'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.' [‎104r] (212/386)

opinion at Tehran on 19th Au-nst 1872 and gave the Persian and Afghan
Commissioners each a copy, with “ a map illustrating the country awarded by
the arbitral opinion.” Both Persia and Afghanistan appealed to the British
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs against the award, which was, however,
confirmed in full bv Lord Granville on <Jth Mnrch lS73. The map given with
the copy of the award was said to he only “ illustrative o the country
awarded,'’ and there was no reference to it in the award as being authon-
tative as regards the boundary line. The map in no way pretended to be an
accurate map, but was merely a sketch map prepared chiefly from native
information; various important points on the boundary line, notably Koh-i-
Malik Slab and the point where the line leaves the IMmand river northwards
were not visited at all by the survey officer, and he line drawn on the map was
drawn some months after General Goldsm.d le t Seistan from memory of a
country which he had very imperfect opportunities ot studying.
28 It was necessary, therefore, to depend for a definition of the line on the
written'arbitral opinion,'the relevant portions of which were as follows:-
(1) “ Persia should not possess land on the right of the Uelmand.
(i) “ The main hed of the Helmand, therefore, below Kohak should he
the eastern boundary of Persian Seistan.
an “ And the line of frontier from Kohak to the hills south of the
^ ^ Seistan desert should he so drawn as to include within the
Afghan limits all cultivation on both hanks ot the river from
the 1 band upwards. The Malik Blah Koh on the cl.a.u of lulls
separating the Seistan from the Kerman desert appears a fitting
point.
fiiil “ North of Seistan, the southern limit of the Naizar, should he the
° J frontier towards Lash Jowain. Persia should not cross the
Hamun in that direction. A line drawn from the baizar to the
Koh Siah near Bandan would clearly define her possession.
fiv> “ It is, moreover, to he well understood that no works are to be
^ carried out on either side calculated to interfere with the requi-
site supply of water for irrigation on both banks of the Uelmand.
On the representation of the Kabul Envoy to India, the Government of
t in 1 s73 asked for a definite ruling on the interpretation of this last clause,
and suggested that “ it cannot he understood as applying either to existing canals
of tonwh old and disused canalsas the Afghan Government may wish to put
not^diminished!”' 1 This interpretation was accepted by Her Majesty s Govern-
ment and was communicated to the Amir.
29 Such were the terms of the Goldsmid award, but the state of affairs
with regard to the Seistan boundary existing in 1U)2 was as follows :
In the north the Persians were in occupation of Takht-i-Shah on the
intnenort Ooldsmid’s line On the east the Helmand had
Afghan side of .Gf™ i a Goldsm l s line to tl)e llu(1 i.p ariatt
SSS »»■“ “n>« -'■* •>“ -r M •• ms
cnannei, son - a Deh-i-Host Muhammad on the west of the IS ad
vT^er u^ peraid by Ma or Benn to withdraw. On the south
Afghans had Dartially re-opened the old Tarakun canal, and, according
tol^rsian^omplamts! were opening up irrigation channels to Hauzdar and
Kuntdar across P the Persian side of the Goldsmid line.
30 As to the state of feeling on both sides, tho Persians had strongly
m-ed their claims to Takht i-Shah and the Tarakun tract in their appeal
uigea men toujuiu , . -.070 nnf i +i ie same feelings animated them
against the Goldsmid award m 1873,^^d^ I10 formal complaint had
eyerbeen made by the Afghans against the occupation ot Takht-iShah, and