ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 1999 



provided in chapter 4 of The Hague Convention. And if we look 

 at this chapter 4, "Arbitration by Summary Procedure," on p. 21 of 

 the United States Case Appendix, there is in article 88 this pro- 

 vision : 



" In the absence of any previous agreement, the Tribunal, as soon 

 as it is formed, settles the time within which the two parties must 

 submit their respective cases to it." 



So that although this matter, which, according to article 2 of the 

 general treaty has to be defined by the special agreement, is reg- 

 ulated by article 88 of the summary procedure, as under special pro- 

 visions for the time being fixed, the Tribunal itself fixes precisely 

 this time. There is nothing left open. There is no question left 

 open, I should think, to be fixed by the Special Agreement, and 

 therefore it would not be necessary in that case. 



SENATOR ROOT : The questions have got to be stated. 



THE PRESIDENT : Yes ; but is not that provided by article 4 already ? 

 Every difference which arises under these circumstances is to be 

 submitted. 



SENATOR ROOT: But you have got to define what the difference is, 

 which is frequently a rather difficult thing to do. However that may 

 be, that can be settled when it is reached. My object in referring to 

 the question here was to clear away possible doubt which might cause 

 controversy in the future, and to do it now before the award of the 

 Arbitrators, because I should think that it might be very well in' the 

 award to fix the rights of the parties with some reference to this 

 provision, so that it would not be left an open question. 



DR. DRAGO : Perhaps this article 4 could be considered as disposing 

 of the matter. It has been made under the provisions of the general 

 treaty of arbitration. The general treaty of arbitration will expire 

 after five years, and may or may not be renewed. But this article, 

 created in virtue of the treaty which is to disappear shall continue to 

 exist. The treaty could in that sense and in what refers to this par- 

 ticular matter be called dispositive, as the jurists say ; it disposes of 

 the matter ; it is transitory, as they also call it, with a somewhat mis- 

 leading name, inasmuch as there is no necessity of any other provi- 

 sion afterwards. The treaty of arbitration may pass, but the right or 

 juristic relation created by it under article 4 shall continue to exist 

 as a separate fact. 



SENATER ROOT: Precisely. 



DR. DRAGO (continuing) : And the position of the parties as to 

 future contentions which might occur relating to these fisheries will 

 be regulated by it. I do not know whether I have made myself quite 

 clear. 



SENATOR ROOT: You have made yourself quite clear, Sir, and I 

 fully agree with that; and I hope the Attorney- General does. 



