AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1535 



casiou, because it suits the purpose be Las in view, be tbougbt be would 

 be under a disadvantage if the rule in question should be maintained. 

 If we go back to the time when the rule was adopted it will be recol- 

 lected that the ft ve lawyers on behalf of the British case were then be- 

 fore the Commission. If they were not admitted, it was known for sev- 

 eral weeks that the British Agent intended to be assisted by counsel ; 

 so the fact was fully before every one of us when the rules were adopted. 

 Now we are asked to change these rules. So long as it is a matter of 

 convenience and pure courtesy to the United States, we have no difli- 

 culty in acceding to their request, and in doing this we are acting within 

 the terms of the written document under discussion, which says: 



As we understand the wish of both governments to be that the whole discussion 

 should be as frank and full as possible, it has occurred to us that you might be disposed 

 to allow us to adopt such an arrangement as would, in our judgment, best enable UH 

 to lay before you a complete presentment of the opinions of the government we repre- 

 sent, and we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel on the 

 otber side of no advantage which they now possess, for besides the right to reply to the 

 printed argument, which they now have, we would, of course, expect that they would 

 also be allowed the right of oral reply if they desired to exercise it. 



So far this is perfectly correct, but it does not show their bands to us 

 at all. We do not see their real object, for there is a masked battery. 



Apparently a very simple alteration of the rule is asked for, and our 

 friend Mr. Trescot thought yesterday that it was so unobjectionable that 

 it would be immediately acceded to. Well, if this paper had stated the 

 whole truth, and did not cover anything which is not mentioned, we 

 should have accepted it immediately, as has already been stated by my 

 brother counsel. But we suspected that this slight alteration conceded 

 something, and we were not mistaken. 



Mr. TRESCOT. What is it ! 



Mr. DOUTRE. I will explain it, certainly. Mr. Dana says, u You have 

 a reply." Certainly we bave the reply, but we might reply in eight 

 months from this, and it would be just as good. Here is the practical 

 result : if the proposition, which is not included in this paper, but which, 

 has been admitted verbally, were accepted, our learned friends would 

 develop their case orally, and we would answer orally. They would 

 then come with their printed statement. Now, is not this the reply ? 

 \Vhat would remain for us to say "? What would be the value of that 

 printed document which we could give afterward ? What new aspect 

 or expose of our case could it contain 2 None whatever, so that virtu- 

 ally it gives our friends the reply, and that is the reason why they are 

 insisting so strongly upon the change in the rule. 



Mr. DANA. You take the objection that under our proposed rule you 

 would not be able to put in anything new f 



Mr. WEATHERBE. All you asked for was to substitute an oral for the 

 written argument ? 



Mr. TRESCOT suggests that it would be better if he were now allowed 

 to read the amendment which he proposes to submit. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. It would have been better that we should bave bad 

 it last evening. 



Mr. TRESCOT. It i s entirely in accordance with the paper which I 

 read last evening. 



SIR ALEXANDER GALT. We should have had the precise proposed 

 alteration of the rule before us before hearing this argument. 



Mr. TRESCOT. It is precisely the same as what was laid before the 

 Commission. I will read it. The third rule reads this way : 



The evidence brought forward in support of the British case must be closed within 

 period of six weeks after the case shall have been opened by the British counsel, 



