THIRTY-SECOND DAY, JUNE 2^0, 1893. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Mr. President, when we broke up yester- 

 day, I was dealing with the Juan de Fuca Treaty; and I find that I 

 made a mistake against myself of an important character, which 1 had 

 better put right at once. I spoke of the entrance to those Straits as 

 being 30 or 40 miles wide. I had not the chart before me; the only copy 

 1 had, I had lent to the Tribunal and I find I was inaccurate because 

 the width is rather over 10 miles, — 10^ miles wide — where the light is; 

 and that extends for no less than 50 miles wide into the country. It is 

 not for me to suggest what the Tribunal might decide; but all I can 

 say is, having regard to decisions which are well known to me, I sub- 

 mit to you that there is no doubt those would be regarded as being 

 enclosed and interior waters, as to which, quite apart from convention, 

 many nations might consider they had rights of dominion. 



I will merely mention one or two instances which have come under my 

 notice in the course of reading this case. One set of instances has been 

 mentioned by one of the Members of the Tribunal with regard to Nor- 

 way. There are fiords in Norway, of varying widths at the mouth, 

 which run up for 100 miles or so into the country. The question depends 

 on the configuration of the country, the land enclosing them on both 

 sides; and for many purposes, if not for all, those would be regarded 

 as interior waters. 



Then, the question arose in Great Britain as to the Bristol Channel 

 at a point where it was 17 or 18 miles wide, which formed the discus- 

 sion in a Criminal Court whether the crime of murder commited on 

 board a vessel in the Bristol Ohannel was within the jurisdiction of the 

 Assize Courts, which have only jurisdiction in the body of the county. 

 There the Court of Crown Cases Eeserved, which is the highest Court 

 that we have in England in regard to criminal matters, decided that 

 that space was within the body of the country, Lord Chief Justice Cock- 

 burn, I remember, delivering the judgment in the matter. 



The President. — Was that before your law about territorial waters? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Yes, that was before the territorial waters 

 law, and it marks the distinction that when the question of territorial 

 waters arose in the Queen v. Keyn they were dealing with a three mile 

 belt in the English Channel. I happen to know from having been 

 engaged in the litigation between the "Franconia" and the "Strath- 

 clyde", that the "Franconia" was a German ship of which Keyn was 

 the captain, and when passing through the Channel she came into col- 

 lision with the "Strathclyde" within the three mile limit. A question 

 arose on a charge of manslaughter brought against the Captain on the 

 ground of the death of a passenger, there having been negligent navi- 

 gation ot the "Franconia," the negligent navigation not being disputed; 

 it was decided for the purpose of that criminal jurisdiction that the 

 three mile belt did not give the court jurisdiction, and in consequence 

 of that the Territorial Waters Act was passed. 



The President. — That was a matter of domestic legislation. 



479 



