'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎175r] (360/610)

their ,^ a ^u 0 native vessels has been limited for the purpose of suppressing slave-
for thf flatmavhflo^f irres P ective of wh ether the applicant
rate Fmnof \ ^ Y ^ tate + «. or y of this Aet or not, and whereas at any
rate i ranee is m relation to Great Britain bound to grant her flao- only under the
conditions prescribed by this Act; 0 oni ^ unaei tne
. ^ ^ ereaS % ln A 0r , d ? r t0 at ' tam tlie above-mentioned purpose, the Signatory Powers
flai <rf oZof tht S' ye + m XXXn that the authority to fly the
flag of one of the Signatory Powers shall in future only be granted to such native
vessels which shall satisfy all the three following conditions
the P Jer^oXg theT dirtoTyt ^ either SUbjeCtS ^ 0r I,erSOnS Pr0te0ted by
of the f^ 0f th ft ^ ey P ossess real estate situated in the district
of the authority to whom their application is addressed, or supply a solvent securitv
as a guarantee for any fines to which they may eventually become liable; "
proof thaTthCT en^ov fl 0 LT nerS 'f a f- We11 a ®, tile ca P tain of tlle must furnish
coiSemned fo/ac'tZI Sl^ 0 T;a e d P e" atl0n, ^ "P 60 " 117 that ^ haye never beea
+Tio Whereas, m default of a definition of the term "protege" in the General Act of
the Brussels Conference this term must be understood in the sense which corresponds
^ ^ ele 7 ate 5 aimS 0f tlie C ^ference and its Final Act Tto the
- - i 10 Y' ot natlons as have been expressed in Treaties existing at
that ln internationally recognized legislation and in international practice •
• * ai S 1 0f the said Article XXXII is to admit to navigation in the seas-
infested by Slave Trade only those native vessels which are under the strictest
surveillance of the Signatory Powers, a condition which can only be secured if the
owners, fitters-out, and crews of such vessels are exclusively subjected to the
sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State under whose flag they are sailing •
y 1 } ereas smcG restnction which the term " protege " underwent in virtue of
the legislation of the Ottoman Porte of 1863, 1865, and 1869, especially of the
Ottoman Law of 23 Sefer, 1280 (August 1863), implicitly accepted by the Powers
T r) 0 -M nJOy the ca pitulat ion s, and since the Treaty concluded between Prance
and Morocco i n 1863, to which a great number of other Powers have acceded and
which received ^ the sanction of the Convention of Madrid of the 30th July, 1880 the
term protege embraces in relation to States of capitulations only the followino-
classes : (1) persons being subjects of a country which is under the protectorate of
the Power whose protection they claim; (2) individuals corresponding to the classes
/l 111 the - rreaties Wlth Morocco of 1863 and 1880 and in the Ottoman Law
ot 1863; (3) persons who, under a special Treaty, have been recognized as "proteges"
likethose enumemt^d by Article IV of the Prench-Muscat Convention of 1844 • and
(4) those individuals who can establish that they had been considered and treated as
proteges ^ by the Power m question before the year in which the creation of new
proteges was regulated and limited, that is to say, before the year 1863 these
individuals not having lost the status they had once legitimately acquired; '
Whereas that, although the Powers have expressis verbis resigned the exercise of
the pretended right to create "proteges" in unlimited number only in relation to
Turkey and Morocco, nevertheless the exercise of this pretended right has been
abandoned also in relation to other Oriental States, analogy having always been
recognized as a means to complete the very deficient written regulations of the
capitulations as far as circumstances are analogous;
Whereas, on the other hand, the concession de facto made by Turkey that the
status of ' proteges ^ be transmitted to the descendants of persons who in 1863 had
enjoyed the protection of a Christian Power, cannot be extended by analogv to
Muscat, where the circumstances are entirely dissimilar, the ^proteo-es" of the
Christian Powers in Turkey being of race, nationality, and religion different from their
Ottoman Eulers, whilst the inhabitants of Sur and other Muscat people who mis-lit
apply for Prench flags are in all these respects entirely in the same condition as the
other subjects of the Sultan of Muscat ;
Whereas the dispositions of Article IV of the Prench-Muscat Treaty of 1844
apply only to persons who are bond fide in the service of Prench subjects but not to
persons who ask for ships' papers for the purpose of doing any commercial business •
Whereas the fact of having granted before the ratification of the Brussels Act om
the 2nd January, 1892, authorizations to fly the Prench flag to native vessels not
[1008] c