120

et des détroits, comme plus capables encore d'être occupés, et plus importants à la sûreté du pays. Mais je parle des baies et détroits de peu d'étendue, et non de ces grands espaces de mer auxquels on donne quelquefois ces noms, tels que la baie de Hudson, le Détroit de Magellan, sur lesquels l'empire ne saurait s'étendre, et moins encore la propriété. Une baie dont on peut défendre l'entrée peut être occupée et soumise aux lois du Souverain; il importe qu'elle le soit, puisque le pays pourrait être beaucoup plus aisément insulté en cet endroit que sur des côtes ouvertes aux vents et à l'impétuosité des flots.

Hautefeuille says:

Les côtes de la mer ne présentent pas une ligne droite et régulière; elles sont, au contraire, presque toujours coupées de baies, de caps, &c.; si le domaine maritime devait, toujours, être mesuré de chacun des points du rivage, il en résulterait de graves inconvénients. Aussi est-on convenu, dans l'usage, de tirer une ligne fictive d'un promontoire à l'autre, et de prendre cette ligne pour point de départ de la portée du canon. Ce mode, adopté par presque tous les peuples, ne s'applique qu'aux petites baies, et non aux golfes d'une grande étendue, comme le Golfe de Gascogne, comme celui de Lyon, qui sont en réalité de grandes parties de mer complétement ouvertes, et dont il est impossible de nier l'assimilation complète avec la haute

mer.

PRESENT OPINIONS-INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The opinions of present jurists may be best ascertained from the conclusions of the Institute of International Law. The subject was exhaustively discussed at the session at Paris in 1899, the exceptionally large number of thirty-nine members being present. They agreed to propose the following rule:

Art. 3. Pour les baies, la mer territoriale suit les sinuosités de la côte, sauf qu'elle est mesurée à partir d'une ligne droite tirée en travers de la baie dans la partie la plus rapprochée de l'ouverture vers la mer, où l'écart entre les deux côtes de la baie est de 12 milles marins de largeur, à moins qu'un usage continu et séculaire n'ait consacré une largeur plus grande.

The object of the reservation at the end of this article is explained by the learned reporter, M. Barclay," in these words:Les baies ne servent pas, en général, à la navigation entre pays autres que le pays riverain. Elles sont placées par les promontoires en dehors des routes de la haute mer, séparées d'elle par une marque nettement déterminée. Or il y a beaucoup de baies qui ont bien plus de 10 milles et même 16 milles d'écart, et qui, par leur situation, sont nécessairement placées sous la souveraineté absolue de l'État riverain. Il en est ainsi pour les firths écossais. Pour la Baie de Cancale, la distance est de 17 milles; pour celle de

121

• "Droits et Devoirs des Nations neutres," 1858, vol. i, p. 92. "Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit international," tome 13, 1894, 1895, p. 329. P. 147.

Chaleur, au Canada, de 16 milles. Toutes ces baies sont considérées comme étant sous la domination exclusive de l'État riverain. Il y a lieu, enfin, de consacrer le principe que la baie est dans une situation différente de la mer territoriale proprement dite.

It is clear from the report of M. Barclay that in his opinion (1) there is no rule in international law as to the extent of bays of the nature now suggested by the United States, and (2) the considerations applicable to the belt of territorial sea do not apply to bays.

OTHER OPINIONS.

Attempts have been made, it is true, by some writers to suggest a general principle capable of application to all enclosed waters. But these suggestions have led to no practical result. The difference in the considerations which affect particular cases has made it difficult, if not impossible, to formulate any general rule; and the difference in the considerations which affect the open sea on the one hand, and enclosed waters on the other hand, has made it impossible to apply the same general rule to both.

SUMMARY.

It is submitted therefore that the opinions of jurists establish that there is not any definite limit, whether 6 miles or more, beyond which enclosed waters such as bays may not be claimed as territorial waters by the State within whose shores they are enclosed; and that a fortiori there was no such limit in 1818. It follows that the word "bay' as used in the treaty was used in its ordinary sense and included all those tracts of water known at the time as bays.

NEGOTIATIONS OF 1818.

In addition to these arguments, His Majesty's Government desire to point out to the Tribunal that the circumstances existing at the time of the negotiations of 1818 themselves negative the contention that the term "bays of His Britannic Majesty's dominions" as used in the treaty was not intended to include the whole of the bays on the British coasts.

122

At the beginning of the last century, Great Britain and the United States were putting forward wide claims to jurisdiction over territorial waters, as has already been shown. The case of Delaware Bay and the claims of the United States were fresh in the minds of the American negotiators; the rights of Great Britain over the waters surrounding the British coasts had been the subject of still more recent discussion. In view of these facts it is impossible to believe that the negotiations of 1818 were conducted on the footing that bays more than 6 miles wide were necessarily part of

the high seas. If it had been intended to limit the meaning of the word "bay" to bays of a certain size only, that limitation would certainly have been discussed and, if agreed to, would have been expressed on the face of the treaty.

The limit of sovereignty over enclosed waters contended for by the United States has never yet been recognized by the Law of Nations, and this Tribunal, as is respectfully submitted, can only act upon principles which have already become part of the law which it is administering.

CONCLUSION.

Great Britain, therefore, contends that the treaty applies to all bays on the coasts of British North America, and that the three marine miles specified in article one must be measured, in the case of unindented coasts, from the shore line at low tide; and, in the case of all bays, creeks, or harbours, from a line drawn across the mouths of such bays, creeks, or harbours.

123

QUESTION SIX.

"COASTS" AND "SHORES."

Have the inhabitants of the United States the liberty under the said article or otherwise to take fish in the bays, harbours, and creeks on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands, or on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands, or on the Magdalen Islands?

THE QUESTION.

The question is whether United States fishermen are, under the treaty of 1818, entitled to take fish, not only on that portion of the "coast" of Newfoundland specified in article one of the treaty, and the "shores" of the Magdalen Islands, but also in the bays, harbours, and creeks thereof. While the treaty grants to American fishermen liberty to take fish

on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, &c.—

it gives liberty on the "coast" merely of Newfoundland, and on the "shores" of the Magdalen Islands. And the question is, whether the more restricted liberty in these two localities is to be construed as meaning the same as the more ample liberty on the Labrador coast.

ANALYSIS OF THE TREATY.

For the present purpose the provisions of the treaty may be divided into three parts:

1. American fishermen are to have liberty to take fish in the following places:

(a.) Part of the southern, western, and northern "coast of Newfoundland."

in

(b.) "On the shores of the Magdalen Islands."

(c.) "On the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks" of Labrador.

2. American fishermen are to have liberty to dry and cure fish-

any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador.