en
in possession furnished no reason why Spain should be plaintiff.

April 22. _Ibid._ In a meeting of the judges, the three lawyers of
Portugal gave expression to the following interlocutory opinion: that
each side should make cross-examinations according to law, in order
that they might examine the witness produced by the attorneys. Thus
the latter could offer any writs, proofs, and documents from which
they hoped to gain aid in this case, so that, when everything was
seen and examined, this case and the doubt as to whom the possession
belonged could be determined.

The three Castilian lawyers declared that the petitions of the
Portuguese attorneys had no place, and therefore within three days
they would state and plead their right.

The Portuguese judges said that both informal opinions agreed in
each side pleading its right, but the Castilian judges did not state
in theirs whether they should be by court or by petition, and they
therefore asked them to make such declaration. The Castilian attorney
said that the opinion of his side was clear and there was no occasion
for the suit.

The legal judges for Castilla made the same assertion.

May 4. In Yelves, in the town hall. The attorneys for Portugal replied
that they would receive hurt from the opinion of the Castilian judges,
because the latter claimed wrongly that they were the plaintiffs;
that the two interlocutory decisions of either part were not the
same. And they asserted that to be in accord with justice, and the
treaty, which was in harmony with the opinion of their judges, they
ought to form a court of cross-examination and furnish as proofs to
the attorney for Castilla those things placed before them. And if
they would not do this, then it was evident that the delay in the
case was due to the Castilian judges and attorney.

May 6. _Ibid._ The attorney for Castilla denied that the parties to
the suit could compel the arbitrators to submit to their opinions. He
defended the opinion of his judges; demonstrated that the contrary was
unjust and null and void, because they demand witnesses and proofs to
be received without a suit, debate, or conclusion preceding, a thing
quite contrary to all order in law. He impugned the secret motive that
could provoke the Portuguese judges to their interlocutory opinion,
the apparent meaning of which was to make a summary investigation
concerning the possession in order thereby to clear the way for the
decision of owne