Page 456 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

S*
The right of seizure discussed with the Legislative Department,
IS99-
57. In connection with the seizure of arms being conveyed from Maskat to
Persia or other ports, the seizure might be—
(i) from Maskat vessels in Maskat territorial waters. Arms so seized
would clearly belong to the Sultan.
(ii) from Maskat vessels outside of Maskat territorial waters, i.e., anywhere
between the Coast of Oman and Persia. The second proclama­
tion of the Sultan of 13th January 1898 gave to British vessels the
power of search and confiscation in such cases.
The Legislative Department were asked to advice whether, as a matter of
law, the arms so confiscated were equally the property of the Sultan with those
mentioned under (i).
The question was also asked that supposing the arms to be carried in a
vessel flying a Persian flag, whose property in view of the proclamations would
they be, (a) if seized by a British vessel in Maskat territorial waters, (£) if seized,
outside those limits, anywhere between the two Coasts ?
The opinion of the Legislative Department was as follows:—
1. Anns seised in Maskat vessels in Maskat waters.—The Sultan allows
the seizure and we have not agreed to give him the arms. In strict law, we
might keep them; but the Sultan has evidently a strong claim to them. We
ought to agree either to give him the arms (or compensation, if admissible) or to
submit the matter to a Maskat Court. If the point is put to it, the court will
probably adjudge the arms to the Sultan.
2. Arms seised in Maskat vessels outside of Maskat waters.—Same answer
generally as to question 1. If the seizure is in Persian waters, I do not think we
are bouud to give the arms to Persia, but Persia will probably think we are. We
ought perhaps to make some compensation for making the seizure in the Shah’s
territorial waters.
3. Arms seized in Persian ships—
(a) In Maskat waters.—We can only seize them under the authority
given in the Sadr-i-Azam’s letter, and we have bound ourselves to
hand them over to Persia. We have not bound ourselves to com­
pensate the Sultan of Maskat for loss of customs duty (if the
goods are distined for one of his ports) or for violating the peace
of his territorial waters, but he has a strong claim to compensate
on both grounds. We might ask Persia to pay the compensation,
or we might treat it as a charge on the property handed over: but
Persia may contend that this is not in the agreement.
(£) Outside Maskat waters.—We must hand the arms over to Persia, and
Maskat has a claim to compensation for loss of customs if they
were for a Maskat port, but not so strong a claim as in case (a).
I append a few general observations on the legal aspects of the case. It
seems to me that the present situation is not satisfactory, and that we should
endeavour to make our position stronger, as opportunities may occur.
If in time of peace a British officer, acting on the orders of his Government,
seizes a'Maskat ship and confiscates the cargo, the owner has no legal remedy ;
he must apply to the Sultan to protect him. The Sultan has told his subjects
that he is co-operating in the suppression of the traffic in arms, and that he will
not protect them if they engage in that traffic.
The property in the goods seized passes in the first instance to the Govern­
ment which orders the seizure; the manner in which they are to be disposed of
must be settled by diplomatic agreement. We have hitherto declined to give
the Sultan any general assurance tha we will give him the arms we seize ; each
case, therefore, must be settled as itarises.