Ifi2 



?! :^ 





comnellcd to put in our printed arginiiciit tho monirnt w. .'lose our oral arj^iiment, 

 I will suggest to your lldiKins sumo ohjcdions (o it. One dhjcctioii is tli.tt wo 

 shall have to pre|iaro our pi iiitrd arguniont lidurc \vc iicgin to spoaU. Would not 

 that be ii ridiculous |)(isitiori iu which to plai'c counsel .* Tliev would liav(! to 

 prepare and print a lull argument, and then come into Courl and malse ;m oral ■ 

 argument, and then hand in the printed argument. I hardly know how 1 could 

 proceed with such an undertaking as that. Mut a stronger objection is this : 'riiey 

 claim the right, under their amendment, to make an oral argument, as well as a 

 printed argument, af't?r we are tiirough. So they are not going to open tlu r 

 mouths, and wo shall not have the henetit of hearing anything' from tiiem in (his 

 case until our pieces are discharged and our ammunition exhausted. It is then the 

 battle is to begin on the side of the C'rown. Now your Honours will see that it 

 comes right lown to tliis: We propose that first an oral argiuuent should he made 

 on the testimony. Counsel on the other side agree that nn oral argument on the 

 testimony is a good thing; at all events, they do not object that there is anything 

 »inreasonui<le in having the arguments on the facts postponed till the facts are 

 known. The only rpiestion, tlion, is this : Shall there he first an oral argument by 

 the American side, and then an oral argument for the Crown, il the counsel for the 

 Crown desire it, and then our printed argument to be followed by their ])rinte(l 

 reply ; or shall we be t'oropelled to put in both arguments, before hearing anything 

 from them. 



The counsel for the Crown mav rise and say tiiey don't intend to make any 

 oral argument, and thereby retain all the benefit of a policy of s'' ^sy, and then it 

 would be our duty to put in a printed argumciit. They can mrce us to this by 

 simply declining to make an oral argument. 'J'hen they would ccime in with a 

 printed argument which would be the final argument. Nothing we i ve proposed or 

 can propose can prevent the counsel for the Crown having the closing words, 

 because if our suggestion is adopted, — hrst we wiM make an oral argument, then 

 they may rise and say they do not wish to make one. then we must |)Ut in a printed 

 argument, and then they will close with a printed argument, only tliey cannot get 

 the advantage of refusing to make an oral argument at its proper time, and make 

 it afterwards, out of time. Their own proposition, on the other hand, is this: that 

 they shall not be required to make an or:d argument after we have el(;sed ours, but 

 shall have the right to transfer that oral argument irom the stage immediately 

 after ours, until the United States' counsel have linishcd their oral argument and 

 put in their printed final argument. Then the counsel for the Crown can argue 

 orally on all the testimony, and in addition put in their printed argument. The 

 result, therefore, your Honours, woidd be that you yourselves would be placed under 

 a disadvantage. You will hear our argument under a disadvantage ; you will 

 always be obliged to say yourselves — "The American counsel have given us a 

 printed argument, but we cannot expect to find in it adequate re| lies to arguments 

 they never heard." 



All the learned counsel on the side of the Crown have been able to say is — "We 

 have submitted the case of Her Majesty's Government, and they have our case." 

 I have rendnded your Honours what these cases are. Then as to the briefs. A\'e 

 put in a brief six weeks ago, and we were to have to have a brief from the counsel 

 for the Crown, but wo have not seen it vet, I suppose owing to the fault of the printers. 

 That brief will not be a brief on our testimony; that, I suppose, I may assume. 



Mr. Ford. — Yes. 



Mr. Dana. — ^Therefore, as far as the facts are concerned, that brief c.in be of no 

 use, and the orginal Case of Her Mnjestv's Ciovcinment will also be of no use to us. 

 I hope your Kxccllency and your Honours will fully understand wc consider an 

 opportunity to argue the facts as of very great v:;mc to the United States, and wc 

 assume you consider it at all events vour duty — how much value you may attach 

 to it I cannot say — to give' counsel the fullest opportunity to argue the facts with 

 the knowledge of two things: First, what the facts arc, and, second, how our 

 o|)ponents propose to use and treat them. 



Now, it seems to me that the most common justice requires that the result 

 should not be, that before we file our final printed argument, and leave this Court 

 and this part of the world, and return to our several homes, having done all we 

 could do under the circumstances, we should not have heard by the ear or read by 

 the eye, one word that would explain to us what the counsel for the Crown think cf 

 our testimony or of their own, liow they mean to use it, to what points they mean 

 to apply it, what illustrations they mean to use. That will be our position if the 



I 



