'File 8/15 Arab Series - 1933-1939' [‎123r] (245/434)

22
allies and of the fixed dues and asked my views as to whether the fixed dues could
fee claimed twice. He mentioned inter alia the fact that the same pilot
remained on board the Preserver throughout the proceedings.
3. The most second recent Saudi regulations of which I have knowledge
are those enclosed in translation in Mr. Calvert’s despatch No. 292-E. of September
24th, 1934. The tonnage dues, although described by Mr. Griffin as “ quarantine ”
clues, would appar to be those prescribed under head 1 of the Appendix to the
regulations. The fixed dues are clearly those under heads 6 and 7. It seems to
me probable that the reason for not charging tonnage dues twice was that the dues
are payable only on arrival from and departure for a foreign port; but that the
authorities regard the fixed dues as being payable on any entry into the port from
the high seas.
4. I told Mr. Griffin that in my opinion it would be difficult to contest the action
of the local authorities in charging the fixed dues twice, especially as any attempt
on my part to do so might be held to imply that I regarded the reef as being within
-Saudi territorial waters. I promised, however, as he attached importance to the
principle, though not to the amount involved, to ascertain your views generally,
and with special reference to the question whether immunity from the double
payment could be claimed in virtue of any recognised practice in cases where a
ship lying in a port Las occasion to leave it temporarily for a point of the high seas
in the vicinity.
5. I at first thought of discussing the matter informally with the Saudi Deputy
Minister for Foreign Affairs before reporting, it. On finding that the distinction
made by the authorities could be plausibly explained as in paragraph 3 above,
I decided that I might do more harm than good by approaching Faud Bey, I
■shall be grateful for an expression of your views on the whole subject.
(34)
{Received on 16th May W36, with Political Secretary's letter No. 18, dated the 30th
April 1936i)
Enclosures in Foreign Office Covering Letter, dated April 24th, 1936, No. E.-2104
1541/25.
Translation,
Letter from the Saudi Arab Government to His Majesty’s Minister, Jedda,
No. 7/1/27, dated the 27th March 1936.
With reference to Your Excellency’s note No. 43 (374/250/4) of the 27th
February 1936 concerning the two mail bags lost at Hodeida, I am to inform you
that the registers and records of Hodeida covering the period of its occupation
by the Government of His Majesty the King were delivered to the officials of
^ emen on the evacuation of the said city. The matter has been investigated by
the Postal Administrations of Bombay and Saudi Arabia. The latter has agreed
to pay the legal compensation due in this case under Article 56 of the Universal
Postal Convention, and has remitted the amount through the Egyptian Post
Administration under cover of letter No. 114 of the 20th February' 1936. The
Post Administrations of Bombay and Aden have been informed accordingly. No
other relevant formalities remained uncompleted.
Enclosure to Serial No. (34).
Letter from His Majesty's Minister, Jedda, to the Saudi Arab Government
No. 33 (583/250/5), dated the 29th March 1935.
I have the honour to thank T our Loyal Highness for the information con
tained in your note No. 7/1/27 of the 4th Muharram 1335 (March 27th 1936)
regarding the arrangements made in connection with two mail bags forwarded
from Aden to Hodeida on May 5th, 1934. I am gratified to learn that this matter
-appears to have been satisfactorily settled between the postal authorities con
cerned. I am communicating the contents of Your Royal Highness’s note to the
British Resident at Aden,