'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.' [‎31v] (71/208)

24
Sultan that France only claimed the right of
surveillance and police conferred by the Brussels
Act over vessels flying the French flag. It has
already been pointed out in the British Case that British Case,
the Sultan is not a Signatory to that Act, and that p
it does not give any Power any right of surveil
lance or police in the waters of another Power,
though it does give to the Powers which have
adhered to Article XLII a mutual right of search
on the high seas.
In 1903 M. Cambon stated to Lord Lansdowne
that the Treaty of 1844 was not.-designed to meet British Case,
the case of the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. owners, ^that their rights
were in many cases anterior to the Treaty, that
the French flag holders were altogether out
side the Treaty, and that protection was claimed
for them not under the Treaty, but because they
had been given French papers, and were entitled
to fly the French flag. This contention has
already been stated and criticised at p. 25 of the
British Case.
But France has now abandoned the contentions
of M. Laronce and M. Cambon, and in the
" Contre-Memoire" for the first time takes
up the position that she is entitled under the
Treaty of 1844 to the exclusive right of police in
Muscat waters over vessels flying the French
flag.
The arguments in support of this contention
are, for the most part, contained in the opinion
of M. Renault. In limine, His Majesty's
Government venture to point out that, eminent as p 150,
is the reputation of M. Renault, his opinion can
have no other effect on this arbitration than that
of an advocate consulted by one of the High
Parties to the arbitration, and that the case sub
mitted to him for his opinion is not included in
the " Contre-Memoire. 1 '
Great Britain contends (1) that France cannot
rely on the Brussels Act to justify the exercise of
police powers in those waters, bBcause the Sultan
is not a party to that Act, and because that Act
specially reserves the rights of the territorial
Sovereign as to vessels in his waters ; (2) that the
Sultan has done no act to surrender or delegate
to France his authority in his own waters.
1. It is difficult to see how France can juri
dically meet the first of these contentions. Indeed,
she endeavours to do so mainly by suggesting
that the Slave Trade Treaties between Great
Britain cmd Muscat upset the balance and equality
which ought to result from the Declaration of