1 ^ 



158 



i 



I )■ 



M ) 



4^ 



— I may say that these rules have been solemnly entered into. We have 

 acted upon them from the conimciicemont to the end so far as wc have gone, 

 but still we have no desire tliat our friciuls on (lu> other side should be deprived 

 of any righ wliicli tlicy tliiiiU tho^' oui;ht I'nirly to li;ut\ in order to i)ring 

 their case Ijofore this tribunal. We, however, certainly (Icjirecatc any alteration 

 of the rules, and we feel that we are just in this position : during all this time that 

 we have been examining our witnesses, we did so under the idea that the rules 

 would remain as tiicy were engrossed. It is important, wc tliinli, in such an inquiry 

 as this, that these rules should be rigidly adhered to, unless there be some very 

 important reason why tiiey should be deviated from. I eonfess, speaking for 

 myself, that T hardly see the force of the reasons advanced in favour of the proposed 

 change on belialf of the United States' Government. Tiiey say that their arguments, 

 if placed on paper, wouKI lie so bulky as to fill a large volume. Possibly that may 

 be so ; but still that is rather more conii)limentary to their powers of discursiveness 

 than anything else, and tiiev accompany this expression of opinion with the 

 statement that tiiey wish to be heard orally .-it great length. 1 |)resume that this 

 will all be reported by the short-hand writers, and in the; shajie ol' a lengthy volume 

 it will meet the eyes of the Connni.ssioncrs, so I do not sec how this bulky volume is 

 in any way to be escaped. Nevertheless, as 1 said before, we arc not desirous to 

 object to our friends on the other side taking this course, in order to fairly bring 

 the merits of their case before the tribunal, if they so think lit. We therefo reare 

 willing that they shall, if they please, be heard orally at the close of the evidence on 

 both sides. l)ut wc submit, and wc trust that in this respect there can be no difference 

 of opinion. tiuU youi' Kxcellency ;ind \()ur Honours will not make any deviation from 

 the ride which rerinires our friends on the opposite side, at the close of their case, to 

 tile their written argument, if they intend at all so to do. We contend that it 

 would be entirely -t variance with the whole spirit with which this inquiry has 

 been conducted, at they should, after making their speech, call upon us if we 

 please to make a si)eecli in answer — that we should make it — and that they then should 

 lile their written arguments. Such a course would wholly disjilacethe position which 

 we occupy before tliis tribunal, (ireat Hritain stands here as the plaintiff, and the 

 ordinary ride in Courts ol' Common Law is this: — That the ])laintiff, after a 

 short oiicning of his ease, calls witnesses, as wc have, and at the close of the 

 plaintiff's case, the defendant, after a s'lort o|)ening of his case, also calls witnesses; 

 the respective eounsc;! lor liie defeiuiant and iIk" plaintiff then make their closing 

 arguments, after which tiic case is submitted to the jury by the judge. This is the 

 course followed ; and therefore, while we arc willing, if it is really thought necessary 

 l)y my learned friends so to proceed, that they shall have the right to close their 

 case by arguments in writing, or verbally and in writing; yet if they close verbally, 

 arid then wish to put in a written argument, that must be done at once; and we, 

 if we so |)lease, will tlien answer them verli.div or in writing, as vve like, or in both 

 ways. I confess, speaking from the stand-point of counsel, that so far as I have a 

 voice in the matter, I rather reluctantly agree to this, because I think that these 

 rules were formally framed ; and in reality the proposition that the case should be 

 conducted by written argument came from liie learned Agent of the United States, 

 if I understand rightly, and we acceded to it, and entireljM)n that basis we have 

 conducted the whole ')f our case. Still I say again, that wc will meet our friends 

 half- way. 



Mr. Trcscol. — 1 suggest that my frioiid's jiroposition is an attempt at meeting 

 l>v proceeding half-wav in dilferent directions; the trouble is tliat our halt-.vays do 

 not meet at all I am not sure that I understoiid my friend exactly, but as I under- 

 stand him, he claims the rigiit of luo replies ; ih.at is the right to reply to our oral 

 argument, and then tin- right lo v\)\\ to the printed argument, to which we have 

 no objection. 



Mr. Thomson. — 1 said wc \'.()nld rejily to your two arguments, oral and written. 



Mr. Trc'srot. -If you me;in that we are to make an oral argument, and that if 

 }()u do not want to make an or.d, argument you shall not be obliged to do .so, I have 

 no objection. 



Mr. Thomson. — 1 siipjiose that we will exercise our ]dcasure regarding that 

 matter. 



Mr. Trcscol. — If we mal<e an oral argument, they have the right to reply. If, 

 then, we give a printed argument they have the s-anic right to file a printed argu- 

 ment in reply — their relation to us in the case is preserved throughout. My friend 



