ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 89 



Senator Root: That, I suppose, would apply — 



Judge Gray: To the dispute? 



Senator Root: I suppose it would apply primarily to the 

 powers of this Tribunal. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, that is it. 



Senator Root: That was the idea. 



The President: Has not that which in the regular cases is 

 the object of the Special Agreement to be made under Article 2 of 

 the general treaty been done already by Article 4 for this purpose ? 



"the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators" 



are defined by Article 4. 



"the periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and the 

 several stages of the procedure'' 



are also fixed by Article 4. In referring to Article 87 of The Hague 

 Act, on p. 121, Article 4 says that these contestations are to be 

 referred to The Hague Court for decision by the summary pro- 

 cedure 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 Arti- 

 cle 88, this provision: 



"In the absence of any previous agreement, the Tribimal, 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 

 regulated by Article 88 of the summary procedure, as under special 

 provisions 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 



