the application of the most-favoured-nation clause in the French Treaty of 1844:

ART. 2. - » Subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall, for the purposes of this Treaty, include subjects of native States in India in alliance with Her Majesty. Such subjects shall enjoy, immediately and unconditionally, throughout the dominions of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat, with respect to commerce, shipping, and the exercise of trade, as in every other respect, all the rights, privileges, immunities, advantages, and protection of whatsoever nature, which are, or hereafter may be, enjoyed by, or accorded to, the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation.

» They shall, more especially, not be liable to other or more onerous duties, imposts, restrictions, or obligations of whatever description, than those to which subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation now are, or hereafter may be, subjected.

ART. 13. » Subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall, as regards their person and property, enjoy within the dominions of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat the rights of exterritoriality.

» The authorities of His Highness the Sultan have no right to interfere in disputes with subjects of Her Britannic Majesty amongst themselves or between them and members of other Christian nations; such questions, whether of a civil or criminal nature, shall be decided by the competent Consular authorities. The trial and also the punishment of all offences and crimes of which British subjects may be accused within the dominions of His Highness the Sultan, also the hearing and settlement of all civil questions, claims, or disputes in which they are the defendants, is expressly reserved to the British Consular authorities and Courts, and removed from the jurisdiction of His Highness the Sultan.

» Should disputes arise between subjects of His Highness the Sultan or other non-Christian Power, not represented by Consuls at Muscat, and a subject of Britannic Majesty, in which the British subject is the plaintiff or complainant, the matter shall be brought before and decided by the highest authority of the Sultan, or some person specially delegated by him for this purpose. The proceedings and final decision in such a case shall not, however, be considered legal unless notice has been given and an opportunity afforded for the British Consul or his substitute to attend at the hearing and final decision.

ART. 14. Subjects of His Highness the Sultan, or any nonChristian nation, not represented by Consuls at Muscat, who are in the regular service of British subjects within the dominions of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat, shall enjoy the same protection as British subjects themselves.

» Should they be charged with having committed a crime or serious offence punishable by law, they shall, on sufficient evidence being shown to justify further proceedings, be handed over by British employers or by order of the British Consul, to the authorities of His Highness the Sultan for trial and punishment.

ART. 18. The houses, dwellings, warehouses, and other premises of British subjets, or of persons actually in their regular service within the dominions of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat, shall not be entered, or searched under any pretext, by the officials of His Highness without the consent of the occupier, unless with the cognizance and assistance of the British Consul or his substitute ».

On the 10th day of March, 1862, the following Declaration was signed in Paris by the Representatives of Great Britain and France: (V. Arch. dipl. 1905, t. 94, p. 557).

Besides the Treaties already mentioned, the Sultan of Muscat has entered into a series of Treaties and Conventions with Great Britain for the purpose of preventing his subjects from engaging in the oversea Slave Trade from Africa, and of preventing the import of African slaves into his dominions either in transit to other parts of the world, or for sale in Oman. By these Treatries the Sultan has entered into definite obligations as to the measures to be undertaken within his territories and territorial waters for the suppressing of such trade.

The European Powers have for many years interested themselves in the suppression of the oversea Slave Trade from Africa to Asia, and that trade has ceased to be carried on by Europeans, and so much of it as still remains is carried on by Asiatics or Africans in native craft.

France has for many years refused to permit the exercise by warships of any other Power of any droit de visite on the high seas with regard to ships carrying the French flag. Arabs concerned in the oversea Slave Trade (« traite des noirs ») are fully aware of this policy, and have sought to obtain the benefit of the French flag in two ways: (1) by hoisting it without authority; (2) by obtaining licence to hoist it from French Consuls in the Eastern seas, or from the authorities in French Colonies or Protectorates.

The existence of this abuse of the French flag by Asiatics has been ascertained by the experience of the naval officers engaged in suppressing the oversea Slave Trade, and the attention of the French Government has been from time to time called to the abuse of the French flag by Arab slave-traders.

In 1890 a Conference of the Powers was held at Brussels for the purpose of concertinh measures for the complete suppression of the African Slave Trade, and the Conference resulted in the passing of a General Act on the 2nd July, 1890. A copy of the General Act is annexed to this Case.

The General Act was ratified by France on the 2nd January, 1892, subject to a provisional reservation with a view to a later agreement of Articles 21, 22, 23, and 42 to 61. This partial ratification was coupled with a declaration that Articles 30-41 would be spontaneously applied by the French Government in the territory of Obokh, and, according to necessity, in the Island of Madagascar and the Comoros.

The effect of the partial ratification is to preserve the claim of France to resist any claim to exercise on the high seas the droit de visite or to detain vessels under the French flag which are suspected of carrying slaves. The Sultan of Muscat is not a party to the Brussels Act, but his obligations as to suppression of the Slave Trade are defined by the Treaties already mentioned.

Until the acquisition by France of the Colonies or Protectorates of Obokh, and Tajourah, the Comoros and Madagascar, little opportunity or ground arose for the obtaining of French flags and papers by the owners or skippers of Arab dhows; but when it was found that France had not consented to the provisions of the Brussels Act with reference to the search and detention on the high seas of vessels under her flag which were engaged in the Slave Trade, or guilty of the unauthorized use of a flag. and still maintained her objections to the visite of vessels under the French flog, the owners and skippers of native vessels who wished to engage in the Slave Trade, or from any other cause to escape surveillance on the high seas by the war ships of the Signatory Powers, immediately had recourse to French authorities to obtain French flags and papers.

From the conclusion o the Treaty of 1844 until the present time very few French citizens have established themselves in the territories of the Sultan of Muscat, and at the time when the differences to be settled in this arbitration arose there were in Oman very few French citizens outside the Consular establishment, and one citizen of a Christian State not having a Consul at Muscat, who was treated as being under the French Consul, nor were any branches of any French commercial house set up in the Sultan's dominions. Consequently there were very few French citizens to take into their service any subjects of the Sultan.

Notwithstanding the terms of the Treaty of 1844 and the Declaration of 1862, and the provisions of Article 32 of the Brussels Act of 1890, French officials in the Colonies or Protectorates of Obokh, Madagascar, and the Comoros have from time to time granted French ships' papers, and flags to subjects of the Sultan of Muscat, and the same course has been taken by the French Consuls at Aden, Muscat, and Zanzibar. Specimens of the titres so granted are included in the Appendix.

The bulk of the Omanis who have thus received French papers belong to the district of Jalani and town of Sur, within the territories and subject to the sovereignty of the Sultan of Muscat. The seafaring men among this population leave Sur with their vessels and voyage to India and Africa, returning at the end of the season and laying no their ships at Sur. Many of the owners of the vessels, having grown old and affluent, are content to send their vessels out under captains, and do not, themselves, leave Sur. Many of these Suris had been, and some still are, engaged in the oversea Slave Trade.

In February 1891 the French Consul at the British port of Aden granted French papers and flags to eight captains or owners who were subjects of the Sultan of Muscat, and resident at Sur. The fact was reported to the British Government, and remonstrances were addressed to the French Government, in reply to which M. Ribot, then French Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the 20th November, 1891, stated that the grant hat been made in error, and that be would not fail to take the steps necessary to prevent its recurrence. This statement, made before the qualified and partial ratification by France of the Brussels Act of 1890, was understood by Great Britain to mean that France would no longer grant to Omani Arabs the use of French flags, or titres de navigation.

Notwithstanding this statement, the French authorities at Obokh in ARCH. DIPL., TOME 100. 1906. VOL. IV, Nos 10-11-12.

18

1892 granted French papers ta dhows whose owners and crews were Suris, and the French Consul at Aden referred to the authorities at Obokh dhow owners who applied to him at Aden for French papers.

The Sultan of Muscat has never admitted that this grant of French flags or papers is warranted by Treaty or usage, nor that the French authorities are entitled to make themselves judges or protectors of any of his subjects who are not actually and bona fide in the service of French subjects in his dominions. He expressed his objections so far back as 1891, and in that year Muhammad-bin-Mubarak-bin-Salim, his Wali at Sur, ordered the skippers to cancel their certificates and return them to the French, and this order seems in some cases to have been obeyed.

In March 1891 the Sultan furnished the British Government with a list of thirteen captains of Suri boats carrying French colours.

And the Sultan in that year took counsel with the British Government as to the use of French flags by his subjets, and was advised that the use of the French flag could have no effect as against him, and that he had full authority to punish any of his subjects who might infringe the laws of his country, whatever flag or papers they might have accepted.

In June 1892 the British Government received information that French papers had been granted at Obokh to five large buggalows, all heavily armed and owned and manned by Suris, and on the 14th June made representations to the French Government with respect to these vessels asking for a searching inquiry. This inquiry was made, and in April 1893 M. Develle, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated, as the result, that the owners, patrons, or proprietors had declared that they wished to settle in Jibuti, and had obtained concessions of land. The Minister, though expressing himself satisfied with the result of the inquiry, stated that instructions had been given to take the greatest care in verifying the papers of such vessels and in dealing with offences.

It is further to be noted that the Consuls at Muscat and Zanzibar, notwithstanding M. Ribot's admission of error with respect to Aden, have granted French papers in cases where even the formalities required in French Colonies could not be complied with, and it is particularly to be observed that certain of the titres de navigation emanating from those places omit any statement of the residence and status of the owner of the vessel, and permit the employment of a foreign crew.

Notwithstanding the objections and representations above stated, from 1892 until the present time, the authorities in the French Colonies and Protectorates of Obokh, Madagascar, and Comoro have made a constant practice of granting French flags and ships' papers to subjects of the Sultan of Muscat, natives of and residing in his dominions, chiefly in Sur. The applicants for the flag and papers are neither of French nationality nor naturalization; they have no authority from their Sultan to change their allegiance, and they have no permanent residence or settlement in French territory, but merely pay fleeting visits thereto for the purpose of renewing their licences.

Some of them have gone through the from of buying houses, or depositing what is considered the value of a house in the Colony or Protectorate. But these transactions are of so doubtful a character that they cannot be held to justify the action of the French colonial authorities in

issuing licences to the Arabs concerned in a manner inconsistent with Articles 30 to 51 of the Brussels Act, and not warranted by the municipal law of France or the Colonies as to the issue of ship's papers or the grant to ships of the French flag; it might also be fairly argued that the grant of such licences was hardly consistent with international law and comity.

Subjects of the Sultan resident in his dominions who have obtained French flags and papers in the manner above described have used the flag and papers for the purpose of the Slave Trade.

Many reports have been received from British naval officers in the Indian Seas and from the British residents in Oman and on the Persian Gulf which establish this fact. Moreover, on returning to the waters and territory of Muscat these men have claimed.

(1) That the Sultan is not entitled to board or search their vessels, or to exercise any jurisdiction over them;

(2) That they are not subject to the Sultan's authority while in his territory, but are entitled to be treated as protégés of France and to be exempt from his laws as to customs, quarantine, and other matters.

In these contentions they have been on several occasions supported by the French Consul in Muscat and by the French Government.

In 1894 as many as twenty-three dhows, hailing from Sur, and owned and manney by Suris, appear, to have possessed French papers. A list of these vessels, given in the Appendix, was communicated to the French Government on the 9th February, 1895, with a request for an investigation with a view to ascertaining whether the vessels were really registered.

In consequence of this despatch, a French warship, the « Troude », went to Sur to verify the papers of any dhow flying the French flag. The results of this inquiry were not communicated to the Sultan of Muscat or the British Government, but the Commander of the vessel was understood by the British Consul at Muscat to state that the practice of granting to Suri dhows the French flag and papers at Obokh had been stopped.

On the 28th June, 1895. this statement was brought to the attention of the French Government. The French Ambassador in London eventually informed Lord Salisbury on the 16th March, 1897, that there had been a misapprehension, and that there was no intention of discontinuing the practice. In May 1897 the British Government received a Report from the Sultan of Muscat, through the British Consul there, that French papers were being obtained by Suri dhows at the French Consulate in Zanzibar, then a British Protectorate, and on the 4th May, 1897, Commander Hoskyns, of His Majesty's ship « Blonde », which was cruising on the Zanzibar coast for the repression of the Slave Trade, reported that thirty-eight dhows hod changed from Muscat to French nationality at the French Consulate at Zanzibar, and had obtained permission to carry passengers.

In May of that year the Sultan of Muscat had addressed to M. Ottavi, the French Consul in Muscat, a protest against the grant by the French authorities in Aden and Africa of French flags to Omanis. To this protest. the Consul replied by a statement, the accuracy of which is certainly open to question, that the practice had existed for forty years, and had