'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.' [‎27v] (63/208)

16
case, can in no sense be construed as indicating
the exercise of any protectorate over Muscat. On
being consulted by the Sultan as to the French
Consul's communication, the British Consul gave
it as his opinion that as the man alleged to have
been wronged at Debai was one of the Sultan s
subjects resident at Suweik, in Oman, the claim on
the Chief of Debai ought to be made by the
Sultan, and not through the French Consul.
The first question of fact is whether France
has granted to subjects of the Sultan French
flags and papers. The recital of the " Com-
promis" constitutes an admission by France
that France has granted French flags and papers
to certain Muscat ship-owners. This admission
is supplemented by the inclusion in the French
" M&noire " , (p. 58) and " Contre-Memoire ' r
(p. 297) of two lists, headed " Proprietaires de
Boutres mascatais frangises." The Tribunal is
not asked to decide anything except as to dhows
owned by subjects of the Sultan and flying the
French flag or furnished with French papers, and
as to the families of such persons, and as to the
captains and crews of such vessels, and perhaps
also the families of these latter persons. It is
for France to show that persons falling within
these categories have been lawful^ transferred
from their natural allegiance to that of France, or
have lawfully been brought under French protec
tion either before or by means of the francisation
which is alleged to have taken place. His
Majesty's Government have no doubt that if any
such persons have, by false statements or fraudu
lent devices, imposed upon French officials and
improperly obtained francisation, the Government
of the French Republic, on ascertaining the truth,
would not hesitate to strip them of the privileges
which have been thus improperly obtained ; and
His Majesty's Government submit with confidence
that they have established that the Siiris in
question are originaires of Oman, and are not
settlers or residents in French Colonies, but
sailors whose home is in Oman, paying business
visits only to various ports in the Indian Ocean.
If the French contention were right, it would
be open to contend that the French fishermen
who annually, for long periods, visit Iceland or
the Newfoundland banks, and only return home for
the winter, have not their domicile in France.
It is not clear whether France contests the
accuracy of the statement that the Signatories to