"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [و‎‎٦‎٧] (٦١٠/١٤٤)

19
persons. To hold otherwise would be to allow the claiming Power to be its
own judge on controverted questions of fact and law and of the interpretation
of Treaties. In this Arbitration it devolves on France to lay before the Arbitra
tors the grounds on which she seeks to withdraw from the Sultan those of his
subjects whose names appear on the lists already referred to, or others of his
subjects who, though not on the lists, may be in consimili casu.
The knowledge of the grounds for granting jrancimtion or Prench flags to
such vessels "or persons is peculiarly within the reach of France, and is not
accessible to Great Britain nor to the
M^moire," p. is. Sultan of Muscat. It is stated that
registers exist at Muscat of all Arab vessels which have been franches and of
their owners and captains. It is known that titres are granted to their vessels.
The copies of such litres which have reached His Majesty's Government indi-^
cate that if these litres are properly filled in, abundant indications will be
afforded of the place where the proprietor is said to reside, where his vessel was
francise and the like, although, as has been pointed out in the British Case^
pp. 16, 45-47, in certain of these litres most essential information, viz., as
to the residence of the proprietors, has been omitted.
France seems also to object that Great Britain is not entitled ( u qualifiee ")
to verify the list of French dhow owners,
"ContreM(Smoire ) "p.8. because this would involve a critical
examination of French municipal legislation. Great Britain has no interests
in, and makes no claim to examine into, French municipal legislation ; and is
content to take the statement of France as to what such legislation is. But, as
already stated, when France seeks to give extraterritorial effect or international
validity to her municipal legislation, then the right of foreign Powers arises to
question the validity and effect of such legislation outside its proper bounds.
The French arguments as to making domicile a ground for claiming an
originaire of Muscat as a French protege in Muscat have already been dealt
with in the British Counter-Case (p. 10). It is enough to refer the Tribunal
to these arguments and to add the following remarks :—
1. Domicile is not equivalent to nationality.
2. Domicile may give certain rights in the country in which it is acquired,
and may alter the statut personnel or the descent of property by virtue of the
rule mobilia sequuntur personam, but it gives no title to protection as a national
in other countries, least of all in that of origin.
3. It lies with those who assert that the domicile of origin has been lost to
prove the assertion. France has not adduced any evidence at all that any of
the dhow owners of Muscat origin have acquired a domicile in any French
possession. The Tribunal is, on this point, referred to the latest judicial
exposition of the subject in the English Courts (Winans v. Attorney-General,
Law Heports, 1904, Appeal Cases, p. 287)—a case in which the liability to
taxation of the personal estate of a deceased American subject depended on
whether he had become domiciled in the United Kingdom.
EIGHTS OF POLICE AND JURISDICTION IN TEREITOEIAL
WATERS.
It is not easy to see what bearing this question has upon the point sub
mitted for decision in this Arbitration, but as it is very fully discussed in the
French " Contre-Memoire," His Majesty's Government think it right to make
some observations upon it.
Perusal of the French " Contre-Memoire " discloses a tendency to confusion
between three very distinct questions :—
1. The " droit de visite, " or right of search on the high seas;