'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎107r] (224/1904)

intention oi making iiirtlier enquiries, asked Sakar for information about this lease, of
■wiiicb bo iar on t y rumours had reached^ him. Sakar then replied, on the 11th October,
no agreement had been made between him and Nakhoda Ali about the Island
oi bii ? witn which the present investigation is not concerned. He continues —
. 1 ith regaxd to Abu Musa, my uncle, Sheikh Saiim-bin-SuItan cultivates in that
isiaad, and m t je year in which I went on the Hajj my aforesaid uncle was acting as
my regent m Snargah and he saw fit to lease the mines of Abu Musa to Hassan-bin-
Samayieh, a British subject, and Abdallah-bin-Hassan and Esa-bin-Abdul Latif, and the
lease has remained up to now."
it cannot be inferred from this letter that Salim was acting only as regent. On
the contrary, the words, - With regard to Abu Musa, my uncle . T . . cultivates in that
^ ontail [ a recognition that Sakar has really nothing to do with the cultivation
o Abu Musa, but that bahm cultivates it, and presumably has a right to do so.*
, a j" 1 s r eg en cy is mentioned, firstly, in order to fix the time, and, secondly, with a
^ 0 .' row Salim the political responsibility as well for the lease in question ;
xor the inquiries of the British resident were evidently inconvenient to Sakar. This
is not surprising when it is realised that the sheikh evidently has a wrong conception
ot the scope of a treaty concluded with the British Indian Government on the 7th —' k ,
ivaxci,. Vv uen asked by the dragoman of the Imperial vice-consulate at
Bushire on the 28th November, 1907, "What harm is there in having made a contract L C /
with the German firm?" Sheikh Sakar replied, "We have made treaties with the ^' h
JingliSii which prevent us from leasing any part of our territory to foreigners other A
to an British subjects.^ Ihis interpretation is evidently erroneous, as it gives to the -f
treaty a meaning which would be incompatible with the principle of the open door. ... ? ^
xiiis conception of the treaty explains why Sakar, when Lieutenant-Colonel Kemball
asked him about leases of land in which a foreigner—the Persian, Nakhoda Ali—was
concerned, hastened to assure him that he had had no dealings with Nakhoda Ali, and
to explain that his uncle during his regency, and not he, had concluded a lease agree
ment, and that only with British subjects, so that, if the lease had been a violation of the
leaty cu 18 J 2, the political responsibility would have fallen primarily on Salim and not
on Sakar. J
The letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Kemball—which is, moreover, the only document
proauced m this connection -supplies no evidence that Salim was actinsr simply as
regent when he concluded the lease agreement. On the other hand it is an important
indication ot the manner in which Sakar at that time regarded the position of Salim
with respect to Abu Musa.
b iii thei, L Sakar now asserts (Annex 5 of British Memorandum) that he volun-
tarily assigned the rent of 250 French reals to Salim, in order to raise his income to the
amount previously promised or to a little over that amount, that is an state
ment for winch there is no proof, and which is inconsistent with facts that will be
considered below (pp. 6 et seq.).
The circumstance that Sakar used to send his cattle to pasture on Abu Musa
wouid not be inconsistent with Salim's ownership of the island, for, as maybe gathered
from Major Cox's account (Annex 6 of British Memorandum), this may very well be a
privilege oi the reigning Sheikh of Shargeh, a kind of servitude to which the private
property m the island is subject.
In this connection mention may be made of another circumstance which has an
important bearing on the question of the ownership of Abu Musa. As stated above
the arrangement of 1889 was preceded by other agreements respecting the pecuniary
compensation to Salim, and in order to increase his pension, which had been reduced to
400 dollars, the revenue of the Island of Sir Abu Nuair, estimated at 200 dollars, was
assigned to him. Now if the revenue of an island was to be given to Salim would it
not have been natural to give him that of the Island of Abu Musa, which he could have
checked, and, if necessary, collected himself, since he resided in the island ? Of course
if Abu Musa was already Salim's property this expedient could not be adopted.
^ ectioTls Raised in the British Memorandum to Salim's ownership of the
xsland of Abu Musa having thus been refuted, and attention having been called to certain
points which indirectly support the contention that he was the owner, reference will
the sentence "the lease has remained up to now" is also important in another connection It fan
Afln Tha t thA l^nco liac J rrn * .. - .... . i r. .. . xu
British Memorandum.) ~ " acquiesced in it. (Annex 5 of
[2574 c—l] c