AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1529 



is a good tbing ; at all events, they do not object that there is anything 

 unreasonable in having the arguments on the facts postponed till the 

 facts are known. The only question, then, is this : shall there be first an 

 oral argument by the American side, and then an oral argument for the 

 Crown, if the counsel for the Crown desire it, and then our printed argu- 

 ment to be followed by their printed reply ; or shall we be compelled to 

 put in both arguments before hearing anything from them ? 



The counsel for the Crown may rise and say they don't intend to 

 make any oral argument, and thereby retain all the benefit of a policy 

 of secrecy, and then it would be our duty to put in a printed argument. 

 They can force us to this by simply declining to make an oral argument. 

 Then they would come in with a printed argument which would be the 

 final argument. Nothing we have proposed or can propose can prevent 

 the counsel for the Crown having the closing words, because if our sug- 

 gestion is adopted, first we will make an oral argument, then they may 

 rise and say they do not wish to make one, then we must put in a printed 

 argument, and then they will close with a printed argument ; only they 

 cannot get the advantage of refusing to make an oral argument at its 

 proper time, and make it afterwards out of time. Their own proposi- 

 tion, on the other hand, is this : that they shall not be required to make 

 an oral argument after we have closed ours, but shall have the right to 

 transfer that oral argument from the stage immediately after ours, until 

 the United States counsel have finished their oral argument and put in 

 their printed final argument. Then the counsel for the Crown can argue 

 orally on all the testimony, and in addition put in their printed argu- 

 ment. The result, therefore, your honors, would be that you yourselves 

 would be placed under a disadvantage. You will hear our argument 

 under a disadvantage ; you will always be obliged to say to yourselves, 

 " the American counsel have given us a printed argument, but we can- 

 not expect to find in it adequate replies to arguments they never heard." 



All the learned counsel on the side of the Crown have been able to 

 say is, " We have submitted the case of Her Majesty's Government, and 

 they have our case." I have reminded your honors what these cases 

 are. Then as to the briefs. We put in a brief six weeks ago, and we 

 were to have a brief from the counsel for the Crown, but we have not 

 seen it yet, I suppose owing to the fault of the printers. That brief will 

 not be a brief on our testimony ; that, I suppose, I may assume. 



Mr. FORD. Yes. 



Mr. DANA. Therefore, as far as the facts are concerned, that brief can 

 be of no use, and the original case of Her Majesty's Government will 

 also be of no use to us. I hope your excellency and your honors will 

 fully understand we consider an opportunity to argue the facts as of 

 very great value to the United States, and we assume you consider it at 

 all [events your duty, how much value you may attach to it I cannot 

 say, to give counsel the fullest opportunity to argue the facts with the 

 knowledge of two things: First, what the facts are; and second, how 

 our opponents propose to use and treat them. 



Now, it seems to me that the most common justice requires that the 

 result should not be that before we file our final printed argument, and 

 leave this court and this part of the world, and return to our several 

 homes, having done all we could do under the circumstances, we should 

 not have heard by the ear, or read by the eye, one word that would ex- 

 plain to us what the counsel for the Crown think of our testimony or of 

 their own, how they mean to use it, to what points they mean to apply 

 it, what illustrations they mean to use. That will be our position it the 

 proposal of the counsel for the Crown should be adopted. If we are 



