Page 70 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

54

authority; for tho Arabe interested in tho trade, being onco fnmiliariped with the immunity t
bo thus secured, would undoubtedly bo ready to uso the flag even without any right to it *°
order to cover thoir proceedings. Indoc-1 the Sultan’s cunph to impotence and apathy in 'ti**
matter have hitherto not only prevented his dealing with such of hie subjects ub havof in spita
of his own authority, accepted tho French fl.ig, but have rendered him unaulo ovon to ’ascertain
with any accuracy, what vessels belonging to his own subjeota have in any formal manner
Loeu gi anted the flag by tho French authorities.11
25G. Tho correspondence wns forwarded to tho Secretary of State (Despatch
No. 218-Sccrct—External, dated 2Gth December 18'J4), 1
257. Wo have seen (paragraphs 108—200 above) how in the case of All
bin Jama, a Baluchi domiciled in Maskat, but who had takon at Bombay a
certificate of naturalization as a British subject in 1868, tho question was
raised whether tho British Cousul at Maskat had jurisdiction to try a civil
suit tiled against him. if the answer to this question was iu the affirmative
(as wns tho case—though ultimately tho man was removed from British Con­
sular protection), M. Ottavi might quote this (tho Sultan asserted he did) an
authority for asserting French jurisdiction over Maskat subjects holding
Fronoh flags. There appears however to be an important difference between
the two sets of cases. The process of naturalization as a subject of a Foreign
State is admitted by international law. In the case of Ali bin Juraa, the
question concerned a naturalized British subject. But in case of Maskat subjects
flying on their dhows French flags such process of naturalization as a French
subjoot does not appear to have ever been asserted.
258. In 1896 two Suri dhows (the Salaama and the Saad) flying the
Secret E., February 1897, Nos 28-08. Fronoh flag with a cargo of slaves on
8cct*l E-. July 1897. Not. 187-2*2 board were captured in the territorial
waters of the Sultan, but on M. Ottavi’s protest, they were surrendered to him,
without any questioning of tho French jurisdiction over them. The matter was
reported to the Secretary of State in Despatch No. 15-Ex., dated 21st January
189/. Her Majesty’s Government protested to tho Ffenoh Government against
this gross abuse of the French flag and enquired whether the practice of grant­
ing the French flags still continued. The reply was a disclaimer that there
! was ever any intention of discontinuing the practice (Seoret Despatch from
the Secretary of State, No. 12, dated 2ud April 1897).
259. Again, when at the instance of the Government of India, the French
t Government was informed that their atti­
Secret K., December 1807, No*. 08-103.
tude was inconsistent with their repudia­
tion of the action of their Vice-Consul at Adon in 1891, the French Ambassador
replied that tho admission in the ease of the Vice-Consul at Aden was not of
general application (Despatch from Secretary of State, No. 36-Secret, dated
29th October 1897).
260. In 1897 two further instances oocurred (vide Major Fagan’s letter
No. 428, dated the 25th November 1897),
Scent E.. M»y 1809, No* G92-721.
in which the British Consul silently ao-
quiesced in the French claim for jurisdiction over Oman subjects holding
French flags. In the one case an African slave who had been kidnapped by a
buggalow from Sur flying the French flag, having applied to the British
Consulate for freedom, was referred to the Sultan. The accused was summoned
and came to Maskat; but tho French Consul interfered and claimed jurisdiction
over the acoused, and His Highness was consequently unable to take any action
in the matter.
261. In the other case, native of Maskat, who had procured French
papers at Obokh, was asked by the Sultan to produce them, and, on his refusing
to do so, was confined in the Sultan’s prison. The French Vice-Consul protest­
ed against his arrest, and the Sultan was compelled to release him.
262. The oase of Salim-bin-Saud marked a change in the policy of the
Rrtident’* No. 78, dated lfth December 1808. British Consul. In this CHS0 a Collision
Secret e., Vobruwy 1898, Nos. oo-iso (rv0.14G-A'. having occurred in the neighbourhood OI
Sur between a snmbhuk owned by Salim-bin-Saud, a French protegd, and a bug­
galow belonging to a British Indian trader, tho matter was represented to the
British Cousul by M. Ottavi, who sent the complainant to the British Consul.