AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1537 



and they know what they are themselves going to prove. The plaintiff 

 does not know it. When we shall have closed our evidence, they will 

 have the whole case in their hands, while we have only half of it. For 

 that and other reasons the final reply is given to the plaintiff, and we 

 object to our friends in this manner seeking to upset the rules which 

 prevail in all courts of justice that ever existed. 



Mr. DANA. 1 beg that you will not sit down without explaining hovr 

 you lose the reply. 



Mr. DOUTRE. We have a reply which is worth nothing; that is what 

 I mean. The virtual and practical reply is in your hands. That is 

 exactly the position. I think it is necessary, in order to preserve the 

 harmony that has so far existed here, we should not introduce in this 

 Commission a practice which has never exited in any court, that one 

 of the counsel should pass over the head of his legal adversary in order 

 to reach the suitor and ask him if he agrees to what his counsel pro- 

 poses. Such a course as that would te.nd materially to impair the good 

 relations which we all, I think, desire to cultivate. 



Mr. TRESCOT. I have no intention of saying one word that could dis- 

 turb the relations that exist between the counsel on either side, and I 

 have no fear that anything could be said on either side that would have 

 such a result. For that reason I don't object, as I perhaps might, to the 

 application which I made yesterday being characterized as a masked 

 request. When I read that document yesterday I had no earthly doubt 

 that every man presejit knew what I wanted. So far from having any 

 doubt about the matter, I may say that both the honorable Minister of 

 Marine, who appears to be of counsel with the other side, and the Agent 

 of the British Government, distinctly informed us that they would con- 

 sent to this petition if we may call it such, provided we would take the 

 proposition submitted by Mr. Thomson. Now there can be no doubt 

 that when that proposal was made they understood what it was we 

 wanted. We stated as distinctly that we declined to accept any such 

 proposition, and that the course they pursued was one that could not 

 meet our approval. All I am anxious to do now is to clear myself of 

 the accusation, for such I think it is, of having submitted a paper 

 which asked for one thing when I wanted the Commission to do another 

 thing. 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not think the Commission ever attributed 

 such a design to you. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. Will you read the part of the paper presented yes- 

 terday which says what you wanted the Commission to do? 



Mr. TRESCOT. It is as follows : " As we understand the wish of both 

 governments to be," &c. Now, what does that mean ? What can it 

 mean but that when we made an oral argument thjey would make an 

 oral reply, arid when we presented a printed argument their printed 

 argument would be put in ? I believe that the matter was so under- 

 stood, and I have misunderstood the whole scope of the argument this 

 morning if every gentleman who has addressed the court has not argued 

 upon the request I made. The whole argument on the other side has 

 been for the purpose of showing that we ought not to have what we 

 asked for. Then how can I be told that the learned counsel did not 

 understand what I wanted? I do not know what the practice may 

 be here, but I have never been in a court in which, if there were several 

 counsel on each side, they did not address the court alternately, so that 

 each side might possess the argument of the other side. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. That is not the practice in England. 



Mr. TRESCOT. That may be. I only undertake to say what we want 

 97 F 



