'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎327r] (680/1904)

been working there and heavy esctjensea have been Incurred'
: x * Th ®y di<l not nako any objection all the tlao" 1
TJiat tlie execution of such an instrument incompatible
with Abdul Latif'« repeated injunctions and Ksajn's ovm pro-
testations le clearly desonetrated by th© oorreepondenoe
oubr.it ted on 1st x -lnrch 1908. Aaong the latter I woiUd point
to Hasan* c letters of Roth January 1905 and P<th July 1906,
t^hich aid not fora encloourec to the previous ^©raorsndtsa
to the u- BtrtBxt CI ova rn^i snt«
($6). ut { UM j QOIM ) milTBm KKPmuSTAfEa t "IF WS ARE HOT
'MT.OF ORftim A Oiafij?a pnict WE OFT THE fDSMtK
AQRKSSEKT QAUGmJMF .
Mr. Malcolai did not favour with a copy of this letter
and the line of arrjuaent or persuasion used therein in un
fortunate but it trill be noted that it wae written in reply
to Haaan »8 letter to hla dated 14th October 1906 (Enclosure
Ho. 14 of British Memorandum), and after Malcolm 1 a eossaml-
cations to rae on. the .subject of Hacan*n Intrigueo with the
u ens an fijra 'and his refusal to supply a copy of the Contract
(vide his letter© to me referred to In Itess above). The
object of the airsive was oinply to allay euapiciona
and induce his to send a copy of the contract, and I eup-
pose Mr. Maicols worded It in the tensa moot likely In his
opinion to have the desired result.
(57). tlHEil HALOOUC LA?RH OH HECFIV^ A 00W 01? TllM AQREKSKST
HE SAID HO MOKE ABOUT IT AHS AOOORJHHOLY AOQIJIKSCED I!f IT.
It will be seen fron his letter to me that he did not
acquiesce, but by the tl»© he got the cony (not till De
cember) I had also then got one and he was ami ting informal
advice froia ne as to *hat action he should take. I could
give hisi none because he had not produced hie deed of part
nership.
I thinfe we might aay that Malcolm did protest to the
Hesidenoy both at the conclusion of the contract without his
being consulted *md at the refusal of Hasan to supply hia
with