"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". [و‎‎٨‎٢] (٢٠٨/١٧٦)

[921]
Treaty of 1844, it is perhaps desirable to indicate
again the exact nature of that argument.
It was directed to the opinion of M. Renault,
on which France so much relies. So far as
concerns the interpretation of the terms of a
written document, that interpretation must be
the same both for Muscat and Zanzibar. But in
so far as M. Renault expressed an opinion that
usage or concession had given to France in
Zanzibar waters exclusive right of police over
vessels under the French flag not expressly given
by the Treaty, it became necessary to indicate
that proof of usage or concession by the Sultan
of Zanzibar since 1856 was res inter alios acta,
so far as the Sultan of Muscat is concerned, and
in no sense established that the Sultan of Muscat
had acquiesced in any such usage, or made any
such concession.
And His Majesty's Government would observe,
as to the statements on p. 23 of the <£ Conclusions
Complementaires," that the documents already
before the Court do not indicate any exercise of
rights of police by France in Oman waters before
1891, and' that since that date disputes have
been pending as to the matters now before the
Tribunal for solution, and that there is no sign
of acquiescence by the Sultan in the justice of
the French claims.
His Majesty's Government would also say, in
conclusion, that they certainly do not accept the
French contention that the arrangements between
Coinullmentaires" France on the one side, and Great Britain and
p. 23. Germany on the other side as to jurisdiction in
Zanzibar waters, have any effect whatever in
Oman.