Page 257 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

8i
protection by being engaged in the Slave Trade." If this is so, section 3 of the Statute
above mentioned would authorise her seizure only by the Commander or officer of any of
Her Majesty's ships, when duly authorised in that behalf, and not by an officer, like the
P jlitical Agent, holding Her Majesty’s commission in the army.
If the seizure was properly made, I think the Bombay High Court in its Admiralty
jurisdiction, would be the proper Court to u y and condemn the vessel; but, having regard to
the doubt as to the legality of the seizure, and to the fact that the crew and slave-owners
have been aiready punished by the Sultan, that the slaves have been apparently disposed of
by marriage and otherwise and that the vessel itself is worthless, it would seem undesirable to
take any further proceedings in the matter, until the orders of Government are obtained.
I do not think article 1 of the Treaty with the Sultan of Maskat, dated 14th April 1873,
strengthens the case ; that article merely provides that any vetoels engaged in the transport
or conveyance of slaves shall be liable to seizure by all such naval and other officers or
agents as may be authorised for that purpose on the part of Her Britannic Majesty. If the
Political Agent was not authorised by the Statute above mentioned, he cannot rely on the
Treaty.

C643FD