ملف رقم ٣٤٥ لسنة ١٩٠٨ الجزء الثاني "المحمرة: الوضع. نزاع الشيخ مع والي البصرة. تقليد الشيخ وساماً. تجديد التطمينات للشيخ". [ظ‎‎١‎٢‎١] (٥٦٦/٢٤٧)

from a British Indian sailing vessel at Abul Khasib. He states that he asked the
authorities to capture the pirates and recover the stolen property. The Turkish
official at Abul Khasib failed to report the outrage, and no energetic measures
were taken until 4 telegrams from the Grand Vizier, as well as one from the
Sultan’s Private Secretary, had been received. Even then, the men arrested
Were not the real culprits, but men who had incurred the enmity of the police by
complaining of their misdoings to Constantinople. y
12. Mr. Crow’s Despatch No. 36, of 8th May 1907, to Sir N. O’Conor, is
also of interest in this connection, as showing that, at that time, river troubles
were due to Turkish bad faith with the Arab tribes and troubles in Basrah to the
inefficiency of the Administration. In the latter regard I may quote the
following:—
There is no improvement in public security. * * Mr
Hickey, the British subject who was attacked and robbed by an
armed force of brigands * * on May 3rd, narrowly
escaped being stabbed. * * The police were not, and never
are, on the spot, the gendarmes charged with patrolling the
streets are absent from their posts and view these incidents from a
safe distance, being much too callous to interfere, or what is still
more likely) in league with the robbers themselves. House after
house is looted with impunity, while the Turks waste valuable
time in fruitless judicial enquiries and in the pursuit of robbers
who seem well-known, but who invariably elude the mock vigilance
of the executive officers.”
13. Again, in 1908, during Mr. Geary’s tenure of the office of Consul in
Basrah, several piracies occurred in the Shatt-el-Arab, which formed the subject,
of complaint by^Mr. Geary to the then VVali. In one case only was it suggested
that the Sheikh’s Arabs were responsible, and, on enquiry at Mohammerah, it
turned out that, though the boatload of pirates pushed off from and returned’to
the Persian shore, it was believed that they did this to hide their identity, as
Arabs on the Turkish side were reported a few days later to be dividing the spoil.
No action was taken by the Turks, and the writer was informed by Mr. Geary
himself that the nerveless and corrupt administration of the Basrah Vilayet was
in his opinion, responsible for the disturbances. '
,. kf ’ Sheikh may be excused for doubting that the situation, in 1910, is
radically different from that described above by Mr. Crow. He adds that a still
commoner method of the police, and likely to be popular in proportion to the
efficiency of the courts of justice, is to assert that the criminal has fled to Persian
soil.
Mr. Crow s _ statement, in his letter to me of 27th April, that he
has repeatedly, in previous years, drawn the attention of His Majesty’s
Government to the attitude of the Sheikh in regard to river troubles generally,
and to disturbances in Basrah in particular, is not supported by the archives
0f l hl ™ l 16 - ^ e 3 ?ond the M aghil case, {vide paragraph 6), and the troubles
with Moharrem Bey reported m Mr. Crow’s Despatch No. 17, of 10th
March 1909, to Constantinople, Mr. Crow seems to have made no complaints
agamst the Sheikh, and in the latter case he apparently did not think the matter
ot sufficient importance to warrant his sending a copy of his Despatch on the sub-
lf C 1 1S 1 ^ a J es ^y s Consul, Mohammerah. The first intimation received
t? 6 ., aiter ^> as . . a C0 Py Despatch in question received from
n at ? ushi r e > ( who had himself received it from the Resident at
Baghdad), together with a request for an expression of view in the subject.
15. This is the crux of the accusation against Muhammad Chanan which
led to the attack on Zain, and was the
u fons et origo malV\ though it is wholly
denied by the Sheikh. I have made most
careful enquiry from several sources, and
am unable to obtain any confirmation
of the Wall’s statements.
. .^ s re g ar ds attacking farms, not only can I obtain no corroboration, but also
1 13 inher ently improbable that he would do such a thing, since practically all the
Muhammad Chanan Opposed a detachment sent
after him for attacking several farms.
(Wall’s letter to f ersian Consul-General No. 18.)
Muhammad Chanan committed aggression on
Turkish lands, threatened to kill the owners, collec
ted an armed force to oppose the gendarmes of the
State, and supported rebellion.
(Acting Wali’s letter of loth May.)