'P. 1 733/1904. Muscat Arbitration. (1904-08).' [‎314v] (635/778)

10
Mte MI— I- »« “ “ P ‘'"“ '“'” 1 bJ
Otta«, then French Gonsu a atten tion here is that this man “ Salim
was) died about two years ago, ana
“TCU n—»' «• rtrri.r^E^riioSS “S
stfassssiiSSR^**-"-* ” M i, . , “
his Wali at Suweik to see that
that it was only a private note
of it, that if Monsieur Laronce
to Jfutnish ^ tetter (pr to send instructions) to
his effects were not made away w t .
The Sultan showed me this note and said
and that he did not intend h) take could do it officially and would be
bad any claim '“''' y’o’ 3 u' U r LarouSe evidently hesitated to make any official
^^"nd there the matter ended. Such at least ts my recollection
of the incident.
1. n,i,»"I." p->'« ? lh t>‘LdTSuX to,™
what had eventually become f i ^ man’s death and that there was
me that the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. had been sold up ^tl^man --i cat ha ^ ^ the
now no French flag in Su ^ m memorv serves me aright his statement was
truth on rBritshTuhieotsmsiding there, hut wliether he spoke the truth
corroborated by Brlt '?“ s .. ^ • ite of t h e ir promises to the contrary a new set
of papers fmTne'w’dhow or a oolourable “renouvehement ” appears to have been
issued and the owner still poses as “ Salim Mali ,med.'>
At the nresent stase of the negotiations with the Trench Government on
the general question, this is of no direct importance ^ ^
ti Tint T have reneatedlv pointed out before, namely that under the existing
methods by*whmh the^French flag is issued to the Sultans’s subjects there are
unlimited facilities for jugglery with names.
E In view of the circumstances which I have mentioned above, in order
to have been consistent with the policy in which we have hitherto persevered
in such matters anv inquiry into “Salim Mohamed’s” claim against Debai should.
/“Sve been made on behalf of the Sultan of Maskat and not on
behalf of the French Government, and while it is clear from tlie correspondence
that the action taken in the present instance was considered advisable tor
reasons of State and to avoid any unpleasant incident and while the ease -
afforded us a useful opportunity for obtaining recognition of our peculiar
relations with the Pirate Coast Chiefs, it would appear that m this instance
His Maiesty’s Government has for the first time conceded to^ the brenc
very right which we have hitherto uniformly refused to recognize, and unless,
(as I confidently hope is not the case) it is intended by His Majesty s Govern
ment to dispose of the flag question in the manner foreshadowed in your
telegram of ,31st March to Colonel Kemball, I beg, with the utmost deference,
to express the opinion that any change of policy on the lines suggested by tne
action taken in this case is calculated to weaken our case pending betore tne
Hague Tribunal and to have a prejudicial effect upon the Sultan.
Trusting that I shall not he considered guilty of presumption in submit
ting my views.
Postcript.—A copy of this communication has been forwarded to the
Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. , Maskat for information.
Q. C, Frees, Simla.-No. 723 f. I).-8JJ-04,~44.-J,K.