'14/115 IV B. 7. Abu Musa' [‎69v] (147/571)

32
prevented from enjoyinsr the lea^e granted to the Company by the proprietor
of the mines, Salem -bin-Sultan, the uncle of the reigning Sheikh, The Company
is thereby suffering losses since they have entered into contracts to deliver fixed
quantities of iron oxide at a fixed price (Inclosures 5, 19).
In particular, the managing partner has entered into a contract (Inclosure
5), dated the 1st June, 1906, with the German merchant, Herr Robert
Wonckhaus, of Lingah (partner in the above-mentioned firm R. Wonckhaus
and Co.), under which 2,000 to 5,000 tons are to be delivered yearly, for fo ur
years to Herr Wonokhaus from the Abu Musa mines. The Company have
also undertaken to deliver 400 tons yearly during five years in India {Inclosure
19).
In both cases it is clearly a question of perfectly legitimate business
operations as practised all over the world.
The documents in possession of the Imperial Government lead them to
certain conclusions with regard to the motives which have caused this conduct
on the part of the Sheikh. In the above-mentioned communications from the
Sheikh to the managing partner, Mr. Samaye, it is said :—
1. That the young Isa-bin-Abdul Latif, one of the partners in the Corn-
pany, had complained to him, the Sheikh, that the contract with Rebort
Wonckhaus had been concluded without his previous knowledge. This partner
and he, the Sheikh, did not approve the contract. Samaye was not entitled
without their approval to conclude a contract with regard to the whole
production of the mines for a long period. They would suffer losses if they
approved the contract (Inclosure 12).
2. That the Sheikh feared that the mines and. the island might be taken
out of his possession (Inclosure 16, Confidential, also Inclosure 20).
3. That in the lease of 1898 there was no provision allowing th« whole
production of the mines to be tiansferred to a foreigner without his approval.
The Sheikh is thus speaking as if he had himself concluded the lease of 1898
with the lessors' Company (Inclosure 22).
It is obvious that the Sheikh Segger-bin-Chalid did not conclude the lease
of 1898 (Inclosure 1). This was done by his uncle, Salem-bin-Sultan, acting
within his own rights, and the Sheikh recognized this by the fact that he him
self was for a certain time a partner in the Company.
It ip true that the le^se of 1898 contained no provision with regard to the
sale of the production of the miners to foreigners. In view of the recognized
liberty of tracta in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. it is to be inferred from the omission of
such a prohibition that the conclusion of contracts with foreigners was
without doubt within the powers of the Company, and not the reverse.
The contract concluded in June 1906 between the Company and the
German Herr R. V\ onckhaus, to which the Sheikh refers is, therefore, according
to the lease srranted in 1898 by the Sheikh's uncle, absolutely admissible and
legally unassailable. The Sheikhs fear that in consequence of the contract he
might lose possession of the mines and the island is senseless. Apart from the
xact that the mines do not belong to the Sheikh but to his Uncle Salem, the
contract only grants to Herr Wonckhaus the right to receive at a fixed price
during the fixed time of four years the greater part of the production of the
mines an arrangement snch as any merchant could conclude when the oppor-
tunity offered. Ihe contract does not refer to the acquisition of the mines
t emselves or of the Island of Abu Musa, or to any separation of the island
rom the Sheikh s territory, and it has no such aim in view. Herr Wonckhaus
is a merchant like any other, he is not pursuing any political objects, and in
cone uding the contract he has only made use of the right belonging to him, as
o every merchant, to transact business which appears profitable to him.
tit " ^ii? 8 D( ? ?? l 8 s ^ own ky the contract of 1906, to say that Herr
v onckhaus has bought the whole production of the mines. But even if he had
one so t lere would be no objection to a business transaction such as takes
pace eveiyw ere unhindered. That the contract might cause losses to the
ompany, may indicate that it would perhaps be possible for the Company to
c no u e a moie avourable contract for themselves. If this were the case,
ere would even then be no legal objection to the contract.