Manuscript of Persia and the Persian Question (Continued) [‎199r] (397/690)

2 .0 (TO
led 0°^
^ lhk<u£ fc(a^l_ Lt. ccVr<Jc^c^ (i t- £f . jrttXJ Z C-J-JUjuj
^ '-/JL>' if) i ^ ^
Q^ l ^ 'l-C X^J-tTY&X C<r^K*-*-*~Jl_£
T*. . Crt*—o o-ex-e) , (m'
Z^CfZ- C <r^ y ^-o^ei_B_
< kj-c^ ^ 2.. 2 &a ooo
2k<- <£l ^ tS''
fcTB cod
3 0~cf~e)
^3 S'S Z> O OO ,
<Jec*
o-^C) f-2
t&MKf - Jjl-
f o~~
i, fr'^c. /^ rn '
d fd fly
^ftUr^cA^ ^ rfv^^ ^
Vift Treblzond .,’ £1,841,W8
Via Russia .. ..^ 876,600
Via Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. « 3,060,074
Exports.
Via Prebizond
Via Rnssia ..-1
Via Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran.
£778,200
1.166,551
2,421,358
,eaft talles^efontain a preliminary error in the
substitution of Trebizond for Turkey, the Trebi-
zond figures being ^I)r about one-third of the abo 7 e
totai, and no mention being made of the trade
tudBaedad. Apart from this error, I -cannot but
^"'k that both tables are very much exaggerated.
Let me apply a double test. Goods imported or
exported tndthe Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. must almost of
necessity pass through the ports of J 3 ushiro,
Lingah, or Blinder Abbas, the remaining Persian
ports along the coast—Mohammerah, Dilam,
Big*, Khamer, Minau, and Jask, doing, as their
customs returns show, a relatively very small
amount of business (and that for the most part
with goods already in transit to or from the throe
larger ports), wiwi 4 i» 4 « incapable of appreciably
'affecting the totals. In the total of exports
fiofir Hu shire, Lingah, and Binder Abbas com
bined was £4,817)053 ; the total of imports into
the three same_ ports, ^l-ftlu.OOo, figtires which,
even if they we're not^exaggerated, as I shall show
them i«<My nojtt letter to be, are absolutely irre-
concilable #ith thpse given above. In other words,
-Idrevtotal volume of the Gulf trade was £6,000,436,
instead pf £5^71,432, as given in the '^"Starbes-
maids ¥bht Do»k’, w it being impossible 'that the
bade of the six minor ports should amount to
more than an infinitesimal fraction of the differ-
/C
ie_^)
t >rf-
JL
ence.^The second test that I would apply is that
of the import trade into Persia frOmpTurkey, re
turned above as £1,841 678. Almost the? ^dle
avenues through which this trade passes on'any
appreciable scale are from Trebizond^-md-Taferifr,
and from Bagdad, md Khan|k»4 andKerihanshah!
The Iftiost figures of the Trebizond .transit trade
W)*t I Itavo-wk.h nve—via.for 188B^give the total
value of goods passing through that port en route
for Tabriz as £010,rt3fl. At Bagdad I Iksed ascer
tained that the approximate annVifd value of goods
^Pp^ed from or rid that place into Persia^.i»
£270,000. Adding these figures, we got a total of
About £ 000,000 for the whole import trade from
Turkey—again a serious divergence from the re-
turns before quoted. ~J ‘
JJsirTiA** it/)*-**. A
?/
Cl
/ LXC [ J
i3-5rj-o8-y
i jot. 7<ro
C o.vt'
J
-A—-O^ j 'L'C
A
C_
4
A 4-