ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 301 



places in the sea, without the jurisdiction of the maritime league from the 

 coasts under the dominion of Great Britain." 



You will perceive that here he draws a line between, on the one 

 hand, all the waters from which it is the purpose of the government 

 of Great Britain to exclude American fishermen, and, on the other 

 hand, all the waters from which it is the purpose of the government 

 of Great Britain not to exclude American fishermen. Those waters 

 from which it is the purpose to exclude are described as "bays, 

 harbors, rivers, creeks, and inlets" specifically. They are all 

 within the jurisdiction of the maritime league from the coasts tmder 

 the dominion of Great Britain, for it is the purpose not to exclude 

 American fishermen from any waters without the jurisdiction of the 

 maritime league from the coasts. My learned friends on the other 

 side, reading this letter and giving their own meaning to the word 

 "bays," say that it shows the intention of Great Britain to exclude 

 from bays. But here we have a certain and positive proof of the 

 meaning which the negotiators of the treaty of 1818 and which the 

 government of Great Britain ascribe to the word "bays" when used 

 in the phrase "bays, harbors, rivers, creeks, and inlets." To a 

 demonstration the bays from which they propose to exclude the 

 fishermen of the United States were bays within the maritime league 

 of the coast. 



Can anything be clearer than that ? On the one hand, the area 

 of exclusion, of prevention, of prohibition, covering bays, rivers, 

 harbors, creeks, and inlets within the jurisdiction of the mari- 

 time league from the coasts; on the other hand, the area of 

 freedom without the jurisdiction of the maritime league from the 

 coast. 



The President: Was not the expression "places without the 

 jurisdiction of the maritime league " used in the correspondence as 

 designating the places corresponding with the first branch of Article 

 3 of the treaty of 1783 ? The controversy was whether the whole 

 of Article 3 survived the war, or only the first part of it. The 

 British contention was that the second branch of Article 3 had been 

 superseded by the war, and was not the language of this correspond- 

 ence based upon the contradistinction between the places desig- 

 nated in the first and second branches of Article 3? 



