'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎120r] (244/386)

135
Sir A. Hardinge, in June 1905, to do what was possible to mitigate the severities
of the Reglement as against Afghans in Seistan, which was done, but no result was
obtained officially before Lord Curzon left India. By an informal arrangement,
M. Molitor consented to exempt from the charge all Afghans other than bond
fide traders or travellers. But the existence of the rule supplied the underling
officials posted on the frontier with opportunities of extortion, of which they
were not slow to assail themselves, and at the suggestion of Lieutenant Keyes who
urged M. Molitor either to improve the passport service or obtain permission to
do away with passports for that portion of the frontier where most families have
members on both sides, he telegraphed to M. Nans suggesting the latter course.
It is w r orthy of note that General Schindler, Chief of the Passport Bureau at
Tehran, informed a member of His Majesty’s Legation that the accounts of the
Department for the province of Seistau showed a deficit of £1,100 in a single
year due to peculation or shrinkage in trade.
27. It has already been seen* that during the negotiations for a second
* chapter it, paragraph is, page 2 Sf. loan to Persia the Piussian G overnment
Russian Telegraph Activity. demanded that a Russian telegraph line
from Meshed along the Afghan frontier to Seistan should be constructed and
made by the Persian Government out of the proceeds of the new million to be
lent by Russia as compensation for the grant to the British Government of
the Central Persian line and that the condition was modified to the extent of a
verbal promise that the services of Russian signalfers would be employed on
this line by the Persian Ministry of telegraphs and that its Seistan end
should not be connected with the Central Persian line or the Indian telegraphic
system.
28. By February 1903 the Meshed-Seistan line had reached a point beyond
Birjand and was expected to reach Nasratabad early in May.
29. The presence of Colonel McMahon’s Mission on the frontier was consi
dered a good reason for introducing an English signaller into the Seistan office
and keeping him there to ensure the despatch of Cypher messages to Meshed and
Tehran which might otherwise be tampered with. A suggestion to this effect was
accordingly made by His Majesty’s Minister, Tehran, in February 1903. The
Government of India fully recognized the advantage of the proposal, but
suggested that for relief purposes two signallers should be sent up and these
reached Nasratabad on the 13th June 1903. By this time the field line
necessitated by Colonel McMahon’s Mission in Seistan had been opened to
Dalbandin and steps were being taken to carry it on to Robat, which it
reached on the 15th January 1904. It was eventually carried to Hurmak, 15
miles beyond, on Persian territory and there linked up with the Central Persian
line in May.
30. This action regarding the signallers upset the arrangements of the
Russians for the M.eshed-Seistan line, though the fact did not come to light
till November 1903, On the 18th of that month Mr. Grant Duff reported on
the authority of the Minister of Telegraphs that seven months before the
Russian Government had secretly concluded an arrangement with the Persian
Government for the constrnction of a B-ussian line between Bajgiran and
Kuchan and for placing two Russian Superintendents and three signallers on
the Meshed-Seistan line, basing their request on the ground that the line had
been constructed with money lent by Russia ; they further pressed the Persian
Government for permission to place signallers at Yezd and Kerman on the
Central Persian line. To this demand the Persian Government replied that
the British signallers in Seistan were there temporarily during the Boundary
Commission. 4 hey, however, asked His Majesty’s Government to withdraw the
British signallers forthwith so as to enable them to resist Russian pressure.
The Government of India, on being consulted, advised on 22nd December 1903
against the proposal, pointing out that there was no similarity between the cases
of the British signallers in Seistan and Russian signallers on the Central Persian
line as the former were only there to balance the Russian signallers on the
Meshed'Seistan line, which was alleged to be a purely Persian line. It was
pointed out to the Musbir-ed-Dowlehthat, as the Central Persian line was leased
to the Indo-European Department under a special convention between Great
Britain and Persia it could not be regarded as affording a precedent for placing
Russian signallers on the Seistan line which was a Persian line, or for the demand