'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎10v] (29/208)

16
and adjoining islands, and to have a foreign crew.
It was issued at Zanzibar.
In 1899 the Sultan wrote to the then French
Consul at Muscat informing him that he did not p^s, 0 ^m'yfiie
recognize the right of France to exercise juris- 0xact text waQted -
diction over bis subjects residing in or visiting
bis dominions, whether they were in possession of
French papers or not, and that the practice of
granting French protection to his subjects at Sur
was contrary to the Declaration of 1862 {ante,
p. ), and at the same time he also wrote to the
head of the Jennibeh tribe at Sur recommending
them to return their French flags, and adopt the
original red Arab flag.
Following up the policy indicated by the
Declaration of 1899, the Sultan, in June 1900, paid ^*6 in IHle? 9 *'
a visit to Sur, and there conferred with the chief p. 51.
men of Sur and those of his subjects there who
held French flags and papers. The result of tbe Appendix, Nos. .
Conference was a written undertaking signed by
these persons to return any French flags held by June 12, im
. „ ,, . , . , p. 58, on my tile.
them at the beginning of the coming year, which
undertaking was formally accepted by the Sultan, Appendix, No. .
who, on the 15th June, 1900, issued a notification June 12,1900,
warning his subjects against taking flags and p ' 0 ' on my 1 c '
naners from foreign Governments whereunder Appendix, No.
i i_i- # rm i. .c 11116 13} 1900,
they claimed so-called protection. Tnree sets or p 59, on my file.
French papers were at once surrendered ; copies
of these ships' papers surrendered on this occasion
are given in the Appendix. Their examination
discloses the following facts :—
No. A is called a renouvellement, which indicates Co^Jun^is^ ^
that the applicant, Eashid-bin-Khamis, muat have in No. 49 (tile,
had papers before and let them lapse; otherwise p j6) "
the Consul would have endorsed the papers
" prolongation,^ as appears to have been done
two years later at Zanzibar.
Moreover, the place of residence is omitted, what about mod&t
though its insertion is clearly required by Articles theVct^^
XXXII and XXXIV of the Brussels Act.
No. B contains no proper description of the
vessel to distinguish it from the numerous Arab
dhows bearing the same common name and of the
same tonnage. In this titre also the proteges'
residence is omitted. The proprietor is stated to
be also proprietor of the it Saad-el-Kerim," which
may refer to another vessel with French papers,
but affords no sufficient indication of qualification
to hold French papers.
. No. C, like No. B, contains no indication of the
residence of the ship-owner, and merely states