126 ARGUMENT OF GBEAT BRITAIN. 



leges on the treaty coasts upon the inhabitants of the United States, 

 or upon their vessels, whether they are trading or fishing vessels." 



It is admitted, therefore, that Question 7 relates only to the con- 

 struction of article 1 of the treaty, and that article 1 does not confer 

 the rights which have been claimed by the United States. 



On these admissions the Tribunal is asked to give judgment in 

 favour of Great Britain, and to answer the question referred to them 

 in the negative. 



NEW QUESTION PROPOSED BY UNITED STATES. 



The United States now desire to refer another and a different ques- 

 tion to the Tribunal. In its Counter-Case it says (United States 

 Counter-Case, p. 106) : 



"As understood on the part of the United States, therefore, the 

 Question which the Tribunal is called upon to determine is whether 

 or not Article I of this treaty should be interpreted as meaning that 

 the use by the inhabitants of the United States of their vessels for 

 fishing under the treaty prevents them from having for those vessels 

 the commercial privileges accorded by agreement or otherwise to 

 trading vessels generally, when the vessels so used are duly author- 

 ized by the United States in that behalf." 



It is not alleged that any right exists to these privileges under 

 any other convention or agreement. It follows, therefore, from the 

 admission that the treaty of 1818 confers no privileges, that the 

 grant of them is a matter for Great Britain to concede or withhold 

 at her pleasure. 



The question submitted to the Tribunal by the treaty of arbitra- 

 tion is, whether Americans are " entitled " to certain privileges, that 

 is, whether the treaty confers any right to those privileges. The 

 question which the United States desire to substitute is, whether 

 the treaty so operates as to prevent Americans from having certain 

 privileges, if Great Britain should choose to grant them. 



There is nothing in the treaty which would prevent Great Britain 

 from opening her colonial ports for commercial purposes to Ameri- 

 cans fishing under the treaty if she should so elect; on the other 

 hand, she is under no obligation to do so. Indeed, if there were an 

 express clause of prohibition in the treaty there would equally 

 145 be nothing to prevent Great Britain waiving the benefit of it, 

 if she should so desire. The matter is one wholly within her 

 discretion, and is for her alone to decide. 



But His Majesty's Government have to point out that this is not 

 a question which has been referred to this Tribunal, or, indeed, 

 which could be so referred. There is no point of law or of fact 

 in dispute, and His Majesty's Government protests against any 



