File 1421/1908 Pt 3 'Persia: oil; negotiations between the Shaikh of Mohammerah and the Anglo-Persian Oil Co.' [‎256v] (78/338)

4
Enclosure 6 in No. 1.
Consul-General Cox to Actinq Consul Wilson,
(Confidential.)
Dlr ’ r tt a i i Bushire, November 6 , 1910.
1 HAVE the honour to refer to your letter dated the 28th October and previous
correspondence in connection with the plans of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company for the
inception of boring operations in the territorial limits of the Sheikh of Mohammerah
and the terms which should or should not be made with him in case of oil being tapped
in paying quantity. ° 1 r
2. In expressing his own ideas regarding—
(1.) I he nature of the present rights of the sheikh and his tribesmen in the soil ;
. (2-). ‘he terms which might fairly be offered him by the oil company as an amicable
satisfaction of them,
the managing director is good enough to say that he would be glad to know my personal
views. J r
. ^*. ^. P 1 onouncement in regard to the former problem seems to involve the
investigation and settlement of both the following points :
(a.) The precise nature of the tenure and rights, if any, over and in the soil enjoyed
by the sheikh and his tribes, anterior and to the time of the grant by the Persian
Government of the D’Arcy concession.
(^*) Tim precise rights of the sheikh and his tribes in the soil since the grant of
tie formers finnan in January 1903, and how far they hold good against the rio-hts of
the oil company under the D’Arcy concession.
1 hen again the following two queries seem to be suggested by the record :
(c.) The company having in the agreement with the sheikh of the 16th July, 1909,
acknowledged that the right to treasure trove is vested in the sheikh ; could they make
good to him the argument that the cognate right in regard to minerals is not also
vested m him ?
In this connection I would point out that in framing article 13 of the agreement
which was finally concluded between the company and the Sheikh of Mohammerah,
Mr. Lloyd and I in consultation were at pains, in the interests of the company, to alter
the wording of the article on this subject numbered (11) in the draft sent to His
Majesty’s Foreign Office with Mr. Wallace’s letter of the 9th June, 1909, and to omit
any pregnant allusion to minerals.
The managing director’s draft ran :—
“( 11 .) The company as lessees of the land agree that all treasure trove
throughout the lands leased to the company belongs to the sheikh alone. By ‘ treasure
trove is meant gold and silver or precious metals in a natural state, or coins or objects
of antiquity of the same metals.” J
In the agreement concluded this became :—
“ (13.) The company as lessees of these lands agree that all treasure trove
throughout the land leased to the company and other lands given under this agreement
belongs to the sheikh alone. By ‘ treasure trove ’ is meant coins, jewellery, and objects
of antiquity.” J
It will be noted that the words in italics were omitted.
(d.) Is it usual or necessary to regard the right to allow or disallow boring’ for oil
as a “ mineral right ” properly so called ? In fact, is the question of the possession or
non-possession by the sheikh of “ mineral rights ” generally, involved at all in the present
project under discussion?
I do not feel qualified to give an authoritative answer on any of these four
questions, and merely indicate them to make it clear that, according to my lights, the
determination of the real position of the sheikh and the company in regard to the
question of the oil boring and mineral rights,” would be by no means a simple matter.
L Holding this view, I cannot help thinking that were the company, in connection
with their contemplated boring operations, to raise acutely the question of the incidence