ملف رقم ٣٨٤٦ لسنة ١٩١٠ "بلاد الرافدين: شؤون بغداد. مسائل متنوعة." [ظ‎‎٦‎٨] (٥٣٦/١٤٥)

Youb Excellency,
British Residency and Consulate-General,
Baghdad, 19th December 1910.
Under the instructions conyeyed in
23rd
(a) Main enclosures are :—
I. Baghdad estimates ;
II. Kadhimain estimates ;
III. Karbala estimates.
(ft) In the case of Buildings I. E. and F. notice has
been issued and demolition will he carried out in
a few days. In the case of Building 1. B demo-
lation has been begun and to a considerable
extent carried out. In the other cases demolition
has been completed.
At Baghdad the compensation to
follows : —
Cost of reconstruction .
Value of Land ....
Incidental losses
Your Excellency’s despatch of the
October 1910, I have the honour
to enclose (a) detailed estimates of the
losses lately (b) suffered by British sub
jects owning house and shop property at
Baghdad, Kadhimain and Karbala, in
consequence of the action of the local
Turkish authorities. The complexity of
the enclosures, which contain references
to former correspondence, is regretted :
but it is unavoidable.
be demanded has been assessed as
£. T.
S,117-28*
1,115-27
632-56
Total
&. T. 4,865T1*
I venture to hope that the value of the land taken, whether exigible or
not under the Turkish law, will be demanded of the Turkish Government, for
the claim is clearly equitable. In one instance the site was a more important
asset than the building (see Enclosure I—D). It also appears to me that the
claim on account of incidental losses is worthy of acceptance.
At Kadhimain the compensation proposed is £ T. 89 , 36 and it is entirely
on account of a building destroyed. As the building formed a bridge across a
street at some distance" above the ground there is no question, in this case,
of loss of site; and no claim has been made on account of incidental losses.
At Karbala the compensation due is estimated by the British Vice-Consul,
a copy of my correspondence with whom is enclosed, at £.T. 369^. The Vice-
Consul’s report is not so clear as could be wished; but it seems better, as the
amounts at stake at Karbala are comparatively small, not to delay the whole
case for a second reference to him. The Vice-Consul’s valuation seems to me
to be an under-estimate inasmuch as it does not, except in the case of Haji
Mirza Ahmad’s shop, include anything on account of loss of ground. If Your
Excellency, as I respectfully recommend, presses for compensation on account
of land as well as on account of buildings, the sum of £.T. 76 02 might be
claimed under that head and the head of incidental losses at Karbala, which*
W'ould not be excessive and would make
up the total amount of the Karbala claim
•it will be seen that the Vice-Consul has omitted
the cost of re-building of one shop, for which also
provision has to be made.
to £.T. 445-52^. The three persons
The whole bill,
r-t S.
Baghdad
Kadhimain
Karbala
described by the Vice-Consul as having
waived their rights only did so because they did not think that they could get
satisfaction locally, and they should not therefore be now excluded from the
list of persons entitled to compensation.
The whole bill, if my proposals are approved, will be as follows :—
£. T. 4865-11*
89-36
445-52*
Total £. T.
5400-00
A
(»
r i
mm**