'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎130r] (270/1904)

13
Sagar as Ruling bnaikh consented. We concede that in tliecase of the mica con
cession balim was not acting as Regent, but was then acting in consultation with
fcagar and with his concurrence.
1.1 4. ^ Ka ^ ar owner of the. oxide mines, " but
iiiaf the Killing bhaikh ot Shargah owns them, and Sakar occupies that position at
present, (bee items 31 and 32).
(38). Sakar had no right from the point of view of private law to terminate the
agreement of Us own motion ".—In this matter the Ruling Shaikh is a law unto
liimseli.^ Vy hen iie cancelled the concession he was dealing with persons sub ject to
no jurisdiction, but his own, and that of the British Government, and was entitled
vO ai/t as he pleased to the extent to which the latter Government chose to acquiesce
as regards their subjects. The British Government considered his action war
ranted under the circumstances and declined to intervene in behalf of their subject,
(39). The lessees, and especially Abdul Latif, therefore wished to secure it {the con
cession) for as long as possible; accordingly the stipulation of a definite term of years
vms omitted in the second agreement. —In view of the terms of the first and rejected
agreement it 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
^ specified period, was made by concessionaires in their own interests <
slaving regard to the fact tnat Abdul Latif drafted the agreement in its
nnal form and that the right of the concessionaires to use the mines as long
as they -wished., was provided for in l>oth 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
t^e concession and for us to support him in so doing.
In omitting this time-limit, the astute concessionaires thoroughly over-reach
ed i uem.sej.ves, 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, snows 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 seriously.—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 kn^w 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 the"
wanted to upset the arrangement. " '
(41/ On the question of the tcnnmation the
oeen obtained from the leading merchants Bussorah
important clergy of Lingah, Shargah and Debai 24).—I append
a separate note (Annex 14) regarding the identity of the merchants and clergv
mentioned m 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 certainlv
not the "most important 5> nor compare in repute with some of those whos^
opinions 1 now produce.
(42)^ All the opinions come practically to * * *
commercial law the lease agreement is valid ; —As I have
mentioned above the commercial evidence given in the German rejoinder is in my