Page:The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 (Volume 01).djvu/176

 responded saying that the answer was unsatisfactory. It was unnecessary to have the attorneys of each part plead, since such a thing had been ordered without avail on the eleventh of April. Therefore they insisted upon the interlocutory assembly.

May 28. Ibid. The attorneys for Portugal presented a writ to the effect that the time limit expired on the last of May, and the matter was in such shape that it would be finished briefly; for in regard to the ownership, their attorneys were unanimous on the three points, except in matters of slight moment, in which they could soon agree. In the matter of possession, the witnesses of both sides were present, and such an expedient could be adopted that this case could be determined immediately. "Therefore we petition," said they, "for a continuation of the time limit. In this will be done what ought to be done, and what the Emperor seems to wish, since he has told the ambassadors of our King that your graces could extend the time, and were empowered to do it by the said treaty."

The licentiate Acuña answered immediately that prorogation was an act of jurisdiction, and should be determined on the boundary line, where, according to the order, they must meet during the last three days; and that he was ready to discuss the matter on Monday, May 30 with the licentiate Acevedo, the member first named on their commission.

Acevedo consented, and they agreed to meet on the said day at seven in the morning.

May 30. When the deputies met on the boundary line Acevedo gave his vote, namely, that bearing in mind the treaty and that the matter could be settled briefly, the two cases be continued through June.