ملف ١٨٥٥\١٩٠٤، الجزء ٦ "الكويت:- وضع الكويتيين في بلاد فارس." [ظ‎‎٢‎٧‎٠] (١٥٤/٥٠)

2
A
(d) The same remarks apply to this case also, which is at present under
^ reference to the Persian Government.
(e) This is the case of the Pilot Khalid. I last addressed the Govern-
1 ment of India on the subject in this office letter No. 254, dated
13th August.
The Persian Government having been silent on the matter for some five
months, 1 thought that on receiving their Karguzar’s report they had wisely
decided to let the matter die a natural death. Such prohabJy was the case.
But realising perhaps from Kenters telegram of 13th November regarding
the withdrawal of our Agent at Koweit, that we were not prepared to take
up a strong position in regard to Sheikh Mubarek, they have within the last
few days begun to interest themselves again in the case. I hope, however,
that I may be able to settle it locally with the Karguzar without the necessity
of troubling higher authority with it again.
(/) This is the case to which the Government of India have alluded at
* the end of paragraph 6 of their despatch No. 230 above men
tioned, and have decided not to press it. I am not sure, however,
whether, when they arrived at this decision, this office letter
^ No. 397, dated 20th November, had been considered. *
It is common report at Mohammerah and Bussorah, that these 28 rifles
were intended for the Nakib of Bussorah, but I quite understand the difficulty
of pressing a case in which the arms, even if not bound for Persia, were
evidently being smuggled. It will be noted, however, from the precis of the
case appended and from Captain Trevor^ observations at the end of paragraph 3
of his letter No. 397, that there were also innocent goods on board belonging to
Bahrein and Koweit subjects, who had shipped them in the ordinary way, and
that these have been included in the confiscation.
The case of these unoffending persons seems to deserve independent con
sideration, and the principle governing the seizure of their merchandise has
been referred to His Majesty’s Minister at Tehran whose decision is awaited.
Foreign Department telegram No. 4207-E.B., dated 15th December 1904,
regarding the boundaries of jurisdiction on the Shatt-el-Arab, refers to this
case. I still await information on this point from His Britannic Majesty’s
Consul at Bussorah, who I think has been away from head-quarters. I have
sent him a reminder on the subject.
Mr. McDouall writes, from a Mohammerah point of view, that there
appears to be^ nothing definitely laid down, but that in practice Sheikh Khazzal
accepts the view thnt the deep channel used by the largest steamers represents
the dividing line of jurisdiction.
I will report separately on this question as soon as all available material is
to hand.
{g) Alleged confiscation of some merchandize belonging to a Koweit
subject from a Persian dhow.
This case has not hitherto been reported to Government, and at
piesent sufficiently strong evidence has not been obtained to make it any use
approaching the Customs in the matter or to ask the Government of India to
take any action in regard thereto.
4. Apart from the cases of Koweit subjects with the Persian Customs,
a vu ^ ertln g to the original inquiry made in the telegram from Foreign
with Viceroy, dated 1st December, I am led to believe that Sheikh Mubarek
is, genera y speaking, a good deal aggrieved by alleged oppression of Koweit
10W p J na j^ e J s quarantine at Bussorah, but until I receive details from
*r 6 i ° 1 ., lca ^ a t Koweit on his return from camp, I am not in a position
. su rai a satisfactory report in this connection, and beg leave to postpone
time 6 1676 grievance is not a very pressing one at the present