THE COUNTER-CASE OF HIS BRITANNIC 

 MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT. 



INTRODUCTION. 



In the Case presented on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment, an endeavour has been made to marshal the facts bearing on 

 each of the questions referred to the Tribunal, and to state in a clear 

 form the British contentions with an outline of the arguments by 

 which they are supported. 



The Case of the United States (p. 6) is framed on different lines. 

 It gives a summary of the events which led up to the treaty of 1818, 

 and a history of the transactions between the parties since that time, 

 but the reasons and grounds on which the position of the United 

 States is sought to be sustained are not specified. There is some 

 general comment in the course of the historical summary, but there 

 is nowhere any clear indication of the grounds on which reliance is 

 placed. Indeed it is stated, in the opening chapter, that this will be 

 deferred until the later stage, when written and oral arguments are 

 addressed to the Tribunal. 



It is not possible to deal with the contentions of the United States 

 until they are formulated in a definite way, and it is therefore pro- 

 posed in this Counter-Case to offer some observations of a general 

 character only, in reply to the Case of the United States, and to 



discuss some of the questions of fact raised in it. 

 2 His Majesty's Government desires to submit to the Tribunal 



two points by way of introduction to this Counter-Case : 



1. The questions referred to the Tribunal must be determined by 

 the terms of the treaty of 1818. There has been much discussion 

 during the ninety years that have elapsed since its date, and a con- 

 siderable portion of the Cases presented by the two Governments is 

 occupied by an examination of the correspondence which has 

 passed between them. These matters cannot be put altogether out 

 of consideration, but the construction of the treaty must primarily 

 depend on the language used in it, and the meaning of that language 

 cannot be altered by diplomatic correspondence of a later date. So 

 far as the correspondence can legitimately be looked at, His Majesty's 

 Government submits that it bears out the meaning which, upon the 



l 



