ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON". 1711 



Holtzendorff, Yon Ullman, Fabre, Hollatz, Phillimore, Hall, Whar- 

 ton, Fiore, L. Oppenheim, and Diena. ' 



Then there are some who say it is a misleading conception, and 

 that it is desirable to get rid of the idea. I think those deserve spe- 

 cial enumeration: Bulmerincq, Von Liszt, and Nys. 



And then in modern times: Challandes, Schmidt, de Louter, 

 Fricker, Arrigo, Cavaglieri, and Jellinek. 



I need not give the expressions used by some of these authors with 

 regard to servitudes. There are some who have gone further than I 

 venture to go, and say that the whole doctrine is only appropriate 

 for a museum of antiquity. 



Then I think I really need not give the other authors, some of 

 whom say it may consist in faciendo, and others that it does not con- 

 sist in faciendo. 



It does not matter how many of them say it does or does not, but 

 it is rather important to take those who say it is permanent, and 

 others who say it may be for a term : 



Permanent: Wharton, Heffter, Hartmann, Von Ullman, Hollatz, 

 Bluntschli, Calvo, Rivier, Fiore, Chretien, Bonfils, L. Oppenheim, 

 and Diena. 



Term: Kliiber, H. B. Oppenheim, Fabre, Lomanaco, and Des- 

 pagnet. 



Others say, like Holtzendorff, that it is doubtful, and others say 

 that you cannot safely say either one thing or the other (Sir Travers 

 Twiss) and so it goes on. 



I will not trouble the Tribunal with this elaborate investigation, 

 though it has taken many hours, I was almost going to say of ill- 

 spent time, but there is scarcely one single proposition you can 

 1035 make about a servitude in which you cannot get about a dozen 

 one way and a dozen the other, or thereabouts, among the 

 various authors who have dealt with the subject. 



[Thereupon the Tribunal, at 4 o'clock, adjourned until Thursday, 

 the 28th July, 1910, at 10 a. m.l 



THIRTY-FIRST DAT : THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1910. 



The Tribunal met at 10 A. M. 



THE PRESIDENT: Will you please to continue, Mr. Attorney-Gen- 

 eral? 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR WILLIAM ROBSON (resuming) : Mr. 

 President and gentlemen, before going on to Question 2, there are two 

 matters as to which I would like to say a few words on Question 1. 



One is a point with which I do not think I have dealt fully, or 

 perhaps even explicitly, and it certainly merits some attention in the 

 argument. 



