Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎72v] (144/644)

44
waters was in itself an offence being avoided in the fourth case. In the first case
the Persian Government took the line that the vessel was not on the high seas at
the time; in the second they ignored the high seas point and simply said that if
a vessel was suspect, it was only natural that a warship should search it; in the
third no reply had been received by the end of the year; in the fourth they replied
that no visit by a customs launch to Muscat waters at the date mentioned could
be traced.
279. The Persian navy was also active against Persian dhows. One of the
more sensational incidents was an encounter between the Shahrokh and two dhows
which fired upon her off Shibkuh in March and later proved to contain a gang
of organised smugglers. This may have been the occasion of a story told by the
Italian Charge d’Affaires, who alleged that in one encounter the Persian officers
and men went to ground in the engine-room when the firing started, and that the
warship only escaped capture because two Italian engineers, fearing that the
smugglers might be too excited in the confusion of the moment to distinguish
between Persians and foreigners and, consequently, kill them in the general
massacre, rallied to her defence (but not out of any love for the Persians).
280. These and similar incidents were the outcome of the decline in the
customs revenues which had been making itself felt for some time, much to the
Shah’s annoyance. This decline was attributed by the Persian Government to the
prevalence of smuggling, which the Trade Monopoly Law and high tariffs
render inevitable, although in reality the Trade Monopoly Law restrictions were
sufficient by themselves to account for a large loss of revenue. However this may
be, there can be no doubt that the Persian official world is slightly hysterical on the
subject of smuggling at the present time.
Slave Trade.
281. No cases of slavery were reported during the year.
Tamb and Abu Musa.
282. On the 23rd July the Persian warship Palang visited Tamb, and a
party which included the commander and a French lighting expert (see
paragraph 264) landed and inspected the lighthouse. They remained about
ten minutes, drew a sketch plan and gave the lighthouse keeper a signed certificate
that all was in order.
283. A vigorous protest was addressed to the Persian Government in the
name of the Sheikh of Ras-ul-Khaimah, to whom the island belonged. Exception
was taken to the visit of the warship without prior notification through the
diplomatic channel, and to the official inspection by Persian officers of a lighthouse
that was neither Persian property nor on Persian soil. Attention was also drawn
to the breach of the status quo involved.
284. The Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed regret at the time, but it
was not until the 21st October that a written reply was received. This reply
sought to vindicate the action of the Palang on the ground that the Persian
Government regarded Tamb as their property, not only de jure but de facto (which
was absurd), and on the latter ground swept the status quo argument aside. Up
to the end of the year no reply had been sent to this note, the tone of which was
undoubtedly inspired by the mudir incident at Basidu.
285. In September the Sheikh of Ras-ul-Khaimah told the senior naval
officer that he had received from Tehran a letter asking him to lease the Island of
Tamb to the Persian Government. He was unable to produce this letter when
called upon to do so, and it was probably mythical.
. ( B ) East Persia.
Baluchistan Frontier.
286. In the spring the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on several occasions
took exception to the fact that the Government of India were repairing the levy
post at Qila Sefid (they thought at first that the Government of India were
building a new post altogether). They took the line that this post lay in