'File 61/11 VII (D 122) Hejaz-Nejd Miscellaneous' [‎58v] (129/454)

Chamberlain's despatch No. 234 of the 26th ^November, 1928, shows that they
were still prepared for a resumption of the purely technical conference without
laying down other conditions than that it should have the limited scope
contemplated in their proposals of the 12th January, 1928. It appears to me to
be difficult now to enforce a different view, and 1 think that the Saudi Govern
ment have some ground for considering that they could not accept the Lausanne
declaration without prejudice to the question of the status of the railway, which
they wish to reserve.
6. Quite apart from these considerations, it seems to me that the British
and French authorities might be considerably embarrassed if, after a technical
conference had taken place on the basis of that declaration, Ibn Saud then held
us to the strict letter of the declaration and insisted on an advisory board
at Medina.
7. It is all the more important to examine closely the form given to the
Saudi reservation in the enclosed note, as their own contentions regarding its
status and character have in the past been more positive than any counter-
statements by the British and French Governments in correspondence with the
Saudi Government. The two Governments have relied on the Lausanne
declaration, but that declaration did not in terms define the status of the railway,
It merely affirmed its religious character and assumed that its ownership had
passed to the succession States. I am aware of the strong arguments in favour
of this assumption, but I am now concerned only with what has passed between
us and the Saudi Government.
8. My conclusion, which I state with some diffidence, is that the question
of acceptance of the Lausanne declaration as a basis of the technical conference
should not be pressed; but that the reply to the Saudi reservation should be most
carefully considered so as to make it clear (a) that it is allowed to stand on
record as a reservation and nothing more; {h) that His Majesty's Government
and the French Government do not accept the claims implied in the reservation;
and (c) that if the Saudi Government should at any time reopen the question of
the status and the character of the line, they would be on their side entirelv free
to contest these Saudi claims.
9. I am sending copies of this despatch and enclosures to His Majesty's
High Commissioner for iransjordan and to His Majesty's consul-general at
Beirut.
I have, &c.
ANDREW RYAN.
Enclosure in No. 1.
Saudi Minister for Foreign Affairs to Sir A. Ryan.
(Translation.) Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Your ® x ® ellenc y' . Mecca, 13, 1353 18, 1935).
. .g rea t importance which the question of the repair of the Hejaz
Kailway Line and the resumption of train services thereon to Medina holds in
the eyes of the Moslem world and in the eyes of the Governments through whose
terntones the Ime passes, and more especially in the eyes of the Government of
s Majesty the King, is not unknown. Nor is it unknown that the question of
the repair of the part of the line located within the dominions of His Majesty
Prm Wpn, ^ ^ 0 P enin S already been discussed. For this purpose the
rnwrnm^L Halfa was he W and was attended by representatives of the
reSTto ^ the , d^gence of their views on political matters
line nrfventpH th • y ' t th ? futur e of th e privileges conferred on the
■e namLT n tf ? reaching a satisfactory result. The line has since that time
could the ohWt a +v! f n0 - enefit could b e derived from it, neither
could the objects tor which it was originally established be realised.
them and the RvitkVi ° e w . m correspondence exchanged between
of Se Haifa Con Wnpt ^ench Governments immediately after the break -up
16th March 192<)WW S 7 the !? 0te dated th e 15t h Shawwal. 1347 (the
dennt^l hv thi r ^ 4 e conferenc e should be resumed by plenipotentiaries
deputed by the Governments concerned and empowered to discuss aS settle the