ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 319 



bays specifically. The argument of the Attorney- General was that 

 the mention of them indicated that we thought it was necessary to 

 mention them. The first form of the resolution mentioned coasts, 

 bays, and banks; and my learned friend founded an argument on 

 the fact that "bays" were specially mentioned. 



The President: Might it not be said that in the first form the 

 mentioning of bays was necessary, because there could be some 

 doubt whether "coasts" embraced bays; whereas, in the second 

 form, where it is said "as fully as they enjoyed the same when 

 subject to the King of Great Britain" there could arise no doubt 

 that the word "coasts" embraced in this connection also the 

 bays, because there is no doubt that when they were subjects of 

 the King of Great Britain they had also the right to fish in the 

 bays? 



Senator Root: Well, perhaps that may be said. But my 

 particular object here is to destroy the argument of the Attorney- 

 General, which, certainly, is destroyed if you find that the word on 

 which the argument is based was not included in the final form of 

 the resolution. 



The Attorney-General has founded an argument here upon the 

 use of the term "bays" in some of the old treaties, the treaty of 

 1686, between Great Britain and Spain, I think it was, and the 

 treaty of 1778 between the United States and France. The phrase 

 used in both was "havens, bays, creeks, roads, shoals, and places." 

 There are two things that are said about that by the other side: 

 one is that it shows that "bays" were considered of very great 

 importance. It does not show that they were considered of any 

 more importance than "havens, creeks, roads, shoals, and places." 

 In the time when the subject of Jurisdiction and right of control over 

 the sea was very unsettled, people making treaties about portions 

 of the sea next to the land used to put in everything they could think 

 of to describe those portions, because they had not any definite 

 line of Jurisdiction to appeal to; and that is what was done here. 

 It does not show any importance, particularly, given to bays, and 

 you can draw no inference from it about the meaning of bays without 

 putting that meaning into it. If you assume that "bays" here 

 mean what Great Britain says "bays" mean in the treaty, then you 



