Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 XXX to LXI of the Brussels Act, and not warranted by the municipal law of France or the Colonies as to the issue of ships' 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 manned by Suris, appear to have possessed French papers. A list Appendix No 14 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 Appendix No. 15. practice of granting to Suri dhows the French flag and papers at Obokh had been stopped.

Appendix No

On the 28th June, 1895, this statement was brought to the attention of the French Govern

Appendix No. 17. ment. The French Ambassador in London eventually informed Lord Salisbury on the 16th Appendix No. 18. 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 Appendix No. 19. 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 Appendix No. 20. coast for the repression of the Slave Trade, reported that thirty-eight dhows had changed from Muscat to French nationality at the French Consulate at Zanzibar, and had obtained permission to carry passengers.

[ocr errors]

In May of that year the Sultan of Muscat had addressed to M. Ottavi, the French Consul in Appendix No. 21. 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 been accepted by the Sultan. Further correspondence ensued, the Sultan pressing his protest and the French Consul maintaining his contention that only French officers could interfere with dhows carrying French flags.

In 1899 the Sultan wrote to the then French Appendix No. 22. Consul at Muscat informing him that he did not

recognize the right of France to exercise jurisdiction over his subjects residing in or visiting his dominions, whether they were in possession of French papers or not, and that the practice of granting French protection to his subjects at Sur was contrary to the Declaration of 1862 (ante, p. 8), and at the same time he also wrote to the head of the Jennebeh tribe at Sur recommending them to return their French flags, and adopt the original red Arab flag.

Following up the policy indicated in His Highness' communication to the French Consul in 1899, the Sultan, in June 1900, paid a visit to Sur, and there conferred with the chief men of Sur and those of his subjects there who Appendix No. 23. held French flags and papers. The result of the Conference was a written undertaking signed by

[blocks in formation]

these persons to return any French flags held by them at the beginning of the coming year. This undertaking was formally accepted by the Sultan, who, on the 15th June, 1900, issued a notification warning his subjects against taking flags and papers from foreign Governments whereunder Appendix No. 8. they claimed so-called protection. Four sets of French papers were at once surrendered; copies of these ships' papers surrendered on this occasion. are given in the Appendix. Their examination discloses the following facts:

No. A is called a renouvellement, which indicates that the applicant, Rashid-bin-Khamis, must have had papers before and let them lapse; otherwise the Consul would have endorsed the papers prolongation," as appears to have been done two years later at Zanzibar.

66

Moreover, the place of residence is omitted, though its insertion is clearly required by Articles XXXII and XXXIV of the Brussels Act.

No. B contains no proper description of the vessel to distinguish it from the numerous Arab dhows bearing the same common name and of the same tonnage. In this titre also the protégés' residence is omitted. The proprietor is stated to be also proprietor of the "Saad-el-Kerim," whichmay refer to another vessel with French papers, but affords no sufficient indication of qualification. to hold French papers.

No. C, like No. B, contains no indication of the residence of the ship-owner, and merely states that he is owner of another vessel-the "Saad-alKerim."

No. D describes the owner as resident in a place somewhat illegibly written, but appearing to be Mitsa Mixxote, declared by the owner to be the name of one of the Comoro Islands. His actual residence was at Suweik, a small port on the Batineh coast of Oman.

It is further to be observed that these titres were all granted or renewed by French Consuls at Muscat or Zanzibar, and not by the officers of French Colonies or Protectorates; and it is also to be noted that the titre permits the employment of a foreign crew, which militates against any contention that the crew can be considered as French protégés.

At the time of the Sultan's visit to Sur all the Suri vessels except one were laid up in harbour for the monsoon season, and though at least those owned by the persons in the list given in the

2

Appendix No. 24.
Appendix No. 25.

Appendix No. 14 claimed to sail under the French
flag, only fifteen or sixteen had on them any
names or numbers as required by Article XXXIV of
the Brussels Act, and on even these vessels the
names were not inlaid as required, but so dis-
posed on the quarter that they could be easily
removed or erased.

The French titres above referred to were sent
by the Sultan to M. Ottavi, who declined to
receive them, and visited Sur to inquire into the
circumstances attending their surrender.

On the 26th June, 1900, M. Cambon, the French Appendix No. 26. Ambassador in London, gave to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs an assurance that no certificates would be recognized which had been granted for the first time to subjects of the Sultan after that date, and that the existing papers would be carefully examined.

Appendix No. 27.

[ocr errors]

On the 11th February, 1902, by the direction of the British Government, the British Consul at Muscat addressed to M. Laronce, then French Consul there, a protest against the assertion of any claim by France "to exercise jurisdiction in Muscat territory and territorial waters over certain born and domiciled Omani subjects of His Highness, to whom French flags and titres de navigation had been issued" by officials of the French Government.

This protest was evoked by official communications made by the French Consul on the 14th and 23rd January, 1902, in which he claimed to exercise jurisdiction over certain Omanis on the strength of their possessing French flags and papers.

The text of the correspondence is given in the Appendix.

In the final letter the French Consul wrote

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors]

M. Cambon, the French Ambassador in London, Appendix No. 28. made, on the 14th August, 1901, a statement expressing the views of the French Government on the question. This statement was referred to the British Consul at Muscat for report, and the substance of his Report was embodied in

a statement made by Lord Lansdowne to Appendix No. 29. M. Cambon on the 16th April, 1902. The Appendix No. 30. exchanges of view which then took place were of

an unofficial nature, but it was understood that there was no desire on the part of the French Government to interfere in any way with the Sultan of Muscat.

From that date for a time the controversy rested. But in the year 1903 two events happened which ultimately revived the controversy and conduced to the present arbitration.

Abdulla-bin-Salem, Chief of the Gafiri Arabs, resident at Sur, was engaged in a tribal war with a section of another Arab tribe. Finding that his opponents were receiving supplies through Sur, the Chief levied a fine on the town, and forbade native vessels to leave until the Headmen had paid the fine.

Mubarak-bin-Hamed Razaiki owned a dhow, for which he had taken out papers in the name of his son, Khamis-bin-Mubarak, and flew the French flag. Both he and his son were residents in Sur, and subjects of the Sultan. To avoid his

tribal liability, Mubarak expressed his intention

of taking his ship out, and on his persisting some Appendix No. 31. of Abdulla-bin-Salem's men fired on the vessel,

and a shot went through the flag.

This incident was made the ground of a claim by the French Consul on the Sultan for an indemnity of 1,500 dols. The claim was challenged by the British Consul, and was withdrawn or postponed.

On the 8th April, 1903, the British mail steamer "Chindwara," from Bombay, arrived off Muscat, having on board, among other passengers, five Arabs, all natives of and residents at Sur. Their names were :

1. Saeed-bin-Mubarak-bin-Rashid, of the Faris Appendix No. 32. section of the Jennebeh tribe.

« PreviousContinue »