1428 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



I say down to the delivery of the Case, because it is completely 

 abandoned in the United States Argument. It was very conspicuous 

 in the Case and all its features were elaborated there with care. Not 

 only was the theory itself advanced at pp. 9, 10 and 26; but the two 

 other points that are necessary to its application to the present con- 

 troversy were also elaborated. It was necessary not only to show 

 the character of the treaty of 1783 that it was a continuation of 

 liberties which had existed previous to the treaty it was also neces- 

 sary, in order to its application to the present controversy, that it 

 should be proven that those liberties survived the treaty of 1812; 

 and it was further necessary to identify the liberties of the treaty of 

 1818 with the liberties of 1783. With the help of these three points 

 the argument was made that the liberties which existed prior to 1783 

 continued, notwithstanding the war, after the treaty of 1818. These 

 two subsequent points, therefore, are fully dealt with in the United 

 States Case : the question of the effect of the war upon the treaty of 

 1783 most fully at pp. 14 to 22, at p. 26, and at p. 27; and that the 

 liberties of 1818 were identical with those of 1783, was dealt with at 

 pp. 60 to 65 of the United States Case. That is now all useless; it 

 has been abandoned, and the United States Argument 



DR. DRAGO: Will you allow me? 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir. 



DR. DRAGO : If you please, will you read the last sentence on p. 26 

 of the United States Case, which refers to the theory of partition? 



MR. EWART: "The Tribunal is not called" Is that it? 



DR. DRAGO : Yes. 



MR. EWART: 



" The Tribunal is not called upon to decide the issue presented in 

 that controversy or to pass upon the merits of the arguments, the 

 questions involved having been laid at rest by the subsequent treaty 

 of 1818; nevertheless the respective positions of the two Govern- 

 ments in the controversy have an important bearing upon the true 

 interpretation of the treaty of 1818." 



DR. DRAGO: Well, I should think that has been the position of 

 the United States from the beginning, on this theory of parti- 

 tion 



863 MR. EWART: Yes, Sir. They say that the Tribunal is not 

 called upon to pass upon the merits of the controversy between 

 Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst ; and 



" nevertheless the respective positions of the two governments in the 

 controversy have an important bearing upon the true intepretation 

 of the treaty of 1818." 



DR. DRAGO: And that discussion referred to the theory of parti- 

 tion? 



