90 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



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 dis- 

 posing 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 particular matter be called dispositive, as the jurists 

 say; it disposes of the matter; it is transitory, as they also call it, 

 with a somewhat misleading name, inasmuch as there is no necessity 

 of any other provision 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. 



Senator 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. 



The Attorney- General: In reference to the question that 

 the President was good enough to put to me, which I am sorry I 

 missed at the time, owing to my attention being directed elsewhere, 

 I understand it to be as to whether the limit of five years, which 



