1676 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



general. It consists in broad propositions, which are not very diffi- 

 cult to put, although they involve, no doubt, a good deal of 

 distinction. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: The distinction made by my brother 

 Drago I understand to be that with reference to States there 

 1013 may be the distinction between the dominium of the State 

 and the imperium ; that is to say, with reference to the domin- 

 ium, the State may dispose of its dominium, as a private individual ; 

 but with respect to imperium, that is not a matter of sovereignty. 



SIR W. ROBSON: I am much obliged. That assists me to under- 

 stand, perhaps, a little better, the point of the learned arbitrator. 

 States may do what they like with regard to their property. In so 

 far as they are owners, they may subject their property to any obli- 

 gation that they please. I say they may do it without any danger to 

 their sovereignty. That is to say, they put what obligations they 

 like upon themselves as lords of the land. A State may submit its 

 dominium to these rights, without any derogation from its imperium, 

 although I doubt the advisability of encouraging a distinction be- 

 tween territorial sovereignty and other sovereignty. 



DR. DE SAVORNIN LOHMAN: When you distinguish between impe- 

 rium and dominium, then the whole question, I think, is at an end. 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. The national sovereignty, that is to say, 

 general sovereignty, what I prefer to call legislative and executive 

 power, really is a thing which ought not to be confused with questions 

 of ownership. It moves in a different sphere. You may do what 

 you please with regard to giving material interests of particular ad- 

 vantage in your State; that simply relates to material profit, and 

 has, really, no proper connection with 



DR. DRAGO: Has it not with the sovereign entity of the State? 



SIR W. ROBSON: None at all. It is a different function. The 

 State, while dealing with material interests of that kind, and with 

 mere property, is behaving like an owner. But that ought not to 

 affect its functions and its duties and its powers when we pass from 

 the sphere of property into that of government. But that is what 

 the United States are seeking to do. That is the whole difference 

 between them and us on this side of the room. We say : " You may 

 grant all such obligations freely touching ownership, but the grant of 

 any rights you like to make does not affect government, jurisdiction, 

 or imperium." 



THE PRESIDENT: For instance, if a State "A" cedes a part of its 

 territory to a State " B," for having a railway station at the frontier. 

 Does that imply that the officials of the foreign railway, the railway 

 of the foreign State, who come into the territory of the State that 

 has ceded this part of its territory for constructing the railway sta- 

 tion, cease to be under the legislation of the State where they act 

 that they come under a state of extra-territoriality ? 



