File 600/1905 Pt 5 'Aden Hinterland: Treaty with Sultan of Balahaf' [‎134v] (52/152)

He thus parted with rights of which he was not sole possessor and gained a
share in the dues of Balahaf which originally belonged to the other side of the
family, with whose rights in the islands and the lands of Maifa he Lad unautho
rized ly parted.
31. By this transaction he became possessed of a half share in the original
dues of Balahaf, and it is this share with which he professes to have parted
to the Kayti. But it appears from a document produced by Mohsin bin Saleh
which bears the date June 1902, that Saleh bin Abdulla then made restitution
to Mohsin and his brothers of the Jth share which he had previously acquired.
He did this, it is allege!, upou his being pointed out to him that his transaction
in regard to the islands and Maifa lands was so obviously wrong. Saleh bin
Abdulla denies the authenticity of this document and his signature to it.
But nevertheless it was quite possibly passed, and it may at least be granted
that such restitution was perfectly equitable. This reduced Saleh’s share to
his original Jth share in the customs dues of Balahaf including all the items
previously mentioued as appertaining to them.
32. As to his share in the Habban dues, i.e., half of the existing dues now
collected at Balahaf, the division of those was as above stated different. Of
those Mohsin was allotted a fths share and the remaining fths was distributed
amongst the other shareholders It may be held that Saleh owns a one-fifth
of these. And his total share may be thus held to be approximately £ by £ +
5 - by i.e., a total of ^ths of the present dues, the balance being distributed
much as follows :—
^oths to Mohsin and /oths to each of his two brothers.
33. This distribution is slightly complicated by a dispute as to the devolu
tion of Ahmed bin Ali’s share upon his death which recently occurred. Mohsin
contends that Ahmed left a will appointing him executor of this. But he has
not produced the will, and Sultan Saleh disputes it and contends that Ahmed’s
share naturally devolves upon him as the nearest of kin.
31. Another source of difference is that Sultan Mohsin now claims that
the greater part of the money received from Government as stipend and pre
sents should go to him instead of being distributed as before amongst the share
holders in proportion to their shares in the Balahaf customs. In regard to this
Mohsin has submitted a document, dated the 20th February 1900, which pur
ports to be a compromise under which 70 dollars a year from this source was
assigned to Sultan Saleh, the balance going to the other side of the family.
Sultan Saleh denies the authenticity of this document also. But it may be
admitted that Sultan Mohsin as the generally recognized tribal chief, has a
claim to a larger portion of the stipend than the other shareholders in view of
the more important and thus more expensive nature of his position.
35. But another dispute is also connected with this point and concerns
the amount of the dues collected which should be assigned to the soldiers or
“ Askari ” actually effecting the collection. Under previous arrangements it
has been apparently customary for Jrd of the original customs dues and |th of
the Habban dues go to the “ Askari,” the balance being distributed to the
shareholders according to their shares. And gather that in former days it
was the custom to also deduct expenses of entertainment, etc., from the dues
collected before the distribution of shares was effected.
36. There is no doubt that the whole question of distribution of revenues
has been somewhat complicated by Mohsin’s rise to power and the enhancement
of the Balahaf dues which thereby originated. I have pressed the Sultans to
come to an amicable arrangement in the matter, and it may be hoped that they
will eventually do so. There seems to be no reason for us to settle these private
disputes for them, and the proper mode of settlement would appear to be for
them to eventually refer the matter to some of the leading Sayids of the district
and accept their arbitration if their differences cannot othevvise be overcome.
42