'1902. THE LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON. TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA.' [‎145v] (301/412)

side to Turks. Had we contemplated that Your Lordship would interpret
limits of Wahab’s survey in this manner, we would never have recommended
delimitation.
Your Lordship now proposes to limit British Protectorate to a portion of
Amiri tribes, while not admitting Turkish rights over remainder. This seems
to us to be inconsistent with primary object of Commission, which was to
define boundary between Turkish province of Taiz and nine tribes, includino*
Amiris, under British Protectorate, and fatal to whole idea of delimitation.
What delimitation will there be if a No Man’s Land is left between the Turks
and Dthali to be squabbled over by both parties ?
Purther Your Lordship, while resting your case on shaded limit of
Wahab’s survey, now appears to contemplate modifications in favour of Turks
between A1 Kama and Jebel Jihaf; so that Wahab’s so-called line will every
where .be interpreted to our disadvantage, and nowhere in our favour. Your
Lordship has not replied to our argument about the status quo; and we are still
in doubt as to what are the character and date of the status quo for which we
are contending. May we remind you of your telegram of 26th March, in which
you said that Porte was being asked to limit enquiry to definition of actual
status quo on basis laid down in Lord Granville’s note of 10th January, 1883.
Thus Poreign Office definitely repudiated status quo of 1892, and endorsed
Lord Granville’s declaration that Sultan’s claims to sovereignty over tribes
under Amir of Lthali could not be recognised, and that interference with them
would not be permitted. Present proposals of Your Lordship seem to us to
involve complete abandonment of this position.
Our difficulties have been enhanced throughout by fact that Your Lordship
has issued the majority of your orders to our officers over our heads, and have
now repeated your last instructions to Besident at Aden without giving us an
opportunity for reply. We can find no precedent for such procedure, which
peaces Government of India in invidious position of not being able to advise
Your Lordship until after you have already taken action.
We venture to think that opinions of Government of India deserve more
consideration than Your Lordship has bestowed upon them. We do not know
i advice or Inter-departmental Committee also represents decision of Cabinet,
it matter has not been referred to latter, we now ask that correspondence,
me ut mg recent representations of Bombay Government, Besident, and Com
missioner, may be placed before them. It is our duty, before His Majesty’s
Government are finally committed, respectfully to represent that in unanimous
opmion ot all the Indian authorities, who are the responsible advisers of Your
± S , • 1 ^’ • , e arian £ emen t now contemplated will be impracticable, injurious
to British interests, and certain to break down in near future.
i, ^ e su ?g es f that Your Lordship , should see Davies who is now at home, or
Should summon Besident, to join with O’Conor in conferences.