'Karun River: Memorandum by Sir H Rawlinson' [‎135r] (1/2)

Kanin River.
Memorandum by Sir H. Rawlinson.
I venture to think that the importance of the so-called project of
“ opening up the Karun ” has, as far as British interests are concerned,
been vastly overrated. It seems that, some years ago, certain British mer
chants who were engaged in the Persian trade, and who found that the very
heavy expense of the land carriage between the port of Bushirc and the
markets of Central and Northern Persia placed them at a great disadvantage
in respect to their Russian competitors, looked wistfully to the Karun
waterway leading into the interior of the country as a means of affording
them relief, not unnaturally hoping that, by starting their caravans of goods
from advanced posts up the river, like Shuster and Dezful, they would
sensibly reduce the cost of transport, and be thus able to meet the Russians
on more equal terms in the markets of Isfahan and Teheran, and even of
Tabriz. It thus became of great importance, according to their view of the
question, to obtain a right of navigating the river Karun and its tributaries
from Mohamrah upwards, and the British Legation at Teheran has accord
ingly, under instructions from the Foreign Office, and in supposed support
of our economical and political interests, kept up a strong and sustained
pressure for some years past at the capital, in order to wring this concession
from a reluctant Government. But the whole argument, as it appears to
me, rests from the outset on a fallacy, for neither is it possible to render the
“ Karun ” navigable to steamers, except at a cost entirely disproportionate
to the results and quite beyond the means of the local Government, nor if
our merchants could convey their goods by water to Shuster and Dezful,
would they have at all improved their general position. I now go on to
explain briefly these two crucial points.
Firstly, in regard to the Karun, it is well known that the river is barred
at Ahwaz by a succession of rocky strata which run across the river bed,
and from rapids, some miles in extent, preventing any continuous navige.
tion, except in high flood, when, for a few weeks in the year, light crafr,
can be hauled by main force over the obstructions. Captain Wells and
Mr. Barhig, who have recently visited and reported upon the Ahwaz barrier,
express themselves most unfavourably as to the prospect of overcoming this
difficulty.
As the river falls seven feet in passing the “ bund," it is feared that, if tin
rocky barrier were removed by blasting, the upper part of the stream would
be drained and rendered unnavigable. Mr. Baring accordingly sees no alter
native but the trans-shipment of goods at the “ bund,” which, indeed, is the
course at present pursued by the local traders, but which would by no means
suit European steam traffic; while Captain Wells suggests a canal with locks,
a very expensive undertaking, and not likely to be entered upon by a mere
trading company.
The second difficulty to which I have drawn attention is still more dis
couraging. It must be conceded that the present trade route into Persia
from the sea coast is inconvenient, circuitous, and expensive. The passes
between Bushire and Shiraz are notoriously bad, and in some places dangerous.
The distance from the sea coast to the capital is 700 miles, and as wheeled
carriages are almost unknown, the expense of transport is heavy; but in
spite of all these drawbacks, I have no hesitation in saying that the present
caravan route by Shiraz and Isfahan is by far the best line of access to the
interior of the country. Because there is a saving in distance of about 200