'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎10r] (30/1904)

13
Sagar as Rilling Shaikh consented. We concede that in the case of the mica con
cession Salim was not acting as Regent, but was then acting in consultation with
bagar ana with his concurrence.
.i f fl, 16 t ' iiat " ® akar 13 t3:le owner of the oxide mines, " but
a ^hng Shaikh of fehargah owns them, and Sakar occupies that position at
present. (See items 31 and 32).
(08). Sakar had nonght from the poi
agreement of his -own motion ".-In this matter the Ruling Shaikh is a law unto
nimseii. v\ aen he cancelled the concession he was dealing with persons subiect to
no iurisdiction, but his own, and that of the British Government, and was entitled
to act as aepleased to the extent to which the latter Government chose to acquiesce
regaxds their suujects. The British Government considered his action war
ranted under the circumstances and declined to intervene in behalf of their subj ect.
Tne lessees, ana es-peQially AbdulLatif,
cess%on) for as long as 'possible ; accordingly stipvlation
was omitted in the second agreement—In view of the terms of the first and rejected
agreement lu is difficult to maintain the arguments adopted in Clause 2 of our first
Memorandum of July 10th, 1908, or avoid the conclusion that the omission
of the specified period was made by concessionaires in their own interests.
Having regard to the lact that Abdul Latif drafted the agreement in its
fma) form and that the right of the concessionaires to use the mines as long
as they wished, was provided for in both versions, it can hardly be said that the
time-limit was omitted in the second instrument simply to safeguard the lessor's
interests. I think the best line for us to take on this point is that it is difficult
to gauge the exact motive which prompted the omission, but if it was the one
suggested by the German Memorandum, and if the oxide business was then, as
they say, considered very profitable, and if it was intended by the lessee to bind
the lessors permanently, in return for a nominal rent of £20 per annum, then
there was obviously all the more reason for Sagar to put his foot down and cancel
the concession and for us to support him in so doing.
In omitting this time-limit, the astute concessionaires thoroughly over-reach
ed themselves, for it is clear that the abundant testimony of Mullahs and merchants
now forthcoming, that even if the lease were not revocable on any other grounds,
it was rendered invalid, both in clerical and mercantile law, on account of this very
omission of any time-limit. For the rest, the mere fact that Concession No. 1 was
rejected, shows that the irrevocability claimed was at any rate only compara
tive and not absolute.
(40) The question whether assuming that
the lease agreement because the lessee has begu
appear sufficient to him, Sakar, is one tha —This
was a reason or a part reason suggested by His Majesty's Government and not
given by the Shaikh himself, but it is a very natural one. He and Shaikh
Salim knew no more about the oxide prospects when the concession was granted,
than they did about the mica. They were simply exploited by 3 more astute busi
ness men. As soon as they came to realize that they had been "done", they
wanted to upset the arrangement,
(41) On the question of the. termination
been obtained from the leading merchants'
important clergy of Lingah,Shargah and —I append
a separate note (Annex 14) regarding the identity of the merchants and clergy
mentioned in the German Rejoinder, from which it will be seen that the
merchants quoted are by no means leading merchants, and that there are good
grounds for regarding their testimony with suspicion ; while the clergy are certainly
not the " most important "nor compare in repute with some of those whose
opinions I now produce.
(42) All the opinions eome practically *
commercial law the lease agreement is valid : lessor —As I have
mentioned above the commercial evidence given in the German rejoinder is in my
C205 FD '