'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎63r] (136/1904)

43
Las been able to ao little good with the oxide hitherto, partly from inexperience of the
Tt^nr^vir^'?on P tSf P 1 S ' m S ettin g an indifferent lot for his last shipment.
It is probable, too, that he coula not have success with it for a considerable time to come,
S3y mipecT 6 m P 18 alread y mined before he is given any more
Vi 11 ^ realise^however, from Mr. Frank Stride's letter, of which I attach a
In " r JGa ? m^orta.ntfuture before the Abu Musa industry, and we
need to take due account of that fact. J
.1 ^ (nagraplL6. , do not quite like the idea of the new concession being granted to
the same three concessionnaires and would have preferred other individuals, if it were
Ci.Ji^iucrei possi jfe J realise, however, that the German firm and Government will
not be inclined to throw their mends Hassan and Abdalla Samuiyeh overboard; that
tjie grounds atxduced by Mr. Hurst m paragraph 11 of his minute are weighty, and
. 1 :- 10 ■' ? liecessa iy to admit Hassan, in order to simplify the question of compen-
sa ion. . ut is it necessary to include Abdalla f He is a troublesome rascal, always
up to some mischief or intrigue, and I should welcome his exclusion from the con
cession itself, and so, I am sure, would the Sheikh of Shargah and the third partner,
! e s "5 ) uld have to see that the sheikh {cum Salim) got a fair price for the new
concession. He could not be expected to grant it for the equivalent of 20/. per annum
as at present. 1
Paragraph7.—According to my idea, the compensation would be "recovered"
,' " V ' i!tin , paid oy His Majesty s Government, but I realise the convenience and
es-.ra -lui-y drawn attention toby Mr. Hurst, ol having the compensation fixed iudicially
rather than diplomatically.
Paragraph 8. I agree ; but I suggest that it should be stipulated that concession-
naires shou^.i nave no authority to sell a monopoly of the output.
Paragraph 9.—It is most important, in my judgment, not to let this dispute be
removed at any stage from the sphere of jurisdiction of the Government of India and
tneii iepreseni-ativb, qua,resident in the Gulf, to which it, properlv speaking, belongs,
r or tins reason the High Court of Bombay seems indicated as the tribunal whose
iunction it would be to depute a judicial officer to try the case.
Paragraph 10.—My views coincide with Mr. Hurst's. The refusal by Germany
ota fair commercial settlement or compromise would greatly operate in our favour in the
event of the dispute going to The Hague.
. t a ragrayh- II (vide Paragraph 6).—As I have said, the prospect of the concession
going back to these same concessionnaires is an unpleasant one, and will not, I think, be
p^lata 5He to the skeikh 3 but I cannot deny the force of Mr, Hurst's observations in
this paragraph. I trust, however, that in any case it will be possible to eliminate
Abdalla.
1 ■_ the suggestions oi Mr. Hurst and myself in the direction of commercial settle
ment or compromise nre to any extent entertained, I would venture to suggest that the
precise lines which the wording of the new concession and contract might 0 follow should
be discussed verbally—by departmental representatives in consultation—and then
resubmitted for consideration.
P OOX
February 12, 1910.
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Messrs. F. G.Strick a
Dear Major Cox, 8, 1910.
REFERRING to my conversation with you a few days ago, I have now had an
opportunity ot going into our correspondence with Messrs. A. and T. J. Malcolm, of
Bushire, during 1906 and 1907, from which it would appear that early in 1906
Haji Hassan Ben^ Ali Sumaya sold to Messrs, Robert Wonckhaus and Co. a parcel of
about 700 tons of Abu Musa oxide, which was bagged and shipped from the island to
Kurrachee, where it was transhipped for Hamburg, I believe, in some of the Hamburg-
American Line steamers (see copy of A. and T. J. Malcolm's letter of the 28th April
1906, herewith enclosed).*
* Not printed.
[2643 d—1] c