143 QUESTION SEVEN. 



COMMEBCIAL PRIVILEGES. 



Are the inhabitants of the United States whose vessels resort to 

 the^ treaty coasts for the purpose of exercising the liberties referred 

 to in article 1 of the treaty of 1818 entitled to have for those vessels, 

 when^ duly authorised ~by the United States in that behalf, the com- 

 mercial^ privileges on the treaty coasts accorded by agreement or 

 otherwise to United States trading vessels generally? 



SCOPE OF THE QUESTION. 



In the discussions which have taken place on this subject, attempts 

 have been made by the United States to support the claim to com- 

 mercial privileges upon various grounds: the treaty of 1818; the 

 reciprocal arrangements of 1830; the treaty of 1871; the comity of 

 nations. But the question referred to the Tribunal is now agreed, 

 by both sides, to be confined to the treaty of 1818. The position of 

 the United States is stated in their Case in the following terms 

 (United States Case, p. 249) : 



" The position of the United States with reference to Question 7 

 is that it is raised only in relation to the provisions of Article I of 

 the treaty of 1818, which this Tribunal is called upon to interpret, 

 and that, so far as such provisions bear upon the question, the in- 

 habitants of the United States, whose vessels resort to the treaty 

 coasts for the purpose of exercising the liberties referred to in Article 

 I aforesaid, are entitled to have for those vessels, when duly author- 

 ized by the United States in that behalf, the commercial privileges 

 on the treaty coasts accorded by agreement or otherwise to United 

 States trading vessels generally; and the United States requests the 

 Tribunal to answer and decide this Question accordingly." 



The question, therefore, is agreed to be, Whether by reason of the 

 treaty of 1818. United States fishing-vessels are entitled, upon the 

 treaty coasts, to the commercial privileges which by agreement or 

 otherwise are accorded to United States trading- vessels ? 



The United States Counter-Case, however, itself supplies 



144 the answer to this question, and does away with the necessity 

 for further argument. On p. 105 there is the following 



admission (United States Counter- Case, p. 105) : 



" It is agreed on both sides that Article I of that treaty relates to 

 fishing, and not to commercial privileges ; and the United States does 

 not claim that the treaty of 1818 confers general commercial privi- 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-8, vol 8 26 125 



