It has been contended on behalf of Thailand that this communication
of the maps by the French authorities was, so to speak, ex parte, and that no formal acknowledgment of it was either
requested of, or given by, Thailand. In fact, as will be seen
presently, an acknowledgment by conduct was undoubtedly made
in a very definite way; but even if it were otherwise, it is clear that
the circumstances were such as called for some reaction, within a
reasonable period, on the part of the Siamese authorities, if they
wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to
raise in regard to it. They did not do so, either then or for many
years, and thereby must be held to have acquiesced. Qui tacet
consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset.
So far as the Annex 1 map is concerned, it was not merely the
circumstances of the communication of this and the other maps
that called for some reaction from the Siamese side, if reaction
there was to be; there were also indications on the face of the map
sheet which required a reaction if the Siamese authorities had any
reason to contend that the map did not represent the outcome of the work of delimitation. The map - together with the other maps - was,
as already stated, communicated to the Siamese members of
the Mixed Commission. These must necessarily have known (and
through them the Siamese Government must have known) that
this map could not have represented anything formally adopted
by the Mixed Commission, and therefore they could not possibly
have been deceived by the title of the map, namely, "Dangrek -
Commission of Delimitation between Indo-China and Siam" into
supposing that it was purporting to be a production of the Mixed
Commission as such. Alternatively, if the Siamese members of the
Commission did suppose otherwise, this could only have been because,
though without recording them, the Mixed Commission had
in fact taken some decisions on which the map was based; and of
any such decisions the Siamese members of the Commission would
of course have been aware.
The Siamese members of the Commission must also have seen
the notice appearing in the top left-hand corner of the map sheet
to the effect that the work on the ground had been carried out by
Captains Kerler and Oum. They would have known, since they were
present at the meeting of the Commission held on 2 December 1906,
that Captain Oum had then been instructed to carry out the survey
of the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, covering Preah Vihear,
and that he was to leave the next day to take up this assignment.
They said nothing - either then or later - to suggest that the map
did not represent the outcome of the work of delimitation or that
it was in any way inaccurate.
That the Siamese authorities by their conduct acknowledged the
receipt, and recognized the character, of these maps, and what
they purported to represent, is shown by the action of the Minister
of the Interior, Prince Damrong, in thanking the French Minister
in Bangkok for the maps, and in asking him for another fifteen
copies of each of them for transmission to the Siamese provincial
Governors.
Further evidence is afforded by the proceedings of the subsequent
Commission of Transcription which met in Bangkok in March of
the following year, 1909, and for some months thereafter. This was
a mixed Franco-Siamese Commission set up by the Parties with
the object of getting an official Siamese geographical service started,
through a consolidation of all the work of the two Mixed Commissions
of 1904 and 1907. A primary aim was to convert the
existing maps into handy atlas form, and to give the French and
Siamese terms used in them their proper equivalents in the other
languages. No suggestion that the Annex 1 map or line was unacceptable
was made in the course of the work of this Commission.
It was claimed on behalf of Thailand that the maps received
from Paris were only seen by minor officials who had no expertise
in cartography, and would know nothing about the Temple of
Preah Vihear. Indeed it was suggested during the oral proceedings
that no one in Siam at that time knew anything about the Temple or
would be troubling about it.
Part 11 |