'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.' [‎32r] (72/208)

1862. This contention lias already been disposed
of in the British Counter-Case (p. 33).
2. But the second contention is that which the
weight of M. Renault's opinion is directed to
meet.
France admits that the Sultan of Muscat—
" Oontre- " possede les droits que lui conf^re la souverainet^ sur ses
M^moire, p. 87. gu j e t s e t dans ses ^tats
and includes in this admission the right to make
" Ooutre^ Quarantine Regulations, but makes a grievance of
Mdmoire, p. 38. ^ f act that the Sultan, in enforcing the Regula
tions, has utilized! the services of British subjects,
forgetting that if the right exists it is for the
Sultan to decide on the executive agents to be
chosen. After these admissions and this com
plaint, a distinct and definite proposition is
enunciated:—
" Contra- " Si le Sultan de Mascate possode dans ses eaux terri-
Memoire,' p. 38. toriales un droit de police et de juridiction k I'egard des
navires arborant le pavilion rouge Mascatais, il n en
poss&de aucun sur les navires, boutres, ou autres qui
portent le pavilion tricolore."
To prove this proposition it is argued that ships
flying the French flag fall within the words of the
Treaty of 1844, Article III.
Examination of that Article, which is printed
at p. 6 of the British Case, will show that it begins
by granting permission to Frenchmen to buy,
sell, or take on lease lands, houses, and shops in
Oman, and prohibits entry, on any pretext, into
the houses, shops, and other properties (" autres
proprietes ") possessed or occupied by Frenchmen
or persons in French service. It is perfectly
clear from the context that the Article relates to
" immeubles," and gives " anx fran^ais a right
to acquire them, and that in the second place it pro
vides against violation of the domicile of "fran^ais
who have acquired such " immenbles," and of
" Contre- ^ persons in their service. Nothing in the Article
JVTemcire,' p. 151. ^ ^ reasonably extended to ships, and though
M. Renault so contends, he does so faintly, saying
that if the action of the territorial Sovereign is
restricted on land, " on pent affirmer qu'a plus
forte raison elle Test, et doit I'etre, pour les eaux
territoriales." This amounts to reading into a
document, on theoretical grounds, words which
do not occur in it and are in no way necessary for
its correct interpretation.
The Treaty is not silent about French ships,
[733] E 2