ملف رقم ٣٤٥ لسنة ١٩٠٨ الجزء الثاني "المحمرة: الوضع. نزاع الشيخ مع والي البصرة. تقليد الشيخ وساماً. تجديد التطمينات للشيخ". [و‎‎١‎٢‎٠] (٥٦٦/٢٤٤)

of the Basrah authorities against him for the alleged harbouring of offenders.
His Majesty’s Government and Embassy have no exposition of the Sheikh’s side
of the question, but have a case against Mohammerah based on Basrah
reports during the last few years.
Telegram P., No. 549, dated 25th May iqio.
From—The Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, Bushire,
To—His Majesty's Consul, Mohammerah.
Turkish action at Mohammerah. Reference recent telegraphic corres
pondence.
Until I learn the views and wishes of His Majesty’s Government, I think it
would be better for me to defer going to Mohammerah.
Please make the Sheikh some suitable explanation and explain to him that
it does not appear to signify if his reply is delayed for a few days.
You should go through with him the Turkish accusations against him, and
record fully what he has to say in reply to them, and his version of the Basrah-
Mohammerah question generally, for the information of Government. We have
never had it from the Sheikh himself.
As regards the co-operation required by the Turks, is there any particular
item in regard to which he is unable or unwilling to comply ? We must insist
that he shall do everything that is possible and reasonable in this direction.
No. 566, dated the 4th June 1910.
From— Lieutenant A. T. Wilson, I.A., His Majesty’s Acting Consul,
Mohammerah,
To—The Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, Bushire.
I have the honour to state that, in compliance with your telegrams No. 467,
dated 8th May 1910, and 549 of 25th May 1910, I have gone into the question
of the Turkish complaints and allegations against the Sheikh of Mohammerah
with the latter, and now record below, for your information, his replies to the
various allegations and complaints made against him by the Wall of Basrah,
together with a translation of his letter in reply to the latter. I also submit a
precis showing the progress of the negotiations between the Sheikh and the
Wali, and the attitude adopted by His Majesty’s Consul, Basrah, and myself,
at each stage. I have also included his replies to various allegations set forth
by Mr. Crow, which, though not coming officially from the Turks, may be
presumed to show the attitude of the latter towards the Sheikh. I would invite
a reference to my despatch No. 441—37, of May 7th, 1910, to His Majesty’s
Legation, Tehran, on the subject of the dispute between the Wali and the
Sheikh.
2. I have also added, where it seemed necessary, my own comments and
those of Mr. McDouall, as recorded in the archives of the Consulate. The
Turkish allegation is shown in every casein the margin, with an indication of the
precise document in which it was contained.
The Sheikh replies that it was never alleged, as far as he knows, that any
servant of his Agent was implicated : and
the Wali never suggested such a thing
to him. No more has been heard of this
accusation. The Wali, about 15th April,
showed him a list of seven persons wanted
in connection with the Minawi incident.
The Sheikh promised to arrest them if they were in his territories. He at once
sent agents in all directions, and in four days time heard that three of them were
in the Mohammerah District. He induced them by stratagem to come to
Failiyah, and imprisoned them. Troubles with the Wali then ensued, totally
Robbers attacked a house at Minawi near Basrah
in March 1910 : one of the robbers, said to be a
servant of the Sheikh’s Agent, reported that he
had fled to Mohammerah, and that that Sheikh
refused to give him up
(Mr. Crow’s Despatch No. 22, dated 22nd April
1910.)