165 



course of the proceodiiijrg the Commissioners saw fit to alter them; and as to our 

 application bcin^ an application for a favour cither from our opponents or the 

 ConunissioncrH, it is ro such tiling. |t is an application to your sense of justice. 

 Ikfofo a judicial tribunal thcro aro no such thint>s as favours. Decisions go upon 

 the }j;round of ripht and justice, and especially soin rec-ard to a Treaty. Untler the 

 oatli which the Commissioners have taken, equitv and justice are made the standard 

 of all their proceedings. Now. how arc we placed? We have, in the first place, a 

 much f>rcalcr mass of testimony than 1 anticipated, or any of you anticipated, I 

 presume. In the next place, we "are on the eve of a much greater conflict of testi- 

 mony th.m I anticipated ; we see that very plainly. Then again, from prudential 

 considerations, counsel on the other side saw fit not to open their case. It was a 

 grievous disappointment to me ; I could not help myself, ns I saw at the time, and 

 so said nothing. Hut it was a great disappointment to find they did not think fit, 

 in their opening, to explain the views they intended to enunciate. As the testimony 

 has gom .orward for more than a month, it has become obvious to all of us that in 

 a printed argument, prep.ired within ten days' time, and compressed within the 

 necessary limits of a printed argument, we cannot examine tlus testimony, and 

 cannot render the tribunal the assistance they have a right to expect from counsel. 

 Jt is, therefore, proposed that, instead of making opening oral arguments, which 

 obviously would be quite inadequate, we should have the opportunity of making 

 closing oral arguments, to be replied to by the British counsel, and then that the 

 printed arguments should follow, giving them the reply then also. Whatever we 

 do, we are willing they should have the reply — the reply to our speeches, the reply 

 to our writings. Is it possible that any arrangement could be fairer than that, or 

 any ari'angement more calculated to render your Honours assistance in coming to 

 a Just and equitable conclusion ? Now, I know my friend the British Agent does 

 not mean to deal with this case so that batteries can be unmasked upon us at the 

 last moment. 1 know the Commissioners will not allow such a course to be taken. 

 Uidcss that is to be done, it is quite impossible that any unfair advantage would 

 result to ns, or that the British counsel would be in tlie lt>;ist deprived of iheir 

 admitted right to reply, which nlways belongs to the party on whom lies the burden 

 of proof, by the course which we propose to follow. What we do desire is, that we 

 should have the ciiance to explain our views f'ldly belbre your Honours orally; that 

 we should tlion hear from counsel on the other siile ; and then that the printed 

 summaries, which are to be placed in your hands to assist you, should be left with 

 you when you go to make up your minds on this case. What do they lose by it? 

 What can they lose by it? By omitting to make any or.d arguments, as Mr. Dana 

 has said, they can get the last word, and unmask their batteries ; but if printed 

 arguments are to be made at all, does not common sense require that the printed 

 arguments on both sides should follow the oral arguments on both sides? 1 put it 

 to each member of the Commission, I put it to my friend the British Agent — is not 

 that the course which every human being knows will be most likely to lead to a 

 thoroughly intelligent and just decision? If it was a matter of surprises, if we 

 were before a jury, and a poor one. if it was one of those Nisi Prius trials, which 

 we are sometimes concerned in, 1 could understand the policy of trying to have both 

 oral and written arguments made against us after our mouths are closed for ever ; 

 but 1 cannot understand it now. If the matt"-. .-.Iiould be lelt as they desire to have 

 it left, I venture to predict that either on our application, or more likely at your 

 own request, we shall be called upon to reargue this case after the original argu- 

 ments are supposed to be closed, for you will find in their fmal arguments, oral and 

 written, matters which you will think common justice and fair play, for which 

 Englishmen arc said to be distinguished all the world over, require that we should 

 have an opportunity to answer. They may close upon us orally, they may close 

 upon us in writing, but as for their possessing the privilege ol keeping their policy 

 concealed till the last moment, 1 do not believe they really want it; 1 do not believe 

 my friend the British Agent wants it ; and if he docs not want it, there is no con- 

 ceivable objection to the adoption of the course we propose. 



Mr. Doutre. — May it please your Excellency and your Honours, — My learned 

 friend Mr. Dana has spoken of tlie usages of the Clourts in diflerent countries, and 

 with those observations we might have agreed, until he came to claim a most extra- 

 ordinary thing, and one which 1 am sure our iearnc<.l and experienced adversaries 

 never heard of being conceded in any country in the world — that the defendant 

 should have the reply. My conviction is, tiuit there is no danger in challenging 

 our friends to name any Court in the world where the defendant has the right to 

 [280] 2 A 



