File 1855/1904 Pt 10 'Koweit:- Relations with Turkey. Sheikh's properties at Fao and Fadaghia' [‎199v] (398/398)

4
BBSS*
damage may be done and tbe Kaim Mokam of Fab informed the Waliand also
nay agents informed the Wali by telegram, and the Wali did not stop this busi
ness, and your honour knows that I and my town and my property which is in
Basrah and all that concerns me is in your protection, and such matters are
happening to my harm both in possessions and honour, and if your protection
is only for the town of Koweit, tbe protection of Koweit does not benefit me
at all. What benefits me is the preservation of my honour. If I do not
obtain from your protection my honour, at least you might demand from the
Turks that they should treat me as well as they do all their proprietors of
land—and not permit that such occurrences should take place upon me and I
should endure them for many days and with patience as in the case of the
occasion which happened last year on my Fao property and I informed you of
it. My agents drove them off my property and they destroyed of my date
crop 6,000 (?) by thieving. 1 informed you of the matter and you yourself
from Bushire went to Fao and came here and we informed you of the affair
which had happened. Then when matters of this kind happen and no protec
tion is obtained from you for my honour and property, I shall be compelled to
look out for myself a eondition that will protect my honour and my property
and my land. Then it is incumbent on me that I should present this before
you. Then so that your knowledge may embrace this affair, I have presented
this letter to you and await your order and may you remain guarded.
No. 56 , dated Koweit, the 2 nd February 1908 (demi-official).
Prom— Major S. G. Knox, I.A., Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. at Koweit,
To—P. E. Crow, Esq., His Britannic .Majesty’s Consul, Basrah.
I have received copies of your letter to Cox of date 24 th January, together
with his letter of the 14 th January and final reply of 28 th January. I now
send you a translation of Mubarek’s letter handed to me by him to-day. He
is just sending his steam-launch up to Fao with the famous Abdul Aziz bin
Salim to see what can be done.
2 . I followed your suggestion and told Mubarek that he would do well
to consult the Wali as to permission and payment. Mubarek scouted tbe idea
that he was reclaiming new land from the river, and maintained, as he did
before Cox, that he was merely repairing old bunds, and that he and the
military authorities had built them together eleven years ago.
Mubarek may be an impossible client, but it would appear from his
letter that he has the Kaim Mckam, who is supposed to be the chief civil author
ity in Fao, on his side, and the highhandedness of erecting a low embankment
in peace time, which can do little or no harm to the safety of the fort and
which can easily be destroyed if there is any real encroachment, would seem
as nothing compared to the highhandedness of the soldiers who let in flood
water and destroy valuable property before there has been any real adjudi
cation.
It does seem to me that there is all the difference in the world between
the two actions: one is a slight encroachment which can easily be remedied,
and the other sounds like a wanton destruction of property for which there
is not the least chance of getting compensation. Mubarek too may quite reason
ably say that his action in spite of orders to the contrary was forced upon him
by floods which even the Wali of Basrah cannot control.
Q. I. 0. P. O.—No. 5469 F. D.—12.3-1903- 60—W.G. B.