'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎305r] (636/1904)

/ 5
x X X iiiiD THj S LHASiS HAS Ri^iAlHjulD UP TO WOW (also
sao foot note to this aonteno® in German Oaeo),
I thi n& the interpretation placed by this in
(17) above, is the right one.
iJUf)PRESUMABLY HAS A RIGHT TO DO SO.
Yes - a right enjoyed by him from Sheikh Sagar and sub
ject to the latter's pleasure,
as) mM AS^KX) BY THiii DRAGOMAN oi' 1 I^P^IAL VIOE-OON-
SULATE AT BUSHIRE OJs THE 28th WOVEMBEH 1907 "WHAT HARM is
THERE IhHAVING MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE GERMAN FIRM ?
SHEIRH SAGAR REPLIED 'WE HAVE MADE TREATIES WITH THE ENG
LISH WHICH PREVENT US PROk LEaSING ANY PART OP OUR TERRI
TORY 1'U FORdlGN^S OTlh^i BaITX-^H SuHuECT S" .
The accuracy of the above quotation can be impugned,
vxde my letter No.170 dated 12th January 1908 to the Go
vernment of India in which I gave SheiKh sagar 1 s version
of what passed and draw attention to the fact that the
German Dragoman die not Know Arabic and that the Interpreter
was Abaulla bin Hasan Samaiyeh :s yne of the defendants in the
dispute whose character is of the shadiest and whose motive
in putting words into Sheikh oagar 1 s mouth is obvious. The
then German Dragoman i ,-irza Huaeln was alst/'i person of no
toriously evil repute who cannot be regarded as a trustworthy
witness. He nas since been exposed and dismissed from em-
i
ployment in the German Consulate ^ *.*******,
All the arguiaents unaer this count are thus based on ar-iBMai-
quotation.
( g4) THIS INTERPRETATION IS EVIDENTLY ERRONEOUS AS IT
GIVES THE TREATY A MEANING WHICH ..'UULD BE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE OPEN DOOR.
It may be a matter of opinion whether the theory, that
Article 3 of the Treaty of 6th March 1892 precludes the grant
of a mining Concession to a foreigner, is compatible with
the principle of the open door, but that question hardly
. at tno time when Sheikh Sagar addressed
arises here because at