264 THE ARGUMENT OP THE UNITED STATES. 



is not in accordance with the tenour of the treaty," and fails again 

 to state any grounds upon which that contention can be based. It 

 entirely ignores the language of the Question and wins a bloodless 

 victory over an antagonist of straw. It lays stress on the first pro- 

 posal of the American negotiators of the treaty of 1818, that the pur- 

 chase of bait should be included with the privilege of seeking shelter 

 and of procuring wood and water, forgetting that those privileges 

 were sought on the non-treaty coasts only. It ignores the statement 

 of the British Case concerning the commercial privileges accorded 

 in 1830 and also ignores the long-continued existence and develop- 

 ment of commercial intercourse between the United States and the 

 colonies, and assumes that " commercial privileges on the treaty coasts 

 accorded by agreement or otherwise " must refer solely to an agree- 

 ment contained in that treaty which makes no reference to commer- 

 cial privileges. 



The United States does not concur in any such statement of the 

 Question. 



THE REAL ISSUE HTVOLVED. 



From the foregoing consideration and analysis of the positions 

 taken by the United States and Great Britain in their respective sub- 

 missions of this Question, it is apparent that its scope and meaning 

 have become the principal subjects of controversy. If the United 

 States were to adopt the construction urged by Great Britain, either 

 as originally presented in the Case or as modified by the Counter 

 Case, the Question would not require an international tribunal to 

 decide it. The United States has never claimed, as suggested by 

 Great Britain, and does not now claim, that Article I of the treaty of 

 1818, conferred general commercial privileges. No evidence has been 

 laid before the Tribunal, which, directly or inferentially, can be con- 

 strued into an assertion by the Government of the United States of 

 such a position, which would remove the subject from the field of 

 controversy. It is unreasonable to presume that a question, based 

 upon such premises, would have been presented to this Tribunal. 



The meaning of the Question, as understood by the United States, 

 raises an issue as to whether there is anything in the treaty of 1818, 

 which justifies Great Britain in discriminating against the use, by 

 inhabitants of the United States, of the same vessel for trading and 

 for fishing purposes. 



