88 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The United States submits, quoting from its Counter Case, that " the 

 Question certainly does not ask whether there is anything in the 

 treaty requiring or authorizing British subjects to engage themselves 

 as members of the fishing crews of the inhabitants of the United 

 States, if they are prohibited or even if they are not prohibited from 

 so doing by British laws, which is all that is involved in the British 

 contention above set forth." 



There is a suggestion in the British Case that the United States 

 appears to contend that inhabitants of Newfoundland may take em- 

 ployment on American fishing vessels and that any prohibition 

 against their doing so is a breach of the treaty. In reply to this 

 suggestion it is sufficient to say that, whatever the views of the 

 United States may be upon the subject, no such contention is pre- 

 sented by it in this case, because it is not embraced within the sub- 

 mission by which this Tribunal is bound. The question is not in the 

 case, and is only suggested in the British Case as a possible conten- 

 tion of the United States, and there is, therefore, no occasion to 

 discuss it in this argument. 



ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION IN THE BRITISH CASE AS TO THE IN- 

 TENTION OF THE NEGOTIATORS. 



The two Governments did not enter into the treaty of 1818 for 

 the benevolent purpose suggested in the British Case, namely, to 

 give occupation to American fishermen who would otherwise suffer 

 for bread. Nor was it the purpose of Great Britain in entering 

 into the treaty to foster in the United States " a race of seamen 

 conducive to the national riches in peace and to defense and glory 

 in war." On the contrary, the correspondence which preceded the 

 making of the treaty shows that whatever was the motive of the 

 United States, the motive of Great Britain was wholly economic and 

 in accord with the policy, which she has so long and so successfully 

 pursued, of making treaty engagements which will develop markets 

 in other countries for her manufactured articles. Any construction 

 of the treaty, therefore, based upon the fictitious motives for making 

 it, which are stated in the British Case, would proceed on false pre- 

 mises and lead to erroneous conclusions. 



U. S. Counter Case, 46. 



