22 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



The tribunal accordingly referred the regulations objected to by 

 the United States to a commission of experts, as provided for in 

 Article III of the special agreement, for action in accordance there- 

 with, and called upon the parties to designate, within one month 

 from the date of the award, their respective representatives on such 

 commission. Dr. P. P. C. Hoek, scientific adviser for the fisheries 

 of the Netherlands, was designated in the award as the nonnational 

 member of this commission. Dr. Hugh M. Smith, Deputy Fish 

 Commissioner of the United States, was designated within the period 

 fixed by the award as the commissioner on the part of the United 

 States. Hon. Donald Morison, minister of justice of Newfoundland, 

 has been designated as the commissioner on the part of Great Britain. 

 In the course of the oral argument before the tribunal, the position 

 was taken by counsel on both sides that in determining the rights of 

 the parties under question 1, the tribunal should take into considera- 

 tion the provisions of Article IV of the special agreement submitting 

 this case to arbitration. By this article it was agreed that unless the 

 parties should adopt some alternative method of procedure, any 

 differences arising in the future relating to the interpretation of the 

 treaty of 1818, or to the effect or application of the award of the tri- 

 bunal, should be referred informally to the Permanent Court at The 

 Hague " for decision by the summary procedure provided for in 

 chapter 4 of The Hague convention of the 18th of October, 1907." 

 In view, however, of the fact that this special agreement was entered 

 into under the general treaty of arbitration concluded between the 

 United States and Great Britain on the 4th day of April, 1908, the 

 duration of which, by its own terms, was limited to a period of five 

 years, it seemed desirable to the agent and counsel on the part of the 

 United States that the view which was entertained b}' both court and 

 counsel and formed part of the basis upon which the case was con- 

 sidered should be declared beyond the possibility of future question 

 to the effect that the provisions of Article IV of the special agree- 

 ment continued with the fisheries provisions of the treaty of 1818. and 

 did not terminate with the general arbitration treaty of 1908. This 

 subject was, therefore, brought up for consideration at the session of 

 the tribunal on Friday, August 5th, 1910, and it was then stated by 

 counsel on behalf of the United States and of Great Britain respec- 

 tively, that the provisions of Article IV were regarded as constitut- 

 ing, in effect, a new treaty which would survive the termination of 

 the o-eneral treaty of arbitration, and that Article IV of the special 

 agreement was not limited by any term, but related to the future gen- 

 erally, and therefore was not a determinable article so far as affects 

 its subject matter. The same view was expressed on the part of the 

 tribunal; and in the award on question 1, the tribunal held that— 



Article IV of the agreement is, as stated by counsel of the respec- 

 tive parties at the argument, permanent in its effect and not deter- 



