'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.' [‎26r] (60/208)

la
oppose to them is the statements of other
Orientals, the Arabs in question, who have a far
more direct interest to deny, than the British
witnesses have to affirm, the facts in controversy.
Great Britain is justified in drawing attention to
the international inconvenience caused to the
Signatories of the Brussels Act by the refusal of
France to ratify Article XLII, and it would seem
that the French Commanders of war-ships engaged
in suppressing the Slave Trade have found it
necessary to point this out to their Government.
" Gontre- ^ M. Martel, Commander of the " Drome,^ in his
M- moire, p. 8J. re p 0rt 0 £ ^ D ecein "h) er) 1900, says that the
refusal to accept the provisions of Article XLII
makes it necessary to insist on the importance of
enforcing Article XXXIV of the Act as to having
the name of the vessel cut in Latin characters on
the stern, and the marking of the sail with the
letter of the "port d'attache," and the register-
number of the vessel. It has been pointed out
in the British Case (p. 17) that the dhows which
were at Stir at the date of the Sultan's visit in
June 1900 had not complied with this Article
XXXIV. M. Chautemps, Minister of the Colonies,
" Centre- says, in his letter of the 9th July, 1895 :—
Memaire," p. 250.
" II n'est pas impossible, n^anmoins, que des boutres de
contrebande arborent ill(5galement notre pavilion pour se
livrer c\ la traite avec plus de facility/'
" (Jontre- ^ ^ And Commander Kiesel, in his note of the
Memoire, p. 2/2. j unej 1902, in speaking of the 'Mozambique
coast, says:—
" Sur cette c6te, d'ailleurs, il y a lieu d'etre tr^s actif et
tr^s prudent, parce que les boutres arborent le pavilion
qn'ils jngent le plus avantageux k Imstant present
Comme le Portugal y a en permanence un croiseur et
plusieurs canonni^res, que TAugleterre y a en permanence
. des batimentn, le pavilion fran^ais est commode, quand le
croiseur fran^ais n'y est pas."
If Article XLII applied to vessels under the
French flag, the abuse of the flag above referred
to would be impossible. But the admission of
M. Kiesel fully supports the statement made at
p. II of the British Case, that Arabs who engage
in the Slave Trade are fully aware of the gap
created by the non-adhesion of France in the
meshes of the net which would otherwise com
pletely envelop their nefarious traffic, and the
anxiety of France to inform all the world that
the u droit de "visite" does not exist as to