Original citizens of United States even if domiciled, if not naturalized, in Great Britain, not persons for whom that nation can make reclamation.... Authorities in British Argument analyzed Such citizens still owe allegiance to sovereign claims and extraterritorial laws of United States... Nation of domicile can not make reclamation against country of original allegiance for injuries suffered in violating such THE CLAIMS HERE NOT CLAIMS OF NATION VESSELS-REGISTRY AND FLAG NOT MATERIAL HERE.. VESSELS-NATIONALITY FOLLOWS OWNERSHIP, NOT OWNER- Registry by British and American authorities not conclu- sive against anyone except person securing it. It is a municipal regulation only... Authorities in British argument analyzed. Registry, not effective like a "sea letter" or "ship's pass". ARGUMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES IN REPLY. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. In submitting their views to the High Commission, in reply to the argument presented in behalf of Great Britain, the undersigned will, for the purposes of orderly and convenient comparison, pursue as nearly as may be the nomenclature and sequence of subjects as found in the British argument. The counsel of the United States conceive that when their country comes to this place of justice, set up in a common spirit of good will and friendship by these two great nations of equal dignity and equal self-respect, it should find that spirit abiding and manifest not only at the altar but in all the ministers of the temple. They assert before the Tribunal at the outset, that no juridical purpose can be served, either by way of interpretation of its organic law and rule of actionthe Convention of 1896-or of its enlightment on the questions of liability or compensation presented at its bar, by imputations upon the good faith of the United States, insinuations against the truthfulness of their ministers, and charges of wantonness and evil motive against the Government. These pervade the argument of Great Britain from its introduction until the close of its general discussion. They are statements of prominent and impressive irrelevance. They are at war with the spirit of arbitration, and the tendency of their influence is against the general acceptance of that policy for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, through courts of conciliation, which is said by good men of all nations to be the universal desire of advanced humanity and the highest civilization. There has been, doubtless, some progress toward the accomplishment of that wish, so vigorously professed by some, and so sincerely felt by others. However that may be, the annals of forensic and even of judicial discussion in courts of international arbitration within the past three and a half decades have certainly not furnished impulse to the movement. To all who have faith in, and who invoke its successful issue, such annals seem to teach the lesson that in our debates in these temples of peace the advocates of both nations might with profit more often have recourse to the gentler lexicons of war. The tradition of Fontenoy furnishes a better guide for the exchange of views between nations met together in courts of conciliation and judgment than some of their recorded precedents.* We shall submit later on, when we take up the subject of the interpretation of the treaty and convention, that the correspondence between the Governments, fragments of which are referred to and commented on in the British argument under the caption "Introductory," is entirely irrelevant here. It was all conducted, and relates to a period prior to the treaty of Washington of February 29, 1892, under which the Paris Tribunal afterwards sat and made its award, and, of course, many years prior to the treaty or convention under which this Commission sits. *See Geneva Arb., vol. 2, p. 203; Id., vol. 3, p. 48x; vol. 4, p. 12, sec. 7. Papers, Treaty of Washington. |