File 4949/1912 Pt 4 ‘Abu Musa – Angelegenheit. 1907.’ [‎251v] (504/528)

4
'd * '
(M 1
I
1ftv^’K&IL otvv*
. K \
Abdul Latif, be concealed the existence of what was virtually a monopoly and of tbe
preferential right of renewal. In bis reply, dated the 14th June (see Appendix,
No. 12), Abdul Latif comments upon the transaction in guarded language, and
expressly requests Hassan Samaiyeh to “refrain from entering upon any arrange
ments whatever in the nature of leases or deeds of con tract, from which there
will arise difficulties and quarrels.” ' “
On the 26th. Aune, 1906, Mr. T. Malcolm, a British-pr otected subject, with whom
the concessionnaires had engagements, requested llassan Samaiyeh to furnish him
with a copy of the Agreement, inquiring whether other European firms could enter
into similar contracts. Both points were evaded by Hassan Samaiyeh in his reply
of tbe 13th July (see Appendix, No. 13), in which he alleged that the original contract
had been drawn up in German ; and in a further letter of the 14th October (see
Appendix, No. 11) to Mr. Malcolm he refused to send a copy of the Agreement, and
said that secrecy of the transaction had been enjoined by Herr Bobert IV onckhaus.
It was not untii tbe 16th December, 19'6 (see Appendix, No. 15),^ that he sent a
copy of it to A+rdTrLLatif, who, on receipt of the document, wrote on the 23rd January,
1907 (see Appendix, No. 16), to llassan Samaiyeh stating that his son Esa did not
agree to the execution of such an Agreement, which had been concluded without any
consultation among the partners, such as should undoubtedly have taken place. 1 he
phrase which, in Inclosure ,,8 of the German case, is translated “ the cessation of this
contract would be preferable to its continuance ” is more accurately rendered by “ the
nullification of this contract is better than its acceptance.” This employment of the
comparative is, in Arabic epistolary form, a customary euphemistic manner of
expressing a definite resolution. In the present case this interpretation is confirmed
by the whole tenor of the letter in question. It does not appear, as contended in
the German case, that Abdul Latif definitely says in his letter of the 27th March, 1907
(see Appendix, No. 17), that he had originally approved the contract on behalf of his
son Esa.
It is clear that the main ground of Esa-bin-Abdul Latif’s objection to the
contract was that llassan Samaiyeh, improperly describing himself in inaccurate
terms as “ owner and holder of Bu Musa Concession,” had, without consulting his
partners, formed a contract with Herr Wonckhaus which tied the hands of the
Company, not improbably for an indefinite period, in regard to practically the whole
amount of red oxide excavated at the island, and bound them to sell it at a fixed
price, so that they would derive no advantage from any increase in the price of
oxide. It is obvious that a contract of such far-reaching import should, before being
concluded, have been submitted to all the parties interested. Esa-bin-Abdul Latif has
expressly denied that he gave any power of attorney to Hassan Samaiyeh, and
maintains thal it was incumbent upon the latter to act in regard to every trans
action in communication with him, according as was agreed in the deed drawn up
on the admission of Nakhoda Ali Ahmed Saleh to partnership in the Company (see
Inclosure 2 in the note from the German Embassy). tv A '< A / * ' f * 4 \ 1
If the contract had in reality been submitted to and approved by Abdul Latif
on behalf of his son Esa, it is difficult to see the reason for which Herr Wonckhaus
.enjoined secrecy on Hassan Samaiyeh (see Appendix, No. 14).
As will be seen from the accompanying Petition (see Appendix, No. 18) from
Nejef, the son and heir of Nakhoda Ali Ahmed Saleh, now deceased, Esa-bin-Abdul
Latif is not the only partner in the Company who takes exception to the proceedings
of Hassan Samaiyeh. His Majesty’s GovernmgpJ understand that the dragoman of
the German Consulate, Bnshire, hay bu^fTm communication with Nejef-bin-Nakhoda
in regard to Lis attitude towards the~e©ntract of the 1st June, 1906.
With regard to (6) (the objections of the Sheikh of Shargah himself to the contract
of the 1st June, 1906), the German Government are of opinion that—
The Sheikh's fear that he might lose possession of the mines and island is senseless^
while the fact that there was no provision in the lease of 1898 allowing the whole export of
the mines to be transferred to a foreigner without the Sheikh's approval is no more con
clusive than the omission of a prohibition against such a transfer, and, in vieiv of the
recognized liberty of trade in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , it is to be inferred that the conclusion of
contracts with foreigners ivas within the powers of the Company.
The principal motive of the Sheikh of Shargah in cancelling, in accordance with
the exercise of his sovereign rights of jurisdiction, the lease granted in his behalf by