"الملف 14/115 VII الملحق (B 9) أكسيد جزيرة أبو موسى: مواد خلفية حول هذه القضية" [ظ‎‎٦‎٥] (١٩٠٤/١٤١)

reasonable consideration. The most obvious evidences of the character ot balims tenure
or tenancy of the island are :—
Firstly, the fact that, if he were private owner of the island or mines in his^ own
right, he must have acquired them from somewhere, and would have the ordinary
deeds in support of his title. But he says he has nothing of the sort, and makes no
such claim. If the Germans know or think that he has, why do they not allude to such
or ask for discovery of them ? Again, if Salim owned in his own right he could will the
property away; but I am sure he would not claim to do so, nor would his nephew
tolerate such a claim for a moment.
The Bahrein principality recently furnished a case which bears on this question.
Sheikh Ali, nephew of the ruling sheikh, was deported in 1904 for unruly conduct.
He was at the time in the enjoyment of certain State property. On his deportation
the ruling sheikh resumed the property, and the nephew on his return could not claim
it back; he was simply dependent on his uncle's kind consideration. These petty
potentates have to support their relations, and the most convenient way of doing so is
to give them, as long as they behave loyally, the enjoyment of State property instead of
cash, which is a scarce commodity with them.
Secondly, our action in rescuing Abu Musa from Persian annexation in 1904, was
taken long before this dispute was ever dreamed of. It was taken at the instance of
the ruling sheikh, not of Sheikh Salim. Salim made no attempt to pose to us as
owner of the island at that time.
Issue (h), —We do not dispute the fact that the ruling sheikh approved the
concession.
In support of their contention that the latter had no power to revoke the rights
of the " mining company," certain recorded opinions are now adduced, and it is argued
that the concession is unterminable by the grantor either by religious or commercial
law. It is also contended, as before, that Sheikh Sagar's action, if viewed from the
administrative standpoint, was unjustifiable.
Evidence such as that produced by them can be bought to any extent. Brown
and Dr. Listemann have simply gone about getting hold of certain " leading merchants
and others, who, as far as I can recognize their identity, are known to have specific
animus against us or our agent at Lingah.
It is to be noted that the arguments brought forward under the head of this issue
seem all based on the idea that our object was to stop Wonckhaus .trading in oxide
altogether which was not the case.
Issue (c).—The memorandum of association gave Hassan the authority to conduct
sales, but not to grant monopolies—a proceeding opposed to the standing advice of the
protecting power and the sheikh's own principles and interest—much less to alienate to
any one a share in the concession itself (in this case to the subject of a foreign Power
with which the Trucial sheikhs have no dealings).
Issue(d). —They produce no fresh element. We are agreed that Esa knew of the
sales to the Germans. What he objected to was the grant of the monopoly which he
did not know of, and subsequently to the sale of a share in the company to Brown.
Issue (e). The transfer of a share to Brown, and, by Brown to Wonckhaus, is simply
justified by them as an act of legitimate retaliation or self-defence ; and, on the assump
tion that the cancellation was void and illegal, it is argued that the transfer was in time
and in order.
Issue ( f). —This issue is adroitly raised in order, if possible, to withdraw the dispute
from the sphere of the residency of the Government of India to that of the legation at
Tehran.
N . Of course, we are in a much stronger position to lay down what the Sheikh
of Shargah can or cannot do as a law unto himself so long as we deal with the matter
as within the jiirisdiction of the resident in the Persian Gulf. Abu Musa having nothing
to do with Persia and the Sheikh of Shargah being under the jurisdiction of the Govern
ment of India, and not of His Majesty's Legation, the argument can no doubt be easily
resisted, and should be.
P. Z. COX.
February 12, 1910.