File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎92v] (194/885)

2
6 As the question is under the lively consideration of His Majesty’s
Government, I have ventured to send a copy of this letter simultaneously to
His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India.
I have, &c.,
P. Z. Cox,
The Hon. Lieut.-Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel.
Sir Henry McMahon, G.C.V.O.,
&c., &c., &c.
From Lieutenant A. T. Wilson, Indian Army, on special duty, to the
Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , Bushire.
Sir,
Mohammerah,
5th May 1912.
In accordance with your instructions I yesterday revisited the Nahr-
Khaiyin and made a close examination of the lands on its banks from its
eastern mouth above the Shaikh’s palace to its western mouth at Liaiji, and
I now have the honour to submit the following further details m amplification
of previous correspondence.
2. The position of the various canals, with their names, and those of the
various tracts of land which they water,
Scale 4” = 1 mile. are shown in the attached sketch map.
The following important alterations and additions have been made.
3. The Khaiyin Canal. I am satisfied that the name Khaiyin is applied
to the whole canal from its junction with the Nahr Diaiji to its mouth above
the Shaikh’s palace ; the small branch running north from the lower mouth
and named by me originally Khaiyain is called Nahr Nazailah locally.
4. Tamar. I had not previously succeeded in identifying this place,
which is referred to in Mr. Parker’s memorandum of 5th September 1910,
and in subsequent correspondence : the identification of its position is of
considerable importance as it indicates that the boundary as locally
recognised is identical with that claimed by the Persians in 1850, on grounds
which Colonel Shell considered in the main to be well founded, and which
have gained additional force from 60 years undisturbed possession.
My failure to identify it previously is found to be due to the fact that it
had been assumed from the reading of the word in English that its phonetic
sound would be Tamar or Tamr, which was not recognised by any of the
local people from whom enquiries were made. As I had heard from you
that on your way back from Hawizeh a property named Tamar had been
mentioned to you I had no difficulty in identifying it beyond any doubt.
5. From conversation with local headmen from both Persian and
Turkish territory, I obtained the following further statements regarding the
status quo.
All alike assured me that in their lifetime the boundary as now shown
had never been questioned by Turkey, but that, on the contrary, the Turks
had frequently given specific recognition to it. and many years ago had
actually buried some coal in a pit near the present line as a permanent
boundary mark. The periodical cleaning of the Nahr Khaiyin, they said,
had always been undertaken by Persian subjects under the orders of the
Shaikh, whilst the cleaning of the Diaiji canal w T as only undertaken under
the orders of the Turkish mudirs. This seems a point of considerable
importance in favour of the Persian case.
6 . The Shaikh’s palace in the Khumaiseh lands was, they said, built
some 12 years ago, and has been occupied without question ever since by one
of the Shaikh’s principal wives, and for the past six years by one of his sons
who is in charge of the lands, though his youth at present makes his
responsibility only nominal.