Hi7 



... ^" '•"' ^'''** '■* pi'i-fcclly forrcct. hiil it docs nol show their hands to iih at all. 

 \\c «() not sec their kmI ()l)jocr, lor tluMc is ;i niaskcrj hiittfry. Apparently ii very 

 simple alteration of the rule is asked fur, and our Iriend Air. 'iS-eseot llionffht yeHtui'- 

 day that it was si. iinohjeelionalile tint it would Ijc immediatelv aeceded t(». Well 

 iC this paper had staled the wliole triilli, and did not eover aiiythinj; which is not 

 mentioned, we should have aeeei.led it iniinediatriv, as lias beeii already stated by 

 my brother counsel. Hut wc siispecteil that this slight allerutioii concealed somc- 

 thin'4', and wc were not mistaken. 



Mr. Trescot. — NN'hat is it ■ 



A/e. />oH//-p.— I will explain it, certainly. Mr. Dana aavs, " you have a reply." 

 Certainly v,e have the reply, but we mis^hf reply in eip;ht months JVom this, and it 

 would be just as f>()od. IJereis the practical result; 11' the jjioposition, which is 

 not included in this iiaper. Iiul which has been adnrtted verijallv, were accepted, our 

 learned friends would develop tlieir case orally, and wc would aiiswer orallv. They 

 would then conic with Mioir printed statement. Now, is not this the reply r What 

 would remain foi us to say r What would be the v.duc of that printcd'document 

 which we coukl iiive al'terwards!- What now aspect or ^../jommiI' our case could it 

 contain 'r None whatever; so tliiit virtu. dly it i>ives our friends the reply, and that 

 is the reason why they aie insistiiii;- so strongly upon the chanf;e in the ride. 



Mr. Dana. — You take the objection that under our proposed rule you would not 

 be able to put in aiiythins;- new ? 



Mr. Wcalherbc. — All you .ask for was to substitute an oral for tin; written 

 argument ? 



Mr. Trcsvdt Nni;t;ests that it would be better if lie were now allowiid lo read the 

 amendment which lie [iroposed to submit. » 



Mr. il '•(iHierhe.— It would have been hettcr that we should have had it last 



Mr Trcsrit. — It is entirely in accordance with the papn- which 1 read hist 

 evening'. 



sir Ah'siiiuU'r Giilt. — Wc should have had the precise proposed alteration of the 

 rule before us I efore hearinc; this ar£;iiment. 



Mr Tr'''-ritt. — It is precis ly tlie same as what was ii'.id bei'orc tlic Commission. 

 i will read it. The third rule reads this way: — 



" 'flin cviilciipc liroii,i;lil Inrwiiril in sii|i|.iiit n|' ihi' llriii^li (':is(> iDiiiil ln' ciiiscd wiiliiii a jiciind o!' 

 (if six weeks, al'tcr tlic^ case sliall linvc Ik'cii ii|k'1iii| l.y (lie l',iili-li i iiinisi-i. iilili'ss ii lint Ik r thiic liliall 1)(' 

 allnwcil liy till' ('iiiiiiiiissiinicis nn a|']ilicMiinii. The I'videiire luiui'ilit liirwaiil in sii|i|Mirl nl' iiie 

 t'niled Sliites riiiinter case must lie ejuseil vitliin a siniiiiir pi'iidd at'Iei' the ii|ieMiiiu '■' t'n' I'nitt'il 

 Stiiti's ciise in answer, unless a luHliei- time he alldwed liy the t 'umiiiis-^iiaieis mi iiii|ilieaticiii. i>ul as 

 Sddii us the evidence in sii|i|ioi't nl' llie liritish Case is elnscd, that in suppdrl ul' the I'nileil States shall 

 he eiinimeneed. and as smm as thai is elnsed. the evideiU'C ill reply shiiil lie eeiiimelieed. After uliieh 

 aiL;uinen(s shall lie delivered on th<^ |iai-l et' the I'liited Stati'S, in wriliiii.', within a peiinil id' ten day-, 

 unless a I'lirther time he allowed hv the ('nmmi^sinncrs nn applieatimi. and aiv'iiments in ilnsiii',' mi 

 the liritish side shall '>■■ ielivered in writiii',' uiliiin a I'livtlH'r |perind nl'tcn days, iinli'ssa further lime he 

 alliiwed' liy the ('ommi---iii|iers mi applieatimi. Then the ease mi iMllier side sliall he emisideri'd 

 (inally elnsed, unless I he ( ''iiiiiiii^-^imras shall divert I'tirther ai%'iiineiii npmi sjiecial pniiils. the 

 liritish (inveriinieiil lia\ in;.', in such ease, I he ri;,dit nl' ,i,'eneral reply, and the ( 'nmniissinueis shall at niiee 

 |irnueed In ennsiili.'f iheir award. The perinds thus alluwi^d I'm' hearin.L; the evideiiee shall Ik; without 

 emintiut; any days ni' a'liii;v,nnient that may he milered liy the ( 'nmmi'isimiei^." 



The amendment which we would move would be to insert after the words "the 

 evidctice in reply shall be ccinmeiiecMl." the follow in;;-:-— 



"When the whole evideuee i-; euurhideil, either side may, it' desirmis nl' dniiiL: sn. address ;lie 

 t'oininissimi nrally, the liritish (lovernmeiil haviii;,' the ri^iit ei' reply." 



^fr. Dnutrr. — I understand this, hut it is not the motion under discussion. I 

 have read the principal part of that motion, and I say this, tint it' we take t'lis to 

 mean what our friends had in their minds when they made their application, the 

 only alteration th.at this rule would require would bo this, "after which ari>;uments 

 shall be delivercil on the part of the l.'nitetl States, orally or in writing, within a 

 period often days, unless further time he allowed by the Commissioners on applica- 

 tion, and arji^uments in closing- the liritish case shall be, &ic." 



Mr. Trf.ffo/. That is what .Mr. Thoir.son pro|)oses. 



Mr. 7)o»/rf.— Kxactly, ;i!id this does not give any more. IJtit there was in their 

 minds more than this coiitains. We have it in their verbal explanations. 



Mr. Trescot.— i'f. far as the construction of language goes, I have no objection 

 to vour puttins: am constp drtion you please, or drawine: any inferences von choose 

 • [280] ^ 2 A 2 



