14 AEGUMENT OF GEEAT BRITAIN. 



The objections to this contention have been already intimated. 

 They are fully discussed in the British Counter-Case (pages 7 to 23), 

 to which the Tribunal is respectfully referred. In short they are as 

 follows : 



(a.) It is impossible that the United States could have claimed 

 joint-ownership in the British coast-fisheries. The ownership was in 

 the British Crown and not in the inhabitants of the various parts of 

 His Majesty's Dominions. Moreover, if any ownership of that kind 

 could ever have been asserted, (and His Majesty's Government are 

 unable to imagine any grounds on which such a right could possibly 

 be based,) it is clear that the inhabitants of the United States had 

 debarred themselves from any claim to it. Six years before the 

 negotiations for the treaty they had separated themselves from Great 

 Britain and withdrawn themselves from British connection. 

 16 Any rights which " in common " with other British subjects 

 the inhabitants of the American colonies enjoyed in respect of 

 these fisheries necessarily ceased when they ceased to be British 

 subjects. (United States Case, p. 7.) 



(b.) No such claim was ever urged in 1782-3. 



The United States Congress made no such claim. On the contrary, 

 the resolutions of Congress are absolutely inconsistent with the 

 existence of any such claim. (British Counter- Case, pp. 8-15.) 



The United States negotiators made no such claim. They asked 

 for the concession of the fisheries not 3<= a matter of right, but on 

 grounds which are wholly, inconsistent with any claim of right. 

 (British Counter-Case, p. 16.) 



The correspondence between the peace Commissioners and their 

 respective Governments, the journal of Dr. Franklin (one of the 

 United States Commissioners), and the more complete diary of Mr. 

 John Adams (another of the United States Commissioners) demon- 

 strate, by the complete absence from them of all reference to parti- 

 tion, that the idea of it had not occurred to anyone engaged in the 

 negotiations. (British Counter-Case, App., pp. 28-116.) 



(<?.) The general form of the treaty and of the preliminary arti- 

 cles is absolutely inconsistent with any idea of joint ownership. In 

 form, they constitute a relinquishment by the King of England of 

 his claim to the territory of the thirteen States. And they are 

 framed on the obvious assumption that his sovereignty over the 

 remaining British possessions in America remains unaffected by the 

 war or by the treaty. (British Counter-Case, pp. 19-20.) 



(d.) The wording of the clause referring to the fishing liberties 

 shows that they were a grant from Great Britain, and not a mere 

 acknowledgment of property already belonging to the United States. 



The distinction between the words used in the treaty which relate 

 to the sea-fisheries, and those which relate to the shore fisheries and 



