File 345/1908 Pt 2 'Mohammerah: situation. Sheikh's dispute with the Vali of Basra. decoration for Sheikh. renewed assurances to Sheikh.' [‎169v] (343/566)

8
6. * * * § The sheikh’s position in this case is best shown by the following extract from
Mr. McDouall’s despatch JNo. 55 of the 24th April, 1909 :—
“As to the Maghil case, I do not agree with Mr. Crow’s opinion that the sheikh
did not assist. My opinion was that he did, but it is always very difficult to arrest
men of the marsh Arabs, who are protected by their friends; as to the two men, there
was reason to suspect that they were wanted by the Turks for other reasons.”
Mr. McDouall’s eighteen years’ experience of Mohammerah entitles him to speak
on the subject with authority (see also Mr. Crow’s despatch No. 25 of the 7th May,
1910). When the alleged murderer was brought to Bussorah he was allowed to escape
a few days later. The Turks’ record in the Maghil case is so bad that they cannot
throw stones at the sheikh, and the above complaint is, as a matter of fact, that of
Mr. Crow, not of the vali.
7. |The sheikh replies that the “ trespassers ” whom Mishri tried to have removed
in the “ usual way ” were subjects of his own, and belonged to the Persian tribe of
Haji Faisal. Mishri was trying to cheat the cultivators referred to out of their legal
rights. The sheikh did his best for some time before the matter came to a head
to settle things amicably between Mishri and the cultivators, but without success.
Mishri then proposed to replace them with other Arabs, of the tribe of Mohammed
Chanan, but the latter tribal chief refused to let any men of his tribe replace Haji
Faisal’s men, as this would give rise to a blood-feud, or at least to much bitterness.
Mishri was very angry at this, and made a big case of it. He told lies to the vali and
to the police, and as far as the sheikh can make out the story of his or of his agent’s
life being threatened by Mohammed Chanan is based solely on Mishri’s word or that of
the police Mohammed Chanan did not do so, nor any responsible person.
8. JThe sheikh replies that Mohammed Chanan is a Persian subject, that he wrote
as much to the vali at the time.
The Tabur Agassi (police sergeant) went to Zain to arrest Mohammed Chanan, but
alleged no specific offence, except that he had been annoying Mishri, who is a tyrannical
and grasping man. Tabur Agassi and Mohammed Chanan both came in the same
“bellum” to visit the sheikh at Failieh and to discuss what should be done over a
friendly cup of tea. Tabur Agassi made no complaint of any kind whatever as to
threats, but simply said that Mohammed Chanan said he was a Persian—would the
sheikh w r rite to this effect to the vali ?
Sheikh at once wrote a friendly and polite note to the vali, saying that the Tabur
Agassi had seen him on the subject of Mohammed Chanan, that the latter was a
Persian subject, but that nevertheless the sheikh would bring him up to Bussorah in
two days’ time to discuss the matters at issue and arrange a settlement. He added
that he would be going up the Karun shortly, and would take the opportunity to “ ask
permission to take his departure,” a particularly differential and courteous phrase. He
was, he says, under the impression when he wrote the letter that the vali was on the
best of terms with him. He went up to Bussorah two days later and found to his
surprise that the vali now refused to receive him at all unless Mohammed Chanan
was forthwith handed over to the police. The sheikh pointed out in vain that he
was accused of no specific offence, that he was a Persian, and that the case of Mishri
was eminently one for amicable settlement—the vali was obdurate.
He had no alternative but to return to Mohammerah with Mohammed Chanan, who,
it should be added, is his brother-in-law, and head of the most important of the tribes
round Mohammerah.
9. §The sheikh replies that more than half of the tribes from Gurnah to Fao
happen to be of the sheikh’s tribes, and are Persian subjects; the sheikh in consequence
has great influence, and since mukhtars are always chosen, by the Turks, from the
* Sheikh refused or prevaricated over surrender of persons concerned in Mr. Glanville’s murder m
1906 (Maghil case). (Mr. Crow’s despatch No. 17 of March 10, 1909, and No. 22 of April 22, 1910.)
f Mishri, a Turkish land-owner, applied to the Turkish authorities in the usual way to remove certain
cultivators from his lands at Dawasir, but without success, and trespassers were supported by Mohammed
Chanan, an adherent of the sheikh. (Mr. Crow’s despatch No. 22 of April 22, 1910.) N.B.—This is a
complaint against Mohammed Chanan, not against the sheikh.
J Reference above complaint, the Turkish police were informed when they tried to arrest Mohammed
Chanan that he and all his people belonged to sheikh, and could not come to Bussorah (to be imprisoned),
and if arrest was insisted on Mishri’s agent would be killed like Chelmeran. (Mr. Crow’s despatch No. 22
of April 22, 1910.)
§ Yali said he distrusted the sheikh. His influence as a land-owner and tribal sheikh was great, and
he thought must of the mukhtars from Gurnah to Fao were in his pay, or pledged to his interests.
(Mr. Crow’s despatch No. 22, dated April 23, 1910.)