AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1533 



tribunal the assistance they have a right to expect from counsel. It is, 

 therefore, proposed that, instead of making opening oral arguments, 

 which obviously would be quite inadequate, we should have the oppor- 

 tunity of making closing oral arguments, to be replied to by the British 

 counsel, and then that the printed arguments should follow, giving them 

 the reply then also. 



Whatever we do, we are willing they should have the reply the reply 

 to our speeches, the reply to our writings. Is it possible that any 

 arrangmeut could be fairer than that, or any arrangement more calculated 

 to render your honors assistance in coming to a just and equitable con- 

 clusion ? Now, I know my friend, the British Agent, does not mean to 

 deal with this case so that batteries can be unmasked upon us at the last 

 moment. I know the Commissioners will not allow such a course to be 

 taken. Unless that is to be done, it is quite impossible that any unfair 

 advantage would result to us, or that the British counsel would be in 

 the least deprived of their admitted right to reply, which always belongs 

 to the party on whom lies the burden of proof, by the course which we 

 propose to follow. What we do desire is, that we should have the 

 chance to explain our views fully before your honors orally ; that we 

 should then hear from counsel on the other side ; and then that the 

 printed summaries, which are to be placed in your hands to assist you, 

 should be left with you when you go to make up your minds on this 

 case. What do they lose by it ? What can they lose by it ? By omit- 

 ting to make any oral arguments, as Mr. Dana has said, they can get 

 the last word and unmask their batteries; but if printed arguments are 

 to be made at all, does not common sense require that the printed argu- 

 ments on both sides should follow the oral arguments on both sides ? I 

 put it to each member of the Commission, I put it my friend the British 

 Agent, is not that the course which every human being knows will be 

 most likely to lead to a thoroughly intelligent and just decision? If it 

 was a matter of surprise; if we were before a jury, and a poor one; if it 

 was one of those nisi prius trials, which we are sometimes concerned 

 in, I could understand the policy of trying to have both oral and written 

 arguments made against us after our mouths are closed forever; but I 

 cannot understand it now. If the matter should be left as they desire 

 to have it left, I venture to predict that either on our application, or 

 more likely at your own request, we shall be called upon to reargue this 

 case after the original arguments are supposed to be closed, for you will 

 find in their final arguments, oral and written, matters which you will 

 think common justice and fair play, for which Englishmen are said to be 

 distinguished all the world over, require that we should have an oppor- 

 tunity to answer. They may close upon us orally, they may close upon 

 us in writing, but as for their possessing the privilege of keeping their 

 policy concealed till the last moment, I do not believe they really want 

 it ; I do not believe my friend the British Agent wants it ; and if he does 

 not want it, there is no conceivable objection to the adoption of the 

 course we propose. 



Mr. DOUTRE. May it please your excellency and your honors: My 

 learned friend, Mr. Dana, has spoken of the usages of the courts in dif- 

 ferent countries, and with those observations we might have agreed, until 

 he came to claim a most extraordinary thing, and one which I am sure 

 our learned and experienced adversaries never heard of being conceded 

 in any country in the world that the defendant should have the reply. 

 My conviction is that there is no danger in challenging our friends to 

 name any court in the world where the defendant has the right to reply. 

 , 1 1 think we would be far below the standard given to us in the compli- 



