'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎39v] (89/610)

not failed of its effect on those who seek to avoid the surveillance of an interna
tional police. They prefer the chance of
See « Contre-Memoire," p. 272. ^ occasip ^ a l ixOm the French Cruisei'S,
who, until very lately, if not even now, are very few in number for the extent
of sea which they have to patrol.
The observations made as to the credulity of the British Consul at Muscat
in 1699 in the case of Mbarak>ben-i3aroul are not justified by the documents on
which they purport to be based. These
* Contre ' M ^ moirc '' pp ' 62 ' 256 ' documents show that the native in question
escaped or deserted from a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. flying the French flag,and took refuge on His
Majesty's ship " Pigeon," stating that he was in slavery and demanding.freedom.
lie was taken to the British Consulate and at once sent on to the French Con
sulate and placed at the disposal of the French Consul, the British Consul
making no examination as to his statements, and expressing no opinion what
ever as to the truth of the man's statements or the justice of his cl^im, but
merely sending him to the person whose business it was to verify the allegations
made. .
THE QUESTIONS OF FACT IN VOX, VED.
The facts relating to the present controversy are not numerous or compli
cated.
No attempt is made by France to deny the accuracy of the British account
of the incident of the quarantine-breakers, or to suggest that any one of these
men was on a vessel under the French flag when sent to quarantine, or when
he escaped or when he was recaptured. Under these circumstances Consular
jurisdiction over the men seems to have been claimed under the Treaty of 1844 ;
at least no other ground is suggested. Nor again is any attempt made to con
tradict the substance of the British ac-
Britwh Case, p. 21. count of the incidents of Suweik and
Pebai. The former case was a claim to deal with the succession to Salim-bin-
Mahommed which must have been a question of purely Mahommedan law
affecting a native of Suweik. The second related to the use of the French flag
by the son of the above Salim. If new papers had been given to the son after
the death of the father in 1902, there would have been a breach of M. Cam.
bon's undertaking of the 26th June, 1900.
Since the delivery of the British Counter-Case a report has been received
from Zanzibar that an Arab, who seems
Appendix 3, p. 43. fo, the Ali-bin-Salem (No. 17 on the
revised French list), has come under suspicion of slave-trading, and has been
deprived of his French papers by M. Ottavi, the French Consul at Zanzibar.
The references in the French " Contre-Memoire " to the Debai incident
(pp. 68-69) make it expedient to restate that incident in somewhat greater
detail. Debai is on the Pirate Coast, and is not part of the dominions of the
Sultan of Muscat, and its Chief is one of the Trucial Chiefs referred to in the
British Counter-Case, p. 21. The representations made by the French Consul
to the Sultan of Muscat seem to have been made in the belief that the Chief
of Debai was a dependent or feudatory of the Sultan of Muscat, w-hich is not
the case. The French, Consul, also, on the 24th March, 1904, wrote direct to,
the Chief of Debai the letter of which
ppen is , p. 3. a . g annexe{ J > rjijjg 0 f the
British Consul at Muscat, with reference to the Debai case, can in no sense be
construed as indicating the exercise of any protectorate over Muscat. On being
consulted l?y the Sultan as to the French Consul's communication, the British
Consul gave it as his opinion that as the man alleged to have been wronged
at Debai was one of the Sultanas subjects resident at Suweik, in Oman, the
claim on the Chief of Debai ought to be made by the Sultan, and not through the
French Consul.
16.