ARGUMENT OP JOHN S. EWART. 1361 



I now, Sirs, intend to take up Question No. 7. I shall not dwell 

 long upon it. 



In the first place I shall read quotations from the United States 

 Counter-Case and Argument to show the scope of the contest. I 

 refer, in the first place, to the United States Counter-Case at p. 105, 

 in the middle of the page: 



"This Question, like all the other Questions presented in the 

 Special Agreement under which this Arbitration is held, is raised 

 only in relation to the provisions of Article 1 of the Treaty of 1818, 

 which this Tribunal is called upon to interpret." 



During the discussion which preceded this reference attempts were 

 made to base the claims of the United States upon two other grounds. 

 First, what are called the " arrangements " of 1830 the reciprocal 

 " arrangements " of 1830 a proclamation issued by the President 

 of the United States, and an Order-in-Council adopted by the Brit- 

 ish Government. 



These are not in the form of a treaty, and there is nothing binding 

 upon either side in respect of them. They were issued and adopted 

 in pursuance of an understanding that that would be done; but there 

 is no treaty, and there is, in respect of them, no treaty right. 



The second ground upon which the claim of the United States was 

 sometimes based was section 29 of the treaty of 1871. 



I merely mention these two points for the purpose of excluding 

 them, and of saying that according to the United States interpreta- 

 tion of this question (which is the same as ours) that it is raised 

 only in relation to the provision of article 1 of the treaty of 1818. 

 Being thus raised only in connection with that treaty, the next sen- 

 tence to the one which I have just read seems to dispose of 

 the question : 



" It is agreed on both sides that Article I of that treaty relates to 

 fishing, and not to commercial privileges ; and the United States does 

 not claim that the treaty of 1818 confers general commercial priv- 

 ileges on the treaty coasts upon the inhabitants of the United States, 

 or upon their vessels, whether they are trading or fishing vessels." 



That is repeated at p. 62. I need not read it. 



It would seem, therefore, that if the United States is entitled to 

 any such commercial privileges, it must be by virtue of some subse- 

 quent action ; but the United States has indicated that these subse- 

 quent treaties or subsequent arrangements are not a subject of dis- 

 cussion, and I wish to make that clear to the Tribunal. The sentence 

 which follows that which I have just read is this: 



" The Question under consideration assumes that commercial privi- 

 leges on the treaty coasts are now accorded, by agreement or other- 

 wise, to United States trading vessels generally; but it does not ask 

 what these privileges are, or by what agreement or otherwise they 



