ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 309 



"I asked him if he could, without inconvenience, state the substance of 

 the answer that had been sent. He said, certainly: it had been that as, on 

 the one hand, Great Britain could not permit the vessels of the United States 

 to fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of the British territories, 

 so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to interrupt them in 

 fishing anywhere in the open sea, or without the territorial jurisdiction, a 

 marine league from the shore." 



The Tribunal will perceive that Lord Bathurst is there stating 

 the vital feature of the letter to Baker, using the word "shore" 

 as the eqtiivalent of the word "coast" which occurs in the Baker 

 letter. He iastructed Mr. Baker to say to the American Govern- 

 ment in behaK of the government of Great Britain, that Great 

 Britain did not propose to interfere with the fishing anywhere with- 

 out the maritime jurisdiction of 3 miles from the coast. And when 

 Mr. Adams asked him what he had written, he said that he had 

 written that it was by no means the intention of Great Britain to 

 interrupt fishing without the territorial jurisdiction a marine league 

 from the shore — precisely answering to what he had directed Mr. 

 Baker to say, substituting the word "shore" for the word "coast"; 

 of course if you ignore that Kne that is drawn in the Baker letter and 

 give the British sense to the word "bays" in the Baker letter, you 

 have a frightful inconsistency here. You have Lord Bathurst,who 

 was conducting the foreign affairs of a great empire, either will- 

 fully deceiving Mr. Adams or not knowing the meaning or purport 

 of an important letter that he had just written himself, an important 

 instruction that he had just given himself. As I have shown the 

 true meaning, the consistency is perfect. 



Mr. Adams, to have no misunderstanding about what the 

 position of Great Britain really was, in writing to Lord Bathurst 

 shortly after, a few days after, on the subject, recites to Lord 

 Bathurst what Lord Bathurst had told him on this subject. 



The Tribunal will perceive that Mr. Adams was not at all grate- 

 ful for liberty to fish outside the maritime jurisdiction of 3 leagues. 

 What he wanted to do was to combat the determination to exclude 

 us within the 3 marine miles from the shore. He had girded his 

 loins, and set to work to combat that, in this long and elaborate 

 argument of the 25th September, 181 5. And in laying down the 

 lines for his argument, he states the position which he is combating. 



