'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.' [‎28r] (64/208)

17
" Mdmoire,"
pp. 66-70.
British Counter-
Case, p. 12.
" Oontre-
M^moire,'
p. 297.
the undertaking given in June 1900 to the Sultan
at Siir are natives of, and resident in, Oman.
The letters of some of these men contain various
allegations as to visits to French Colonies and
having been in French service ; but these asser
tions made with the object of obtaining French
protection cannot be accepted in the absence of
corroborative evidence.
It appears to be admitted by France in the
recital of the " Compromis," and in the two lists
of dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners, that Omanis are in possession
of French flags and papers. These lists have
already been criticised in the British Counter-
Case, and the identity of the persons specified
therein to some extent ascertained. The revised
list in the French " Contre-Memoire " differs from
that in the original Case by omitting four names:—
Selim-ben-Rachid (No. 20 in first list);
Selim Bonheti (No. 21 „ );
Selim Mohammed Libadi (No. 23 in the first
list, the man whose doings are described
somewhat fully in the British Counter-Case,
p. 47); and
Salim-bin-Mohammed Wad Taheb (No. 27 in
the first list);
by ascribing to Ali-bin-Salim-bin-Rachid (No. 2)
a second vessel, and by ascribing to Ali-bin-
Salim Wad Taheb (No. 17) four vessels which
in the first list were ascribed to Salim-bin-
Mohammed Wad Taheb.
From the Report printed in AppendixNo. 3,p. 43,
it would seem that the French titre and flag of
one of the four vessels—the Fath-el-Kheir—has
very recently been taken away by the French
Consul at Zanzibar.
No details whatever are given as to the grounds
on which the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners on the lists were
placed there, nor where, nor why these Arabs got
French papers.
Instead of giving this information, it is con
tended that—
"Coutre- "la France ne saurait reconnaitre au Sultan de Mascate
Mdmoire," P 8. I'exercice d'un controle sur I'octroi du pavilion tricolore
dans les Colonies fraiiQaises; cette pratique ^tant basee sur
le droit interne de I'llltat fran^ais."
This contention evades the question in dispute.
It is not necessary to inquire as to the municipal
law of France with respect to the grant of the
French flag to ships, so long as the ships in ques
tion remain in French waters. Nor is it necessary
[733] D 2