1524 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



side at tbo close of their case, to file their written argument, if they 

 intend at all so to do. We contend that it would be entirely at vari- 

 ance with the whole spirit with which this inquiry has been conducted 

 that tliev should, after making their speech, call upon us, if we please 

 to make' a speech in answer, to make it, and that they then should file 

 their written arguments. Such a course would wholly displace the 

 position which we occupy before this tribunal. Great Britain stands 

 here as the plaintiff, and the ordinary rule in courts of common law is 

 this: That the plaintiff, after a short opening of his case, calls wit- 

 nesses, as wo have, and at the close of the plaintiff's case the defend- 

 ant, after a short opening of his case, also calls witnesses; the respect- 

 ive counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff then make their closing 

 arguments; after which the case is submitted to the jury by the judge. 

 This is the course followed ; and, therefore, while we are willing, if it is 

 really thought necessary by my learned friends so to proceed, that they 

 should have the right to close their case by arguments in writing, or 

 verbally and in writing, yet if they close verbally and then wish to put 

 in a written argument, that must be done at once ; and we, if we so 

 please, will then answer them verbally or in writing, as we like, or in 

 both ways. I confess, speaking from the stand-point of counsel, that so 

 far as I 'have a voice in the matter, I rather reluctantly agreed to this, 

 because I think that these rules were formally framed; and, in reality, 

 the proposition that the case should be conducted by written agreement 

 came from the learned Agent of the United States, if I understand 

 rightly, and we acceded to it, and entirely on that basis we have con- 

 ducted the whole of our case. Still, I say again, that we will meet our 

 friends half way. 



Mr. TKESCOT. I suggest that my friend's proposition is an attempt 

 at meeting by proceeding half-way in different directions; the trouble 

 is that our half-ways do not meet at all. I am not sure that I under- 

 stood my friend exactly, but as I understand him, he claims the right 

 of two replies ; that is, the right to reply to our oral argument and then 

 the right to reply to the printed argument, to which we have no ob- 

 jection. 



Air. THOMSON. I said we would reply to your two arguments, oral 

 and written. 



Mr. TKESCOT. If you mean that we are to make an oral argument, 

 and that if you do not want to make an oral argument you shall not be 

 obliged to do so, I have no objection. 



Mr. THOMPSON. I suppose that we will exercise our pleasure regard- 

 ing that matter. 



Mr. TKESCOT. If we make an oral argument, they have the right to 

 reply. If, then, we give a printed argument, they have the same right 

 to tile a printed argument in reply ; their relation to us in the case is pre- 

 Heryed throughout. My friend refers to the character of the case, and 

 taking into consideration not only the character of the case, but of the 

 parties of the court before which we are, I may even venture to say of 

 the counsel engaged, I do not think we ought to proceed in the spirit of 

 a nm jtrnix trial. Your judgment certainly cannot be prejudiced by a 

 I frank discussion. Our purpose is to save time and labor. We 

 ic orally to discuss this subject before you with a frankness and 

 edoni that we cannot do in writing, and then to put in a printed sum- 

 mary, giving counsel on the other side the right to put in the final one. 

 ely my friend does not want us to adopt his suggestion because he 

 say something at the last moment to which we will not have 

 unity to reply. There cannot be anything of a mystery in an 



