Page 122 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

106

606. Major Cox submitted to the Secretary of State and Government of India
his notC3 in reply to the several statements made in the French caao. ltcferring
to these notes tho Government of India telegraphed to tlio Secretary of State on
M0 loth April 1905 that particular stress
should bo laid in tho British countcr-casc
on tho inclusion of the three men no longer living in tho French list of pro­
teges, also on the denial of the Sultan’s sovereignty implied by tho refusal of
the proteges at Sur to discuss their status with His Highness ; and on any
specific cases of customs evasion by French protdges.
507. In paragraph 38 of the French case a point was made of tho alleged land­
ing of British troops at Gwadur in January
Hid, Nos. 267 and 281.
1896. The Government of India informed
the Scorotary of State that reference was presumably mado of tbo landing at
Gwadur of tbo British escort to the Perso-Baluch Commission. Ho records
could bo traced to show whether the Sultan of Maskat or the Wall of Gwadur
were informed or asked for permission to land the escort. The Sultan told
Major Grey that he had no recollection of reference having been made to
himself, but that no such reference was required, as tbo Wali at Gwadur bad
only to be informed, as the passage of troops only was required.
508. Tho French counter-case was received by the Home Government
on the 3rd May. It is alleged therein, that in the British case an incor­
rect version had been inserted of the notification issued by the Sultan on
15th June, prohibiting the use of French flags by his subjects. Tho local
officers explained the circumstances under which two versions of
secret e., August 1003, Nos. 343-15 (Nos. 347, the notification® were issued by the
350.364). Sultan, one of which, i.e., that in
which the prohibition might be held to imply a threat to past flag-holders,
is contained in the British case, while the other (i.e., the one in the
French case) seemed to confine the prohibition to futuro flag-holders. These
explanations were repeated to the Secretary of State, with a statement that
the French apparently intend to argue that the Sultan, by saying he would not
permit his subjects to accept French flags in,future, meant to imply that he
had permitted them in the past. To meet this contention the Government of
India were of opinion that the line of argument should be as follows. Which­
ever notification be accepted, and whatever tho exact translation of the Arabic
text of it, both were, from their wording, clearly prospective in effect. But no
inference about the past could bo deduced from this, because, at tbo time when
the notifications were issued, the Sultan had just previously wiped out the past
by receiving from the Suris an agreement resigning their French flags and was
entitled to hold that at the moment no French flag-holders remaiued, since all
had ostensibly resigned their claims to protection from the French (telegram,
dated 20ih May 1905). The text of the original notification asked for by the
Secretary of State was sent to the India Office, along with a mass of docu­
mentary evidence in support of our contention.
609. On receipt of copies of the British and French counter-cases, Majors
Cox and Grey telegraphed on the 24ith and 25tb May, offering certain comments
on the French case. Their statements were repeated to the Secretary of Slate
with the endorsement of the Government of India.
510. It was anticipated that the decision of the Hague Tribunal would be
known by the 1st of July 1905, in accordance with article IV of the agreement
dated 13th October 1901, but by later agreement dated 19th May, it was left to
the arbitrators themselves to settle the date for the delivery of the arguments,
which was fixed for the 1st of June 1905.
611. Major Grey reported in a letter dated 19th June 1905, having heard
from Sur that the French Vice-Consul, while on his recent journey there, had
collected all the old French flags there from their holders and given out new
ones in exchange. _____
• Yiilf paragraph 408 onte for translation telegraphed by Curtain Cox on 3rd July WO* J1'0 :
lation received with hit letter No. 4b5. datod Ctli August 1000 (Secret K., October 1000, Nos. 3l-t-37o), No.
" 1 lure observed (lint my subjects, owing to their want of understanding, toko flag* and .papers from a foreign
Power, and by m<aos of them acquire an onpcnronco of protection. This thoy b ivo dono in tbo P**t; “ui sue i »
thiug should uot happen iu the future. You should understand that this is contrury to tbo rights ana acl.ou o a
subject.
" It should be known to you that I will not roc«guise such flags and papers in my dominions, and from this ay
I will not all »w any person to take them without my permission and loavo given iii writing, in ucfor.lanco »'>“> ,c
treaties csivtieg between inr and tim foreign Powers. So that ibis may not romaiu bidden, uiid suluauis. Written
on the Kith Sufur 1318 U -JOils Juue lycO.’*