"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". [ظ‎‎٨‎٦] (٢٠٨/١٩١)

Whereas since the restriction which the term "prot^g^" underwent in
virtue of the legislation of the Ottoman Porte of 1863, 1865 and 1869,
especially of the Ottoman law of 23 Sefer 1280 (August 1863) implicitly
accepted by the Powers who enjoy the rights of capitulations, and since
the Treaty concluded between France and Morocco in 1863, to which a great
number of other Powers have acceded and which received the sanction of the
Convention of Madrid of July 30, 1880, the term "prot6g6" embraces in
relation to States of capitulations only the following classes 1°. persons being
subjects of a country which is under the protectorate of the Power whose
protection they claim, 2o. individuals corresponding to the classes enumerated
in the treaties with Morocco of 1863 and 1880 and in the Ottoman law of 1863,
3°. persons, who under a special treaty have been recognized as "prot6g6s"
like those enumerated by article 4 of the French Muscat Convention of
1844 and 4°. those individuals who can establish that they had
been considered and treated as "prot6g6s" by the Power in question
before the year in which the creation of new "proteges" was regulated
and limited, that is to say before the year 1863 , these individuals not
having lost the status they had once legitimately acquired.
Whereas that, although the Powers have expressis verbis resigned
the exercise of the pretended right to create "prot6g6s" in unlimited
number only in relation to Turkey and Morocco, nevertheless the exercise
of this pretended right has been abandoned also in relation to other
Oriental States, analogy having always been recognized as a mean to
complete the very deficient written regulations of the capitulations as
far as circumstances are analogous.
Whereas on the other hand the concession de facto made by
Turkey, that the status of "prot6g6s" be transmitted to the descendants
of persons, who in 1863 had enjoyed the protection of a Christian
Power, cannot be extended by analogy to Muscat, where the circum
stances _are entirely dissimilar, the "proteges" of the Christian Powers
in Turkey being of race, nationality and religion different from their
Ottoman rulers, whilst the inhabitants of Sur and other Muscat people
who might apply for French flags, are in all these respects entirety
in the same condition as the other subjects of the Sultan of Muscat,
Whereas the dispositions of article 4 of the French-Muscat Treaty
. of 1844 apply only to persons who are bona fide in the service of
I French subjects, but not to persons who ask for ships-papers for the
purpose of doing any commercial business.
Whereas the fact of having granted before the ratification of the
T) 1 A T r-w ™ , 'mil"
Brussels Act on January 2 1892 authorizations to fly the French flag
to native vessels not satisfying the "conditions prescribed by article 32 of
m
m
Lil
li
jlBrti
Li