'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎112r] (228/386)

119
40*
bat when in Janucary 1902 he proceeded to establish a post at Mirjawa,
in spite of Major Bean’s warnings that Mirjawa was in a debatable area,*
Captain Webb Ware addressed a letter to M. Molitor warning him to con
fine the movements of the Customs Officers to Persian territory and not to
violate the boundary, adding that should any collision with British officials
occur, M. Molitor must accept the responsibility. This letter was delivered to
M. Cesari at Ladis, two days after he had visited Padaha and had been requested
by the Duffadar A Non-Commissioned Officer in the Indian Cavalry. in charge of the levy post to withdraw, and it was forwarded
by him to M. Molitor, whose action and the subsequent violent proceedings of
M. Cesari on the frontier will be found described in paragraph 4 , pages 127-125.
79. Meanwhile the Persian Government had objected to the location of the
British levy post at Padaha, and the most exaggerated rumours, charging
Captain Webb Ware with violence and threats of violence to the Customs
officials, were sedulously propagated to infiame opinion in Tehran, London
and St. Petersburg.
On 11 th November 1901, Sir Arthur Hardinge wrote to the Government
of India informing them that the Persian Government were certain to make a
formal remonstrance against the action of Captain Webb Ware, and inquiring the
views of the Government of India about the ownership of Padaha.
On 10 th February 1902, Lord Curzon’s Government replied to the follow
ing effect. The boundary laid down by the British and Persian Commissioners
in 1890, was surveyed and demarcated only as far as pillar No. 11, which, in the
Agreement, dated 21th March 189G, was described as being situated “on the
edge of the right bank of the Talab watercourse and about one mile east of
the Gorani date groves.” From this point northwards to Koh-i-Malik Siah
the boundary was neither demarcated nor accurately surveyed, but was simply
described and was marked out in accordance with the description on the existing
maps of this part of the country, which had since been found to be inaccurate.
The description* of the boundary contained
in the Agreement of 24th March 1896 was
* Given in paragraph 75 ante, page 118.
then cited and the reply continued.
“ From this description, and from the report of the British Commissioner, it appeared that
the intention was that, from the point where the boundary leaves the river, it was to follow
the main watershed of the mountains up to Malik Siah K<>h. Recent and more accurate sur
veys had brought to light two points in which the description of the boundary is doubtful.
The first is that it is doubtful whether there is any river which is known locally as the Mirjawa
river In the maps of the locality the upper waters of the Talab river are described as the
Mirjawa river, while the stream which runs from the Mirjawa to the Talab is locally known as
the Padaha stream. The point therefore where the boundary is to leave the river is uncertain.
The second is that the straight line from the Kaeha Koh to Koh-i-Malik Siah does not coincide
with the watershed. There are, moreover, no cairns or pillars along this part of the boundary,
and consequently its position is unknown to the inhabitants.”
The Government of India agreed that under existing circumstances it was
desirable that this part of the boundary should be properly demarcated on the
ground, so that all doubts as to the limits of Persian territory should he set at
rest. As regards the line which the revised boundary should follow, it seemed
clear from the Agreement of 1896, that the British Government could claim
nothing on the right bank of the Talab river, but on the other hand it was
equally obvious that the river was the boundary up to a point in the neighbour
hood of Mirjawa which had still to be determined, and the contention of the
Government of India was that, when that point had been determined, the line,
according to the intention of the agreement, should follow the main watershed
up to the Koh-i-Malik Siah. The case seemed to be one in which, in the absence
of accurate geographical data, an agreement ought, without much difficulty,
to be suggested by the representatives of the two parties on the spot. Perhaps
the line which would best suit the interests of both Governments would be one
that would follow the course of the so-called Mirjawa river to its source near
Duzdap, and, including Duzdap on the British side, because of its usefulness
in respect of supplies for the Seistan trade route, would then follow the crest
of the hills through the Larkok to Koh-i-Malik Siah. The tracts under discus
sion were not in any case of much intrinsic value, and were not worthy to be
the subject of sustained controversy between the two Governments. The