'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎132r] (274/1904)

il
say that the statemente which Mr. Brown understood him to make must he reaard-
ea as having been retracted by the affidavit subseqaently recorded before Major
Trevor (Annexes 31 and 32 ) . .It can hardly be doubted that, had he been soL
ciined. Nejef would have been induced both to part with his share in the Company-
and to give a written acqmesdence to the contract with Wonckliaus ; not that from
our point of view either the one transaction or the other would have been of any
value when obtained_ttionths after the concession had been cancelled. (See also
Enclosure 18 of the First British Memorandum.)
■ ( ' 54 l ^ objection to the agreement wi WoneJchaus was
protege I.J. Maholm oj BusUre, of whom
f-hMtne lessees had . engagements ' with him
tered the tomfany two years after the concess Lease} Agreement.— Mx. Mal-
• u matter oi fact, dia Complain that Hasan had entered into the contract
W ivj inif consulting him and had refused to give him a copy of the document
his letters of (t)August 23rd 1906 and ( m ) 17th October 1906 included^papers submit-
ted by me on 1st March 1908. He then asked my advice as to what 6durse he should
take, out I said I Could expfess Bo opinion without seeing his deed of partnershits.
x his he was theri unable to produce. Mr. Malcolm is almost stone blind, and at
that time haa jmt got rid of his Persian clerk andrwas consequently unable
to find any of the papers bearing on the precise terms of his partnership in the
Company. It was for this reason, namely, that we had not seen his papers, that
the British Memorandum only referred so brieflv to his connection with the
concern.
He has^since found the deed of partnership, and I now append a translation of
it (Annex 33). It proves of considerable importance and shows that his positions
like thao of Nakhoda Ali, was one of absolute equality among the partners
(So) No douU Basan Barmiyeh ought not
agreement was in German.—Mtet tnakm:* this casual observation the Germ&d
rejoinder goes on to endeavour to explain away or belittle Hasan SamaiyeVs tactics
in concealing the text of the contract from the knowledge of his partners. TheV
were demonstrated sufficiently clearly in the summary of Hasan's correfepondence
submitted by me with the material for our first Memorandum on 1st March 19081
and under item 7 of that Memorandum. There can be no doubt of Hasan Samai'
yeh's sustained endeavours, all through, to suppress the plain fact of the mono
poly or so to gloze over it that it would hot be noticed. While the German argu
ment here makes out that it was only Malcolm (as a possible rival in his capacity
of Strick's Agent) whom Hasan wanted to keep in the dark, it would appear from
Hasan's letter to Malcolm, dated October 14th 1906, that it was in reality Abdul
Latif from whom he was auxious to conceal the terms of the contract, for he
wrote to Malcolm :—
" In truth it is not my intention that any one should come to know about it
except myself and you (Enclosure 14, British Memorandum.)
The reasons for his perseveirence in withholding from Abdul Latif the precise
terms of the contract were obvious. He had been repeatedly warned by Abdul
Latif that, while there was no objection to the mere sale of the stuff to any body,
he should not commit himself to any deed or formal contract without consulting
him, and he (Hasan) knew «U enough that both the execution and the terms of
the document in which he had bound himself would be objected to by Abdul Latif
directly he saw them. To discount this opposition from Abdul Latif, his obvious
course was to postpone the delivery of the copy and the objections of Abdul Latif aa
long as possible, so that he could then plead that the contract had been in opera
tion now to such an extent that it was impossible to go back on it. This is precise
ly the line he took. Thus, writing to Malcolm on 9th May 1907, he said ; " A long
period has elapsed since I made the contract with the German, and I have been
engaged in doing the work, oui 5 labourers have been working there and heavy ex
penses have been incurred * ♦ * They did not make any objection all the
time "f That the execution of such an instrument was incompatible with Abdul
liatif's repeated mjunctions and Hasan's own protestations is clearly demonstrated
by the correspondence submitted on ist March 1908» Among the* latter I would
€205 FD
' H /