ملف رقم ٦٠٠ لسنة ١٩٠٥ الجزء ٥ "المنطقة الداخلية لعدن: معاهدة مع سلطان بلحاف" [ظ‎‎١‎١‎٨] (١٥٢/٢٠)

10
occupation of Balahaf on the present occasion because, before he could usefully
do so, information was received that the Resident had returned to Aden,
punitive action had been taken, and it had become clear that His Highness the
Sultan of Shehr and Mokalla would be sufficiently occupied in his own territory.
33nt His Excellency is of opinion that it would form an effective warning to
these Chiefs to tell them through the brother now at Aden that if restitution
be not made, or if their harbour continue to be an object of suspicion in
regard to the arms trade, it will be necessary for Covernment to consider very
seriously whether they can be permitted to continue to control it. If a warning
of that character be approved, the Chief now in dention at Aden might be
released in order to bear it as a prolonged detention is in any case out of the
question. Apart from the above, a sufficient punishment for the offence appears
to have been exacted, and if restitution is secured cither by the measures taken
by the Resident or as a result of a message as above suggested, the incident
will, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, have been very sufficientsy
dealt with.
No. 106, dated the 18th March 1901.
From— Majou H. M. Abud, Acting Political Resident, Aden,
To—J. L. Jenkins, Esq., Acting Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Political
Department.
I have the honour to inform you that on the llth instant, I had an inter
view with the following persons :—
Sultan Saleh bin Abdullah, the Wahidi,
Sultan Ahmed bin Saleh „
Sultan Mohsin bin Saleh „
2. The first is the titular Chief of the Wahidi of Balahaf, the second is a
sharer in the port and was imprisoned in the Aden Jail in 1894 for infringe
ments of the Arms Act, while the third is the former Chief of the Walndi, who
left his country in 1894 owing to internal dissensions caused by his wish to sell
Balahaf to the French, which was induced through anger at the imprisonment
of his brother, Ahmed bin Saleh, and whose name w^as omitted from the Treaty
of 1895 owdng to his conduct in trying to sell the port to either the French or
the Turks.
3. These persons handed me four documents, namely, (1) a document
signed by the first two to the effect that Mohsin bin Saleh, who w^as deposed
in 1891 for the reasons above named, should become the titular Chi^f of the
Wahidi and that the Protectorate Treaty of 1895 should be binding on him ;
(2) a document binding all three not to sell Balahaf to any one and including
the Kayti; that Sultan Mohsin bin Saleh should not sell nor dispose of nor
lease to any Power, the Kayti, or any other person certain named places ; that
the shares in Balahaf and Gila should remain the same; (?) a duplicate of No.
2 ; (4) a paper purporting to elect Sultan Mohsin bin Saleh, the titular Chief
of the Wahidi. Translations of these documents are attached.
4. They all three admitted their signatures to 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and
stated that they were willing to abide by what w ? as written therein. In reply,
I informed them that, as Mohsin bin Saleh’s name had been omitted from the
Protectorate Treaty of 1895 and as he w r as at that time w r ell known to be a well-
wisher of any Government rather than the British and that he had endeavoured
to sell Balahaf to a foreign Powder, I should refer the 'whole matter to Govern
ment together with the papers, and that until Government had replied I could
only recognize Sultan Saleh bin Abdullah as the titular Chief and that all cor
respondence, the payment of stipends and presents, etc., w r ould be made to him
and that I should hold him responsible for fulfilment of the obligations devolved
on him by the Treaty. It w ill be noticed that the exclusion of Mohsin bin
Saleh’s name from the Treaty of 189 ) had been remarked and provided for by
document 1, which imposes on him the responsibility of that Treaty. The three