522 APPENDIX 



1818. The second edition of Klubee, for instance, quotes in the same sentence the 

 Treaties of October 20th, 1818, and August 2, 1839, as fixing a distance of three miles 

 from low water mark for coastal jurisdiction. And FioM, the well-known Italian 

 jurist, referring to the same marine miles of coastal jurisdiction, says: "This rule 

 recognized as early as the Treaty of 1818 between the United States and Great Britain, 

 and that between Great Britain and France in 1839, has again been admitted in the 

 treaty of 1867." (Nouveau Droit International Public, Paris, 1885, Section 803.) 



This is only a recognition of the permanency and the continuity of States. The 

 Treaty of 1818 is not a separate fact unconnected with the later policy of Great Britain. 

 Its negotiators were not parties to such international Convention and their powers 

 disappeared as soon as they signed the document on behalf of their countries. The 

 parties to the Treaty of 1818 were the United States and Great Britain, and what 

 Great Britain meant in 1818 about bays and fisheries, when they for the first time 

 . fixed a marginal jurisdiction of three miles, can be very well explained by what Great 

 Britain, the same permanent political entity, understood in 1839, 1843, 1867, 1874, 

 1878 and 1882, when fixing the very same zone of territorial waters. That a bay in 

 Europe should be considered as different from a bay in America and subject to other 

 principles of international law cannot be admitted in the face of it. What the practice 

 of Great Britain has been outside the Treaties is very well known to the Tribunal, 

 and the examples might be multiplied of the cases in which that nation has ordered 

 its subordinates to apply to the bays on these fisheries the ten mile entrance rule or 

 the six miles according to the occasion. It has been repeatedly said that such have 

 been only relaxations of the strict right, assented to by Great Britain in order to avoid 

 friction on certam special occasions. That may be. But it may also be asserted that 

 such relaxations have been very many and that the constant, uniform, never contra- 

 dicted, practice of concluding fishery Treaties from 1839 down to the present day, in 

 all of which the ten miles entrance bays are recognized, is the clear sign of a policy. 

 This policy has but very lately found a most public, solemn and unequivocal expression. 

 "On a question asked in Parliament on the 21st of February 1907, says Pitt Cobbett, 

 a distinguished English writer, with respect to the Moray Firth Case, it was stated 

 that, according to the view of the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, 

 the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the term "territorial 

 waters" was deemed to include waters extending from the coast line of any part of the 

 territory of a State to three miles from the low-water mark of such coast line and the 

 waters of all bays, the entrance to which is not more than six miles, and of which the 

 entire land boundary forms part of the territory of the same state. (Pitt Cobbett, 

 Cases and Opinions on International Law, Vol. i, p. 143.) 



Is there a contradiction between these six miles and the ten miles of the treaties 

 just referred to ? Not at all. The six miles are the consequence of the three miles 

 marginal belt of territorial waters in their coincidence from both sides at the inlets of 

 the coast and the ten miles far from being an arbitrary measure are simply an extension, 

 a margin given for convenience to the strict six miles with fishery purposes. Where 

 the miles represent sixty to a degree in latitude the ten miles are besides the sixth part 

 of the same degree. The American Government in reply to the observations made to 

 Secretary Bayard's Memorandum of 1888, said very precisely: "The width of ten 

 miles was proposed not only because it had been followed in Conventions between 

 many other powers, but also because it was deemed reasonable and just in the present 

 case; this Government recognizing the fact that while it might have claimed a width 

 of six miles as a basis of settlement, fishing within bays and barboursonly slightly wider 



