File 3846/1910 'Mesopotamia: Baghdad affairs. Miscellaneous.' [‎145r] (298/536)

JThia Document is the Property of Hia Britanmc Majesty’s Government.’
[October 12 .]
Section 1.
[37092] No. 1 .
Note respecting Bagdad Premises.—{Communicated by Colonel Picot, October 12 , 1910.)
. BASING themselves on the allegation that the wall and shops on onr property
lacing the road were unsound, the local authorities at Bagdad suddenly and without
notice pulled down this wall and the shops. The consul-general had previously
satisfied himself that they were perfectly sound. Inasmuch as our main business office,
with all its accessories of machinery, sheds, stores, &c., occupies a considerable portion
oi the same site, and immediately adjoins the road, it is obvious that in order to widen
the road they must take a slice of these main offices, thus destroying the utility of the
buildings of which they form part, and necessitating the rebuilding of them. The idea
is evidently to do this without paying compensation. The sum involved will be about
2 , 000 /.
So fai as we have been able to ascertain there is no law m Turkey permitting a
municipality to expropriate, without compensation of the owner, a property adjoining a
road, m order to widen the road. According to article 8 of the “ Corps de Droit
ottoman” (Young’s translation, Clarendon Press, 1906), if the municipality decide
that a street shall in the future be enlarged, any new buildings which may in the
future be constructed by the adjoining owners must be put back to the approved
width. Recognising this, the municipal authorities pulled down the portion of our
premises at present in question on the ground that it was unsound and involved danger
to the passers by. They then counted upon article 8 of the law compelling us to erect
a new wall and shops farther back from the road at our own expense. It is this
purely arbitrary action on their part that we are combating. If it be not successfully
resisted, their next step will be to allege that the frontage of our main premises is
unsound. In this way they will get all they want without compensation.
The questions which confront the Foreign Office in connection with this case are
extremely serious and must come directly home to them. These questions are:
. 1- Are they prepared to allow the Turkish Government to take a slice of 4 feet off,
for instance, the British Embassy building in Constantinople or any other buildino- in
Turkey, the property of the British Government, without paying compensation ? It is
obvious that in the case of the embassy, and it is probable in the case of the other
buildings in other parts of Turkey, that such embassy or other buildings would have to
be entirely rebuilt.
2. If the Foreign Office would not be prepared to sanction such action, and would
be obliged to resist it on the ground that it was opposed to all civilised practice, is it
not clear that in not resisting procedure of this kind in our case they are establishing
a precedent which will debar them from resisting it in their own case ?
It seems clear from all the despatches which we have received that the consul-
general, who has only recently arrived at his post, is looking for instructions and he
has hitherto refused to take any official action at all. The course we advocated at the
first, and which the Foreign Office approved, was that we should erect a temporary
fence upon the portion of the property which has been arbitrarily taken away, and
maintain it there until the whole question has been settled. It would seem that the
consul-general is loath to sanction this course. We hope, therefore, that instructions
may be sent from 'Constantinople authorising its adoption in accordance with the
despatch from the Foreign Office dated the 20th August, informing us that Sir G. Lowther
had made a vigorous protest to the Turkish Government and had supported the demand
for the restoration of the land seized and for the erection of a temporary fence on the
site of the former wall.
ASIATIC TURKEY AND ARABIA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
i o