"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [و‎‎٤‎٦] (٦١٠/١٠٢)

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 Trench
Consuls may grant or renew litres to native vessels.
It was stated in the British Case that the maritime law of France does not
British Case, p. 25. contemplate the grant of French papers
unless at least half the vessel is owned by
French citizens. In the French " Contre-
Memoire ' it is said that this law does not apply to the Colonies, and certain
of the laws said to apply to them are given in an Appendix. This
statement does not quite accord with the opinion expressed by M. Guy
French Consul at Zanzibar, and quoted at page 14 of the British Counter-
Case. But assuming M. Guy to be wrong and the statement in the " Contre-
Memoire " to be accurate, neither Zanzibar nor Muscat is a French Colony ;
and the authority of the Consul, if it exist, must be derived from some generai
administrative discretion, or from some particular instructions given to him
which have not been included in the French " Memoire " or " Contre-Memoire "
or from some law which has not been disclosed. But the Tribunal will find that
British Case, p. 49. the Utre g ra ^ed at Aden in 1891 contains
a reference to the Law of 27 Vendemiaire,
an ii, which is the foundation of the French maritime law and under which hdf
the vessel must be owned by French citizens. It has already been pointed
•«Contre-M&noire,"p. 91. 0 A U ^ ^at Article XXXII of the Brussels
Act affords no warrant for the grant of
Hires to native vessels by Consular officers, because the condition precedent to
such grant can be satisfied only in a Colony or Protectorate of the power which
grants the titre. Until copies of the titres granted to the Siiri Arabs now in
question are produced, it is not possible to know the statements as to the resi
dence of the owner upon which they were granted. These statements would
in any case, require verification.
The grant of protection to individuals is closely linked with the francisa-
tion of vessels. France appears to contend that the latter turns the captain and
crew and their families into French proteges in globo, and that the former has a
like effect as to the individual and his descendants. It is not possible to trace
in the French " Memoire " or " Contre-Memoire " any distinct allegation that
any,of the Omanis in question are French, either as citizens born or as natura
lized in French territory. It is contended in the French " Memoire" and
M contre-M&Boire," p. 27. " Contre-M^moire" that the terms of
Article I\ of the Treaty of 1844 include
not only domestic servants, but also—
" les employes, les commissionnaires, les agents de transport, tons ceux enfin,
en un mot, qui rendent bond fide des services pour I'extension des relations com-
merciales, dont le Traite de 1844 a voulu faciliter le developpement.''
The contention is obviously wrong. The phrase " au service " clearly im
plies engagement in the capacity of a clerk or domestic or some subordinate
capacity; and it cannot include all persons with whom Frenchmen happen to
have contracts of a commercial nature.
In order to ascertain whether any one of the " boutriers originaires de
Mascate " is entitled to French protection in Muscat, the following preliminary
questions must be asked :—
1. Has he been naturalized in a French possession under the Decree printed
at p. 76 of the French " Memoire " ? or
2. Was he born in a French possession of a father permanently establish
ed there at the date of the birth ? or
3. Is he bond fide in the service of a French citizen ?
It would be very difficult for Siiri sailors to satisfy the conditions of three
years 1 unbroken residence in a French Colony required by the Decree above
cited. But even if the answer to questions 1 or 2 were "Yes," it would not
29