326 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



time as the question as to which construction ought to prevail, should be 

 determined on, or until the question should be otherwise disposed of by treaty 

 or mutual legislation." 



And on the same day, in Mr. Fillmore's letter to Mr. Webster, 

 not criticising him, or finding any fault with what Mr. Webster 

 had done, but in the most kindly and respectful way, he suggests 

 to him that he and Mr. Crampton should concur in a statement as 

 to the position of both countries upon this question; and here is 

 the way in which Mr. Fillmore wished it stated : 



"but as for those waters in the several bays and harbors which are more 

 than three marine miles from the shore of such bay or harbor upon either 

 side, and within three marine miles of a straight line drawn from one head- 

 land to the other of such bay or harbor, that you as the Representative of 

 the United States conceived that our fishermen have the right under the Treaty 

 to fish therein, but the British Government having held that by a true con- 

 struction of the Treaty such right belonged exclusively to British subjects; 

 and as those waters were thus in dispute between the two nations, you respec- 

 tively advised the citizens and subjects of both countries not to attempt to 

 exercise any right that either claimed within the disputed waters until this 

 disputed right could be adjusted by amicable negotiation." 



That is the disposition of the subject made by Mr. Webster's 

 superior in office, Mr. Fillmore, immediately upon the pubHcation 

 of this paper of Mr. Webster's; and the substance of the same 

 thing was communicated to the British Ambassador. And so the 

 Webster paper must go for naught as any expression of the position 

 of the government of the United States, or as affecting in any way 

 the opinion of Great Britain regarding the position of the United 

 States; and we must deem it as one of those mistakes for which 

 the great are to be forgiven when they are gone. 



That brings me to the end of what I have to say on the Fifth 

 Question, and I shall very easily conclude what I have to say during 

 the day to-morrow, and perhaps before the conclusion of the time 

 to-morrow. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Root, if you will kindly pardon 

 me for a moment, may I ask you to revert again to the Bathurst 

 letter on p. 64 of the British Appendix ? I would like you to say 

 whether I have understood your argument based upon that letter 

 correctly. I understand your argument to be that the bays from 



