ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1031 



where else, issued instructions to the Commissioners defining mari- 

 time jurisdiction. At that time, the Tribunal will recall, Europe 

 was in an agitated condition, and Lord Castlereagh at various times 

 went to the continent, and indeed he was compelled to go to the con- 

 tinent during the negotiations in 1818, and Lord Bathurst, in the 

 absence of Lord Castlereagh, issued the instructions to the Commis- 

 sioners at Ghent which I read to the Tribunal a short time since, in 

 which he stated that 



" until any arrangement shall be made to the contrary, the usual 

 maritime jurisdiction of one league shall be common to both con- 

 tracting parties." 



The United States respectfully submits that the evidence before 

 this Tribunal abundantly establishes that Great Britain, in the nego- 

 tiations prior to the treaty of 1818, was not asserting as against the 

 inhabitants of the United States, in respect of these fisheries, any 

 extended jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to her possessions in 

 North America. 



Taking up now the consideration of the circumstances and occa- 

 sions from which the differences, sought to be composed by the nego- 

 tiators of the treaty of 1818, arose, I refer first to the fact that there 

 were no " differences " between the two Governments, material to 

 this Question, between the signing of the treaty terminating the war 

 for independence and the close of the war of 1812. 



The differences arose out of the contention on behalf of Great 

 Britain after the close of the war of 1812, that the second part of 

 article 3 of the treaty of 1783 had been abrogated by the war of 1812, 

 while the United States claimed for its inhabitants the enjoyment of 

 all the rights and liberties previously enjoyed under the entire stipu- 

 lations of the 3rd article of the treaty of 1783. 



In order to make clear the "differences" to be adjusted between 

 the two Governments by the treaty of 1818, the terms of the treaty 

 of 1783 must be examined; and the rights of the two nations there- 

 under, and especially the claims put forward by each nation after 

 the war of 1812, must be understood. 



I shall not, Mr. President, delay long over the terms of this treaty 

 of 1783, because I know they are quite familiar to the Tribunal. I 

 shall content myself with reading but little, merely referring to the 

 points which I desire to emphasise. 



In the preliminary negotiations of 1782 in Paris, to terminate the 

 war for independence, the American Commissioners proposed a series 

 of articles, among which was one which appears on p. 217 of the 

 Appendix to the Case of the United States. 



Before considering this article, it will be recalled, of course, that 

 the preliminary treaty, as signed in 1782, became, without alteration, 



