File 3846/1910 'Mesopotamia: Baghdad affairs. Miscellaneous.' [‎157v] (323/536)

J
1G
changeable, to form any close estimate of the damage likely to be caused to British
subiects if all the demolitions at present apprehended are carried out. rough
estimate by Mr. Gaskin is appended, in which the probable loss is estimated at
£ T. 4,335; but this may prove to be either an under-estimate or an over-estimate^
according to the action eventually taken by the Turks. . , T . r, i ,
I should add that the Mutessarif of Karbala is busily copying Nazim Pashas
methods in the town at which he has his seat (see Summary foi July 1910, II, 2),
that the same irregular proceedings have been commenced there; and that there also
British Indian subjects are likely to be sufferers.
It Is necessary to refer to a point of Turk.sh aw which will inevitably arise in
connection even with expropriations legally undertaken, viz., the meaning of article 8
of the Buildino- Law of the 22nd August, 1891. At Buseorah, in connection with the
partial demolition last winter of a building belonging to the Faiz-i-Husaim a
wealthy pilgrimage association of Indian Bohrahs, it was, I am informed, contended
by the vali that under the snd article a portion not exceeding one-fourth in depth ot
an immovable property, even a house, could be taken without payment of any
compensation properly'so called, only the expense ot reconstructing the front,
interior, &c„ upon the new line of street being deb,table to the expropriating authority.
I understand, however, that this view is not accepted by all lawyers and it seems to
me that the article Is not applicable unless there is a question of the proprietor s
constructing new buildings or undertaking fundamental repairs to an existing mi ding
which is not the case in regard to the buildings now threatened or already demolished
at Bagdad. The meaning of the French translation given in Young seems to me,
however, far from plain* ; and I hive not been able, with the assistance of two very
competent dragomans, to understand quite clearly the sense even ot “ r * s
original. I gather that the legal advisers of Messrs. Lynch are inclined to think that
the” article referred to applies only to lands not built upon ; but to myseif I confess
this interpretation seems to err in the opposite direction troin that adopted by t e
Turkish authorities at Bussorah, and indeed to be untenable. _ r r
If it is a fact that the existing Turkish law authorises the seizure of one-fourth ot
an individual’s property without payment of any compensation whatever m other
words, its confiscation—I submit with the utmost deference that there are strong
grounds for protesting against the existence, or at least the enforcement, of sue a
barbarous regulation. It is easy to imagine cases in which its application would
involve the most cruel hardship. ' A building might be already of the smallest possible
depth, when, if one-fourth were taken from it, the remainder would lose all its value,
moreover, tbe building might be the owner’s whole property. I venture to draw
your Excellency’s attention in this connection to tbe detailed description ol Nawab An honorific title; an official acting as a provincial deputy ruler in South Asia; or a significant Muslim landowner in nineteenth century India.
Muhammad Taki’s house at Bagdad, which forms an enclosure to this despatch
Another absurdity of the present Turkish building law are the provisions that ™
land required for widening a street shall be taken equally from both sides,T and that
all streets shall be of a certain fixed breadth throughout4 The bad consequences o
these provisions are obvious, and one of the streets now undeigomg en aigemen a
Bagdad will, if the law is observed, afford an example of them on a large scale. In the
case of this street, it will apparently be necessary to knock down the fronts of a series
of high buildings (including Messrs. Lynch’s main offices and khan, the principa o e
at Bagdad, &c.) on both sides for a distance of perhaps a quarter of a-mi e lese ac s
do not seem to have been taken into* consideration by the local authoiities v ien ie}
demolished the Ikbal-ed-Dowleh house and Messrs. Lynch’s wall and shops forming
part of the street in question. Why should land be taken from t lose pioper ies
only, when the law requires that half the land shall be taken from t ie proper ies
opposite them, and that the other premises situated in the street must be dealt wit
similarly in order to give the street a uniform breadth from end to end . .
For the reasons explained above, I suggest very respectfully that your xce ency
should endeavour to obtain a suitable modification of the present luikisi ui < mg aw,
which is unworthy of a civilised country; and that your Excellency s on e
Porte to prohibit in the meantime the application ot the existing iu es, w nc i ai
j working widespread ruin in Bagdad. Many small shop-keepeis, b toman 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. simjec ,
I have, I am credibly informed, been reduced to bankruptcy by i aznn ^ Sia ,
operations; .and vour Excellency^ successful intervention would oe we come no
only bv British subjects, but also by those of the Porte, whose losses are likely to
be out of all proportion .to those of British subjects, substantial as the at ei may e.
* “ Corps de Uroit ottoman,” \ I, 139.
t Article 15. I ArUcle L