J
025
•
stre Te
•
*
T
-------------
31 dinliyorto si
fus "a Inega orig. Trah dua hiz
stajemy od Viver ver Zeit mo spoil teste
•
!
Land we voor weret en skør BC***
AVER LET 21
·
ya na gist ums
(b)
•
I
751
inolesura Ho.
4 in Tulon despatch To.
of natober,
15
1921.
•
VERK U PUBLIO OF MINA.
Ministry of Paraim Affairs.
Canter, detober 14, 1921.
J.W.JAMÍNKm, 381..
•
*.
British der zuletz-General, Cantor.
Dear Wr.dwin371,
1
I have narofully nonsidered your letter of the #th. Yong suggest arbisætion in nestl», not the question or
what the water boundarie; ara, buy a faolus viveli with regard
te the harbour wat ra and the regulations zotarrin- jurka visit-
ing Lappa' (71^, your lobter to ne of 30th ult.). In our view,
@marlins to the rules of intentional 1pm owi umier, tha Matter A Renaedingly nie, hech on the principle that the boundsry lina Latreem international untere phaul) lie in miền charnel ar a the principle this the rights granted to mother
natiar should be interpreted striatly in favour of the puntar
(not to ambim the name of maronnhamt 1. Whatever may be the
accept (bility o” arbiŭgation on the vuestion of parament de.
limitation of boundarias, to resort to is 1- andre merely te arrive at a temporary notas viventi sewan hawlly worth phil». And even to arrive at woh a motus vivendi ít xomas i possible
without going to a large extent into the matuer of portar ent
water boundaries and indeed that of permanent land boundaries
all. As illustration, I have alreny voronlly pointed out
to you that ir a lespatch a few years ago you yourself while robing an sortuquees Jomwil nietved on behalf of "anna thas warohai sri avan the whole of Lapon was disputed territory.
bile, of course, rush a 3laiu can only be dozoribed as fartas- tie and preposterous as you vouraqulf in a recent letter te ne said that Tandhai was 'andsubtedly "Miresa", yet it serves to show that ar aroitration to arriva ut a mɔčun vivmli would be
almost tantamount to an spuitration as to delimitation of
boundarins