'Seistan arbitration case' [‎97r] (9/12)

9
Section IV.— Arbitral Opinion.
General Goldsmid to Secretary of State,
31st October 1872, Enclosure I.
As a prelude to his arbitral opinion, Sir F. Goldsmid gives his views on
ancient rights and present possession.
As to “ ancient rights,” he says :—
“ The Persian claims to Seistan on the
“ scroe of ancient rights are not such as to warrant revival after the lapse of
“ 100 years during which they have virtually been in abeyance; and I do not
“ think that the English ministerial letter quoted (Lord Russell’s letter) alters
“ the position in this respect. It left the litigants to settle their quarrel together,
“ hut gave no right to Persia which she did not possess irrespectively. Therefore
“ an unjust conquest in an arbitration is a right that cannot be considered just by
“ virtue of this letter. If Seistan were in no way subject to Affghanistan when
“ under the aegis of Persia, and subsequently garrisoned by Persian troops, then
“ has her independence been assailed, and I cannot say that the acts of Ali Khan
“ or his successor have satisfied me that their allegiance to Persia was the general
“ desire of the inhabitants.”
As to “ present possession,” General Goldsmid says :—
“ It is not easy to define what in the present day is meant by Seistan. I see
“ no better way than to illustrate the case by supposing two territories, one
“ compact and concentrated which I will call ‘ Seistan Proper,’ the other detached
“ and irregular which may be designated outer Seistan.” Seistan Proper is com
posed of the country on the left bank of the Helmund, and extends to a distance of
about 120 English miles in length, or from the vicinity of the Charboli and
“ Khaspar Rivers north to Rudbar south, and its breadth variable. Seistan
“ Proper is now, under certain reservations to be noted hereafter, in possession of
“ Persia, whose Governor is Meer Alum Khan of Kayn.
“ Outer Seistan, on the other hand, irrespective of the desert Shila and
“ uninhabited tracts, is in possession of Belooch Chiefs who profess to acknow-
“ ledge Persian sovereignty or do not admit allegiance to any power but
“ Affghanistan.”
General Goldsmid adds,—
“ Briefly, being unable to justify the recent action of Persia in Seistan on the
“ score of ancient rights to that province, as regards her present possession of
“ * Seistan Proper ’ the fact is established, although the action of the authorities
“ before described has unquestionably caused me to entertain misgivings on the
“ attitude or sentiments of the population in certain instances.”
The arbitral opinion is then summed up
Secretary of unc | er seven heads,—
General Goldsmid to Secretary of
State, 31st October 1872, Enclosure
No. II.
I.
That Seistan was undoubtedly part of Persia in ancient times, but that under
Ahmed Shah it formed part of the Affghan Empire and had not been recovered
to Persia.
II.
That ancient associations language and habits render its transfer to Persia by
no means unnatural or strange, although a century of disconnexion cannot fail to
be a bar to validity.
III.
That facts of possession are all in favour of Affghanistan, and that circum
stances show that Persia has exercised no interference in the internal adminis
tration of Seistan from the days of Nadir Shah till a very recent date.
IY.
That geographically, Seistan clearly forms part of Affghanistan.
Y.
That, whilst Affghanistan has the advantage in claim, it cannot be denied that
from year to year she has been relaxing her hold of Seistan ; and although the
maimer of the occupation of the province by Persia cannot be admitted to cor
respond with the appeal to arms contemplated by Lord Russell’s letter, yet, that
14751. C