262 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



If vessels exclusively used in trade were intended, then the word 

 " generally " is unnecessary, and the question should have read 

 " accorded by agreement or otherwise to vessels engaged only in 

 trade." 



This is the exact language in which the British Counter Case 

 erroneously puts the Question. It is not the language or the sub- 

 stance of the language of the Question. Nevertheless it seems to 

 have been thought necessary thus to transform the Question, as indeed 

 it is, in order to maintain the British contention. No such absurdity 

 is presented for determination. This transformation is not merely 

 begging the question, it is annihilating it. 



It may be noticed in passing, that the Order in Council of 1830, giv- 

 ing effect to these reciprocal arrangements, did not give them to 

 "American trading vessels " as summarized in the British Case, 6 but 

 provided, as there quoted 



that the ships of and belonging to the said United States of America 

 may import from the United States aforesaid, into the British posses- 

 sions abroad, goods, the produce of those States; and may export 

 goods from the British possessions abroad to be carried to any foreign 

 country whatever. 



The order in council nowhere mentioned " trading vessels," but 

 " ships of the United States " are four times mentioned and " vessels 

 of the United States " once. 



Furthermore, President Jackson's proclamation of October 5, 1830, 

 pursuant to the Act of Congress of May 29, 1830, opened the ports of 

 the United States " to British vessels coming from the said British 

 colonial possessions," and their cargoes. Both the act and the proc- 

 lamation repeatedly used the words "British vessels" and "vessels 

 of the United States," and the proclamation recited that satisfactory 

 evidence 



has been received by the President of the United States that * * * 

 the Government of Great Britain will open for an indefinite period 

 the ports in its Colonial possessions * * * to the vessels of the 

 United States and their cargoes. 



There is no limitation of vessels to those of a particular class, and 

 no intimation, for example, that an American vessel authorized to 

 trade as well as fish might not sail directly from the fishing grounds 



British Counter Case, 61. c British Case, Appendix, 670-571. 



* British Case, 129, 130. 



