CO885-(13-15) — Page 310

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2

Article II. secures the United States against any exercise or authorisation of jurisdiction within the port adverse to, or restrictive of, the rights granted therein to the United States.

If, therefore (and we gather from the papers that of this there is no doubt), the establishment by Great Britain in Pago Pago Harbour of a naval station and coaling depôt would be adverse to, or restrictive of, the Treaty rights of the United States, we are of opinion that Her Majesty's Government must be advised they are not entitled to insist on such establishment.

We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.

JOHN RIGBY.

4484.

No. 287.

(CANADA.)

CASE submitted to the Honourable the ADVOCATE GENERAL and the STANDING COUNSEL to the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA for Opinion,

THE Solicitor to the Government of India forwards herewith a letter from the Government of India, Revenue and Agricultural Department, No. 3-1 of the 4th instant, and its annexures, and requests that the Honourable the Advocate General and the Standing Counsel will favour that Government with an expression of their joint opinion on the question raised regarding the power of Government to regulate and control the pearl fisheries of Mergui.

The specific issues upon which the Government desire to be advised are as follows:- (a.) Whether, assuming the islands of the Mergui Archipelago to be British territory, the British Government possesses territorial jurisdiction over the sea within the limits described in the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the Chief Commissioner's letter, dated 28th October last, to Messrs. Moylan and Eddis, or any and what part thereof.

(b.) Whether, assuming an affirmative answer is given to the first question, the islands in question can, on the facts stated in the papers, be held to form part of British India, and, if so, whether they are or are not part of the territories under the administration of the Chief Commissioner of Burma.

(c.) Whether, assuming an affirmative answer to be given to both the above questions, Government is entitled, consistently with the general principles of International Law, to any exclusive right of fishing within the limits above described, and, if so, whether they are empowered to grant to any other person any such exclusive right. either under the Burma Fisheries Act, 1875, or under any other enactment now in force or otherwise,

(d.) Whether, assuming a negative answer to either of the first two questions, the Government is entitled to regulate or control in any and what manner the right of fishing within the limits above described or any part thereof, and more particularly whether it is empowered to act in the way suggested in Messrs. Moylan and Eddis's letter, dated 1st September last to the Chief Commissioner either under any enactment now in force or otherwise.

(e.) If the Local Government is not at present empowered to regulate or control such right of fishing as aforesaid, whether the Governor General in Council is competent, consistently with the principles of International Law, to confer on it by legislation the requisite powers; if so, what would be the character of the legislation required for the purpose.

(f) Counsel will also please advise the Government as to the propriety of the action taken by the Chief Commissioner in warning Mr. Loveridge that, if he proceeds to fish in the areas which have been leased by the Local Administration, he will be liable to be dealt with under section 7 of the Burma Fisheries Act, 1875. Lastly. Government will also be glad to receive an expression of opinion on any other points which upon examination of the case may appear to the Law Officer to be of importance, and more especially as to the difference between territorial juris- diction as against foreigners and rights of monopoly within that jurisdiction as against British subjects.

Printed correspondence bearing to some extent upon the case regarding the claim of the Government of Ceylon to regulate the pearl fisheries in the Gulf of Manaar is herewith sent.

OPINION of the Honourable the ADVOCATE GENERAL and the STANDING COUNSEL to Government.

(a.) We are of opinion that the British Government possesses territorial jurisdiction over the sea within a belt or zone of three miles from the shores of the mainland of the

74772.-14. 25.-4/93.