1708 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



merit and commands approval. But I respectfully protest against 

 such an author being laid before this great Tribunal as an authority 

 whose opinion should of itself carry weight. We have a rule in 

 English law which may seem a little artificial, but which works 

 well. Our Judges will not allow us to cite text-writers and writers 

 of books unless they are dead. Well, if we were to apply that 

 1033 test to all the authorities that have taken up so much of the 

 time of this Tribunal, we would either have cut down the 

 argument very much or have massacred many very eminent and 

 learned individuals ; because they have carried these authorities right 

 down to 1910. I think that was the latest date at which some of them 

 were published. 



Well, I think that we ought really to display some care in putting 

 before the Tribunal works of this kind as authorities. 



Look, for instance, to what Mr. Clauss says about himself. 

 He says in his preface, first of all, that the doctrine of servitudes 

 has been rather neglected this century, that is, the last 100 years. 

 Well, it has. As I say, it did not come into existence as international 

 law until about a century ago, so that it has had a very neglected life. 

 Then he goes on to say that this subject seemed a very suitable one 

 for the theme of a prize essay. It was not that Mr. Clauss, as some 

 distinguished jurist, was impelled by his study and learning to com- 

 municate his knowledge to the world at large, but he selected this 

 subject as he might have many others, for a prize essay. Then 

 he went on say that he thought he would use it to obtain his doctor's 

 degree. Then he says, the author encountered great difficulty (p. 2 

 of his preface) in the determination of the concept of State sov- 

 ereignty. Well, gentlemen, who write prize essays for their doctor's 

 degree want the prize and the doctor's degree. They do not trouble 

 much about collateral matters like State sovereignty, and he 

 that, in his opinion, the entire foundation of the doctrine is State 

 sovereignty; but he, the author, as a beginner in political science, 

 considers he ought to leave it to more competent hands, and so on. 



While I have the greatest respect for Mr. Clauss, and I would not 

 say a word other than complimentary of him, I must say that the 

 prize essay of a beginner in political science, who knows nothing or 

 very little about the concepts of State sovereignty, is scarcely the 

 kind of work to put before this Tribunal as an authority. As a 

 compendium of other writers he has done very good service. I see 

 he winds up his preface with a very proper expression of thanks 

 to his highly esteemed teacher, who was a professor in some univer- 

 sity. However, that, as I say, does not entitle Mr. Clauss to much 

 weight. He might well have examined this concept of sovereignty 

 a little more closely. He does not even ask himself what sovereignty 

 is. Far be from me to give anything like a scientific or comprehensive 



