AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1523 



4 



been quite content to have discussed this matter in writing with the 

 British Agent, finding that I had to meet five counsel, my government 

 has been obliged to send counsel here, and it seems desirable that we 

 should be able to use them in the most efficient way. 



Then, again, the evidence has assumed a very wide range, and is 

 manifestly going to be conflicting to the last degree upon some of the 

 points, notably as to what proportion of the mackerel taken by the 

 American fishermen in British waters is taken within three miles of the 

 shore. On that subject there is going to be a very great conflict of evi- 

 dence. 1 don't believe that such a question can be satisfactorily discussed 

 either in advance of the reception of the testimony or in writing after it 

 is all in. It involves so much detail, that the writing, if laid before 

 you, would swell to a bulk that would be altogether unreasonable. I 

 therefore very strongly concur in the application that has been made. 



Mr. DOUTRE suggested that the British counsel should have time to 

 consider the matter before replying. 



Mr. FOSTER concurred, and said that was the reason the application 

 and the grounds of it had been put in writing. 



At the Conference held on Wednesday, August 28, 1877. 



Mr. THOMSON. An application was yesterday made to the Commis- 

 sion. 1 was not present at the time, but I have seen the written prop- 

 osition, and I understand that it was an application made to your ex- 

 cellency and your honors for the purpose of altering the rules. On 

 behalf of Her Majesty's Government 1 am also now speaking the mind 

 of the minister of marine I may say that these rules have been sol- 

 emnly entered into. We have acted upon them from the commence- 

 ment to the end so far as we have gone, but still we have no desire 

 that our friends on the other side should be deprived of any right which 

 they think they ought fairly to have in order to bring their cases before 

 this tribunal. We, however, certainly deprecate any alteration of the 

 rules; and we feel that we are just in this position. During all this 

 time that we have been examining our witnesses, we did so under the 

 ,idea that the rules would remain as they were engrossed. It is impor- 

 tant, we think, in such an inquiry as this, that these rules should be rig- 

 idly adhered to, unless there be some very important reason why they 

 should be deviated from. I confess, speaking for myself, that I hardly 

 see the force of the reasons advanced in favor of the proposed change 

 on behalf of the United States Government. They say that their argu- 

 ments, if placed on paper, would be so bulky as to fill a large volume. 

 Possibly that may be so ; but still that is rather more complimentary to 

 their powers of discursiveness than anything else; and they accompany 

 this expression of opinion with the statement that they wish to be 

 heard orally at great length. I presume that this will all be reported 

 by the short-hand writers, and in the shape of a lengthy volume it will 

 meet the eyes of the Commissioners ; soldo not see how this bulky 

 volume is in any way to be escaped. Nevertheless, as I said before, we 

 are not desirous to object to our friends on the other side taking this 

 course in order to fairly bring the merits of their case before the tri- 

 bunal, if they so think ^fit. We, therefore, are willing that they shall, 

 if they please, be heard orally at the close of the evidence on both sides; 

 but we submit and we trust that in this respect there can be no differ- 

 ence of opinion that your excellency and your honors will not make 

 any deviation from the rule which requires our friends on the opposite 



