'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎40r] (90/610)

17
The first question of fact is whether France has granted to subjects of
the Sultan French .flags and papers. The recital of the " Compromis " consti
tutes an admission by France that France has granted French flags and papers
to certain Muscat ship-owners This admission is supplemented by the
inclusion in the French Meraoire " (p. 53) and " Centre•Memoire," p. 297
of two lists, headed " Proprietaires de Boutres mascatais francises." The
Tribunal is not asked to decide anything except as to dhows owned by subjects
of the Sultan and flying the French flag or furnished with French papers, and
as to the families of such persons, and as to the captains and crews of such
vessels, and perhaps also the families of these latter persons. It is for France
to show that persons falling within these categories have been lawfully trans
ferred from their natural allegiance to that of France, or have lawfully been
brought under French protection either before or by means of the francisation
which is alleged to have taken place. His Majesty^s Government have no
doubt that if any such persons have, by false statements or fraudulent devices,
imposed upon French officials and improperly obtained/mrama^o^, the Gov
ernment of the French Republic, on ascertaining the truth, would not hesitate
to strip them of the privileges which have been thus improperly obtained ; and
His Majesty's Government submit with confidence that they have established
that the Siiris in question are originaires of Oman, and are not settlers or
residents in French Colonies, but sailors whose home is in Oman, paying busi
ness visits only to various ports in the Indian Ocean.
If the French contention were right, it would be open to content that the
French fishermen who annually, for long periods, visit Iceland or the New
foundland banks, and only return home for the winter, have not their domicile
in France.
It is not clear whether France contests the accuracy of the statement that
the Signatories to the undertaking given in June 1900 to the Sultan at Siir
are natives of, and resident in, Oman. The letters of some of these men con-
" Memoires," p. €5-70. tf" T™* allegations as to visits to
French Colonies and having been in
French service ; but these assertions made with the object of obtaining French
protection cannot be accepted in the absence of corroborative evidence.
It appears to be admitted by France in the recital of the " Compromis/'
and in the two lists of dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners, that Omanis are in possession of French
B.itbliConDter Cass, p.» and papers. _ These lists have already
been criticised in the British Counter-
Case, and the identity of the persons specified therein to some extent ascer-
" Contie-M^moire," p. 297. t ai ° ed : The revised list in the Preneh
" Contre-Memoire" differs from that in
the original Case by omitting four names :—
Selim-ben-Rachid (No. 20 in first list) ;
Selim-Bouheti (No. *1 „ );
Selim Mohammed Libadi (No. 23 in the first list, the man whose doings
are described somewhat fully in the British Counter-Case p.
47) ; and .
Salim-bin-Mohammed Wad Taheb (No. 27 in the first list);
by ascribing to Ali-bin-Salim-bin-Eachid (No. 2) a second vessel, and by ascrib
ing to Ali-bin-Salim Wad Taheb (No. 17) four vessels which in the first list
were ascribed to Salim-bin-Mohammed Wad Taheb.
From the Report printed in Appendix No. 3, p. 43, it would seem that
the French titre and flag of one of the four vessels—the Fath-el-Kheir—has
very recently been taken away by the French Consul at Zanzibar.
No details whatever are given as to the grounds on which the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners
on the lists were placed there, nor where, nor why these Arabs got French
papers.