Page images
PDF
EPUB

(or the Bar) to Bear Head, north of Serpentine River, in the District of St. George."

Now, if the Tribunal will kindly follow me to the west coast of Newfoundland, and to the Bay of Port-au-Port, on the same chart, No. 2440, which is now before the Tribunal, it will be found that the point described in that statute as within Port-au-Port Bay

Judge Gray: Will you point out on the map where Port-au-Port Bay is, Mr. Warren, please?

Mr. WARREN: Just above St. George's Bay, on the west coast of Newfoundland.

JUDGE GRAY: Please indicate it with your pointer on the large map there.

Mr. WARREN (indicating on map): Port-au-Port Bay is this bay, just above St. George's Bay, on the west coast of Newfoundland. JUDGE GRAY: Yes.

MR. WARREN: I was then referring to the large map on the wall. I now refer to the small chart, No. 2440, which is before the Tribunal. It will be found that in order to bring the point Bear Head, mentioned in that section of the statute, in the Bay of Port-au-Port, a line must be drawn from Long Point which, reaching the shore, would be 73 nautical miles long.

I call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that that line is 63 miles long, and ask the Court to compare it with the map which hangs on the wall, where Port-au-Port is designated.

THE PRESIDENT: You said from Long Point to Bear Head. It is 23 miles, is it not?

MR. WARREN: I will retract that statement as to its being 73 miles. My eye caught the wrong line; they are very close together; and I shall presently make the correct statement. I misread the figure, as 73, instead of 23.

THE PRESIDENT: It is 23 miles.

MR. WARREN: It is 23 miles on the chart, instead of 73.

JUDGE GRAY: Yes; 23 miles?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Warren, is it not 16 miles? The figures 23 are on another line.

MR. WARREN: The 16-mile line, Mr. President, would come just south of Bear Head on the chart.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. From Long Point to Bear Head is 16 miles, and from Long Point to Littleport is 23 miles?

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And that which is mentioned here in section 64 of the statute, paragraph 1, is from Long Point to Bear Head? MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is 16 miles. it is not as wide as you suggested before. these figures.

That is wide enough; but

It is very difficult to read

JUDGE GRAY: You will observe that the short line from North Point across to the mainland is only 6 miles.

MR. WARREN: Yes, your Honour. I was about to comment on the various lines which have been drawn across from shore to shore, or from point to point, across that particular body of water. JUDGE GRAY: Every other line, it seems to me, upon looking at the chart, except that 6-mile line, encloses part of the open sea. MR. WARREN: Your Honour, that statement practically sums up my argument as to that particular body of water.

692

If the Tribunal please, I shall not take up each of these charts that have been submitted, and discuss in detail the various lines drawn thereon. They are filed with the Tribunal; and the lines show various outside lines that might be drawn from shore to shore. The lines drawn across these great bodies of water on these shores, if drawn in accordance with actual constructions by the legislature of Newfoundland, would be so indefinite, and so vague, that they could not possibly furnish a basis upon which the Award of this Tribunal could be founded.

[Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the Tribunal took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.]

AFTERNOON SESSION, MONDAY, JULY 11, 1910, 2 P. M.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please continue, Mr. Warren? MR. WARREN: Mr. President, resuming the discussion which was engaging my attention just preceding the adjournment in connection. with the argument based upon the charts, showing lines of various lengths drawn across all these so-called geographical bays, I refer now to all the charts, not only to No. 2440, but the other charts handed to the Tribunal, showing the lines across all the bays on the non-treaty coasts, and in some instances on the treaty coasts for purposes of illustration.

I desire to refer to the fact that there is no evidence before this Tribunal that there was any map before the negotiators of the treaty of 1818. Without intending to attribute any unworthy motive to counsel for Great Britain, I desire to state that the conclusion might be drawn, from the manner in which the subject was presented, that there was a map before the negotiators of this treaty.

All of the protocols of the conferences in 1818 are found in the Appendix to the Case of the United States on pp. 308 to 317. According to the protocol of the first conference the proceedings were

to be recorded in detail. I will use the language of the protocol itself, "were to be recorded in detail"; and the protocols will be searched in vain for any reference to any map of any kind drawn by anybody as being before the Tribunal, or as being referred to in any connection with the treaty subsequently signed.

I desire to refer, in passing, to a statement on p. 103 of the Case of Great Britain filed before this Tribunal.

The reading of pp. 103 and 104 is, unless analysed, liable to be very misleading, and I desire to read some paragraphs there for the purpose of commenting on them. Reading first from p. 103:

"These indentations had all been surveyed and named at the time the convention was entered into. They were well known to mariners and fishermen and were known under the names which they now bear. In other words, the waters to which this discussion relates were known as bays in 1818.

"Maps of the coasts had been published before that date. Of these, probably the most important were a wall map known as Mitchell's map (1755), and a book of maps called 'The American Atlas,' prepared by Thomas Jeffreys, geographer to the King and others. In the appendix to this Case will be found reproductions of Mitchell's map, and of such of Jeffrey's maps as cover the territory in question. Not only were these maps available to the negotiators in 1783, but the report of the American Commissioners proves that the Mitchell map was actually being used by them during the negotiations. They said:

The map used in the course of our negotiations was Mitchell's.' "When, therefore, in 1783, an agreement was entered into with reference to the 'bays' in these territories, no one could have been in the slightest doubt as to what was intended."

I have shown that it does not make any difference what the bays were in 1783; that there was no attempt to define the jurisdiction, because the rights of the fishing vessels of the United States were to go to the shores under the terms of the treaty.

693

Continuing the reading:

"The maps showed it, and every fishermen knew it without looking at the maps. And the word was used in the same sense in 1818. It appears from an entry in Mr. John Quincy Adams' diary, 8th July, 1823, that the same map (Mitchell's) was made use of in subsequent negotiations."

The extract referred to as being in Mr. Adams's diary is on p. 108 of the Appendix to the Case of Great Britain. It bears date the 8th July, 1823, and will be found at the bottom of p. 108:

"The Count de Menou came to inquire where were the Quirpon Islands; I showed him upon Mitchell's map. We had much conversation upon the subject of the French claim to exclusive fishery from them to Cape Ray. He said he had received further instructions from the Viscount de Chateaubriand on this affair, but there were still two previous instructions which he had not received. He saw it was an affair of great delicacy, and he did not see how they and we could enjoy a concurrent right of fishery on the same coast."

If the Tribunal please, Mr. Adams was negotiating with and talking with the Minister from France about the controversy that arose in 1822 on the coast of Newfoundland between the vessels of the United States and the French vessels, and the words in the British Case, "that the same map was made use of in subsequent negotiations," must be understood as referring to the subsequent negotiations in 1822 and 1824, and not to subsequent negotiations in 1818, because the diary of Mr. Adams shows what negotiation Mr. Adams was writing about.

Before passing to a consideration of the actions of the two Governments immediately after the making of the treaty, there is one matter brought into the discussion by the counsel for Great Britain, which should be cleared up, if possible. Sir Robert Finlay said at p. 59 of the report of his oral argument:

"From the year 1819 to 1836 there is a lull with regard to matters affecting this treaty of 1818. There are only two points which I shall notice in regard to the interval and they are both of considerable importance. The first relates to the sort of collision which took place in 1822 between the United States and France with regard to the exclusion by French vessels of United States fishermen from the bays on the west coast of Newfoundland over which the French, under their treaties with Great Britain, claimed exclusive rights. I shall refer to what took place then for the purpose of bringing out clearly what was the extent of the French claim, and the very strong assertions that were made by the United States with regard to the jurisdiction of the British in the waters on that western coast of Newfoundland. The second incident which I shall notice relates to a statement which was made in the argument of the United States to the effect that it is established by overwhelming evidence that the American fishermen, during these years before 1836, habitually fished in the Bay of Fundy, and that the British Government acquiesced in their doing so unless they came within 3 miles of land."

The distinguished counsel, as reported at p. 61, also said:

"The correspondence which ensued between the United States Government and the French Government will be found beginning at page 101 of the Appendix to the British Case. It extends from page 101 to page 113, and it is necessary, not to read that correspondence throughout, but to refer to it for the purpose of seeing the very strong assertions made by the United States as to the jurisdiction of Great Britain in the bays upon that coast."

The correspondence relating to this incident is printed in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, commencing on p. 105, and continuing through p. 129.

I have no intention of delaying the Tribunal for the purpose of analysing that evidence, and I shall be quite content to refer to one or two extracts which I respect fully submit are entirely conclusive as to what was the nature of the assertion of France, and as to what was done as between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States and as between France and the United States.

I submit that the correspondence, while showing that the vessels were fishing in the bays, Port-au-Port and Bay of Islands, which are under any theory territorial bays, and in two instances were fishing in St. George's Bay, conclusively establishes that the discussion involved the right of the United States vessels to fish on the entire west coast; and it is also apparent that when the words appearing on p. 128 of the United States Counter-Case Appendix "within the strictest territorial jurisdiction of the island" were used, the reference was to the waters lying within 3 marine miles of all that coast of Newfoundland.

694

This shows, I submit, that the vessels were fishing within the 3-mile limit, for in the note of Richard Rush, who, of course, will be remembered as one of the negotiators of the treaty of 1818, to Mr. Canning, dated the 3rd May, 1824, found on p. 127 of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, Mr. Rush states:

"After the ratification of the above convention, the fishermen of the United States proceeded, according to its stipulations, to take fish on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, between the limits of Cape Ray and the Quirpon Islands, as aforesaid; but, in the course of the years 1820 and 1821, whilst pursuing in a regular manner their right to fish within these limits, and being also within the strictest territorial jurisdiction of the island, these fishermen found themselves ordered away by the commanders of the armed vessels of France, on pain of seizure and confiscation of their fishing vessels."

The gist of this controversy is well stated in the 10th protocol of the Conference of the American and British Plenipotentiaries, held at the Board of Trade in London, the 29th March, 1824, found in the Appendix to the United States Counter-Case, commencing with p. 123 and continuing to p. 129.

In these protocols will be found a copy of the statement of Mr. Rush, embodying the claim of the United States.

I will read from the bottom of p. 124 of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, from a paper made a part of the 10th protocol of those conferences. The Tribunal undoubtedly recalls that these negotiations did not refer to the matters here in dispute, but to quite another matter.

"Finally, by the convention of October 20, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, it is provided, article first, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau islands, and on the western and northern coast from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands.' By the same convention the United States are allowed to dry and cure

« PreviousContinue »