36 PROTOCOLS. ' 



Norway, in the nortliorn part of the country. The h^biug carried on in tliat neigh- 

 borhood during the (irst four months of every year is of extraordinary importance 

 to the country, some 30,000 people gathering there from south and uortli, in order 

 to earn their living. A Government ius[)ection controls the lishing going on in the 

 waters of the fiord, sh iltered by a ran j;e of islands against the violence of the sea. 

 The appearance in the3'3 waters of a foreign vessel pretending to take its share of the 

 fishing was an unheard of occurrence, and in the ensuing diplomatic correspondence 

 the exclusive right of Xorwegi:in subjects to this industry was encrg(!ti(ally insisted 

 upon as founded in immemorial practice. 



Besides, Norway and Sweden have never recognized the three miles limit as the con- 

 fines of their territorial waters. They have neither concluded nor acceded to any 

 treaty consecrating that rule. By their municipal laws the limit has generally been 

 fixed at 1 geograi)hical mile, or one-fifteenth part of a degree of latitude, or 4 marine 

 miles, no narrower limit having ever been adopted. In fact, in regard to this 

 question of the fishing rights, so important to both of the United Kingdoms, the 

 said limits have in many instances been found to be even too narrow. As to this 

 question and others therewith connected, I beg to refer to the communications ])re- 

 sented by the Norwegian and Swedish members in the sittings of the hisfitut dv Droit 

 International in 1891 aiul 1892. I wish also to refer, concerning the subject which I 

 have now very briefly treated, to the proceedings of the conference of Hague, in 

 1882 (Martens. Noiiveaii Reuiieil geiu'ral, II st'rie, Volume IX), containing the reasons 

 why Sweden and Norway have not adherinl to the treaty of Hague. 



The president requested that counsel on both si(k's woukl hear in 

 mind the observations of II. E. M. Grain, in case they found it neces- 

 sary to cite tlie example of the Avaters of Norway, but thouj^ht it his 

 duty to remind them that tlie question of the definition of territorial 

 waters was not submitted to tlie arbitrators, and that it was not the 

 intention.of the Tribunal to express any opinion with respect to that 

 definition. 



Sir Eichard Webster then resumed Ins argument. 



At 1.30 the Tribunal took a recess. 



On reassembling, Sir Richard Webster continued his argument. 



At 4 p. m. the Tribunal adjourned to the next day at 11.30 a. m. 



Done at Paris, the 6th of June, 18D3, and signed: 



Thf Frcsident: ALPII. DE COUIICI'^L. . 

 The Agent for the United Stales : JoiIN VV. FOSTEII. 

 The Agent for (Ireat llrilain : ClIAKLES H. TUPPEll. 

 The Sccrelarg : A. ImBERT. 



Translation certified to be accurate: 



A. Bailly-Blanchard, ) /, .- ^ • „ 



H. CUNYNGIIAME, .) 



PROTOCOL XXXIV. 



MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, .lUNE 7, 1893. 



The Tribunal assembled at 11.30 a. m., all the arbitrators being 

 present. 



Sir liichard Webster resumed and concliuled his argumeut. 

 Mr. Christoxiher liobinsou then began his argumeut. 



