/ 



169 



told that the learned counsel did not understand what I wanted ? I do not know 

 what the practice may be here, but 1 have never been in a Court in which, if there 

 were several counsel on each side, they did not address the Court alternately, so 

 that c.K'ii side might possess the argument of the other side. 



Mr. Weatherbe. — That is not the practice in England. 



Mr. Trescot. — That may be. 1 only undertake to say what we want, and what 

 we consider a fair course to' all parties. But I am asked— What is tho use of such 

 a reply ? I answer, just such use as you choose to make of it. We only ask loknow 

 your case, and then, having met it to the best of our ability, you can reply to our 

 argument as you deem most judicious. Let me illustrate what I mean. You 

 all recollect the testimony as to the iky de Chaleurs — that fishing was «)nly prose- 

 ctited on its shores — that is, in "the cores of tlie bay," to use the language of the 

 witnesses, there was no fishing. Now, if this is so, practically the question of 

 the headlands is put aside, for it makes no diHerence whether we come within 

 the headland line or not. But suppose, in reply, we prove that there is fishing 

 within the body of the bay more than three miles from either shore — how then ? 

 Recollect that up to this point, although we have been promised your brief on the 

 headland (picstion, we have not had it. Do you mean simply to discuss our testi- 

 mony, or to maintain the doctrine of the headland line? Under your proposed 

 arrangement, wo would have to make our argument without the slightest knowledge 

 of what yon intended to maintain. Whereas, under our arrangement, we would 

 know exactly wli.it yon thought, and although we might attempt an answer, you 

 would have tlie clear right to meet that answer bv your final reply as you thought 

 fit. 



But I have ro intention of prolonging this argument further. I think we have 

 stated with sincere fairness what we mean, and that it is obvious that the right of 

 final reply is preserved to the counsel on the other side. Their purpose is equally 

 obvious to Keep !)ack in their discretion just as much of their case as they do not 

 choose to give us the opportunity to reply to. If this Commission deems such reti- 

 cence proper wo must accommodate oiu" argument to their decision, and be content 

 with haviiii; said what we think justice required. 



ll'ju. Mr. Kriloiji). — I should like to say, with the permission of the other Com- 

 missioners, that 1 rather expected the motion would have been put in due form last 

 nigiit, but I hope that this delay or omission, which has given rise to a little mis- 

 understanding, will not be a reason for exciting any feeling. I am an.xious, for one, 

 that in our proceedings we should observe the kind of conduct that we have 

 observed so far, and I have no idea that any thought of getting any such advantage 

 was entertained when the application was made last night. 



I want to observe one thing further, with the leave of the other Commissioners, 

 that in discussing these questions which have arisen, and which may still arise, we 

 should observe due mocleration, and not get into personal disputation with one 

 another, but address the tribunal as the one which will settle the matter 

 eventually. 



Decision given by the Commissioner.'^ on the 1st day of September, 1877. 



The Commissioners having considered the motion submitted by Messrs. Dana and 

 Trescot, decideil that — 



" lliiviiii; line tvj,'iuil to the vifjlit iit' llcv Miijcsly's (Jdvemment to the {jeneral and final rpjily, tlie 

 Coinmissioiii'i's ciiiiiiol iiiodil'y the Huk's in such a nminii'r as might inipair or diminish sneli rijrht. 

 Ivu'h |iiuty will, liDwever, within the period fixed hy the Itnles, be allowed to olier its eoneliidin,- 

 arj,'unient either iindly, or in vritini;, and if orally it may be aecomimnied by a written ir.^uiiu' or 

 summary thereol', tor the convenience of the Connnissiouers, such rmrmi or summary being fur- 

 nished within the said period." 



III. 



At the Conference held on the jth of September, 1877. 



j^L. 7<'o.v<t'r.— I will read the motion that was presented on the 1st instant : — 



'• Tlir Counsel and Ageiitof the I'nited State.«i ask the Honourable Commis.sioners to rule, declaring; 

 that it is not eompeicut for this t'onnnissiou to award any compensation for conanercial intercourse 

 between the two countries, and that the advantages resulting from the practice of purchasing bait, ice, 



