VfJ,- VrJ-^T'T-?!? 



I'fi 



! I{ 



w 



and llicn to make n f;;cnprnl docision, the rcsn'.l of wliicli renders it impossilil • ( v( r 

 to aseeit;iin whetlu'r tlu; trilxir.al acted upon tl'e assiiniption tliat il iiad, or had 

 not, jurisdiction over the controverted part of tl.o case, would he the extremity of 

 injustice. 



ir an award were to be made under such circumstances, nobody ever would know 

 whether it embraced the matter respecting Which jurisdiction was denied or not. 

 In illustration I may mention the Gene. i^ Arbitration. Suppose that it had gone 

 forward, without any declaration by the .Arbitrators, that they excluded the indirect 

 losses, and then suppose that a round suni had been awarded, would not (ireat 

 Britain have had a right to assume that this round sum included the indirect claims, 

 to which it never meant to submit? So will it i»c nere; unless tliere is placed u|)on 

 record the rulin}; of the Commissioners as to this point, it never will be possible for 

 us to know, or for the world to know, upon what ground you have proceeded ; 

 whether you believe that we are to pay for commercial intercourse or not. No one 

 will know how this is, unless upon our motion you decide one way <;r the other. For 

 our assistance then in conducting the case, for convenience, and for the information 

 of our respective Governments, we ask you to make this decision ; ai^d it is entirely 

 obvious that if no decision is made, it must necessarily be assumed thaf these con- 

 troverted claims are by you deemed to be a just ground of award. We i.vver can 

 know the contrary, unless you say so ; and if you are to say so, we chink that 

 convenience and justice both require that you should say so at such an Cujiy 

 day as to enable us to shape the conduct of our case in conformity with your 

 decision. 



Afr. Thomson. — I would like to know whether anything more is to be said on the 

 subject by our learned friends opposite. 



Mr. Foster. — We understand tiiat, as is the case jn coniu'ction with evory 

 other motion, the party moving has the rigiit, in this instance, to open and cloie the 

 argument. 



Mr. Thomson. — I make this observation sim[)ly because, in tlie course of the 

 American Agent's remarks, he said that Mr. Trescot had t;ivcn particular attention 

 to the Treaties, and hence I assumed that he was ai)out to bo followed by 

 Mr. Trescot. It would be obviously unjust to the counsel acting- on behalf of Her 

 Majesty's Government if they should now be called upon to answer the argument 

 that has been made without hearing all that Is really to be said on the other side. 

 1 uiidcrstand that the other side have an undoubted right to reply to anything 

 whieii we may sav, but if Mr. Trescot is afterwards to start a new argument, as I 

 rather infer from Mr. Foster's remarks he will do, this might put another phase on 

 the matter. 



Mr. Trescot. — As 1 understand the position taken by Mr. I'oster, it is very plain, 

 and stated with all the fulness and precision necessary, lie takes the ground that 

 tiie coniniercial relations between Great Britain and the United States stand either 

 on oifiiiiary international comity or upon Treaty regulations. If upon the latter, 

 thi n iliey rest upon the Treaty of 1794, the third permanent Article of which did 

 <ielenninc the commercial relations which were to exist between the United States 

 and tlie liritish North American Colonies, because in ISl.'i the Commercial Conven- 

 tion, then adopted and extended in 1815 and 1827, renewed that Article, even if it 

 slioiild Ik- contended, as I think it never has been before by the British Government, 

 that tlie permanent Articles of the Treaty of 1794 were abrogated by the war of 

 1812. Tiie negotiators of the Convention of 1815 took the llird Article of the 

 Treaty of 1794 as a basis, but not being able to agree as to certain modifications, 

 decided to omit the Article, and to declare that: "The intercourse between the 

 United States and His Britannic Majesty's possessions in the West Indies and on 

 the Continent of North America shall not be affected by any of the provisions of 

 this Article [i.e., the Article of the Convention of 1815 in reference to the com- 

 mercial relations between the United States and the possessions of His Britannic 

 Majesty in F]uro|)e], but ^ach party shall remain in the complete possession of its rights 

 viith respect to such intercourse," those rights being, as we contend, the old rights 

 L-stablislied by the Treaty of 1816. But the question has not a very important 

 •jt-aiing upon our present contention, and has been suggested simply in reply to 

 what we understand is to be one of the positions on the other side, viz., that 

 if we deny that commercial privileges were granted by the Treaty of 1871, and 

 are not therefore proper subjects of compensation in tliis award, then we have 

 no right wlia'over to these commercial privileges; and I can say in reply to the 

 \ery proper in(jui!y of my friend Mr, Thomson, that in any remarks I may make 



P 



