'P.2. 733/1904. Muscat Arbitration. (1906-09).' [‎140v] (287/680)

2
.i?/
^ Art 4 Les boutriers qui ont le droit d’arborer le pavilion Fra^ais ne pourront
transmettre ce droit a leurs h^ritiers, descendants, on collateraux ; les boutres dont
ceux-ci obtiendraient ainsi la possession arboreront \e pavilion du Sultan.
Art. 5. La juridiction du Sultan sera applicable dans 1 Oman a tons les pio-
pridtaires de boutres battant pavilion Francais, ainsi qu aux capitaines et aux membres,
de 1’equipa^e ; toutefois, pour les crimes et les debts on contestations, ayant eu lieu
bord en haute mer ou dans les eaux territoriales de 1 Oman, et en general part out on le
droit d’inviolabilitd est reserve, la competence restera au Consul de b ranee, ou a ddfaut
a son representant, ou aux officiers de la Marine Nationale. Si le crime ou debt est
etabli, le coupable sera remis au Sultan. .
“ Art. 6. Les dispositions du present Keglement, apres approbation des Gouverne-
ments Francais et Anglais, seront communiquees, ainsi que le texte de la sentence, par
voie d’affiches, aux sujets du Sultan.”
, 4 )>
1 1
His Majesty’s Government note with satisfaction the friendly and conciliatory
manner in which the two Consuls have carried on their negotiations, they are, however,
unable to admit that M. Laronce’s attitude and proposals are in accordance with either
the spirit, or the letter of the recent Award.
M. Laron ce apparently claims that authorization to fly the French flag was given
to each and every owner once for all-—that is to say, if once it is admitted that a
particular Muscat! falls within one of the categories authorized under Part I of the
Award, then, under Part II— ' • ■ '
(a.) He is entitled to fly the French flag over any and,every dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. which he now
possesses, or may ever possess, and is not limited to the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. or dhow’s specifically
mentioned by name in the revised French list of the 4th March, 1906 ; and
(b) That he is entitled to replace any dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. at present in his possession of which
he may subsequently become dispossessed by sale or loss.
As regards (a), His Majesty’s Government hold that if the authorization granted to
the flagholder was originally a general one for all his- dhows, then he will retain that
right under the terms of the Award; but that if, on the other hand, the Ofiginal
authorization was granted for a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. or dhows specifically mentioned by name, then
authorization for the same dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. or dhows only can be claimed under the Award. It
appears that M. Laronce, on being requested to produce a copy of the original
authorization for each dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. claimed or to quote the date of first issue, has expressed
his inability to comply. Nevertheless, he cannot dispute the evidence available in the
recorded specimens of a titres de navigation,” which warrants the presumption that
the authorizations issued in the past have in >all cases been made out for single dhows by
name and not in a general form. If M. Laronce’s claim, that the first authorization, even
though only issued for a single dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. , carries with it the right to fly the Frendh flag over
all dhows which the owner may ever possess, were to be admitted, the number of such
dhows might be indefinitely increased, and it would be impossible for the 'Sultan to
check the process, or to know at any given time how many and what dhows are
sailing under the French flag. That it was the intention of the arbitrators to
limit strictly not only the number of flagholders, but also the number of dhows*
entitled to fly the French flag, is evident from the terms of the Award, in which
reference is made, Part I, sections 1 and 3, to “ le droit d’autoriser les navires ....
a arborer le pavilion Fran^ais,” and Part II, section 1, “les boutres . . . autorises,
&c. ...” Section 2, “ Tautorisation ne pent etre transmise, &c. . . . ou a quelque
autre boutre,” and section 3, “Boutres autorises a arborer,” &c. . . .
In order to carry out the terms of the Award it is important that the notifica
tion which will be ultimately promulgated among the subjects of the Sultan shall
contain the names not only of the French flagholders, but also of the dhows which
are entitled to carry the French flag, and His Majesty’s Government would not feel
justified in accepting any settlement which did not provide accordingly.
As regards (6), His Majesty’s Government consider that the claim to replace dhows
which have been lost or sold is in entire contradiction with section 2 of Part II of the
Award, which lays down that “ Tautorisation d’arborer le pavilion Francais ne pent
etre transmise ou transferee a quelque autre personne ou a quelque autre boutre
(“ dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. ”), rneme si celui-ci appartenait au meme proprietaire.”
The list of French flagholders communicated by M. Laronce on the 4th March,
1906, contains the names of twenty dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners and of forty-five dhows. His
Majesty s Consul reports that, as the result of careful inquiry, he has evidence to prove
that certain of the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners are not entitled to the authorization, and that many of
the dhows are not the property of the persons against whose names they have been.