QUESTION ONE. 41 



As has already been shown in detail, American fishermen were 

 uniformly held to be subject to the local regulations; and that they 

 were so subject was explicitly recognized in Mr. Marcy's circular. 

 (Ante, p. 28.) 



THE ST. LAWRENCE. 



Navigation Regulations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On account 

 of their ownership of territory abutting on a part of the River St. 

 Lawrence, the United States always claimed a natural right to navi- 

 gation of that part of the river between them and the sea, and finally 

 a certain right was conceded to them. But the United States never 

 asserted that the natural right which they claimed exempted their 

 vessels from amenability to the local regulations as to navigation. 



TREATY OF 1871. 



Again, section 27 of the Washington treaty of 1871, between Great 

 Britain and the United States, provided for the use by citizens of 

 the United States 



of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Domin- 

 46 ion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Domin- 

 ion; and the Government of the United States engages that 

 the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the 

 St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of 

 the United States. 



But it has never been contended that citizens of either country 

 were to be exempt from the local laws of the other country when 

 within its territory. No one has suggested that "on terms of 

 equality" (similar in meaning to the words "in common" in the 

 treaty under discussion) meant that although the citizens of both 

 countries were subject to law when at home, they were free from law 

 when abroad. 



ARGUMENT. 



The true construction of the treaty of 1818 is opposed to the con- 

 tention of the United States. The terms of article one are not am- 

 biguous: they give certain definite liberties, and they give nothing 

 more. There is no suggestion of any exemption from British juris- 

 diction, nor is there any expression in that article, or any other 

 article, which in any way points to such a construction. If it had 

 been intended to derogate from British sovereignty, express pro- 

 visions would have been introduced, such, for instance, as are to be 

 found in the treaties with Eastern Powers which confer extra- 

 territorial rights. 



Not only are there no express words in article one to limit British 

 vereignty, but the terms of the article are inconsistent with any 





