'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎17v] (43/208)

30
entitled to the protection of French laws while
there, but not to carry French laws back with
him to his native country when he chooses to
return thither, and the test of protection by
domicile is peculiarly inappropriate to Mussulman
sailors, who, to the ordinary proclivities of sea
faring men, add the polygamous habits of their
faith, and may have a residence and a lawful wife
at every port which they frequent during the
sailing season, while they return to their native
country and real domicile during that period of the
year in which it is unsafe or unusual to ply their
occupation.
The case of the quarantine-breakers—which is
the latest—is also the boldest instance of the
Trench claim. The men did not arrive at Muscat
under the French flag, and did not run away from
their quarantine in a vessel flying the French
flag. Tae sole ground of the privilege claimed
was that they had at some time sailed in such a
vessel or obtained French papers in connection
with such a vessel. They were confessedly Suri
subjects of the Sultan resident in his dominions.
A claim by the subject of a European Power to
defy the Quarantine Eegulations of his own State
on the ground that he owned, or had sailed in, a
ship registered in France would at once be
scouted as inconsistent with every principle alike
of municipal and international law, and in the
absence of a Treaty with Muscat specifically
varying the ordinary rules of jurisdiction, the
claim put forward by France has no juridical
substance.
Upon the facts and arguments hereinbefore
stated, it is submitted on behalf of Great Britain
that the Tribunal should come to the following
conclusions ;—
1. No subject of the Sultan of Muscat acquires M. Cambon seems
any riffht to the status of a French protege under t0 con ° ede thl8;
/. cjjiii . ji but a decision of
the Treaty of 1844 by the fact that he is the the Tribunal
owners captain, or a member of the crew of a would b© better
native vessel which has, by whatever means, than »concession,
which might be
obtained French papers or flag. explained as
2. By her adhesion to the XXXIInd Article of qualified.
the Brussels Act of 1890, France is under an Foreign Office to
international obligation not to grant French flaga CaYe ' No7eiiab er 8,
0 ° , .. 0 1902, file, p. 116.
or papers to any native vessel unless its owner, Cave) September
at the time of grant, is (a) a French citizen, or is 19,1902.
(6) a French prot^e by reason of his being a In<Jlan Govem-
. -r, 1, . mentto India
subject of a State under French protection. 0fSce) Apr . 116
3. France is equally debarred by the Declara- 1903, file 117 b.