ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 523 



narrow. As to this question and others therewith connected, I beg to 

 refer to the communications presented by the Norwegian and Swedish 

 members in the sittings of the lustitut de Droit International in 1801 

 and 1892. I wish also concerning the subject wliich I have now very 

 briefly treated, to refer, to the proceedings of the Conference of Hague, 

 in 1892, (Marten's Nouveau Eeaueil General, Heme g^rie, volume IX), 

 containing the reasons why Sweden and Norway have not adhered to 

 the Treaty of Hague. 



The President. — I would beg the Counsel of both parties to keep in 

 remembrance the observations of Mr. Gram if they are inclined to quote 

 the example of the Norwegian Waters; but I wish to state once more 

 very distinctly that the question of the definition of what are territo- 

 rial waters is not before us, and it is not the intention of this Tribunal 

 to express any opinion as to the definition of territorial waters. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It is only necessary, Mr. President, in 

 acknowledging, so far as the Counsel of Great Britain are concerned, our 

 appreciation of the courtesy of Mr. Gram with regard to the Memoran- 

 dum he has been good enough to read to us which will no doubt appear 

 upon the Notes of the Proceedings, for us to say it is exactly in accord- 

 ance with the view which I understand the Attorney General to have 

 expressed, and which I expressed a few days ago, in regard to this mat- 

 ter; that, knowing perfectly well the question of territorial waters was 

 not before you, I merely stated, so far as my own reading and informa- 

 tion went, the doctrine of territorial waters in Norway and Sweden had 

 to be considered with reference to the special configuration of the coast. 

 And I did not know, one way or the other, whether or not Norway had 

 either adopted the three-mile limit or insisted upon a wider range. It is 

 clear, from the Memorandum that the learned Arbitrator has been good 

 enough to read to us, the view I expressed was in accordance with the 

 contention of Norway; and, further than that, I would point out, for 

 the reasons with which I was not acquainted, — the discussion at 

 Hague, — it is clear that this matter has been treated specially by Nor- 

 waj' and Sweden in connection with their claim. If we had been dis- 

 cussing the "question of the claim of the United States to a territorial 

 jurisdiction, which is for the purpose of their case disclaimed, similar 

 considerations might have arisen; but they do not arise, as the whole 

 of my learned friend's argument is based on other considerations, to 

 which I shall have to call attention later on. 



Before I conclude what 1 desire to say on the question of property 

 I wish to supplement a few observations on the subject to which I re- 

 ferred, as a little doubt was thrown upon the accuracy of my information 

 by Mr. Senator Morgan when I made my statement with regard to Japan. 

 First he intimated that Shimonoseki Straits had been opened a good 

 many years before; and second he thought I was not correctly informed 

 in my suggestion that the United States relied upon treaty. I have 

 obtained the most accurate information on the matter and in both those 

 matters I may say my information was strictly accurate. The Shimo- 

 noseki Straits, and all the waters of Japan, had prior to 1854 been 

 absolutely closed to foreigners for ui)wards of 250 years, the only per- 

 sons who had any settlement there were the Dutch who had a small 

 settlement. In 1854 a treaty of navigation and for the opening of cer- 

 tain ports was made by the United States, — and I only surmised this 

 the other day, because I had not had the opportunity of looking it up, — 

 the first treaty was made by the United States in 1854 and it was not 

 till after that treaty that 14 other Powers including Great Britain and 

 France came in in the year 1857 and 1858, and the right to navigate 



