'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎97r] (204/610)

irrelevant to the question under what condition and in what circumstances franci-
sat ion has been accorded by French Colonial authorities to native boats, and its
introduction cannot be palliated by the reservation in the French " Memoire "
and 11 Contre-M^moire " of the right to supply " indications compl^mentaires "
to the Tribunal on the subject.
His Majesty's Government have learned with great surprise that the French
Government offer to produce to the Tribunal two licenses to fly the Zanzibar
flag granted by British authorities in the East African Protectorate to natives
residing at SAr. His Majesty's Government are quite unaware of the existence
of any such documents, and assert that no such practice prevails in the case of
any British authorities in East Africa. If the licenses in question are produced to
His Majesty's Government the circumstances will be strictly inquired into, and
if it is found that such licenses were issued by any British official under cir
cumstances in any way similar to those under which the French Colonial author
ities have granted licenses to Suris, measures will promptly be taken to mark
the sense of His Majesty's Government of the impropriety of any such conduct.
In the meantime His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the assertion
made on p. 19 of the 44 Conclusions Complementaires " that such licenses
have been issued, and protest against the attempt now made at the last moment
to involve the Tribunal in an irrelevant inquiry of this sort.
The statement made under this head is an absolutely new fact.
RIGHTS OF POLICE AND JURISDICTION IN TERRITORIAL
WATERS.
The British arguments founded on Article XLII of the Brussels Act were
. „ (1) that this Article does not give, even
- Conclusions Compi ^menta, res, ^ 21. to the Powers which ratify it, any power
of police in the waters of other ratifying Powers, and fully recognizes and pre
serves, as a rule of international law, the territorial sovereignty of these Powers,
and (2) that as neither France nor Muscat was a party to the Artide, France
could not be justified by the Brussels Act in making the claim to police or sur
veillance in Muscat waters which was
British Case, pp. 72,73. made in 1902.
His Majesty's Government made no direct reference in the Argument to
the Anglo-Muscat Treaty of 1873, having already dealt fully with that Treaty
in the British Counter-Case (p. 33). In the Counter-Case it was necessary
to deal with the contentions of the French " Memoire " (pp. 48, 56) as to the
character and effect of this Treaty. His Majesty's Government see no ground
for withdrawing the observations made as to the tardiness of the French objec
tions to this Treaty, and without entering
British Counter-Case, p. 33. j nto ^ technical question of " prescrip
tion " mentioned in the " Conclusions Compl^mentaires," p. 21, submit that
the fact that these objections were first put forward in this Case in 1905 affords
a very strong argument against their soundness.
His Majesty's Government repeat that whatever rights of search in Muscat
waters Great Britain may have are conventional, and depend on the Treaties
with Muscat now in force, including that
«Conclusions Compi &nentaires," p. 21. 0 £ France appears to have mis
understood the English decision in the case of Carr v. Francis Times and Co.,
quoted on p. 34 of the British Counter-Case , and reported in the "Law Reports
( 1 002) Appeal Cases," p. 176. That decision, reference to the text of which
is invited, shows that the British authorities, in order to exercise the right to
seize a British vessel in Muscat waters, obtained the authority of the Sultan.
In view of the comments made at pp. 21—23 of the "Conclusions Com-
ptementaires " on the British Argument (p. 26), with reference £0 the
13
C455FC>