'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎117r] (244/610)

3° Que la Erance est fondee revendiquer, en ce qui touche les boutriers
mascatais francises, le maintien du statu quo conformement a tous les precedents
et usages etablis dans les cas litigieux relatifs a la protection des indigenes ;
ET LE TRIBUNAL EERA JUSTICE.
Pour le Gouvernement de la Rdpublique ft angaise :
Maurice Herbette, Agent.
R. Laronce, Secretaire de la Delegation.
MUSKAT DHOWS ARBITRATION.
Reply on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty to the Supple
mentary Conclusions presented on behalf of the Government of the French
Republic i and admitted by the Tribunal on July 25, igo$.
His Majesty's Government at the outset venture to point out to the Tribunal
that the criticism made in the French " Supplementary Conclusions " (p. 5) on
.. the form of the British Argument is
ntish ase, p.3- founded on a mistake. That Argument is
framed in strict accord with the third paragraph of the English text of the " Com-
promis," and with the precedents of the British Arguments in numerous cases of
arbitration, among which reference may be made to the arbitrations as to the
Alabama Claims (1872), the Behring Sea Seal Fisheries (1893), the Venezuelan
Boundary (1899), and the British Guiana and Brazil Boundary (1904).
In exercising the right of reply granted by the Tribunal on the 25th July,
1905, His Majesty's Government will confine themselves strictly to the points
raised in the French " Supplementary Conclusions," so far as they seem to re
quire Collection of papers folded in half and stitched together to form a gathering of folios. any reply.
INTERVENTION OF THE SULTAN IN THE ARBITRATION.
In the " Conclusions Complementaires " (p. 7) an attempt has been made to
„ , . ^ ,, . „ show that the Sultan has been unwillingly
" Conclusions Complementaues, p. y- , i • i
dragged into the present case.
Careful examination of the documents on which the French objections are
made, which are printed on p. 40 of the British Counter-Case, will show that
before the conclusion of the " Compromis " in October 1904, Great Britain and
the Sultan were perfectly in accord as to the presentation of arguments as to
French immunities in Oman, and that the letter of the 29th July, 1903, so far
from being an unsuccessful attempt, embodied an accepted arrangement, while
the letter of the 19th March, 1905, is merely an indication that the Sultan had
not at his disposal any Agent competent to argue the case at The Hague, and (to
quote his own words) 41 requested that His Majesty's Government would repre
sent me and endeavour to gain my object (' et s'efforcer de gagner mon
proems , )."
PUBLICATION OF UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
His Majesty's Government, upon the statements made under this head at
lt _ , . _ ,, „ p. 9 of the" Conclusions Complementaires,*'
' Conclusions Complementaires. p. O. , , n , 1 ,
have only to observe that no more has
been done than to call the attention of the Tribunal to what appears to His
Majesty's Government to be the irrelevancy of a great many of the French alle
gations and arguments. The document of the 14th August, 1901, given to Lord
Lansdowne by M. Cambon, whatever its value, is, at any rate, directly relevant
to the British Case. But the discussion of general British policy in Oman
appears to His Majesty's Government not to be in issue under the " Compromis/'
and, whether the Agreement of 1862 be a diplomatic or a political document,
there appears to be nothing in the " Compromis " which would justify an elabo
rate review of British policy in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
n