British limits, as granted to the citizens of the United States by the treaty of 1783, was considered to have ceased with the war, and not to have been revived by the late treaty of peace."

It will be recalled that Lord Bathurst had defined the maritime limits of Great Britain in respect of fishing as against the inhabitants of the United States in these notes in the possession of Mr. Bagot, and here referred to by Mr. Bagot in his note to the Secretary of State for the United States. When Mr. Bagot wrote of fishing within the "British limits" he used the term "British limits" as it had been defined by his superior, in the Foreign Office of Great Britain, in the notes then in his possession, and which, of course, had either been transmitted to him, or been delivered to him when he departed for the United States as Minister.

Continuing reading from the same note to Mr. Monroe on p. 290 of the United States Case Appendix, where Mr. Bagot refers to any agreement that should be entered into, or might be entered into, between the two Governments, and states:

"It being distinctly agreed that the fishermen should confine themselves to unsettled parts of the coast, and that all pretensions to fish or dry within the maritime limits, or on any other of the coasts of British North America, should be abandoned."

There, if the Tribunal please, is the first statement of the renunciatory clause, which was subsequently drafted by the Commissioners on behalf of the United States in the negotiations of 1818. And this was no informal statement by Mr. Bagot, because, if the Tribunal will do me the honour to follow me to p. 176 of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of Great Britain, there will be found on p. 175 the instruction from Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Bagot, and on p. 176, which contains a portion of the letter, these words will be found:

"You are authorized, in the last resort, to yield both to them. . . .” Both portions of the coast that Mr. Bagot was authorised to yield up to the United States.

Continuing reading the instruction

"... to yield both to them upon their distinctly agreeing to confine themselves to the unsettled parts of the coasts so assigned, abandoning all pretensions to fish or dry within our maritime limits on any other of the coasts of British North America."

628

In this instruction from Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Bagot, turning again to the first of the instruction on p. 175 of the Appendix to the British Counter-Case, it will be found that Lord Castlereagh refers to the fact that he had already enclosed in another instruction

"copies of the notes which had been exchanged between the American Minister in London and His Majesty's Government, were therein

transmitted for your information; and you were directed to conform your language in your intercourse with the American Secretary of State to the principles which had been brought forward in this correspondence on the part of your Court."

The letter from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Baker of the 7th September, 1815, on which counsel for Great Britain relies so much, constituted no part of the correspondence, although it was in accord with the position of the United States as interpreted by Lord Bathurst himself. It was to the correspondence between the American Minister in London and His Majesty's Government that Mr. Bagot was referred, and he was directed "to conform your language in your intercourse with the American Secretary of State to the principles which had been brought forward in this correspondence on the part of your Court."

"This correspondence" included the letter of Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst, in which Mr. Adams had restated specifically what he understood Lord Bathurst to have stated in the interview preceding the writing of the note. So that the "principles " by which Mr. Bagot was to be guided were derived from the correspondence between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst, and the discussion between them as recorded in the note of Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst.

In May 1817, as appears in the Appendix to the United States Case on p. 295, Lord Castlereagh, the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for Great Britain, took up the discussion with Mr. Adams, and in a note bearing the date just stated he wrote:—

"As soon as the proposition which Mr. Bagot was authorized in July last, to make to the Government of the United States, for arranging the manner in which American citizens might be permitted to carry on the fisheries within the British limits, had been by them declined," &c.

Lord Castlereagh took up the subject where it had been left by Lord Bathurst, and accepted Lord Bathurst's definition of the British limits; and from thence on in the negotiations the terms "exclusive British jurisdiction," "British limits," "maritime limits," "exclusive sovereignty of Great Britain" were used by the representatives of the two Governments, and subsequently by the negotiators, in the sense and in accordance with the understanding of these terms in the interview between Lord Bathurst and Mr. Adams, and in the sense stated in the letter from Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst.

In these notes and interviews is found a statement of the position of Great Britain. They constitute the statement of the British claim.. American fishing-vessels would not be allowed to fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of the possessions of Great Britain in North America; nor would the Government of Great Britain interrupt fishing beyond a marine league from the shore.

Close upon the shore were the creeks and waters within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain and all the sea, a marine league from the shores was not within the exclusive maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain.

As stated by Mr. Bagot, " within the British limits" lay the creeks and harbours close upon the shore and within the "maritime limits," he stated, lay the interdicted waters. Beyond a marine league from the shore all was open sea.

THE PRESIDENT: It would be of the greatest value, Sir, if it would be possible to elucidate a certain discrepancy which exists between the letter from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Baker of the 7th September, 1815, in the British Case Appendix, p. 64, and the report which Mr. Adams made to Mr. Monroe, stating the conversation which he had had with Lord Bathurst concerning these instructions, appearing also in the British Case Appendix. In that letter Lord Bathurst says to his Minister at Washington, Mr. Baker:

"You will take an early opportunity of assuring Mr. Monroe that, as, on the one hand, the British Government cannot acknowledge the right of the United States to use the British territory for the purpose connected with the fishery, and that their fishing vessels will be excluded from the bays, harbours, rivers, creeks, and inlets of all His Majesty's possessions."

629

Thus Lord Bathurst writes to Mr. Baker. Mr. Adams reports to Mr. Monroe that he had had a conversation with Lord Bathurst concerning these instructions, and he had asked Lord Bathurst what the substance of these instructions was. On p. 65 it is stated that Lord Bathurst replied that he could give the substance of the answer that had been forwarded, and that it had been that—

66

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."

In the letter Lord Bathurst speaks of the bays, while in the report which Mr. Adams makes concerning the conversation he had had with Lord Bathurst, he does not speak of the bays. One of these reports must be incorrect. Either Mr. Adams had not quite correctly reported what he had heard from Lord Bathurst, or Lord Bathurst had forgotten something which he had written to Mr. Baker, or in his oral communication he had said something different from what he had written. Then there is the possibility that Mr. Baker did not quite exactly communicate the contents of the despatch of Lord Bathurst to the American Government. There must be some misunderstanding, and it would be interesting to know who was incorrect in his report. If it were possible to elucidate such a question it

would be of very great assistance to us, but it may not be possible after so long a time has elapsed.

MR. WARREN: Mr. President, counsel for the United States submit that we will have no trouble whatever to answer the question put. I am only stating now the claim of Great Britain as advanced to the United States. I mentioned the letter to Mr. Baker, the British chargé in Washington before the arrival of Mr. Bagot as Minister, and in the natural order of the argument, the Baker letter, the interview between Lord Bathurst and Mr. Adams, and the subsequent letter from Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst will be discussed. I will here Mr. President, replying to the question which you put, call to the attention of the Tribunal the fact that the contention of the United States does not rely solely upon Lord Bathurst's own definition of the Baker letter, because Mr. Adams took the precaution, as shown on p. 269 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, to restate to Lord Bathurst what Lord Bathurst had stated to him, and in the restatement of Lord Bathurst's position used the same definition of the Baker letter that Lord Bathurst had used when stating the contents of it to Mr. Adams.

THE PRESIDENT: You used the expression the "Adams letter."

MR. WARREN: I referred the Tribunal to Mr. Adams' letter to Lord Bathurst, which is printed, commencing on p. 268 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, and I had just commenced to read an extract from that letter, to be found on p. 269. Mr. Adams made a statement there to Lord Bathurst of what Lord Bathurst had stated to him:

"your lordship did also express it as the intention of the British Government to exclude the fishing vessels of the United States, hereafter, from the liberty of fishing within one marine league of the shores of all the British territories in North America."

THE PRESIDENT: That is consistent with the report Mr. Adams had made to Mr. Monroe and not consistent with the letter of Lord Bathurst

MR. WARREN: To Mr. Baker, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: To Mr. Baker.

MR. WARREN: If the Tribunal please, the United States will undertake, at a later point in the argument, to show that Mr. Adams' definition of the letter is quite consistent with the position taken; but, in any event, it is to be observed that the Baker letter forms no part of the correspondence with the United States. Mr. Baker had already written his letter to the Secretary of State for the United States about the "Jaseur" incident, before the receipt by him of the letter from Lord Bathurst, dated the 7th September, 1815, which related to the "Jaseur” incident.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by the Baker letter?

MR. WARREN: The letter from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Baker, on p. 64 of the Appendix to the British Case, Mr. President.

630

THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to mean the letter from Mr. Baker, and I could not find one in that connection. MR. WARREN: Pardon me; I mean the letter to Mr. Baker. I was about to say that the letter from Mr. Baker to Mr. Monroe, the American Secretary of State, regarding the "Jaseur" incident, is printed on p. 264 of the Appendix to the United States Case, and bears date the 31st August, 1815. Therefore, Mr. Baker had not received the letter from Lord Bathurst which bears date the 7th September, 1815. He never took occasion to transmit any other letter to the United States regarding the "Jaseur" incident than the one which bears date the 31st August, 1815. I desire to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this additional fact, to which I have already alluded-that in the transmission to Mr. Bagot of the instructions from Lord Castlereagh, Appendix to British Counter-Case, p. 175, the principles, by which Mr. Bagot was to be guided, were the principles laid down in the notes passing between, and reports of the interviews between Lord Bathurst and Mr. Adams, which are the notes to which I have referred.

It was asserted by Great Britain that the war of 1812 abrogated the liberty of American fishing-vessels within the "territorial jurisdiction" of Great Britain, which was stated to extend 3 marine miles from the shore, and within which lay the harbours and creeks and waters close upon the shore that were thereafter to be closed to the fishing-vessels of the United States.

Now, I wish here to ask: If the Government of Great Britain had been advancing a claim to exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of the fisheries, over large areas of water extending many miles from the shore, would the claim have been stated in the terms employed by Lord Bathurst, that is, that thereafter the vessels of the United States would not be permitted to fish within the creeks and close upon the shore of the British territories; nor would they be interrupted in fishing without the territorial jurisdiction a marine league from the shore?

Thereafter, when Lord Castlereagh, or Lord Bathurst, or Mr. Bagot, on the part of the Government of Great Britain, and Mr. Monroe and Mr. Rush, on the part of the United States, and, later, when the negotiators of the treaty of 1818 used the terms "territorial jurisdiction," "exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain," "maritime limits," "within the British limits," "within the limits of the British Sovereignty," and "His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America," they referred to a jurisdiction over the sea extending only 3 marine. miles from the shore of the possessions of Great Britain in North America; and only hays, creeks, and harbours found therein were included.