Kalat Affairs [‎357v] (122/172)

trammelling Captain Harrison in tbe
execution of his duties, and carrying
out the orders of Government.
50. My words were “ what. I
most regret to observe, you question
the accuracy of that officer’s state
ments.” This undoubtedly infers
that it was unjustly done. Colonel
Phayre’s recent letters to Captain
Harrison all display in some degree
this questioning of accuracy, but If
referred particularly to some of Colo
nel Phayre’s marginal notes to Cap
tain Harrison’s letter No. 29 of the
24th June 1870, especially to the
ones against the 15th and last para
graph thereof. Captain Harrison
justly points out, in concluding his
letter No. 52 of the 5th August,
that Colonel Phayre’s review of his
report contains ^allegations t that
must affect my character, not only
as an official, but as a private gentle
man,” shewing how much ho felt
what had been written.
52. The course referred to by me
was Colonel Phayre’s persistent an
tagonism to the Khan in all he has
adduced during the past year, and
112
/
when speaking of that officer’s report
on Lus Beyla affairs, what I really said
was as follows : (C As it at
present stands, the report would lead
persons at a distance to conclude that
you really spoke from personal know
ledge, and not from the hearsay ac
counts of interested persons. It would
be better, therefore, I think, to quote
the source of such information, which
would then be estimated accordingly,”
This certainly is not censuring Captain
Harrison for reporting what he had
heard, as ordered by the Government of
India. I do not think I touched on
the subject in any other letter than the
above.
/50. You say in general terms that,
by calling in question certain of Cap
tain Harrison’s statements, I have
Merited marked disapproval, but you
do not say whether I have done so
unjustly or not. In reply to this, I have
only to solicit that instances meriting
such marked disapproval may he
pointed out, and should it be proved
that I have acted unjustly in any com
ment that I have made in this respect,
I will acknowledge it at once and apo
logise.
51. In your 14th paragraph your
remark that the Khan might well
appeal, if he understood that, contrary
to the repeated orders of Government,
I interfered to coerce him in matters so
nearly concerning himself and the go
vernment of his country, as the settle
ment of questions between himself and
his rebellious subjects ; and again, that
you “ regret to have to observe that a
very serious and most undesirable
change has taken place in the action,
form, and mode of procedure at Jacob-
abad, which the Khan has not merited,
and . which cannot be permitted to
continue.”
52. In the first place I have already
pointed out most clearly that I have not
interfered to coerce the Khan contrary
to the orders of Government. What I
f