'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.' [‎37v] (83/208)

36
French flag ; and that before grant it is required
that the vessel should—
1. Belong to a French Company ; or
2. Belong to natives (indigenes) permanently
resident (" etablis a demeure ") in that territory
and possessing realty there.
(c.) That in Madagascar, the Departmsnt con-
cemed, has always refused the French flag to
foreign vessels.
It is said not to be a regular practice to grant
titres at French Consulates, and it may be pre
sumed that the practice of granting them at the
French Consulate in Zanzibar, which is admitted
to have prevailed at one time, has now been
discontinued.
Where, then, are the titres in question granted ?
The natural and obvious conclusion would seem
to be that they are granted at Muscat, and it is
submitted that this conclusion must prevail in the
absence of more definite explanations by France
as to the origin of these grants.
In his letter of the 19th June, 1895, M. Ottavi
says that no dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. had been registered (" inscrit ")
at Muscat, and that all that he knew on the
subject was that the Vali of Siir had told him
there were in Siir thirty dhows francises,
M. Ottavi also said that the British list submitted
to him must be verified at Majunga (in Mada
gascar), Obokh, and Mayotte, and perhaps at
Zanzibar, (" Contre-Memoire," pp. 249, 250). It
is also stated in the French " Contre-Memoire "
(p. 14) that the French Consul, since he took up
his post at Muscat, has made it a rule not to
grant titres at Muscat or at Siir. It is difficult to
reconcile this statement, which is made in a
report dated the 30th June, 1897, with the two
titres printed at p. 46 of the British Case, the
first dated in 1898, the second 1899, both issued
at Muscat, and signed by M. Ottavi, who himself
made the report in question. The inference
appears to be that til res have been granted at
Muscat in the first instance, and it seems not to
be denied that a practice has prevailed of
renewing there titres which had originally been
granted elsewhere.
It is not easy to make out, from the statements
in the French " Memoire" and "Contre-
Memoire," what is the law under which it is
claimed that French Consuls may grant or renew
titres to native vessels.
It was stated in the British Case that the Bi