168 



'; 



i>: 



from the hm{>ii.ijio of the iipplicntion that was made last night. Hut that llie 

 intention of" that application, and of the amendment we propose to-day, were one 

 and the same tiling-, there can be no doubt. VVIien we filed that paper, wimt was 

 wanted was distinctly known, otherwise it would have been oud faith on our part, 

 as we would have been asking for one thing, and intending to get another. There 

 was no possible doubt what the object of this was, as is evident from the fact that 

 Mr. Thomson suggested an amendment himself to counteract our object, showing that 

 he had clearly in mind what object we had in view, 



Mr. Doiiire. — My answer is that, by reading this, we suspected the object of this 

 paper was something more than to change the time when our learned friends should 

 address the Commission, it only meant that instead of doing so before adducing 

 their evidence. tln'y would do so after the whole of the evidence had been brought 

 in. The object tliai our friends have in view is very clear in the paper which has been 

 read here to-ilav by Mr. Trescot, but it is not so in the paper which was oresented 

 yesterday, and v e suspected this was an indirect way of securing that which is not 

 known in any Court in the civilized world, namely, that the defendants should have 

 the reply. Tiny would have twice the opportunity of discussing the matter, when 

 they have no rigiit to be heard more than once. Now, why is the reply given to the 

 plaintifl's? Heeause up to that moment the position of the defendants is far more 

 privileged. They have all the eviilenee of the plaintifis in their luuuls, and they 

 know what tlicy arc themselves going to prove. The plaintiff does not know it. 

 When we shall have closed our evidence, they will have the whole case in their 

 hands, whilst wo iiave only half of it. For that, and other reasons, the final reply is 

 given to the plaintill, and we object to our friends in this manner seeking to njiset 

 the rules which prevail in all courts of justice that ever existed. 



Mr. DiiiKi. — I beg that you will not sit down without explaining how vou lose 

 the reply. 



Mr. Dnidre. — We have a reply which is worth nothing. That is what I mean. 

 The virtual and |)ractieal reply is in your hands. That is exactly the position. 



[ think it is necessary in order to preserve the harmony that has so far existed 

 here, we should not introduce in this Commission a practice which has never existed 

 in any Court, that one of the counsel should pass over the head of his legal 

 advers-ary, in order to reach the suitor, and ask him if he agrees to what his counsel 

 proposes. Such a course as that would tend materially to impair the good relations 

 which we all, I think, desire to cultivate. 



Mr. Trescot. — I have no intention of saying one word that could disturb the 

 relations that exist between the counsel on either side, and 1 have no fear that 

 anvthiiig could be said on either side that would have such a result. For that 

 reason 1 don't object, as I perhaps might, to the application which I made yesterday 

 being characterized ; ; a masked request. When I read that document yesterday, I 

 had no earthly doub. that every man present knew what I wanted. So far from 

 having any doubt about the matter, I may say that both the lion, Minister of 

 Marine, who appears to be of counsel with the other side, and the Agent of the 

 British Government, distinctly informed us that they would consent to this petition, 

 if we may call it such, provided we would take the proposition submitted by Mr, 

 Thomson. INow theie can be no doubt that when that proposal was made, they 

 understood what it was we wanted. Wo stated as distinctly that we declined to accept 

 any such proposition, and that the cour.se they pursued was one that could not meet 

 our approval. All I am anxious to do now is to clear myself of the accusation, for 

 sucii 1 think it is, < f having submitted a paper which asked for one tiling, when I 

 wanted the Comirlssion to do another thing. 



Sir Alexander Gait. — 1 do not think the Commission ever attributed such a 

 design to you. 



Mr. iVeatherbe. Will you read the part of the paper presented yesterday which 

 says what you wanted the Commission to do? 



Mr. Tresrol. — \t is as follows: 'As we understand the wish of both Govern- 

 ments to be," &c. 



Now, what docs that moiin ? What can it mean, but that when we made an 

 oral argument, tluy would make an oral reply, and when we presented a printed 

 argument, their printed argument would be put in ? 1 believe that the matter was 

 so understood, and I have misunderstood the whole scope of the argument this 

 morning, if eveiy gentleman wl o has addressed the Court has not argued upon 

 the reciuest I m;ide. The whole argument on the other side has been for the jiur- 

 pose of showing that we ought not to have what we asked for. Then how can 1 be 





|uuj^incHa'tr» -vtsb:^ 



