'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎70r] (150/1904)

Sakar have given up such a sum to Salim ? if he had had the least vestige of a right to
it, without saying a word about this renunciation in his letter of the 22nd Febmary 5
1908, while he lays stress on his alleged grant of the 250 reals from the oxide mines as
an act of particular generosity/ on his part, and cites it as evidence of his ownership of
Abu Musa ?
In the document relative to the mica mines there is also a stipulation of importance
to the effect that the lessees and their employes may cut down keshkeshu^J^es, but
no other trees. This provision, too. is evidence that Salim disposes of the island as
owner.
Another document which is of importance as bearing on the question of ownership,
and which is connected with the mica concession, is the letter addressed by the British
consular agent Abdallatif to Hassan Samaihonthe 12th November, 1898 (27 Djumada II 3
1316), # that is about a month and a-half before the conclusion of the agreement
respecting the mica mines. Abdallatif and Hassan Samaih were at that time negotiating
with Salim both in regard to this concession and also in regard to another concession for
the exploitation of the salt and copper on the Island of Sir Abu Nuair. Abdahatif
writes that a dispute has arisen between Salim and Sakar in regard to Sir. He says
that Sakar proposes to conclude the lease agreement in his own name, and only allow
Salim a share of the profits, an arrangement which does not satisfy Salim. So that
Salim must ba.ve some reason for considering thcit Sir also belongs to him. In any case
the question is not settled, and the cautious Abdallatif, who has an accurate knowledge
of the circumstances, postpones the matter until the two sheikhs shall have settled the
point between them. While Abdallatif is unwilling to conclude an arrangement about
Sir because Sakar raises a claim to the island and Salim's right to it is disputed (the
Sir concession was never granted), he has no hesitation in concluding an agreement with
Salim about Abu Musa. Surely he would not have done this ifjie had had the
slightest doubt of Salim's title, more especially as there was already a dispute respecting
Sir. Moreover, Sakar, who, as shown above, was aware of the terms of the mica
opueession, would,certaiSly have tried in this case, as in that of Sir, to make good hWreal
or alleged rights, especially as a sum of 1,500 reals, a not inconsiderable amount for him,
was involved. If he did not do so, that is evidence that he had no doubt himself that
Salim was the owner of the island.
The facts given above are clear evidence that the Island of Abu Musa is the private
property of Sheikh Salim. This conclusion is supported by the opinion prevailing among
the most respectable natives on the point in question.
The merchant, Abdalmuhshi-ibn-Ahmed Almushari, who has had an intimate
acquaintance with the atfairs of the Pirate Coast for many years ; the merchant, French
consular agent, Abdarrahman-ibn-Muha,mmed-ibn-Kazim, who has permanent trade
connections with Shargeh ; as well as Hlmd-ibn-Khalifa Al'uyuni, merchant and agent
of the Sultan of Muscat—all three residents of Lingah—have declared in writing that
to their certain, knowledge Abu Musa has always been, and still is, the free property of
Salim. f The two last-mentioned have also assured the Imperial vice-consul at Bushire
orally that evervone who has any knowledge of affairs on the Arabian Coast knows this
as well as they do.
But even if it be possible to doubt Salim's right to Abu Musa as its formal owner
according to European legal principles, it cannot be questioned that he exercised, with
the consent of the reigning sheikh, and even as against him, the full right of disposal of
the usufruct, just like an owner.
The English view, indeed, is that Sakar is the owner of the oxide mines, and that
Salim concluded the lease agreement respecting them as his representative only. But
even in that case Sakar had no right, from the point of view of private law, to terminate
the agreement of "his own motion.
The lease agreement of the 10th April, 1898, states expressly that the lease shall
run for so long as the lessees " have an interest in the aforesaid mines." So that the
lessees only are to have the right to terminate, and not the lessor.
It will be seen that this was the intention of the parties if the first lease agreement,
dated the 6th April, 1898, is referred to for comparison. In this agreement, which was
concluded only with Hassan Samaib and his son Abdallah, the right of working the
mines is given to the lessees for so long as" they find oxide, but for not longer than
twenty years, with the proviso that they can terminate the agreement at any time on
paying one year's rent. Here already a long term was agreed upon for the benefit of
the lessees/ Thereupon Abdallatif's son Isa was received as a partner, and the new
* Annex 15.
f Annexes 16 to 18.