Page 11 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf) 1907-1953

7
tion in 1905/it is stated that the southern limit
on the coast-lino of Arabia reached by tho
Sultan’s dominions is near lias Sair or Sajir. At
Bakhiout (17° 15' south by 53° 25' cast), a place
near this point, the Sultan’s Vali has built a fort.
From Itakhiout up to tho town of Muscat, the
coast-lino is continuously and admittedly under
the sovereignty of the Sultan of Muscat. North
and west of tho town of Muscat tho coast-lino is
under the undoubted dominion of the Sultan as
far as Klior Kalba. The Sheikh of Shargah
claims authority over tho coast-lino north of this
point as far as lias Dibba, as being part of the
territories of the Jowasmi tribe. For many years
this district—which is known as the Batineh
coast—has been regarded as feudatory of the
Sheikh of Shargah, and the coast itself as subject
to the Maritimo Truce which will be mentioned
hereafter. This territory has never been under
the sovereignty of the Sultan of Muscat, and it
is admitted in the French Case in the Muscat
Dhows Arbitration that it [is under tho govern­
ment of the Sheikh of the Jowasmi, residing at
Ras-el-Khciraah.
Tho following passage, which constitutes an
important admission on the part of Ilia Majesty’s
Government, is a verbatim extract from the British
Counter-Case above referred to :—
“ From Eas Dibba to Tibba (Tibat) the coast
forming the promontory of Musandim is claimed
by the Sultan of Muscat, who has certainly
before and since 1SG4 exercised authority on
that coast by his Vali and in other ways; and
his rights on the coast arc recognized by the
Sheikh of Shargah and tho Jowasmi.”
A detailed account of the territory in question,
which comprises Elphinstone Inlet and the
Maklab Isthmus, is contained in a letter from
the Political Agent at Muscat, dated the 2nd
July, 1902. A Minute by Lord Curzon, dated
tho 6th October, 1902, also deals with the
question. Major Cox expressed the view that
tho Sultan’s jurisdiction was of so uncertain and
ineffective a character that it would be open to
His Majesty’s Government oither to recognize or
to ignore its existence, as might be found most
Mr. Lorimer, convenient; but Mr. Lorimcr, who made investi­
March 25, 1905.
gations on the spot, controverted this viow. Tho
passage quoted finally disposes of all future
ambiguity as to territorial jurisdiction.
[1098] 0*