Page 415 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

101
jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit under the Colonial Act of 1811, which authorises the
seizure and condemnation of any boat found within the limits of, or hovering near, the pearl
banks extending from 6 or 21 miles from the coast, and it may be observed that, in the
recent Behring Sea Arbitration, the United States of America cited the Ceylon precedent
as justifying their exercise of possession in, and control over, seal-fisheries beyond the zone
of territorial waters as ordinarily recognised by international law. It is also worth nothing
that the above contention is supported bv the authority of the Swiss publicist, Vettcl, who
in his " Droit des Gens M remarked, in discussing the question as far back as the eighteenth
century, “ Qui doutera que less pecheries dc pcrles de Behrein ct de Ceylon ne puissent
Iegitimement tomber en properictc? ” We believe, therefore, that our claim to exclude all
foreign pearling vessels from the limits of the fisheries at present worked by the tribes
within our protectorate might, if challenged, be defended with a reasonable chance of
success.
6. There remains, however, the case of foreign exploitation of deep waters outside
the sphere in which we believe that it may be shown that immemorial usage and occu-
pation have conferred prescriptive rights. In this still wider area we doubt whether we
possess claims in support of which could appeal to any law or international practice,
and we fear that possible detriment to the pearl banks in which we hold prescriptive
rights would furnish no valid ground for objecting to legitimate foreign enterprise
outside the sphere ol Arab occupation ; but by authorising the Chiefs to abstain from all
intercourse wiih such interlopers and to utilise the powers which they possess of interdict­
ing the importation foreign diving appliances, of refusing to lend any assistance in men,
boats or in any other form, or, if necessary in the last resort, of removing any such foreigner
from their territories, we might succeed in putting such Gerious impediments in the way
of such enterpiises as would discourage outsiders from engaging in them.
7. The question is fortunately not one in which we are at present called upon to decide
as to the exact nature of the rights or the precise limits of jurisdiction which the
several Chiefs possess, and which we, as the paramount Power, are bound to assert and
maintain on their behalf; but in view of the possibility of further attempt, whether by
British companies or by foreign capitalists, we think it advisable to be prepared in advance.
We shall, therefore, be glad to know whether His Majesty's Government concur in the
views above sec forth and to receive any instructions which it may be deemed advisable to
issue for the guidance of our local officers in the event of renewed adveutures of a more
determined character.
331. The Secretary of State after consulting the Legal Adviser of the India
Office forwarded the case to the Foreign
Secret E, March 1905, Nos. i-io.
Office for taking the advice of the Law
Officers of the Crown, with a clear statement of the points.
33a. The Law Officers of the Crown have doubt as to the rights of the
tribes in such waters as may justly be
Secret E., May 1905, Nos. 528 530.
considered territorial. Outside territorial
warters, they are inclined to hold that the exclusive rights of the tribes might be
maintained to banks in regard to which their Exclusive possessioti is capable
oj historical proof, but they consider that the point is not free from doubt. In
regard to the deeper waters, they are of opinion that there would be no reasonable
chance of asserting with success the right of the tribes to debar other nations
from dredging. The Law Officers in the circumstances conclude that it
is not expedient to raise the question internationally by forcibly preventing
vessels of foreign nationalities from fishing on the banks outside the territorial
limits. The object in view may probably be attained by indirect methods.
333. The Secretary of State concurs in the general conclusion of the Law
Officers (Despatch No. 8«SeC., dated 31 st March 1905).

G. C. Prois.SimU.-No. S645 F. D.—27-3-06.—30.