1538 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



and what we consider a fair coarse to all parties. Bat I am asked what 

 is the use of such a reply ? I answer, just such use as you choose to 

 make of ir. We onlv ask to know yoar case, and then having met it to 

 the best of our abilitv, you can reply to our argument as you deem most 

 judicious. Let me illustrate what I mean. You all recollect the testi- 

 mony as to the Bay de Chaleur that fishing was only prosecuted on 

 iu shores that in "the cores of the bay,' 7 to use the language of the 

 witnesses, there was no fishing. Now, if this is so, practically the ques- 

 tion of the headlands is put aside, for it makes no difference whether 

 we come within the headland line or not. But suppose, in reply, we prove 

 that there is fishing within *he body of the bay more than three miles 

 from either shore how then ? Recollect that up to this point, although 

 we liave been promised your brief on the headland question, we have 

 not had it. Do you mean simply to discuss our testimony, or to main- 

 tain the doctiine of the headland line I Under your proposed arrange- 

 ment we would have to make our argument without the slightest knowl- 

 edge of what you intended to maintain. Whereas, under our arrange- 

 ment, we would know exactly what you thought, and although we might 

 attempt an answer, you would have the clear right to meet that answer 

 by \'ur final reply as you thought fit. 



liut I have no intention ot pi olonging this argument further. I think 

 we have stated with sincere fail ness what we mean, and that it is obvi- 

 ous that the light of final reply is preserved to the counsel on the other 

 side. Their purpose is tquaily obvious to keep back in their discretion 

 just as much of their case as they do not choose to give us the opportu- 

 nity to reply to. If this Commission deems such reticence proper, we 

 must accommodate our arguments to their decision, and be content with 

 having said what we think justice required. 



Hon. Mr. KELLOGG. I should like to say, with the permission of the 

 other Commissioners, that I rather expected the motion would havebeeu 

 put in due form last night, but I hope that this delay or omission, which 

 Las given rise to a little misunderstanding, will not be a reason for ex- 

 citing any feeling. I am anxious, for one, that in our proceedings we 

 should observe the kind of conduct that we have observed so far, and 

 I have no idea that any thought of getting any such advantage was 

 entertained when the application was made last night. 



I want to observe one thing further, with the leave of the other Com- 

 missioners, that in discussing these questions which have arisen, and 

 whieh may still arise, we should observe due moderation, and not get 

 into personal disputations with one another, but address the tribunal as 

 the one which will settle the matter eventually. 



Ikcititm given by the Commissioners on the 1st day of September, 1877. 



The Commissioners having considered the motion submitted by Messrs'. 

 Dana and Trescot, decided that 



Having .hie regard to the right of Her Majesty's Government to the general and final 



toners cannot modify the rules in such a manner as iui<*hi impair or 



Each j.arty will, however, within the period fixed by the rules, 



t.s concluding argument either orally or in writing, and if orally, 



.- accon,|nied by a written resume", or summary thereof, for the convenience 



;n, such tfurn or summary being furnished within the said period." 



