n

2. Mosallim-bin-Sultan, of the Mukanna section of the same tribe.

3. Abdulla-bin-Khamis-bin-Ali, of the same section of the same tribe.

4. Salem-bin-Abdulla-bin-Khamis, son of No. 3. 5. Khalfan - bin - Hamed - bin - Muhammed Wad Belan, of the same section of the same tribe as No. 3.

Bombay being an infected port, the ship was subjected to the quarantine laws of the Sultan of Muscat.

Nos. 1 and 2, who were deck passengers, on landing were sent to Haramal, the Sultan's quarantine station, about 3 miles from Muscat.

Nos. 3, 4, and 5, who were second-class passengers, were not sent to the quarantine station, but were allowed by the Sultan's Health Officer to go on shore, under orders to report daily at the hospital for one week for medical inspection.

No: 4 offered money to Ali Salman, the Sultan's Quarantine Superintendent, not to send Nos. 1 and 2 to the quarantine station.

On

On the 9th April, Nos. 3, 4, and 5 came to the hospital, and, after medical inspection, said: We want to go away to-day," but Ali Salman said to them: "It is impossible; wait and see if the doctor will let you go a day or two before the time." the same evening these three men hired a badan, and sailed away in it without leave at dusk in company with Khamis-bin-Mubarak Razeiki and two askaris, besides the master and crew. The vessel did not fly the French flag, and belonged to Taiwi, a port in Oman, between Muscat and Sur. About 8 p.m. Nos. 1 and 2 escaped from the quarantine station, and joined the badan at Bunder Jisseh, seven miles from Muscat, on the morning of the 10th April. Their escape was reported by the Superintendent of the quarantine station, and led to the discovery that Nos. 3, 4, and 5 had also escaped.

The Sultan, on learning of the breach of quarantine, communicated with his Health Officer and with Major Cox, the British Consul, and the latter, on the joint request of the Sultan and his Health Officer (the Sultan at that date not having any steam-vessel of his own), applied to the captain of His Majesty's ship "Perseus" for the use of a steam-launch to pursue the badan. The launch travelled down the coast with the Superintendent of the quarantine station on board, and ultimately sighted the badan near Ras Abu Daud.

The vessel ran ashore, and the five Arabs were arrested on the shore and taken back to Muscat. The crew and the other passengers on the badan were not interfered with.

On the arrival of the five Arabs at Muscat, they were taken before the Health Officer, who resides at the British Consulate, and at the request of the Sultan were detained in the guardroom of the Consulate during the night of the 10th April, and on the 11th April the Sultan wrote to Major Cox thanking him for the capture of the Arabs, and asking for their further detention at the Consulate. On the same day they were handed over to officers of the Sultan and taken back to the quarantine station to complete their term of detention. Before their departure, Major Cox, at the written request of the Sultan, had taken the statements of all five Arabs and of the Sultan's Quarantine Superintendent, which are printed in the Appendix.

On the same day the French Consul, M. Dorville, wrote to Major Cox complaining of the imprisonment by him of three French protégés who had contravened the Quarantine Regulations. Major Cox replied that five Suri subjects of the Sultan had broken quarantine, and that M. Dorville should address himself to their Sovereign. M. Dorville, on the same day, claimed from the Sultan release of three of these Arabs (Nos. 3, 4, and 5) as being Suris under French protection. The Sultan replied on the 12th April, stating his intention to punish the five Arabs for breaking quarantine, and repeating his protest against the contention that the French flag covered any of his subjects while on his territory or territorial waters, and saying that he would be content to have the question settled by discussion and decision of Great Britain and France.

On the 15th April the Sultan tried the five Appendix No. 33. Arabs for breaking quarantine and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment.

The Sultan's action was challenged by the French Consul and the Commander of the French war-ship "Infernet," and was supported by the British Government; and after discussion between the British and the French Governments, the questions raised by the incident were ultimately referred to the arbitrament of the Tribunal by the Compromis printed at p. 1 of this Case.

Another matter later in date than the affair of the quarantine-breakers also raises questions which call for the decision of the Tribunal.

Salim-bin-Mahomed, the owner of the dhow referred to in the titre referred to as D. on p. 16 of this Case, was, as there stated, resident at Suweik, and was the only holder of a French flag at that place. He died about the year 1902.

for 7

Appendix No. 34. On being informed of his death, M. Laronce, the French Consul at Muscat, asked the Sultan of Muscat to instruct his Vali at Suweik to see that the effects of the deceased should not be made away with, and thereby afforded ground for inferring that the French Consular authorities claimed to control or supervise the administration of the estate of the deceased. In 1904 a collision between two dhows occurred in the harbour of Debai, in the territories of the trucial Chief Sheikh Maktoon. The result of the collision was the destruction of a dhow, the "Fath-ul-Khair," bearing the same name as the vessel referred to in the titre D. already mentioned. The destroyed vessel bore the French flag, and was owned by Ali-bin-Salim, of Suweik, son of the deceased Salim-bin-Mahomed. Certain questions arose as to the responsibility for the destruction of the vessel, which were settled by an Award of the religious Court of Sultan Maktoon. But the French Consul made representations to the Sultan of Muscat, apparently on the assumption that Ali-bin-Salim was a French protégé, and on inquiry it was ascertained that, on the death of his father, Ali-bin-Salim, had succeeded to his father's vessel, and had used the French flag thereon, and that on the destruction of the vessel he had hoisted the French flag on another vessel acquired asa substitute.

On the 11th April, 1903, the Sultan of Muscat requested M. Dorville, then French Consul at Muscat, to furnish him with a list of the names of those persons whom the French Government Appendix No. 32. claimed to protect in the Sultan's territories, explaining in each case upon what the right of the individuals to be considered under French protection was based. This request was refused, but on the 13th May, 1903, at an interview with Lord Lansdowne, M. Cambon, the French Ambassador in London, said that the French Government had been quite ready to fall in with Appendix No. 35. the British suggestion to the effect that a list of persons possessing French flags should be prepared, and that such a list had, in fact, been made out and would have been delivered to the Sultan when the quarantine incident arose.

Up to the date of the filing of this Case such lists have not been delivered, but the French Government have undertaken to include such lists in the Case to be submitted on the part of France, and the British Government reserve their rights as to examining and verifying them. The delivery of such lists would enable His Highness the Sultan to obtain an examination. and written explanation of the grounds on which each titre de navigation or flag was given, and to indicate to the French Government the cases in which its officers had been induced, by misstatements as to the nationality and real domicile of the flagholder, to grant such titres and flags to subjects of the Sultan who had no title to become French protégés.

तर

belly feangisah on?

163

ہمدم

=

FL

ARGUMENT.

The facts above stated indicate the acts by French officials which form the ground of complaint by the Sultan and the British Government. It remains to consider their juridical quality.

The Sultan of Muscat, like every other independent Sovereign, is entitled to police his own territorial waters for the enforcement of his own laws and to secure compliance with his Treaties with foreign Powers, and this sovereign right includes that of enforcing Quarantine Regulations and suppressing the Slave Trade. In the absence of special Conventions, no foreign Power is entitled to exercise any police powers at all in the Sultan's waters; and the Sultan is further, as an independent Sovereign, entitled to exercise full jurisdiction over all persons within his territory, except so far as by Treaty, usage, or sufferance he has conceded to a foreign State the privilege of exterritoriality for its subjects or for persons whom he recognizes as protégés of such foreign Power.

Among Christian Powers the privilege of exterritoriality is conceded only in favour of the Heads of foreign States, their Diplomatic Representatives, and foreign public vessels.

In the case of Oriental Powers in Asia and Africa, Capitulations and Treaties have been made with Christian Powers, admitting within the territories of such Oriental Powers a special Consular jurisdiction over subjects of the Christian Power there resident, and, de titre gracieux, over subjects of other Christian Powers which have no Consuls in the Oriental State, and also to

of f BD wale Este inte if a qualified and varying extent over the subjects of

the Oriental Power in the service of subjects of such Christian Power.

The history of the privileges of the latter class has to a very great extent been a history of their abuse, and in the Ottoman Empire-the most considerable of the Mussulman Statesthe rights of a Christian Power to take Ottoman subjects under its protection were restricted by Regulations of 1863 and 1965, fully accepted by Christian Powers as constituting the reasonable limits for such protection; [1413] E