'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎169v] (349/1904)

IS
could not be questioned, and if the concessionnaircst,
who at the time of the cancellation were all British
subjects, considered themselves aggrieved, their
only remedy was to apply to the British Govern
ment, in order that representations might be
made to the slieikh through the Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. . This
they have never done. His Majesty's Govern
ment maintain that Sheikh Sagar's right to
determine any concession granted in his dominions
(a right which would exist even if the island
were the private property of Salim) could not
legally be questioned, and, indeed, this is admitted
by the statement on p. 14 of the Second German
Memorandum that " the reigning Sheikh of ^
Shargah is the absolute ruler of his country."
If by a high-handed and unfair use of this
right British subjects had suffered loss, they could
only obtain redress by an appeal to their Govern
ment, in which case the matter would be solely
one between the sheikh and His Majesty's
Government.
This being the case, it is unnecessary to discuss
further the meaning of the terms in the agree
ment. His Majesty's Government find it difficult p. 12.
to decide what was the reason for omitting the
time limit of twenty years in the second agree
ment, as the meaning of Abdul Latif's statement
(Appendix 9) that he " saw no object in inserting 5 ,
any fixed period of time " is not clear ; but they
would remark that if the effect of the agreement
really was that the lessees were entitled to put an
end to the lease at any time, while the lessor was
bound to allow them to work the mines in per
petuity, should they so desire, in return for a rent
of 20L per annum, the arrangement was most
inequitable.
For the same reason His Majesty's Government
are of opinion that the case is not one to which
the principles of either the commercial or religious
law can usefully be applied. But as the German
Government produce evidence of this nature on
which they rely in support of their contention that
the lease was valid and could not be cancelled, it
is proposed to deal with the point.
The German Government produce opinions PP- *3,14,
given by " the leading merchants at Lingah and
Bussorah," who state that the lease is good and