"الملف 14/115 VII الملحق (B 9) أكسيد جزيرة أبو موسى: مواد خلفية حول هذه القضية" [و‎‎١‎٤‎١] (١٩٠٤/٢٩٢)

35
a i I
Annex (13). ' / ; '
JSote hy Khan Bahadur Abdul Lai, if on th dispute
Sugar andSalim regarding Sir AbuNuair
i Jamadi II, 1316= 14th November 1898).
{Dated 26th Mar
Your Honour enquires from me to wliat I referred m my letter dated 27t|j
Jamadi II, 1316,* when I wrote the following sentence:—
i 'As^ regards Sir, a dispute has arisen between Shaikhs Sagar and Salim. It
is Sagar's intention to lease without mentioning Salim's name and to give some
advantage to Salim, but Salim would not agree to this."
The explanation of the above passage is as follows;—
It will be remembered that in the second agreement between Shaikh Sagar
and Shaikh Salim (dated 1884) at which my predecessor was the intermediary,
Shaikh Sagar granted to Shaikh Salim an annual pension of 400 dollars together
with the revenue of Sir Bu Nuair, which was expected to bring in some 200.f
Up to 1889, however, this island did not produce any revenue as was expected
and consequently no mention was made of it in the third agreement dated 5th
Shaaban 1306 (1889) and Shaikh Salim ceased to take any interest in it. When,
however, it became probable that the island might produce some revenue as the
result of the concession alluded to in my letter to Hasan Samaiyeh now under
reference, Shaikh Salim's interest was naturally revived and he wanted to claim
the revenue under the obslete agreement of 1884, which Shaikh Sagar was alto
gether unwilling to agree to on the ground that under the last agreement (1889)
which was now in force the revenue of Sir Bu Nuair Island was not an item of the
settlement. The Shaikhs failed to come to an understanding on this point, with
the result that the project for the concession fell through. This is what had to be
represented.
(Sd.) Abdul Latif bin Abdul Rahman^
* Annex 15 of German Rejoinder,
f Vide my memorandum of 28th February 1908—inolosure 6 to First British Note,