106 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



of the same vessel for trading and for fishing purposes, in relation 

 to the enjoyment of any commercial privileges which are now ac- 

 corded to trading vessels generally. 



As understood on the part of the United States, therefore, the 

 Question which the Tribunal is called upon to determine is whether 

 or not Article I of this treaty should be interpreted as meaning that 

 the use by the inhabitants of the United States of their vessels for 

 fishing under the treaty prevents them from having for those vessels 

 the commercial privileges accorded by agreement or otherwise to trad- 

 ing vessels generally, when the vessels so used are duly authorized 

 by the United States in that behalf. 



The British Case seems to concur in this view as to the scope and 

 meaning of this Question, except that it discusses the exercise of com- 

 mercial privileges by American fishing vessels, instead of by the in- 

 habitants of the United States, the British contention being " that 

 the exercise of commercial privileges by American fishing vessels 

 would be contrary to the intention of that treaty." 



The United States, on the other hand, contends that the exercise 

 of commercial privileges, whether by American fishing vessels or by 

 the inhabitants of the United States using such vessels for trading 

 purposes, when duly authorized by the United States in that behalf, 

 would not be contrary to the intention of the treaty. 



The position of the United States. 



With this view of the scope and meaning of this Question, it is 

 unnecessary for the United States to show what commercial privi- 

 leges have been accorded by agreement or otherwise to trading or 

 fishing vessels of the United States; and, as the evidence presented 

 in the British Case relates wholly to that subject, and the greater 

 part of such evidence applies to it in relation to the non-treaty coasts 

 in distinction from the treaty coasts, which alone are referred to in 

 this Question, it is unnecessary to examine such evidence. 



It is expressly recognized in the British Case that " in terms the 

 Question stated for the opinion of the Tribunal relates only to the 

 treaty coast " ; a and, if the discussion of this Question is to be con- 

 fined within its proper limits, it is desirable that its application to 

 the treaty coasts, in distinction from the non-treaty coasts, should 

 be borne in mind. 



British Case, p. 127. 



