File 2764/1904 Pt 5 'Baghdad Railway: Anglo-Turkish negotiations; concessions proposed in respect of Kowait; negotations with Hakki Pasha in London; Anglo-Turkish agreement.' [‎175r] (362/536)

tradition of payments to’ Turkey fo^an^kiidr^tht^ ‘^f 1 h° 5 nd “ ny trace or even
recognised. y y iandb to the eist the (rentier as now locally
% opposite results ^as regards 'the paymlnts
Note 4.
Pages 14 and 15 : Nationality and Ownerni r i i • i
locally recognised Bouncily & ^ ***"*» ^
19th century the Ka’ab gradually withdrew'T 111 th +l t towards the beginning of the
Shatt-el-Arab opposite and abov/ Bussorah and "r ^ lett l:ia, ‘ k of the
higher up than Ihe Tamar lands (see foot of p 14 TtTlt 'h
the Haffar lands that Turkey had no valid L k 4 ?' I he states Wlth re K ar d to
many years they had been ^ 10 them ’ a " d that for
and is every 1 whit as vahd^^heTckLlo'the Tam 1S , ba f d U P?‘! p he ? ame ar guments
in the same breath in the middle of 14 and thTi % ’ r ‘ Ch Raw !' nsoa
daim to the Haffar lands invalid, it
the foltvtfgreurr:-° ‘' emain “ P ° SSeSSi0n 0t ' the lands may therefore b « on
be in^nossession ^/thelT’ Z ZN l Rawlinson found these lands to
possession of the Kaab (p 14), and considered that Turkey could not advance
Tst to her ge0g '' aP " n t0 them ’ and tHat f ° r many years they had b -“ P-ctSy
Persia" Pf S ° IT® a f Mohammerah has been in possession of the Ka'ab or of
n- Si ha 1 ' e these lands been m possession of the Kaab, and that the ruling of
rnnctrl + 1 anmng at p. 14, that the principle of uti possidetis might be
considered to apply to that district without injustice,” applies equally to Mohammerah
and. to the lamar and other lands m question.
i /t ^' lr , ®^ a ^* or d Canning’s statement that the Persians were not in possession of the
e oank of the Shatt-el-Arab higher than Mohammerah is directly contradicted by
the contemporary evidence of Major Rawlinson at the foot of p. 14 of his memorandum
ot the 6th January, 1844.
3. That the claim made on behalf of Persia in 1850 of ancient occupation has been
vastly strengthened by over sixty years of continued undisputed possession by Persia,
and recognition of Persian sovereignty by local representatives of the Turkish Govern
ment in many ways and on many different occasions.
4. lhat the boundary as now observed has for many years been commonly and
officially recognised as such by all concerned, both Arabs, Persiaus, and Turks. Cairns
and other marks have been put up in the vicinity of the boundary line by common
consent. (See (a) “Gazetteer,” p. 1257 ; (b) paragraph 4 , p. 51, Wilsons precis; (c)
paragraph 4, p. 52, idem,; (d) paragraph 5, Lieutenant Wilson’s letter of the nth May,
1912, forwarded to Foreign Office and India under Resident’s letter of the 6th May.)
-\t Di’aiji, just beyond the boundary, there exists a regular Turkish customs post
(see “ Gazetteer,” p. 110), the position of which implies the most explicit recognition by
the Porte of the locally recognised boundary.
In view of fifty years’ continuous recognition of the present boundary by their
local officials, it is surely impossible for the Turkish Government to claim some other
line and refuse to be bound by the acts and omissions of its own agents. Qui facit per
alium facit per se.
5. That the explanatory note in no way bears on these particular lands ; Mr.
Wellesley (at p. 24) does not say that, the lands referred to in the second explanatory
note are immediately above Mohammerah, and it may be reasonably presumed that the
Porte was contemplating, with not unnatural anxiety, the lands above Di’aiji and
almost opposite Bussorah, which were then, as now, mostly in the hands of the Ka’ab
(see Lorimer’s “Gazetteer,” pp. 108 to 111 , which shows the Muhaisin to be in
practically in continuous occupation, as freeholders or leaseholders of Turkish territory,
of the whole left bank of the river above Di’aiji to within 6 miles of Bussorah).