Coll 20/3(2) 'Muscat: Relations with H. M. G.; Commercial Treaty: Revision of' [‎551r] (1108/1324)

local authorities” ’’subject to such conditions as are or may
he established for reasons of national security, or other
reasons of public policy”, vide Article l(2)(a)(i) of the
Siamese Treaty.
Article 4(2) . If I am correct in suggesting that it is
only Article 7 of the existing Treaty which deprives the
Sultan of these rights, he should have no objection to the
omission of the paragraph.
Article 4(3) . I question whether the position would be
safeguarded simply by the omission of this paragraph. Would
something modelled on the lines of the following, taken from
the Siamese Treaty of 1925 be adequate:-
’’Each of the contracting parties undertakes to inform
the other of its intention to establish any monopoly with
a view to securing that the monopoly shall interfere as
little as possible with the trade between the territories
of the two contracting parties.
In the event of the establishment of any such monopoly,
the question of the payment of compensation and the amount,
if any, of such compensation which shall be paid to the
subjects or companies, partnerships or associations of
one of the two contracting parties established in the
territories of the other shall be settled by mutual
agreement by the two contracting parties or by arbitration”.
Article 5 . A possible alternative to the^suggestion
would be to provide for national treatment vide Article 1(2)(b)
Article 6 . It hardly seems worth while commenting on this
important Article until the Government of India's views are
received. The possibility of getting the Sultan to
conventionalise the duties on the chief imports from the
Empire might be borne in mind.
Q&dk Article 7 . I doubt if it is possible, as suggested
by the Resident in his Note on Article 4, to specify Articles
which may be prohibited. For example, he has not included
seditious or obscene literature, or disease-bearing plants or
animals. Normally, national and most-favoured nation treatment