ملف رقم ٣١٤٢ لسنة ١٩٠٣ "سكة حديد الحجاز" [ظ‎‎٢‎٥] (٤٨٨/٥٧)

Strong opposition, however, came from the Russian Delegate (supported also by the
Austrian) in the matter of the proposed surtax of 25 piastres. There is a good deal
of truth in the arguments he advances. I had at first suggested that the collectiono^
the tax should he begun forthwith, as a provisional measure, to cover the equgf^'
provisional expenditure already incurred by the Board (in the form of advances) for •
the temporary lazaret (as reported in previous despatches), and that the accounts
both of the expenditure and of the income from the tax should be kept separately from
the Board’s other accounts, both to be regulated later by the proper authority when
the whole question becomes the subject of the desired entente between the Porte and
the Powers. There ’would, however, be serious objection to such a course, and it is
evident that the matter requires further careful consideration before the Board is
committed to any definite action.
The arguments advanced by the Russian Delegate are briefly as follows : The
proposed advance of £ T. 150,000, or any other sum, to the Government for the
construction of the Tebuk Lazaret does not differ essentially from those made for the
other lazarets of the Empire. The Government will be responsible for their construc
tion, and should he held to that responsibility. The other advances have been made
without any compensating revenue to the Board. The proposal to levy the tax of
25 piastres on persons using the railway is equivalent to shifting the cost of construc
tion from the shoulders of the Government to their shoulders, which he states he
cannot admit. He threatens, indeed, to demand a generalization of the principle #(if
adopted in this instance), and its application to the advance of £ T. 130,000 now
proposed for the other lazarets, and to those made in the past for Camaran. He
regards the proposal as involving grossly unequal treatment for pilgrims coming to
the Hedjaz from the south and those coming from the north.
A possible reply to such arguments is found in the following considerations :
The existing lazarets are all maritime or frontier institutions, in which are applied the
measures for which the Board is directly responsible under existing Conventions. The
jwoposed Tebuk Lazaret, on the contrary, is an interior institution, for which the
Board is in no way responsible, and the finance of which must be kept absolutely
independent from that of the others just named. A mutual agreement to advance sums
from the Board’s reserves without any compensating revenue for the former group
of institutions is therefore possible; whereas, on the other hand, if the Board is to
come to the Government’s aid for the new institution, it will be purely a titre
exceptionnel, and under such conditions that the Board’s existing financial arrange
ments do not suffer in consequence.
Secondly, the revenue from the tax in question would not be intended to cover
the cost of construction of the lazaret—and here the Tezkere of the Grand Vizier requires
correction. The capital sum advanced would always be at the charge (presumably) of
the Government, to be repaid by them. The revenue from the tax of 25 piastres
would only be intended to make up to the Board the loss of income derived from
interest on the sum advanced from its reserve in public funds (interest amounting to
about 3|- per cent.).
Thirdly, the principle must be maintained that the new institution must be
financially self-supporting from the beginning, and not in any way supported by the
income derived from the other existing branches of the service. But if the large
advance be made, the other branches will suffer at once from the loss of income on
their capital, unless some compensating revenue can be assured. If the Government
would consent to pay 3J per cent, interest on the sum advanced the question would
be settled at once. But there is practically no likelihood of their consenting to this.
The only alternative, therefore, is to make those using the line pay an equivalent sum.
To this, however, the Russian Delegate replies with some reason that in that event
the advance would be made, not to the Turkish Government, but to the passengers
on the line, who are in no way responsible for the construction of the lazaret in
question.
Eourthly, the railway line is a luxury, and not a necessary and sole route of
arriving in the Hedjaz, as the old sea routes were. The old sea routes will still be
open to all who wish to follow them. Those who choose the railway route may then
well be called upon to submit to an admittedly new form of taxation.
Eifthly, the proposed tax would not involve an invidious distinction between
pilgrims from the south and north as alleged. The line is open to all who care to use
it, and, as the inclosed Table shows,* is used by pilgrims from north, south, east, and
west, though naturally those from the north predominate.
* Not printed.