15*22 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



econoini/.ed, if we are allowed to submit such views as it may be 

 our ilutv to maintain at the close instead of the advance of the exam- 

 ination of witnesses. 



As we understand the wish of both governments to be that the 

 whole discussion should be as frank and full as possible, it has occurred 

 to us that yon might be disposed to allow us to adopt such an arrange- 

 ment as would in our judgment best enable us to lay before you a com- 

 plete presentment of the opinions of the government we represent. And 

 we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel 

 on the other side of no advantage which they now possess. For, beside 

 the right to reply to the printed argument which they now have, we 

 would of course expect that they would also be allowed the right of 

 oral reply, if they desired to exercise it. 



An opening speech is not necessary, as the counsel on the other side 

 have shown, but it would be obviously improper to submit this Case 

 without a careful review of the testimony which will have been offered 

 on both sides; and this can be done with much more convenience and 

 thoroughness by an oral speech than by a written argument. To say 

 all that it may be our duty to say in a printed argument would be iui- 

 jwssible, without swelling it into a volume of unreadable proportions. 



It is our purpose to make the printed argument a complete but con- 

 cise summary of the contention, a clear statement of the principles in- 

 volved and the authorities referred to, accompanied by an analysis of 

 the leading facts of the testimony. This we can do, so as to make it an 

 efficient help to you in your own examinations of the case, if we are not 

 compelled to overload it with all the discussion which the evidence and 

 the case itself suggest, but which we could sufficiently dispose of in oral 

 argument. 



We would therefore request permission so to distribute the argument 

 on our side as to have the opportunity of submitting our views orally, 

 upon full comparison of all the testimony taken. It is no small induce- 

 ment to make this request that we believe that upon the close of the 

 testimony we will be able to dispense with much argument which we 

 can scarcely avoid in the present imperfect condition of the testimony. 

 Respect fully, 



RICHARD H. DANA, 

 WM. HENRY TRESCOT, 

 Counsel for United States. 



Mr. 1-osTKK said: As the motion just made involves a departure from 

 tbe course of procedure adopted by the Commission, to which I assented, 

 is proper that I should say a few words in reference to it. At the time 

 ule were adopted, the Commission certainly cannot forget the posi- 

 wnich I found myself placed. Contrary to my own expectations 

 the expectations of my government, the Commissioners decided to 

 ive participation in the conduct of the case of five counsel 

 the five maritime provinces. I came here expecting to meet 

 the Agent of the British Government, and suddenly found I was 

 " le . ade of tbe b r from the five provinces. I felt it 



' 



rt, t n . provinces. 



not to have five closing arguments against me. Now that' 

 nsel here to represent the United States as well as the 

 n , it seems to me reasonable that such a modification 

 should be made as will permit the services of the counsel 

 o li mn bro "^therein consequence of the decision of the Com- 

 bo made available to the greatest extent. While I should have 





