'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎134r] (278/1904)

21
into by Hasan was simply a sale of oxide by Hasan and a purchase of oxide on de-
^ t0 ^ the Sliaikh basshown^^m dearly
bow readily a very different complexion is introduced into the transaction.
Thus—
(i) On 13th October 1907 Messrs. Wonckbaus wrote to Sbaikb Sagar
We consider the mines and tbe concession for them as a security for the
advances paid If you force Haji Hassan bin Ali Somayab and Co.,
1 1 ravv eir coo bes and representative, we shall have to
send over some men ourselves to protect our property
(Consul^ Bunder Abbas to Government of India, No. C-47, dated 25th Octo-
(w) On 28th October 1907, Lieutenant Gabriel, Assistant Resident, Bunder
Aboas, reported :—
" The local representative of Wonckhaus, Mr. Brown, and about 26 men left
lor the island on October 22nd.
A German flag which he intended to place on the accumulation of oxide
was also taken .
(Consul Bunder Abbas to Government of India, Telegram No. dated
the 28th October 1907). '
(m) On 19th November 1907 addressing Shaikh Sagar direct, the. German
»ice-Consul, Bushire, threatened the Shaikh with a claim of a lakh One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees of
rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , and claimed for Messrs. Wonckhaus the right of direct entrv
(or concern) in the working of the mines. 0
(Beskhmcy telegram No. 735 to India and Tehran, dated 13th December
(iv) On 16th March 1909 Hasan Samaiyeh, no doubt under advice from his
German supporters, wrote a threatening letter to Shaikh Sagar in which
* xl6 S8fl€t !—-
" All the oxide mines which are on the Abu Musa belong to us and our
syndicate and are under our control and in our possession
( 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. Letter No. 1559, dated 4th July 1909, to India).
As regards the apparent differentiation between British subjects and other
foreigners, I would explain
The British Government are as anxious to protect these unsophisticated Arab
ShaiKhs against unfair exploitation by Br subjects just as much as other
foreigners, but from the Shaikhs' point of view it is very natural that thev should
regard British subjects in a different light to other foreigners. Thev know that
British subjects, if not subject to th(£ own juiisdiction, are subject to that of the
British Political authorities with whom they are united by close ties of treatv
and obligation. They trust to the British Government to keep their own subiects
m hand and give the Shaikhs immunity from worry or imposition. Thev have no
such guarantee in the case of other foreigners, nefther under the complete control
of themselves nor of the protecting Power.
. Even Hasan Samaiyeh, until it suited his book to change his ideas, had strom?
views on that point and at one time was all against the admission into the conrfrn
of any foreigners, 111
{Vide Annex 41 and following item),
{69) ** (The Company) was only doing
legitimate interests, when it endeavoured to a
exercise a direct influence on the fortunes of —Apart from what we have a'
ready maintained, namely that the concession had already ceased to exist for ei^ht
months, when Brown went through a form of purchase of Shaikh Sagar's share •
and the evident fact {vide enclosure 11 of First German Memorandum and otW
papers) that when he went into that transaction he had full knowledge of
previous cancellation of the Concession. We now have the text of thp fW,i
Q2o5FX) aeecl ot