'File 19/212 II (C 47) Bahrain Transit Trade' [‎35r] (83/538)

19/212
Telegram R.27®
y
yrom Government of India,Foreign and Political
Department, Uew Delhi.
To Secretary of State for India, London,
Repeated Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. , Bushire,
No* 208#
Dated 23rd ( received 24th ) January 1933.
!?0
/ ^
/ '
Your telegram 120 and Bushire telegram 47, Bahrain
Transit Dues*
2. We do not agree that sending of steamship ,, Ahmedi' #
V V
amounted to breaking of agreemwnt with Bin Jiluwi and Marauk.
That agreement referred only to transhipment of goods in Bahrain
territorial waters whereas in "Ahmedi 11 case no transhipment was
contemplated. On the other hand it is obvious that if through
shipment of goods (? to) mainland after landing some cargo at
Bahrain became common, Bahrain would be faced with great financial
loss and they-ttfould seem to be justified in t aking measures
in exercise of Their iioveriign rights over Bahrain port to
counteract this danger, especially as they charge no port dues
for use of port. We can see no alternative to that which tiiey
adopted, viz*, forbidding landing of goods at Bahrain except on
their own conditions, and consider that it is on these grounds
that their action could be defended to Saudi G-overnment and not
on grounds of breach of Agreement.
We also feel doubtful about practicability of adopting
line suggested in paragraph 6 of Residents telegram which we
consider open to following objections:
(l) arrangements of 1920 regarding transhipment dues
at Bahrain were made with Ibn Saud by our
representative on behalf of Bahrain, and Dickson's
^ * ) a -14-o letter G/196 of July 14th, 1920, refers to these
arrangements as made under his Government's orders.
Saudi Government can therefore reasonably refer
dispute to us for settlement.