'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎181v] (373/1904)

42
The Hassan-bin-Ahmed mentioned was a retainer of Sheikh balim. AliAlim^-j
Saleh is the roan whose identity you know as Nakhoda An. I Jad nothm 0 w «- «
the ^
year in question, and it was ^ ® n X W n „ X AbclnUah-bin-Ha'ssan
SSTin "bo At the
who was also there, asked me to let my son Isa come into the c ^ c . Sacar and
some one on the spot at Shargah in order to keep m touch with
Salim. I agreed, but pointed out that the terms of the proposed concession ^atprescn_
drafted were quite impossible, and that neither Sheikh oagar womc cou^rm _ c - ^
the Government approve it. What I especially objected to was ^ e
which Sheikh Salim is made to say : "so long as 1 my children,
no one will be entitled to raise objection to it," and (2) the inclusion of ^akhoda xli as
a explain that Saihn was an old man of 70 who ndgH
be expected to die at any time, and I was cakmg into account the lact oha. it ne di, ,
we should thenceforth have to deal with SheiKh bagai*
As regards (2) I thought the inclusion of Nakhoda All was mexpeaieno, as i ,a--
just been visiting Bushire and knew him to be in very bad odour ^ ^ r ^ e ^y ^
connection with his Bushire affairs, and he was also at loggerheads with the weL -known
Muin-ut-Tuijar of Tehran, holder of the Honnuz concession and I feared the latter
would be likely to give us trouble if he came to know that Nakhoda All was a partner
in a rival oxide enterprise. I also omitted the twenty-year time limit, as I saw no
object in inserting any fixed period of tim^^ LlT1F . BIN . ABDLmRA HMAN.
March 25
A ppendix 10.
Note hy Khan Bahadur Ahdul Latif on the
Sagar and Salim regarding Sir Abu N
27 ih Jamadi II, 1316 [November 14, 1898).
Your honour enquires from me to what I referred in my letter dated the
27th Jamadi II, 1316, when I wrote the following.sentence
<£ As regards Sir a dispute has arisen between Sheikhs Sagar and Salim. It is
Sagar's intention to lease without mentioning Salim's name and to give some advantage
to Salim, but Salim would not agree to this."'
The explanation of the above passage is as follows
It will be remembered that in the second agreement between Sheikh Sagar and
Sheikh Salim (dated 1 884), at which my predecessor was the intermediary, Sheikh Sagar
granted to Sheikh Salim an annual pension of 400 dollars together with the revenue of
Sir Bu Nuair, which was expected to bring in some 200 dollars.
Up to 1889, however, this island did not produce any revenue as Was expected
and consequently no mention was made of it in the third agreement dated the
5th Shaaban, 1306 (1889), and Sheikh Salim ceased to take any interest in it. When,
however, it became probable that the island might produce some revenue as the result
of the concession alluded to in my letter to Hassan Samieh now under reference,
Sheikh Salim's interest was naturally revived and he wanted to claim the revenue
under the obsolete agreement of 1884, which Sheikh Sagar was altogether unwilling
to agree to on the ground that under the last agreement (1889), which was now in
force, the revenue of Sir Bu Nuair Island was not an item of the settlement. The
sheikhs failed to come to an understanding on this point, with the result that the
nroiect for the concession fell through. This is what had to be represented.
1 ^ ABDUL LATIF-BIN-ABDUL RAHMAN.
March 26, 1911.