ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 367 



The next case is that of the Algerian Coral Fisheries, which I have 

 already dealt with as part of France. 



The next is the Italian Coral Fisheries, referred to on page 53 of our 

 Argument; and I will content myself with reading the observation 

 which the Marquis Venosta was good enough to make in the course of 

 my learned friend Mr. Coudert's argument. It will be found at page 570 

 of the print. 



I will say in regard to the observation of Mr. Condert that the Italian Decrees do 

 not apply to foreigners. The three Decrees cited in the Case of the United States 

 are an addition to the Regulation of November 13th, 1882, which is made to apply 

 the law of March 4th, 1877, on hshing, and this law in its 1st article as well as the 

 Regulations limits their zone of application to the territorial waters. The coral 

 Banks of Sciacca where fishery was forbidden for some time, are outside the ter- 

 1160 ritorial waters ; so those Decrees were not applicable to foreignei s if they went 

 there; but the industry, in fact, is exclusively carried on by Italian citizens. 

 I must add however that this prohibition has now been repealed. 



Mr. CouDERT. — Yes, I was coming to that question, — the distiuction between citi- 

 zens and foreigners, and the privilege that the rule would give to foreigners over 

 citizens. Of conrse, if as the Arbitrator says, and I desire to be instructed by him. 



Marquis Visconti-Venosta. — It is a question of fact. 



Marquis Visconti-Venosta. — The question of fact is that this does 

 not apply to foreigners. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Then we have next the Norwegian Whale 

 Fisheries, which are mentioned in the Case of the United States, but 

 not referred to in the Argument of my learned friend, Mr. Phelps. We 

 have, at page 96 of our Counter Case, dealt with that matter. 



As to Norway, the United States Case says that the principle of contention (3) 



of the United States as set out at page 74, which I will refer to in a 

 moment 



is recognized in a Statute for the protection of whales, '*in Varanger Fiord, an arm 

 of the "open sea about 32 marine miles in width." There is nothing in the Norwegian 

 laws set forth in the Appendix to the United States Case to show that they apply to 

 foreigners at all. If they do, then, as regards Varanger Fiord, the question may be 

 whether or not it belongs to the " inner waters" of Norway. 



Mr. Gram. — I should only wish to say it is quite true there is nothing 

 in the Norwegian Law which expressly shows that it is intended W 

 apply to foreigners; but, as a matter of fact, it is directed against 

 foreigners as well as against Norwegian citizens, — the Fiords are 

 considered to be interior waters as a rule. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe, I am 

 right in saying that no question has ever arisen as to the necessity of 

 applying as against foreigners any principle of exclusion. 



Mr. Gram. — I beg your pardon. Norway has applied the principle 

 against foreign subjects in that part of the country. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I was not aware of that. Perhaps you will 

 be good enough, sir, to tell the Arbitrators the result of the contention. 



Mr. Gram. — It has always been maintained that the Fiords are inner 

 waters against foreigners as well as against Norwegians. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — The statement in the Argument is that if 

 the law applies to foreigners, and is imt in force against foreigners, then 

 as regards the Varanger Fiord, the question is whether it does or does 

 not belong to the inner waters of Norway or fall within the principle of 

 land-locked waters. 



Lord Hannen. — And it turns entirely on that. Sir Charles. The 

 question is solely whether these are interior waters. 



Senator Morgan. — What is the width of these interior waters, or 

 fiords? 



