ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1315 



" My Lord : I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your 

 despatch of the 8th of June last." 



793 I am reading from the United States Case Appendix, at 

 p. 801 where this extract on p. 194 of the United States Argu- 

 ment is given in full. I am reading the two lines which precede the 

 extract in the United States Argument: 



" I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch 

 of the 8th of June last, and to acquaint you that "- 



Then commences the extract: 



" Her Majesty's Government observe with satisfaction the amend- 

 ments which have been made in the Customs Circular No. 371 and 

 in the warning to be given to the United States' fishing vessels fre- 

 quenting the waters of Canada." 



The insertion of the earlier words shows the date of the document 

 that I have already referred to, the 8th of June, and if those words 

 had been in the United States Argument they would have shown 

 that the protest set out in the former part of that page, which is 

 dated the 14th of June, could not have anything to do with the altera- 

 tion which appears between the quotations. 



The members of the Tribunal will observe, on p. 194 of the Argu- 

 ment, that Mr. Bayard at the top addressed a note to the British 

 Minister on June the 14th. The quotation I have just made expresses 

 Lord Granville's satisfaction at the amendment, but that satisfaction 

 was because of what had been done on the 8th of June. That fact 

 would have appeared, if the whole of Lord Granville's letter had 

 been set out; and we would have then observed, at once, that the 

 protest of the 14th June had nothing whatever to do with the amend- 

 ment which immediately follows it. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: What do you mean when you say 

 " with the amendment which immediately follows it " ? 



MR. EWART : That immediately follows it on p. 194. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: The amendment had actually been 

 made on the 8th of June previous ? 



MR. EWART : Yes. 



THE PRESIDENT: The protest which was the subject of the com- 

 munication of the 14th June had not been referred to in any prior 

 communication ? 



MR. EWART : No, Sir, it was a separate thing altogether, resulting 

 from a seizure on the old headland idea, or what was supposed to be 

 the old headland idea, and the seizure was at once repudiated, as may 

 be seen by United States Case Appendix, p. 823. That is all of 

 that correspondence. 



THE PRESIDENT : And the note of the 29th May, or any other note 

 prior to the 8th June, does not refer to that matter? 



