AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. lf>27 



comes in, aud know how to apply it, and also the counsel of the United 

 States will have a better opportunity to understand your case from the 

 first, and be better able to cross-examine witnesses, aud adopt what 

 course they may see fit with better intelligence of your position/' But 

 the learned counsel for the British Government made no opening, and 

 of that we made no complaint. 2fow, we are very much in the same 

 position they were in then, only we have a much stronger reason than 

 they had. 



By this time, an opening, technically speaking, is not necessary. If 

 the British counsel thought it was not necessary three weeks ago, it is 

 much less necessary now, because this tribunal understands the main 

 points taken on each side, and has a general view of the manner iu 

 which each side expects to meet them by testimony. As the counsel on 

 the other side did not open the case, they would surely not think of 

 maintaining that we should now open ours. We propose, as soon as 

 they have concluded their evidence,. to begin on our evidence. If this 

 tribunal, or any member of it, should ask that, before we proceed to put 

 in any testimony, we should make any explanation, we are quite ready 

 to do it; or, if the counsel for the Crown should so desire, we are ready 

 to do it. For ourselves, we do not propose to do so, but to go directly 

 on with the testimony. We will then be on the same terms, neither side 

 having opened, neither thinking an opening necessary or desirable. We 

 shall then proceed with our testimony until it is completed; the rebuttal 

 testimony will then be put in by the British counsel, and it is not until 

 the rebuttal testimony is completed that this tribunal can be supposed 

 to know on what facts it is to proceed. Now, do your honors think it 

 is desirable to have an argument before you know on what facts you are 

 to proceed ? All the facts having been placed before the tribunal, then 

 is the time to argue the question. 



It may be said by the learned counsel that what I have so far stated 

 is unnecessary, because they don't mean to compel us to open. But I 

 think your honors will see it is well to understand in advance what is 

 meant by an opening and an argument. When the whole of the evi- 

 dence is before the tribunal, then comes the question, iu what form can 

 the counsel for the respective governments most beneficially to them- 

 selves, to their opponents, and, what is most important, to the tribunal 

 that has the weighty responsibility of determining the case, present all 

 the facts and the principles of law aud policy to which they are applica- 

 ble! Whatever mode will do that best is the one we ought to adopt. 

 We, the Agent of the United States and, the two United States counsel, 

 have made up our minds that it will be more satisfactory to the tribunal 

 that has the judgment of the case, quite as fair to the opposite side, 

 much more satisfactory to us, and more just to the United States, that 

 the course which we propose should be taken. The only question is 

 whether the course we propose should be adopted or the course pro- 

 posed by the counsel for the Crown in amendment thereto. They seem 

 to see that after the examination of witnesses and reading of affidavits, 

 extending over a long period, an oral argument is advantageous ; at all 

 events they do not object to our making one. It is advantageous, be- 

 cause it can be done always with more effect. I do not mean more effect 

 as respects the person who delivers the argument, but more effect on 

 the course of justice, than a printed argument. When an oral argument 

 is delivered, any member of the court who thinks the counsel is passing 

 from a point without making it perfectly clear can ask for an explana- 

 tion. We desire that this tribunal shall have an opportunity to ask, at 

 any time during the argument, for an explanation, if any explanation is 



