ملف رقم ٣١٤٢ لسنة ١٩٠٣ "سكة حديد الحجاز" [و‎‎٢‎٣] (٤٨٨/٥٢)

as
be
to
ay
;lle <1
Ste^
«,
ills
lug
!ase
:iv&
r to
irn-
1 of
.ent
sed,
iple
iyer
gle-
du
sa
i le
•ais
*et
de
sa
01 ’)
ces.
; to
” in
its
dan
.ture
lilcb
1 ^
rtain
of a
ectod
of ill
claim
such
i
pilgrims becomes known. He bases this claim on the existence of the Capitulations y
under which no new tax can be imposed on foreign subjects in Turkey without the
consent of the Government interested. The point is one of the highest importance,
and one in regard to which I have to beg your Excellency’s instructions as to the
attitude I am to adopt.
Another point of capital importance came out in the course of the discussion.
The Vice-President, Ahmed Midhat Effendi, maintained, with great violence of
language, that the product of the tax in question was intended from the beginning
to cover the cost of building the lazaret, and not merely to cover the loss of interest
on investments that the Board would suffer if the advance of £ T. 150,000 were
made from its reserve. He stated that the Turkish Government would never accept
such a proposal as the latter. It is, in fact, clear that he has represented to his
Government that the proposal of the Board and of the Special Commission that
travelled down the line in regard to this tax was of the character just named (ie.,
intended to cover the cost of building the lazaret), in spite of the fact that it has
been repeatedly made clear that the tax was intended only to cover the loss of interest.
Under these circumstances it appeared to me to be necessary to show extreme caution,
and to prevent the Board from taking any decision in regard to the permanence of this
tax—decision which might commit it to the view that the lazaret was to be built not
at the charge of the Imperial Treasury (as in the case of ail other lazarets), but at the
charge of the pilgrims. I therefore made it clear that any decision to be taken had
better refer solely to the outlay already incurred lor the temporary lazaret and be lor
one year only. The proposals in regard to the permanent lazaret and the mode in
which its cost is to be covered must be settled elsewhere, presumably in the Mixed
Commission. # . .
On this point also I have to beg your clear instructions. It is evident that the
Turkish Government hold that the Board’s reserve is practically at their disposal for
the construction of the Tebuk lazaret, and that the product of the 2o-piastie tax nill
exonerate them from all responsibility for the cost of that construction; and that they
will later repudiate all indebtedness to the Board for the advance in question. In
spite of this they have already claimed (in the Tezkere, which formed the
second inclosure in my No. 150, of*the 28th November last) that the lazaret will be
the property of the State. . .
On the other hand, I have stated both at the Board and in the Mixed Commission
that His Majesty’s Government will not consent to the large advance for the
permanent lazaret unless some compensating revenue be forthcoming for the loss of
interest on investments in public funds that that advance would involve, llns was
rendered necessary by the fact that an uncompensated advance from the Board’s
reserve would render almost impossible a reduction in the sanitary dues upon which
His Majesty’s Government lay the greatest stress. If the Turkish Government do not
accept this condition, and endeavour to maintain that the capital outlay (not the loss ot
interest) will be covered by the 25-piastre tax, I am of opinion that it would be
preferable for us to refuse all advance of any kind. The reserve has been obtained
from excess taxes on the maritime and terrestrial frontiers of Turkey, and mainly from
navigation; the Board is responsible for the sanitary defence ot those
frontiers, and not for the interior sanitary defence of the countiy. onsequen y
it would be doubly irregular and unjust to make the Board responsible ±or this
new line of interior defence, and to make the cost of that defence (me uding
constructions) fall on its funds. If the Turkish Government is responsible tor the cost
of construction of lazarets on the frontiers, which under existing Conventions are
administered by the Board, it is impossible to admit that it is not responsible tor the
cost of lazarets on this purely interior line, with which the Board has nothing to do
under existing Conventions.
I have, &c.
(Signed) E.
k
< 1
l i