File 1855/1904 Pt 7 'Koweit Flag.' [‎238v] (140/154)

truth of their story. Witness No. 2 is obviously unreliable, as it will be an
easy matter to prove that the boom reached Fao and did not, as he asserts,
return to Koweit at once without being searched.
3 . I would venture to suggest that there are two matters on which it is
specially necessary to call for an explanation from the Customs Department.
The reckless firing of ball cartridge into the air in the direction of Eao at such
close quarters as the Shat-el-Arab must be a proceeding attended with con-
siderable risk to person and property. As we have a telegraph station
at Fao and Sheikh Mubarek’s followers and employes form, I understand,
the bulk of the population of the place, on this score alone, apart from what
ever protest, the Ottoman local authorities may see fit to present, I venture
to think that we should be justified in protesting strongly against the action
of the Customs’ servants.
4s. Further, I would ask that the Customs Department be called on for
an explanation as to why Sheikh Mubarek’s private boom was searched at all.
It is difficult to imagine that a well known boat like this, always on the run
between Koweit and Fao, was not recognised by the crew of the Persian jolly
boat even at a distance ; but, even granting this, after the explanation furnish
ed hy the crew of the boom, the minute search conducted over Sheikh Mubarek’s
private boat can only be construed by me into a deliberate and purposeless
insult.
5. I have already explained in my letter No. 24, dated 14th instant, that
popular feeling in Koweit is greatly excited over this incident and I have
heard remarks, though not from any responsible quarter, asking why the
English, who have been so long in the Gulf, permit such high-handedness on
the part of the Persian Government. The report which has recently reached
Koweit that an English man-of-war has appeared at the mouth of the Shatt
and that the Belgians promptly decamped has been received with undisguis
ed satisfaction.
6 . I have only to add that, with reference to Sheikh Mubarek’s letter of
which a translation was forwarded under cover of my letter quoted in the preced
ing paragraph at an interview I had with Sheikh Mubarek this morning, he in
formed me that the mention of the bellum was based on incorrect information.
The boom only was detained and searched.
STATEMENT No. 1.
Name
Fathers name
Age
Occupation ...
Residence
Mi grin.
Ibrahim-bin-Sauad,
30 years.
Nakhoda.
Koweit.
,, , T ™ da y s a g^ I left Koweit in the boom “Musallini,” property of Sheikh
Mubarek. We left at night. We entered the Shatt about 10 a.m. and saw
the Belgian boat just before we entered the Pao creek. They were in the
Tl /re wt nir 8mg ° ^ All the five men in her were Persians.
9 ' h ™ Ir! a slng ‘ e , Christia “-, , The y shot at the boom four times at about
2o paces distance. They used ball cartridge. I said to them—“ This is the
boom of Sheikh Mubarek taking the post. Do not shoot.” They replied “We
h’urfanlT™ h° Ur b ° at ' . fired , hi § h through the sail and no one was
hurt and we have sewn up the holes. They said—“ We are sea rob in o»f nr ”
and searched the entire boat. When they io.nA^^y^lt Zy.
kt us k £ro P Af7er 1 th S til 0rtheP f rp0S f ? f their search about an hour and then
let us go. After that day, we have had no trouble with the Belgians.
Dated Koweit, the 25th September 1904.
Name
Father’s name
Age
Occupation
Residence
STATEMENT No. 2.
Abdulla.
Ahmed.
40 years.
Khalassi.
Koweit, but bis family
came from Hassa.
*