"الملف 35/85 IV A 11 التحكيم الخاص بمراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط" [و‎‎١‎٠‎١] (٤٩٢/١٩٧)

64
Article o. —La juridiction du Saltan sera applicable dans TOman a tons
les proprietaires de boutres battant pavilion Franyais, ainsi qu'aux oapiraines
et aux membres de Vequipage ; toutefois pear les crimes et les delits ou contes-
i-itions, ayant eu lieu a bord en haute mer ou dans les eaux territoriales de
I'Oraan, et en general partout ou le droit d'inviolabilite est reserve, la rornpe-
tence restera au Consul de France, ou a defaut a son representant, ou aux ofli-
ciers de l i Marine Nationale. Si le crime ou deiit est etabli, le coupable sera
remis au Sultan.
Article 6. —Les dispositions du present E^glempnt, apres approbation des
Gouvernernents Frmeals et Anglais, seront communiquees, ainsi que le teste
dela sentence, par voie d'affiches, aux sujetstlu Sulttn.
His Majesty's Government note with satisfaction the friendly and concilia
tory manner in which the two Consuls have carried on their negotiations, they
are, however, unable to admit that Mons, Laronce's attitude and proposals
are in accordance with either the spirit or the letter of the recent Award.
Mons. Laronce apparently claims that authorisation to fly the French
was given to each and every owner once for all, that is to say if once
it is admitted that a particular Maskati falls within one of the categories
authorised under Fart I of the Award, then, under Part II -(a) lie is entitled
to fly the French flag over any and every dhow which he now possesses or
may ever possess and is not limited to the dhow or dhows specifinally mentioned
by name in the revised French list of March •ith, 1906, and (&) that he is
entitled to replace any dhow at present in his possession of which he may sub
sequently become dispossessed by sale or loss,
As regards (a) ITis Majesty's Government hold that if the authorisation
granted to the fl igholder was originally a general one for all his dhows, then
he will retain that riuht under the terms of the Award; but that if, on the
other hand, the original authorisation was granted for a dhow or dhows specifi
cally mentioned by name, then authorisation for the same dhow or dhows
only can be claimed under the Award. It appears that Mons. Laronce, on
being requested to produce a copy of the original authorisation for each dhow
claimed, or to quote the date of first issue, has expressed his inability to com
ply; nevertheless he cannot dispute the evidence available in the recorded
specimens of " Titres de Navigation, " which warrants the presumption that
the authorisations issued in the past have in all cases been made out for single
dhows by name and not in a general form. IC Mons. Laronce s claim that
the first authorisation, even though only issued for a single dliow, carries with
it the risht to fly the French flag over all dhows which the owner may ever
poFsess^were to'be admitted, the number of such dhows might be indefinitely
increased and it would be impossible for the feultan to check the process 01 to
khow at any given time how many and what dhows are sailing under the
French flag, lhat it was the intention of the arbitrators to limit strictly not
only the number of flagholders but also the number of dhows entitled to fly
the French flag is evident from the terms of the Award, in which reference
is made (Part l)§§ 1 and 3 to " le droit d'autoriser les navires ... a arborer
le pavidon franyais'' and (Part II) § 1 "les boutres ... autorises, etc. ... ^
§2 " I'autorisation, ne peut etre transmise, etc, ou a equel que autre boutre "
and § 3 " Boutres autorises h arborer, etc. ...
In order to carry out the terms of the Award it is important that the
notification which wiil be ultimately promulgated among th.3 subjects of the
Sultan shall contain the names not only of the French flagholders but also of
the dhows which are entitled to carry the French flag and tlis Majesty's Govern
ment would not feel justified in accepting any settlement which did not provide
accordingly.
As regards {b) His Majesty's Government consider that the claim to replace
dhows which have been lost or sold is in entire contradiction with section 2 of
Part II of the Award which lays down that: L'autorisation d'arborer le
porillon Frangais ne peut 4tre transmise ou transferee h quelque autre personne
ou a quelque autre boutre (dhow) m6me si celui^ci appartenait au meinc
propi let are."