CO885-(15-16) — Page 629

R

4

With regard to the resort to force, I am to invite your attention to the Depart- mental minutes on p. 26 of the Print; to the letter to the Home Office (No. 21 of Print) and minutes thereunder, and to the Home Office reply (No. 22 of Print); also to the paragraph at foot of p. 37 in the Home Office letter of the 10th February, 1910 (No. 30 of Print); and, lastly, to the Home Office letter of the 21st October last (No. 44 of Print). In the last-mentioned letter you will notice that the late Home Secretary thought it desirable that your opinion should also be invited on the subsidiary points therein set out.

I am accordingly to request that you will take this important question into your careful consideration and favour Sir Edward Grey with your opinion":-

1. As to whether you consider the question of the obligation of His Majesty's Government under general principles of international law, or the usages of international comits, to obtain the assent of the Imperial Govern- ment before effecting arrests on German merchant ships in British waters, which is the one point in dispute, is one in regard to which His Majesty's Government should propose to the German Government a submission to arbitration by The Hague Tribunal (on this point I am to direct your attention to the Home Office letter of the 21st December, 1910, and minutes thereon, No. 38 of the Print, as well as to the minutes on paper No. 44);

2. Should you consider that it is inexpedient to suggest such arbitration, as to whether His Majesty's Government would be warranted in informing the German Government that, as the arguments they have adduced have failed to convince them that their previous assent to arrests is not necessary, and that they are not entitled to demand it, and as it is useless to further prolong the discussion, His Majesty's Government regret that they will be under the disagreeable necessity, should another case arise, of taking effective steps to ensure the vindication of what they conceive to be their undoubted rights in respect to the execution of British warrants on board foreign merchant vessels touching at British ports;

3. As to the subsidiary questions raised in the Home Office letter of the 21st

October last; and

4. That you will favour Sir E. Grey with any general observations you may think it desirable to offer on the whole subject, which is one of consider- able importance both from a legal and from a political standpoint.

I have, &c.,

F. A. CAMPBELL.

5

whether there is any such uniform and long-continued practice as to amount to international law at all, and if there is not such a uniform and long-continued practice, then as to the practice of any particular country.

2. We consider, therefore, that His Majesty's Government would be quite justified in giving notice to the German Government that it must be clearly under- stood for the future that we do not consider foreign merchant vessels entering our ports and harbours as exempt from our territorial jurisdiction in any way, and that, should occasion arise for the arrest of any person on board, the arrest will be effected and the ship detained for so long as may be necessary for this to be done.

3. The above answers apply to the four questions raised in the Home Office letter of the 21st October last,

No attempt to make an arrest should be undertaken unless the police are armed with a proper warrant, and notice that an arrest is to be made should be given to the consul of the vessel's nationality. The person to make the arrest should be conveyed to the foreign vessel by one of our own Government vessels and not in the company's tender.

Royal Courts of Justice,

March 15, 1912.

RUFUS D. ISAACS JOHN SIMON.

Report.

1. In our opinion, the principle of international law which is decisive of the present case is that a sovereign State has complete control over its ports and harbours, and that it may either exclude foreign vessels altogether from entering them for the purposes of trade, or may admit them upon such terms and conditions as it may choose.

This principle being conceded, it follows that the amount; if any, of exemption from the local jurisdiction which a sovereign State may allow to foreign vessels voluntarily entering its ports or harbours for the purposes of trade is a matter entirely for the territorial State to determine for itself. We think that there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the principle stated above, and that it would be most undesirable to suggest the possibility of a doubt upon it by offering to submit it to arbitration. We think it right, for the sake of clearness, to add that we confine ourselves to dealing with ports and harbours as distinct from territorial waters forming part of the littoral seas over which it might be contended that a right of innocent passage exists, and as to which, therefore, somewhat different considerations might apply.

Although no such point arises in the case now for our opinion, we think it right to indicate generally that, in the absence of notice or express agreement by consular convention or otherwise, a question might arise as to the extent of exemption from the territorial jurisdiction which is to be implied by international law from mere permission to enter and trade. Upon this point there is room for doubt both as to

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

1