'File 35/86 IV Muscat Treaty' [‎144r] (312/444)

IUU
b,
in
riimlcliMl tnxea bp® In (f) to (3) of the letter of July
®na una it is 1 tiiiak piehtly ate tod ttet of thosftf (f) it'
not e trx "but rent. (3), Weiring charge, ie in y M
opinion an indirect te* mora In the netura of a cttatama
duty and there 'ora bee to "be oonaidorefl rather in ■■elation
to Article 9 than with regard to the qneation of
exterritoriality* Ciisto w dutioa «nd tl» like do >t
need King* a llegalBti«wia to I ns wade ap lieaible to British
euhjecta* (g), (h) and (i) ere trxea which the ml tan
hue no right to impoae -on Briti^i fMbjocto unlcoe w» have
assented to them end s»ae the apppoi^iate -ing'a
seg«latlm« It in quite reeeanahie that ich toxea
should in fact he levied, hut it la ctari nui that during
ell thcae jemrts we tovc not taken the proper coarse of
faeneUjr aMenting to then end naking the Xing*8
Uotnilatlon, nrKS I should hrvc thought that even nor#, if
we hRTO no ohjeeti m to thera, mo ght to regularioe the
-ssitl n and nsaka King •a ilegulati ns«
10, I see thgt in connexion with the r«newal or he
frosty of 1B91 the yultan of ruecet as&e for tariff
< utonony# This neana the ahrogation of Article 6.
would point out in this eonnexioa* however, that the
ahrogation ©f the limit of custortn duties in Article 6
of our treaty will not affect the pwpooe Irriefllately if
we retain n.f.n. rights (ae I toagine we eertelnly will)
heoause of the similar limits in the Treat!, a with i^-nce
end the U»S*A. I have raised iUeation elsewhere
whether we sho ild in the treaty neeotistions with the
French nbout Morocco attempt to obtain their agreement to
tte ahrognti m of the cuetoma limit «lth Muscat in the
■ppnah treaty. I think it 18 clenr the French win not
{Jive up ti air Unit, at any rate unlesB we do too# Further
it occurs to ae that they «y try and object to our trying
to ne-itiate t dnga ^or the sultan of Hueest as pnrt of
mm/