'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎13v] (37/1904)

20
(65) Hasan Samaiyeh v)as acting entirely company
he concluded the agreement with Wdnclc}iam.—l{ he thought this and thought they
would approve, whefe was the need for secrecy and prevarication ?
{66) Accordingly, Esa's complaint was
ground for Shaikh Sakar to give any judicial
—It is not contended that Shaikh Sagar has given a judicial decision as between
the partners. He merely exercised the right which he enjoys, as a law unto him
self, in regard to his own territory by cancelling a concession in what he believed
to be the interests of the partners and himself. (See also items 46 and 48).
As soon as the German Government has ceased endeavouring to drag the
matter into the realm of politics, such measures are necessary in order to arrive
at an adjustment of interests or claims among the concessionaires, who are all
British subjects, will become possible. This is purely a matter concerning the
Shaikh and ourselves.
(67) 2. Could Shaikh Sakar cancel the
interest of the administration of the country?
In the first place it is not easy to understand agreement
can he regarded as a letting of the mines to M —Stress cannot belaid on
the precise bearing of the particular English word used. Remember it is a ques
tion of the translation of a vernacular word. In this case it is the word used by
Esa, Shaikh Sagar and Abdul Latif in reference to the document passed to Mr.
Wonckhaus . The word is " I jar eh " ( ) or " Ijar " ( ), the latter being
merely a contraction of the former. The word has a much more elastic signi
fication than our word " lease It includes" hire "—" rent"—" farm "—" a pri
vilege or income of variable amount sold or let for a fixed sum Similarly " Ijareh-
dar " ( ) in Persian and its equivalent " Mustajir " ( ) in Arabic
= " A farmer or renter of land or revenue "—" a lease-holder —" a monopo
list "—" a hirer Perhaps " farm " would be more appropriate than " let " or
lease " in the present case.
We are indebted to 1st German Memorandum, Enclosures 6 and 8, for render
ing " lease." The reason why the persons above-mentioned have applied this terra
" Ijar " to the instrument in this case and hftve not merely called it a "contract "
or " deed of sale " is plain from theirl letters enclosure 12 of 1st German
Memorandum and 17 of British Memorandum, namely that the deed granted a
monopoly and left the partners no power of control of the output or modification
of the contract. It was thus an " Ijar ".
{68) Sakar's fear that the agreement may
mines being gradually lost to the owner * * *
the island of Abu Musa from Shargah, is so
to discuss it.
It is also strange that * * Shaikh SaTcar should wish British sub jeets to
treated differently from those of other Powers. —Shaikh Sagar's apprehensions are not
so baseless in practice as they seem to be to the German Government in theory.
These Arab Shaikhs have no speedy means of communication with their outlying
possessions, no men-of-war to cruise and keep an eye on them. As late as 1904
Shaikh Sagar was put to a great deal of anxiety and inconvenience because an over-
zealous Belgian Director of Customs, anxious to make history, went over to the
Island in a Persian Customs steamer and hauled down his flag, hoisting the Persian
flag instead.
The British Government, which protects these Shaikhs in regard to their exter
nal affairs, speedily took the matter up and had it righted to the Shaikh's satisfac
tion, but the incident naturally gave him a fright and made him suspicious.
The action of the German firm and German representatives in this case has
certainly not been calculated to allay those suspicions. Although in the argu
ments adduced in this case they have repeatedly declared that the contract entered