"التحكيم في قضية مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. محكمة التحكيم الدائمة في لاهاي. السماح برفع الأعلام الفرنسية على مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. القضية بالنيابة عن الحكومة البريطانية". [ظ‎‎٥‎٥] (٢٠٨/١٢١)

14
1902, in a letter to Mr. Cave, the British President
there, said :—
" Je vous rappellerai douc qu'il a toujours ete admis Appendix 6, p. 44.
que les boutriers, patrons, et equipage naviguant sous
pavilion Frangais sont proteges Fran9ais."
Mr. Cave replied, on the 15th September, 1902,
that he could not for a moment accept this
statement, and concluded as follows:—
By Article 32 of the General Act of the Brussels
Conference, to which the French Republic is a party, it
is provided that authority to fly the flag of one of the
Signatory Powers should only be granted to a native
vessel the fitter out or owner of which is either a subject
of, or a person protected by, the Power in question. I
shall be much obliged if you will be so good as to
inform me upon what grounds a native of Stir, in Arabia,
has been granted the right of sailing under the French
flag."
M. Guy, on the 15th September, 1902, in his
reply modified his claim, and restated it as
follows:—
" 11 est bien certain (et ceci m'amene au point que
vous visiez in fine) que le proprietaire d une embarca-
tion naviguant sous pavilion Fran^ais devait etre (d apies
I'Acte de Bruxelles et d'apres nos lois) ran^ais, et son
patron et ses hommes sont considerds comme 6tant au
service des Franqais, et doivent par consequent jouir des
avantages que leur accorde le Traite de Mascate.
The Consul's first claim treated as admitted
what had never been admitted, viz., that the
persons on Arab vessels under the French flag
were French proteges.
The second claim treats as certain that such
persons are French proteges because h rench Law
and the Act of Brussels require as a condition
precedent to a ship being French that its owner
should be French. This is an obvious petitio
principii, based on a fiction of service to a person
assumed to be Prench, by reason of the flag used,
without examination into the right of the ship
to use the flag.
It has already been pointed out that the French
list merely states the names of the Omanis with
out indicating how they became entitled to the
French flag. The British Government claim
again, as in the British Case, p. 23, that a
written' explanation should be given of the
grounds on which the titre de navigation was