File 619/1907 Pt 10 'Arms traffic:- Persian Gulf. Prize Money for captures in Persian Gulf.' [‎119r] (242/424)

28. Mention may be made in this place of the assistance rendered to the
Intelligence system organised by Mr. °ptiatlOns 111 the season of
New. * * 1905-07 by Mr. R. New, Assistant
Superintendent of the Indo-European
Ielegraph Department at Jask (since appointed Vice-Consul at Lingah), who
organised a system of intelligence along the coast by means of telephones
and special watchmen to co-operate with His Majesty’s ships. It may be
added that in the following winter (November 1907) the Government of fndia
adopted a series of measures, at Mr. New’s suggestion, for dealing with the
tiattic on the Mekran coast. Phese measures included the creation of a
small corps of camel sowars to patrol the coast between Jask and Chahbar,
in order to collect information about the movements of Afghans, expected
consignments of arms, &c., for communication without delay to British ships
engaged in the suppression of the trade.
The value of Mr. New’s work in this connection was fully recognised by
the Naval Commander-in-Chief (Admiral Slade), who, in a report dated the
7th May 1909, expressed great appreciation of the “ excellent and reliable
service of intelligence,” which Mr. New had organised.
Disposal of captured arms.
Lord George Hamilton’s Despatch of
9th November 1900.
248/00.
29. One point in connection with naval operations requires special
notice. In a Despatch dated the 26th
July 1900 the Government of India
raised the question of the disposal of
arms and ammunition captured from
dhows by Her Majesty’s ships under the
agreement with Muskat, In reply Her Majesty’s Government laid down the
general principal that “ confiscated arms . . . should be handed over to
the Government within whose territories they were seized ” (Letter from
Foreign Office to India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , 29th October 1900); and the Government of
India were informed that “ arms seized by the British authorities under
“ powers derived from the Government of Muskat should be handed over to
“ the Government on whose behalf and within whose jurisdiction they were
“seized” (Lord George Hamilton to Government of India, 9th November
1900).
The same principle vras reaffirmed by His Majesty’s Government two
years later, when Lord George Hamilton
informed the Government of India, in
a Despatch dated the 11th April 1902,
that “ the Sultan of Muskat is un-
“ doubtedly entitled under his agreement to any arms that may be seized
“ by His Majesty’s ships in Muskat waters, or in a Muskat vessel outside the
“ territorial waters of any other Power.” Similarly, as regards Persia, His
Majesty’s Minister at Teheran w T as informed that “any seizures made by
“ British ships of war in the territorial waters of Persia or in Persian boats
“ outside their limits and not within the territorial waters of another country
“ should be held to be confiscated for and in the interest of the Persian
“ Government ” (Lord Lansdowne to Sir A. Hardinge, 24th March 1902).
Lord George Hamilton’s Despatch of
11th April 1902. v
1944/02.
30. The following summary of the general situation in respect of the
arms traffic in 1907 is taken from a
General Summary of situation, 180 o Memorandum drawn up under the
instructions of the Government of India in connection with the Persian
Gulf Gazetteer : —
“The present situation is therefore as follows. Since 1902 the arms
traffic has been nominally prohibited at every port, except Muskat, in the
Gulfs of Persia and Oman ;*but smuggling and connivancy at breaches of the
law are so universally prevalent that arms and ammunition continue to be
distributed from Muskat over the length and breadth of the Gulf region, and
* With the exception of the El Katr peninsula (see paragraph 15).