818. 



So Great Britain not merely refrained from asserting jurisdiction 

 over bays generally, however large, however small, unless they 

 came within the territorial zone measured from the shore; but she 

 refused, both in the negotiations of 1806 and in the negotiations 

 of 1818,. to accept the proposal of the Americans which would 

 mclude chambers between headlands within the hmits of the mari- 

 time jurisdiction of Great Britain. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: What have you just read from? I 

 do not think you gave a note of it. 



Senator Root: I read this extract from the American proposal 

 of the 17th September, 1818, from American State Papers, vol. 

 IV, Foreign Relations, p. 337. That is the same book which is 

 referred to as the source of the extracts from these papers which 

 were printed. 



I conjecture that this poUcy of Great Britain, which I have said 

 accounted for a series of facts to which I have called attention, also 

 accounts, for the very curious form of the British Case, Counter- 

 Case, and British Argument before this Tribunal. 



