File 1356/1912 Pt 2 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople. (Mohammerah Boundary)' [‎200v] (409/680)

*■>
by the latter from Zohab altogether, it being maintained by them that, as the registers
above quoted showed, these districts formed part of the Bagdad vilayet and Suleimanieh
sanjak respectively. Of the province of Zohab thus reduced the western boundary
would be formed by the Assengheran range beginning from the starting-point of the
latter on the Elwend Biver, while the northern boundary would be constituted by a line
which, starting from a point terminus north of Mount Assengheran and passing by the ^
summits of Mounts Bemou, Gare, and Bizel, would terminate at the commune
of Pave.
The Ottoman delegates then proceeded to quote the clause of article 2 of the Treaty
of Erzeroum relating to Zohab, the meaning of which, according to them, was clearly
that the term “mountainous districts ” (i.e., the eastern portion of Zohab to be awarded
to Persia) could only include 1 ! that part where the mountains v» r ere situated, and that this
technical definition, could not be made to comprise mere hills, broken ground, and
elevations which could not be called mountains. The expression, moreover, made use of
in the clause in question, viz. (mountainous districts) “ with the valley of Kerrind,” was
held by the Ottoman delegates to define what was the eastern portion of Zohab, the
limits of which according to this phrasing could not extend further than the said valley.
The division of Zohab into eastern and western parts was then laid down by the
Ottoman commissioners as follows :—
Kerrind should be taken on the right and the foot of the mountains followed as
far as the sanjak of Suleimanieh, always leaving these latter to Persia and the valleys
to the left to Turkey.
The names of the mountains here referred to by the Turkish delegates were not
designated, and there is thus some uncertainty as to the precise line of demarcation
intended by them. From the general tenour of their argument, however, it is clear
that the line in question does not differ essentially from that laid down by the Ottoman
commissioners in 1851 as shown in Colonel Sheil’s map above referred to, and that,
with the exception, possibly, of the additional pretension put forward by the present
Turkish commissioners to reduce the limits of Zohab itself, neither Ottoman nor Persian
claims have undergone any modification since the last-mentioned date.
i he discussions on the Zohab question occupied the attention of the commission
from the 2 nd May to the 11 th July, and the arguments made use of by the respective
parties in this connection were embodied in the Proces-verbanx Nos. 5 to 13.
Generally speaking, the main point on which the arguments all through these
discussions appeared to turn was the question of the validity of the documents which,
according to the statement of the Ottoman delegates, proved land registration by the
lurkish Government in the districts in dispute dating from the year 1544 a.d., and on
which the former relied not only as proof of ow nership, but also as proof that these
districts formed part of the province of Suleimanieh, and had never belonged to Zohab
as had been asserted by their Persian colleagues.
By the Persian delegates it was maintained—
(l.) That Government registration of lands when in temporary occupation of that
Government could not be accepted as proof of title, and that such registration, being a
unilateral act, could not constitute proof of ownership, as otherwise any act of forcible
seizure would, by jts being placed on the land registers, create rights for the aggressor.
(Proces-verbaux Nos. 6 and 12 .)
( 2 .) That, further, such registration would be valid only provided it were in
conformity wit Ip treaties still existing and in force, and in that case it would be the
treaty from which this registration would derive its validity, for the mere act of
registration could not serve as proof. Unless, therefore, the Ottoman Government
should produce a treaty in force with Persia, dated 1544 a.d., justifying this registra
tion, the possession by it (of these lands) is nothing but an usurpation ; while as regards
the treaty of 1140 a.h. (1727 a.d.), (quoted by the Ottoman delegates), independent of
the question of the existence of its original, its stipulations were annulled by the treaty
of 1148 a.h. {Proces-verbaux Nos. 8 and 10 .)
(3.)^ That the argument as to the validity of registration when sanctioned by
treaty did not apply on the present occasion, as there were no treaties in force at the
date of the registration mentioned by the Ottoman delegates, and there was no
treaty remaining in force ever since, except that of Erzeruum of 1848. (Proces-verbal
No. 8 .) V
With reference to the question of the boundaries of Zohab as distinct from that of
its ownership, it was argued by the Persian delegates that, in addition to the testimony