"التحكيم في قضية مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. محكمة التحكيم الدائمة في لاهاي. السماح برفع الأعلام الفرنسية على مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. القضية بالنيابة عن الحكومة البريطانية". [و‎‎٣‎٨] (٢٠٨/٨٤)

maritime law of France does not contemplate
the grant of French papers unless at least half
the vessel is owned by French citizens. In the
"(Jonire- French £< Contre-Memoire " it is said that this
Mdmoire," p. 16. i aw does not apply to the Colonies, and certain of
the laws said to apply to them are given in an
Appendix. This statement does not quite accord
with the opinion expressed by M. Guy, French
Consul at Zanzibar, and quoted at p. 14 of the
British Counter-Case. But assuming M. Guy to
be wrong and the statement in the " Contre-
Memoire" to be accurate, neither Zanzibar nor
Muscat is a French Colony ; and the authority of
the Consul, if it exists, must be derived from
some general administrative discretion, or from
some particular instructions given to him which
have not been included in the French " Memoire "
or <c Contre-Memoire," or from some law which
has not been disclosed. But the Tribunal will
find that the litre granted at Aden in 1891
contains a reference to the Law of 27 Vende-
miaire, an ii, which is the foundation of the
French maritime law and under which half the
vessel must be owned by French citizens. It has
already been pointed out that Article XXXII of
Memoire," p. 91. the Brussels Act affords no warrant for the grant
of titres to native vessels by Consular officers,
because the conditions precedent to such grant
can be satisfied only in a Colony or Protectorate
of the Power which grants the litre. Until
copies of the litres granted to the Siiri Arabs
now in question are produced, it is not possible
to know the statements as to the residence of the
owner upon which they were granted. These
statements would, in any case, require verification.
The grant of protection to individuals is closely
linked with the jrancisation of vessels. France
appears to contend that the latter turns the
captain and crew and their families into French
proteges in globo, and that the former has a like
effect as to the individual and his descendants.
It is not possible to trace in the French "Memoire "
or " Contre-Memoire " any distinct allegation that
any of the Omanis in question are French, either
as citizens born or as naturalized in French terri
tory. It is contended in the French "Memoire '*
" Contre- and " Contre-Memoire " that the terms of Article IV
Mdmoire, p, 27. 0 f ^ Treaty of 1844 include not only domestic
servants, but also—
' les employes, les commissionnaires, les agents de trans
port, tous ceux enfin, en un mot, qui rendent bond fide
" Oontre-
Me moire,"
pp. 96 et seq.
British Case,
p. 49.
Contre-