AL-
1
·
In this connexion I am advised that the draft telegram to the Commander-in-Chief enclosed in Cardo's letter M. 01906/49 of the 9th December 1949 to Radford is not sufficiently explicit, as it does not deal with the question of bays but simply refers to the three mile limit. I am further advised that it would be most desirable for the Admiralty Hydrographer to measure on a chart the territorial waters in this area, taking the breadth of territorial waters as three miles but otherwise measuring them according to the principles which, as the Admiralty and the Admiralty Hydrographer know, we are putting forward as being the correct ones in the Norwegian Fisheries case before the Hague Court and on the thesis that Mirs Bay and Bias Bay have been ceded to the United Kingdom as internal waters; and that the advice ultimately given to the Commander-in- Chief should be on the basis of a chart so drawn by the Admiralty Hydrographer.
Although this view of the interpretation of the Convention may be right, it will be difficult to maintain so long as the Hong Kong Ordinance remains unamended. It would therefore seem advisable to amend the Ordinance so as to make it clear that it applies to the land (including Deep Bay and Mirs Bay) and the territorial waters pertaining to that land. This might perhaps be done by amending the introductory words to Clause 1 of Part IV, Section 39B of the Ordinance. The second line, for example, might perhaps read "means the whole area of land lying between the following boundaries (including the whole of Deep Bay and Mirs Bay within those boundaries)". It would also have to be made clear that "the Colony" includes the territorial waters pertaining to that land, and clause 6 would also need amendment to show that "waters" include territorial waters. The exact wording of the amendments is of course a matter for the draftsman of the amending ordinance, but for obvious reasons I expect you will agree that the amendments should be as simple as possible.
Finally/
Page 115Page 116