ملف ١٩٢٣/٤٠١١ الجزء ٢ "الخليج الفارسي: مفاوضات ١٩٢٨ هنجام" [ظ‎‎٩‎٠‎٥] (١٩٣٤/١٨١٧)

14
ly as to our title by prescription and acquiescence on the part of Persia:—
“ I Avould mention that the island of Kishm is included in the districts leased br
*Our title to a station on Kishm anf t that on one end of Kishm we have
island is based on a written permission a naval and general station of old standing
given by the Imam of Maskat—see under our own flag. It is called Bassidore. Our
" Paras. 3 7, Chapter III. title is not written.* It was based originally
on the oral permission of the late Imam of Maskat, and has been continued under his suc
cessor. Persia has tacitly acknowledged our right to possession, because, when at the con
clusion of the war between Maskat and Persia in 1856, the Treaty (under w’hich the present
lease obtains) was entered into, Persia raised no objection to the presence of our flag or to
undisguised maintenance of a considerable station, coal depots, hospital, etc., at Bassidore.
In my proposed article with the Sultan, I shall endeavour, v T hen specifying that our pro
ceedings do not imply conferring sovereign rights to except Bassidore by name. So Your
Excellency wmuld perhaps think well to avoid anything with the Shah’s Government, which
might aftenvards be construed as throwing doubt on our claim to Bassidore. ”
fAitchison’s Treaties, Vol. XI. m ^ wTiting about the Telegraph!
Treaty Colonel Pelly states
“ Government will observe that Article VI relates to our station at Bassidore. Our
title to that station has, of course, for many years been a bond fide one. But on telegraphic
and general considerations, the present seemed a convenient opportunity for giving to our
title the sanction of a w r ritten confirmatory deed.”
62. In 1863 a claim was made by the Persian authorities for the surrender
of a slave, wlm was alleged to have escaped to Bassidore from her master, an
inhabitant of Lingah with certain valuables belonging to the latter. The follow
ing opinion was expressed by Sir Arthur Lewis, the Advocate General, Bombay,
on the question in his letter dated 10th March 1863.
The right of one State to demand of another the delivery up of its owm subjects, when
guilty of crimes, is generally regulated by special treaty or compact, and is mot a right
recognized by the law of nations. It is stated by jurists to be a right of imperfect ob-
See Wheaton on International Law, ligation. No special treaty or compact for the
page 167, sixth edition. extradition of criminals exists between the
British and Persian Government that I am avmre of, and considering that the offence im
puted to the slave is not a grave or serious crime, and one resting on mere assertion without
any proof, I think that Political Resident determined rightly, and for the reasons stated
by him, in refusing compliance in this case also with the demand for the slave’s surrender.
” How far in other cases, where no treaty for extradition exists, and heinous crimes,
such as murder, forgery, robbery, etc., may be alleged to have been committed by a fugi
tive slave, it would be expedient or proper to comply wdth a requst for the delivery or sur
render of the slave, must depend on the bond fides of the demand, and on the proof in
support of the charge which may accompany the demand for the slave’s delivery or sur
render and on the other specialities of each case. In the two cases now submitted for my
consideration, I entirely concur in the decision the Political Resident came to, in declin
ing lo interfere to effect the restoration of the slaves to their owners. ”
63. A demand for the surrender of certain slaves who had escaped to
Bassidore was made in 1868 by the Persian authorities. The question was then
fully discussed by Mr. Bayley, Advocate General, Bombay (letter dated 30th
April 1868), about the British position at Bassidore, who wrote:—
I am of opinion that the demand of the local Persian authorities for the surrender of the
slaves mentioned in accompanying correspondence should not be complied wdth.
2. It may be interesting in an historical point of view, but is not perhaps absolutely
essential for the purpose of answering the present reference, to consider the precise time,
or the mode in which, or from what power, the British obtained possession of Bassidore.
3. In the extracts from brief notes containing historical and other information con
nected with the island of Kishm and other islands and places in the Persian Gulf, prepared
in 1818 by Captain Taylor, Assistant Political Agent in Turkish Arabia, printed in^/ol.
XXIV, new series, of the Bombay Government records, it is stated (page 33) that the
whole island of Kishm as well as a large portion of the opposite coast, in wdiich are mines
of brimstone, is farmed from Persia by the Imam of Maskat;” and at page 37 it is stated
within the north-west of Kishm are the ruins of Bassidore, once a flourishing town under
the Portuguese.”
In a memoir published in the same volume, descriptive of the navigation of the Gulf
of Persia, with brief notices of the commerce and resources of the people inhabiting its
shores and islands, prepared by the late Captain Brucks, Indian Navy, in 1835, it is stated
(page 602) that “ Bassidore was once a flourishing Portuguese settlement, and the ruins o
V#
the tov
the pin
when ii
a tolerj
mander
| The pk
lion;”
stated t
seventy
A very
men. 1
pirates
to have
4.
stated,
got into
possess!
Kishm i
Coast b
from P
depend*
than fo;
of llorr
5. i
it voulc
of Kish;
impossil
tuguese
6. ]
to consi
ment of
Island o
7. r .
ment of
versus t
'series, 1
“ It mu
cantile,
■State an
as a mat
of anoth
for juri
or enga:
benefit <
“ B
diction t
at least
same pr
Ottoman
“ It
privilege
nations,
gating w
“ A
the prin
the best
does it o
“ C<
ac( iuiesc(
must be
“ T
that Ac:
means, 1
of Rej,
power a
r