File 3154/1912 Pt 2 ‘Turco-Persian Frontier: Miscellaneous Prints’ [‎241r] (325/486)

[31252]
c °nsul Shipley to Mr. Parker.—July 23.)
(x riVctTG.)
D e ar Parker, Constantinople, July 17, 1912.
THE translation ot the preface to Dervish Pasha’s book which we have annexed
to proces-verbal No. 12, forwarded by to-day’s bag in our despatch No. 603 will
I think, supply the answer to the question contained in your letter to me of the
8th instant. If the statement made by Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. himself in the preface in {
question 1S to be relied upon, his book and his report are one and the same thinu-
The statement in my letter to you of the 3rd instant, viz., that the book was f
“ founded in the report previously presented by him to the Porte,” was due to a
misreading on my part of a Turkish word, for which I beg to express my great regret
In any case, on receipt of the Foreign Office despatch No. 168 of the 29th April and
before sending home the Foreign Office translation from the book, I had been informed
both by Minorsky and by Itila-el-Mulk, from whom I made express enquiry, that they
possessed nothing else but the book itself. M. de Klemm, as you will recollect from
Sir G. Buchanan’s despatch No._ 130 of the 21st April, only states that “ Dervish Pasha’s
report is a long book in Turkish, of which the Bussian Government only possess a
photographic copy,” this being the copy from which our translation was made. He
makes no mention of a separate report. You will perhaps allow me to add that I fully
realise that the translation of the preface should have been included with the translation
of the portion we sent, but I hope that you will put down my failure to do so not to
negligence on my part, but to an error of judgment.
As far as the commission is concerned, proces-verbaux Nos. 10 and 11, forwarded
to you by Wednesday’s bag, and No. 12 which we are sending to-day, almost bring the
proceedings up to date. There is, howe ver, a further proces-verbal of the sitting of the
11th instant, but as it has only just reached us, it has been impossible to forward it
by this bag. It contains the leply of the lurkish delegates to the Persian summary
respecting the Zobat question, given in pyroces-verbal No. 12, the former stating in
concluding their argument that this question also must be referred to The Hague : a
definition of the boundaries of Suleimanieh (referred to in article 2 of the Treaty of
Erzeroum) was given at the same sitting by the Persian delegates, to which the Turks
were to reply at the next sitting (the 15th instant). The proces-verbal in question
(No. 13), which necessitates a careful and lengthy reference to the maps, will be
forwarded in a few days.
You will perhaps notice that the arguments of the Persian delegates, in proces-verbal
No. 12, whatever their worth may be, have been put with quite unusual brevity and
clearness. I gathered from Itila-el-Mulk that they—the Persian delegates were
assisted in the matter by the Bussians, and if this is so, it would account for the
argument under paragraph 3 (first heading) and the reference to “juridical principles ”
under paragraph 3 (second heading). The result generally of the work of the
commission so far has, I fear, not been such as to encourage much hope of an
understanding being arrived at in the commission itself. If anything is done, it would
seem that it will be by an arrangement outside, and I think this explains the growing-
anxiety of the Bussians referred to in Marling’s telegram of to-day, as I think
they wish to begin direct negotiations with the Turkish Government respecting the
northern part of the frontier, as we ourselves are doing in the south. Assim Bey has
certainly shown himself conciliatory so far, and if he will keep to the assurances he
has given us, we may hope to get one part at least of the frontier question settled
once for all.
With kind regards as always, yours very sincerely,
H. S. SHIPLEY.
P.S.—The date 1269 (1853 a.d.) given in my last letter as being the date of the
presentation by Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. of his report or m emor andum was correct. As^the book
itself, however, was printed in 1286 (1868 a.d.), |he interval should have been fifteen
years, and not as then stated by me. | g AIM" 191'
[2545 z—3]
6 AUG 1912; 4
TEC
!' Ill ! 1
|i'. IT ^