‘Report for the Army Council on Mesopotamia. By Sir John P Hewett, GCSI, KBE’ [‎20v] (45/119)

22
Again he considers that money has been expended on temporary experim'ents which might have been
utilized more economically. For instance he holds that the £11,000 (paragraph 35) spent on the Ghumas
dams would have been better employed had the work been retarded, and the opinions of the Political
Officers and Shaikhs taken. In respect of this objection Messrs. Buckley and Roche very strongly hold
the opinion that the works could not have been delayed on account of the fact that the levels in the
main channel of the Euphrates (the Mishqab branch of the Hindiyah channel) would have suffered.
Again we understand Lieut.-Colonel Wilson to be of opinion that the work on the Khalis canal
need not have been carried out immediately. Here again Messrs. Buckley and Roche are emphatically
of opinion that the work was of an urgent nature, and could not be postponed without a grave
risk of injury to the channels fed by the Diyalah. Brigadier-General L. W. Lewis, C.I.E., the
Director of Irrigation, before he went on leave early in December, expressed the view that the cost of
the irrigation works undertaken for the harvest of 1919 had been from twice to three times what would
have been paid at pre-war rates, and that, without going into detail, a fair charge against military funds
would be from two-fifths to one-half of the total cost except maintenance which should be entirely a
civil charge. Messrs. Buckley and Roche, after an examination of the irrigation works and a con
sideration of the conditions under which they were constructed, are of opinion that it would be fair
to charge the civil administration half their cost. The suggestion that the civil administration should
refund to the army half of the cost was made to Lieut.-Colonel Wilson at a meeting, at which
we were all present, and we understood him to agree to it provided that the departmental charge usually
made in India when one department constructs works of this nature for another is not made. His
hesitation apparently arose from the fear that the charge might be added when these accounts are
ultimately audited by the Controller of War Accounts in India. No such charge is shown in the accounts
as audited in Mesopotamia in respect of the canals completed in 1917-1918, and there appears to be no
reason whatever why it should be added in respect of those executed in 1918-1919. It is then recom
mended that the civil administration should refund to army funds half the cost of the irrigation works,
constructed for the agricultural development scheme of 1919. To the proposal that the same principle
should be adopted in respect of protective works executed by the Irrigation Directorate Lieut.-Colonel
Wilson made a further objection that some of the embankments made were of no use from a civil point
of view. He cited some of the dams near Baghdad, the Hurriyah escape banks, from near Ctesiphon
to Aziziyah, Ali Gharbi and Kut, certain dams near Ramadi, and the embankment on the Euphrates
near Musayib. These have all been examined by Messrs. Buckley and Roche with the exception of
the last. The embankments near Baghdad were made by the Works Department, and are not included
in the charges in the Irrigation Directorate. The dams in the neighbourhood of Ramadi, and from
Ctesiphon to Kut are, in their opinion, of use for civil purposes. I have myself seen the Musayib
embankment. It appears to be a useful work from the point of view of civil needs, though it is
undoubtedly broader than it need have been, its breadth having been determined by the fact that it
was at one time contemplated to lay the railway upon it. No charge on account of the work done on
it is, however, included in the costs of the Irrigation Department. On the whole it seems that a fair
settlement in respect of protective works also would be that the civil department should refund half
the cost to army funds. The same arrangement should also be made in respect of the cost of roads
and bridges. The expenditure on buildings, which amounts to Rs. 3,53,937 (£23,596) or Rs. 2,35,937
(£15,729), if the cost of military buildings is deducted, cannot be divided in this manner. For of this
amount only Rs. 84,000 (£5,600) were expended on buildings occupied by political officers and Rs. 1,51,937
(£10,129) on buildings occupied by irrigation officers. As the greater part of this sum was spent on
billets, which will be surrendered when a state of war ceases to exist, it does not seem equitable to debit
the civil administration with more than the Rs. 84,000 (£5,600) spent directly on its own needs. The
charges for maintenance of canals, embankments and roads, Rs. 2,95,386 (£19,692), and general charges
(for direction, superintendence and executive agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. ) may be considered together. Although the Irriga
tion Department came under the Civil Commissioner on the 1st March, the personnel remains on the
military establishment and on military pay till the 31st idem. There seems to be good reason for debiting
the whole cost to the civil department. The acting Civil Commissioner expressed several objections
to this proposal. These establishments have received free rations and, in the case of the lower paid
men, clothing which, he .urges, would not have been the case in peace time. This is of course true ;
but, on the other hand, all establishments connected with the army which have been working under
the Civil Commissioner have been treated m the same way. Again Lieut.-Colonel Wilson is apprehensive
that the Government of India may make a charge under the foreign service rules for establishments
lent by them to the Irrigation Directorate. This has not been done as yet, and, considering the conditions
under which these establishments were working, it would not seem reasonable to demand such a pay
ment. Lastly Lieut.-Colonel Wilson expressed his view that in some cases too much staff was being
employed, and he specifically cited the staff engaged on the Baqubah side, the Indian element in which
in particular he thought to be unnecessary. Messrs. Buckley and Roche do not agree with him : the
staff employed is not as numerous as would be employed in similar areas in Egypt or India : in the
inception of the work the employment of Indian establishment was unavoidable. In these circumstances
the full charge should be recovered from the civil administration. There remains the question of charges
for transport supplied to the officers of the Irrigation Directorate. Lieut.-Colonel Wilson’s objection
to this charge is that the irrigation officers were supplied with more motor transport than they would
be able to obtain in peace time. He suggests that, irrigation being a military establishment, cars have
been more readily supplied to it than to the political officers—the proportion which he suggested as
possible being 5 to 1. This argument is not really relevant to the question under consideration. It
does not appear to ns from our observation that irrigation officers had more cars at their disposal than