"ملف A/5 مصائد اللؤلؤ بالخليج العربي" [ظ‎‎٩] (٦٢/١٨)

C7
2. Apparently nil the tribes fish for joearls wlierever they are to be
found, and no tribe has exercised a right excluding the other tribes from
any part of the fishery.
3. Oniy members of the tribes have hitherto fished for pearls in the
waters.
4i.—(«) Portions ol" some of the pearl hanks lie within the three-mile
territorial limit.
(b) Some of the banks extend from within the three-mile
territorial limit outwards for several miles.
(c) Some of the pearl banks are entirely outside the three-mile
territorial Jimit.
Tn all these cases the tribes have exercised an exclusive right for
fishing for pearls.
5. The tribes have not fished for pearls in the deep waters off tlie
banks, having no appliances for deep water fishing. It is apprehended
that divinsr for pearls in such deep waters would materially injure the
pearl fishery on the banks, and it is desired, if possible, to prevent
* dredging in such deep waters.
G. The action to be taken for the protection of the pearl fishery
would appear to depend on (1) the legal right of the tribes to a monopoly,
and (2) the power-of the British Government to act on their behalf.. It
is conceived that some precise delegation of authority to the British
.Government to act on hehalf of the tribes in this matter would be
necessary.
7. Ti;e Law Officers would probably advise as to 'the legal rights of
the tribes within and also without the three-mile territorial limit, and as
to the nature and extent of the delegation to be obtained, and further
as to the procedure to be followed in expelling interlopers and dealing
with their boats and fishing appliances.
I have, &c.,
The Under Secretary of State, A. Godley.
Foreign Office.
Annex.
Report by the Legal Adviser to the India Office, dated
12th April 1904.
Two distinct questions are raised in the Despatch of the Government
of India.
1. First, there is the question whether the British Government is in
a position to assert and vindicate the rights possessed by the Chiefs over
the waters which adjoin their territories. This, it seems to me, is a
question of fact. If it is correct to say that the Chiefs have all agreed
to leave the protection of their interests in the hands of the British
Government, then the existence or non-existence of a treaty defining "
their relations or imposing on the Government the obligation of affording
that protection does not seem to mo material. So long as an/ act done
by officers of the Government can be proved to have been done under
the authority of the Chiefs whose territory may be concerned, then
those officers have, I think, a complete defence (see Carr v. Times, 1902,
A.C. 176). Nor do I think that any foreign fetate could complain of
such an act, provided of course that it was an act which, if done by the
Chief himself, would not have transgr ssed the rules of International'law.
2. As regards the extent of the jurisdiction of a State beyond the
limits of its own shores, I do not think I can do better than cite the
opinion of the Law Officers of the Government of India in the case of- r
the Mergui pearl fisheries, that jopinion having been approved by the r
Law Officers of the Crown. They wrote as follows: " We are of
" opinion that the British Government possesses territorial jurisdiction
" over the sea within a belt or zone of three miles from the shores of