152-S AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



needed 1 1 is, moreover, a hardship to those who hand in a printed argu- 

 ment to be left in uncertainty as to whether further explanations may be 

 necessary. I therefore think the experience of all engaged in ascertain- 

 ing truth by means of witnesses and arguments shows that there should 

 be'an oral argument, if possible, on the testimony and such of the prin- 

 ciples of law as are to be affected by it. 



Jn this case it seems to be thought expedient also to have a printed 

 argument. Perhaps it may be; but if it should be given up by both 

 sides, we do not object. If there is an oral argument only and no printed 

 argument, we shall be more careful in our oral argument to examine 

 into all questions of law. If there is to be also a w ritten argument, the 

 oral argument would be conlined more to the facts. Kow, your honors, 

 our suggestion is that we shall, as the defendant always does, when the 

 evidence closes, argue the facts with such reference to principles as may 

 be thought expedient. When that is done, it is the plaintiff's time to 

 reply orally. The briefs are a different thing ; the printed arguments 

 are a different thing. In a great case like this a question between the 

 two greatest maritime powers of the world and intrusted to three gen- 

 tlemen with absolute power over it whatever will best tend to enable 

 each side to understand the other fully, at the time when it is necessary 

 to understand them, is for the benefit of justice. When we have made 

 our oral argument, the counsel for the Crown will make their oral 

 argument. If they choose to waive the privilege of making that oral 

 argument, if they think their policy will be best subserved by making 

 neither an opening nor a closing oral argument, which we cannot compel 

 them to do, and by hearing all we can possibly say before their mouths 

 are opened, and to have their only speeches made after our mouths are 

 closed if that is their view of policy, I should like to know whether the 

 agent of the Crown here tacitly gives his consent to such a course of 

 procedure ; that is, that the American side shall be obliged to put in 

 both its oral argument and its printed argument, when the other side 

 has put in nothing, and then have an opportunity to close upon us with- 

 out our knowing from their lips anything whatever. We have had what 

 is called the British case and what is called the American case ; but they 

 are simply in the nature of pleadings. They do not go into the testi- 

 mony, they do not argue the facts of the testimony, they do not state 

 \rhat the testimony is to be; they are of a general character, and in no 

 sense arguments. 1 think this tribunal will agree with me on that 

 point. 



In regard to the amendment proposed by the other side, by which we 



le compelled to put in our priuted argument the moment we close 



our oral argument, I will suggest to your honors some objections to it. 



)ne objection is that we shall have to prepare our printed argument 



before we begin to si>eak. Would not that be a ridiculous position in 



o place counsel ? They would have to prepare and print a full 



ment, and then come into court and make an oral argument, and 



in the printed argument. I hardly know how I could proceed 



i an undertaking as that. But a stronger objection is this: 



the right, under their amendment, to make an oral argument 



1 us u printed argument after we are through. So they are not 



OIHMI their mouths, and we shall not have the benefit of hearing 



mytlmig from them in this case until our pieces are discharged and our 



umtion exhausted. It is then the battle is to begin on the side of 

 m. How, your honors will see that it comes right down to this : 



ropose that first an oral argument should be made on the testimony, 

 the other side agree that an oral argument on the testimony 



