'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎393r] (812/1904)

f
/
to be In English and not German ae pretended Hasaan 3^3
and the terms of it were in parte open to objection. 2nd November
1906.
A few daye after giving thio copy to our Ling&h
f
Agent, Base an wrote to Abdtil Latif and put him off with
che ©byiouslv fai &&statement tbat the deed ha-l ;
been in Bomba.v for a month and & half with his eon.
Abdul Latif however continued to press for it and
11th Hovesaber
1906.
16th December
25rd January
1906.
a/ - a
at last- on 16th December fiaesan sent a copy to hia.
On getting it, or soon after, Abdul Latif
wrote on behalf of his son and objected to the terms
of it.
Meanwhile authority was received by the Resident
from the Government of India to discuss the question
with the Sheikh of Shargah, and in the result the
latter addressed riaasan a oomiuunication intimating
the imllif&oation of the Concession, Esa bin Abdul
Latif protesting against Hassan* s conduct simultaneous
ly.
In spite of the evidence to the contrary forthcoming
in his previous letters, Hassan Basaiyeh now began t©
pretend that he had sent Abdul Latif a copy of the deddJ
when first asked, and that the latter had agreed after
Seeing it. 8th March 1907
He also complained to the Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. in an un
dated letter received 12th March 1907 making the same
allegation namely that he had sent Abdul Latif the
terms of the Agreement in English and Arabic in the
first instance and that it had been agreed to by Esa
and his father. 18th March 1907
This appears to be absolutely untrue, see Hassan's
letter of 11th June %o Abdul Latif and subsequent cor
respondence showing that h© intentionally kept the
terms eecret. It is to be noted that the letter of
Abdul Latif to Eassan dated 27th !»aroh 1907 is the same
as enclosure 10 in the uennan Oase, but there is some
divergence in our translation. 27th «arch 1907
The two letters dated 30th ' arch 1907, but-
unsigned