Page 121 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

105
496. In connection with the presentation at the Hague Tribunal of the
case, it was suggested to the Secretary of
Ibid, Vo. 195.
State on 11th January 1905 that pro­
vision bo mado for referring to an arbitrator cases in which the Sultan of
Maskat might dispute the adequacy of proof furnished that the owner or
captain of a vessel hailing from Oman is a subject or protegd of Prance.
497. The French and British cases wore exchanged by the Ambassadors
of the two Governments through the Secretary-General of the International
Bureau at the Hague on the 1st February 1905.
498. A supplementary agreement was signed on the 13th January 1905
by which the Tribunal was not to assomblo at tho Hague earlier than the 15th
Juno.
499. On tho 7th March, tho Soorotary of State was informed that there
was do objeotion on the part of the Gov­
Ibid, Nos. 207, 214 tod 216.
ernment of India to the proposals mado
by tho London Foreign Office in regard to tho omission of the Sultan’s name
from tho British case.
500. On the 10th March, the Secretary of State tolographod to tho effect
that the French case claimed very extend­
Itid, No. 276.
ed limits for Maskat territory, and that
it wa9 desirable that we should substantiate our view of what is, and what is not,
Maskat territory along the coast, suggesting tho submission of a map defining
the territory. Information was also asked for regarding tho Lowatiyas.
601. On tho 14th March, tho Government of India promised a full report
on the matter and also the submission of
Ibid, No. 217.
the required map, but added that it seemed
preferable, if possible, to avoid a definition of tho Sultan’s territories in view of
the difficulties indicated in their despatch No. 192-S. Ex., dated 23rd October
1902 (respecting the ownership of tho Musandim promontory*), and that tho
discussion of tho question should, if possible, be treated as irrelevant to the issue
before the Hague Tribunal. It seemed advisable merely to refer to our Treaties
with the Trucial Chiefs mostly of date auterior to the Anglo-French Declaration
of 1862 ; and to explain that their territories form no part of the dominions of
the Sultan.
502. A map prepared by Mr. Lorimer was sent to the Secretary of
State, from which it appears that the
Ibid, No. 251.
Musandim peninsula from Dibba to
Tibbat belonged to the Sultan, that the strip of coast from Dibba to Khor Kalbah
belongs to the Chief of Shargah, etc. Tho Government of India while endorsing
this view, strongly deprecated filing a map or defining the Sultan’s territories
and urged the case beiug kept within the lines of the agreement of 14th
October 1904.
503. A letter was written by tho Sultan to the Political Agent, requesting
His Majesty’s Government to represent him at the Hague Tribunal and making
a reference to a request to that effect made by him eight months before.
504. Major Grey reported on the 26th March that the Sultan had declined
to receive from tho French Consul a list of dhow-ownors claiming French pro­
tection. He was informed that if consult­
Ibid, Not. 263 and 268.
ed by Sultan, he might advise him to
rocoivo the list without prejudico to tho quostion of tho French right to protect
the persons named.
505. Some stross was laid in Part IV of the Fronch caso on the
treatment received by tho Lowatiyas or Khojas as British subjects. As to theso
Major Cox drew attention to a history of the Maskat Khojas printed on a com­
pilation of tho Government of India called Narrative of Maskat affairs, 1868-
18V3, and pointed out that Lowatiyas are Khoja immigrants from Sind and
those of the Khoja community who had emigrated from Sind sinco its annexa­
tion in 1843 had been treated as British protected subjects. The Secretary of
State was informed accordingly.
• Sec tlio Precis on International Vivalry and BrUith Policy in the Ptnian Oulj, paragraph 193.
C973FD