65 



to a commission of three expert specialists, one to be designated by each of the Parties 

 and the third not to be a national of either Party and to be appointed by the Court. 1 



To enable the Governments to deal with any difference of views between them before 

 resorting to the Commission, the Court recommended official publication of any regula- 

 tions as to hours, days and seasons for taking fish, as to methods, means and implements, 

 etc. two months before their coming into operation, to enable the United States Govern- 

 ment to raise any question as to their inconsistency with the treaty of 1818, in which 

 case the Commission would decide on the difference. On the question of the mode Of 

 measuring the three marine miles, the Court decided that in case of bays, the three 

 marine miles should be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of water at 

 the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay. At all 

 other places the three miles were to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast. 

 It recommended, however, adoption of the method followed in the North Sea Fisheries 

 Convention (May 8, 1882) of fixing the line at the part of the bay nearest the entrance 

 when the width does not exceed ten miles. From the operation of this general proposi- 

 tion, the award excepted a certain number of bays " where the configuration of the coast 

 and the local climatic conditions are such that foreign fishermen, when within the 

 geographic headlands, might reasonably and bond fide believe themselves on the high 

 seas," and fixed for these certain points between which the line should be drawn. 



The long and detailed award is full of interesting points connected with fishery 

 methods, territorial waters and bays, and will certainly have considerable influence in 

 the treatment of similar matters in the future. 



The Orinoco S.S.Co. claim between the U.S.A. and Venezuela raised the question 

 whether, if an umpire exceeds his powers and bases his decision on errors of law and fact 

 essential to the issue, the award is liable to revision. The Court decided that it was, and 

 proceeded to revise it accordingly, a precedent of the greatest moment. 



The Savarkar case turned on the delicate question of whether a fugitive under a 

 criminal charge, who had escaped from the ship on which he was being conveyed to his 

 place of trial (India) and had been arrested by the police of the country (France) to 

 which he escaped and immediately handed over (in error) by that police to those in 

 charge of him, should not have been delivered back to the Government of the state to 

 which he had escaped and been dealt with under the Extradition treaty existing between 

 the two states concerned. The Arbitrators decided that as there had been in the cir- 

 cumstances no " atteinte a la souverainete *' of the country to which the prisoner had 

 escaped and all parties had acted in good faith and no disavowal of the surrender had 

 been made known till two days later, after the departure of the vessel, the action of the 

 local police though taken in error closed the incident. This decision, based on considera- 

 tions outside the strictly legal question involved, marks the difference between arbitra- 

 tors, who as such can disregard technical questions, and a justiciary court, which has 

 little latitude when confronted with an unquestioned legal principle such as the universal 

 one that a fugitive who sets foot on foreign soil is beyond the jurisdiction of the police of 

 his country except by operation of a treaty of extradition. The fact that the French 

 Government made a claim shows that it had not waived its right. Though it is evident 

 that, if France had declined to grant extradition (as she very possibly might), the 

 liberation of Savarkar by the British authorities might have involved difficulties, the 

 precedent should be regarded as a compromise rather than a judicial decision. 



The Canevaro affair between the U.S.A. and Peru arose out of a loan made to the 

 Dictator Pierola in 1880 by semi-Italian bankers. The question tun:ed on -an assess- 

 ment involving no principle of law of any general interest. 



The Turco-Russian case related to interest on an indemnity payable by Turkey 

 to Russian claimants or their nominees, which had been satisfied by instalments after 

 long intervening delays. The arbitrators while admitting the justice of the claim in 



1 The Court appointed Dr. P. P. C. Hoek, scientific adviser to the Netherland Fisheries. 

 The other members who have since been appointed are Dr. Hugh Smith, on behalf of the 

 U.S.A., and the Hon. Donald Morison, Newfoundland Minister of Justice. 



