Page 279 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

Chapter XIV- 219
3G4. The haghla landed her cargo at Mohammerah and loaded with dates
in the River ICarun above Mohammerah, and then proceeded to Fao direct. Tho
Nakoda received a document from the Muaz-es-Sultanah at Mohammerah, and
also an endorsement on tho document roccivcd at Fao. On arrival at Fao,
where tho Nakoda had been mado to deposit his sail as security, tho officials
informed him the certificate of tho Muaz-es-Sultanah was insufficient and that
ho must return to Dowasir to obtain a proper ccrtiGcate. Tho Nakoda returned
to Dowasir with the baghla and demanded the necessary certificate; tho
authorities at Dowasir, however, declined to listen to him or to do anything to
arrange the matter. The Nakoda, therefore, came to Basrah and complained
to tho Britisli Consulate.
365. Thinking there had been some mistake, the Consul mado a repre­
sentation to tho Mudir of Customs, who informed him that, “ as Mohammerah
ioas a Turkish port, he had received orders to take customs duty on all cargo
landed there.”
366. Theso facts were duly brought to the notice of the Yali of Basrah by
tho British Consul. His reply dated 18th October 1893, was that on a
rcferenco to tho Mudir of the Basrah Customs, he had learnt that “ Mohammerah
is counted as a part of tho Turkish dominions and that tho transactions of its
imports are to be dealt with similarly as in other parts of the Turkish dominions.*'
307. A similar roply was given to the Persian Consul at Basrah to a
representation made by him to tho Yali.
36S. The Shah of Persia requested tho British Government through Sir
F. Laccllas would remonstrate with the
Ibid (No. 333).
Porte. The Poreign Offico thereupon
wired to Sir A. Pord on 10th November:—
" Claim of Governor of Basrah is eniirelv contrary to the Treaty of Erzeroum, wo cannot
admit rrport of Turkey to lev)' duties in Shat-el-Arab on goods for Mohammerah which
might affect British as well as Persian trade on the Karun.
u You should make strong representation to Turkish Government. If your Russian
colleague is prepared to join in accordance with arrangement recorded in despatches to Bulwcr
and Elliot of May I6tb, 1SG5, and September 4th, 18G9, you should act with him. u
On the lOtli November 1893. Sir P. C.
Ibid (No. 333).
Pord telegraphed to the Poreign Office—
“ I consider the question of Mohammerah as settled. His Excellency told me that the
Turkish Government, laid no claim whatever to the possession of that place. As regards the
question of levying duties on goods destined for Mohammerah, His Excellency informed me
that it is still under consideration and formed tho subject of negotiations with the Persian
Ambassador here. ”
369. When this nows was communicated to the Shah, His Majesty addressed
Sir F. Lacellas an autograph letter thanking
Ibid (No. 340).
tho British Government for their action.
370. Tho following report of Sir F. Lacellas, dated 3rd December 1893,
will he read with interest:—
Ibid (No. 33*).
" In a conversation whioh I have had with my Russian colleague on this subject, Mr.
deButzow informed me, as a curious piece of diplomatic history, that in 1818, within a year of
the signature of tho Treaty of Erzeroum, the Charge d'Affaires of Englaud and Russia at
Constantinople waylaid the Persian Ambassador who was on his way to his post, and induced
him to sign an explanatory note (note explicative) to the effect that the treaty did not confor
upon Persia the possession of Mohammerah. Subsequently when the Commissioners were sent
for the delimitation of the frontier, which was never carried out, the Turkish representative
admitted that tho Persian Ambassador had no authority to sign 6uch a document which, there­
fore, could pot be considered as being of a binding charaotcr. Mr. deButzow, however, was in­
clined to think that the existence of this docuinont may havo encouraged the Turkish authori­
ties in tho Gulf to put forward a claim to consider Mohammerah as Turkish port.
“ This view is rather strengthened by a conversation which I have had with the Turkish
Ambassador, who told mo that when ho held the post of Chef des Contentioux at Constanti­
nople he had sceu the dooumont in question, but that he was not aware that its validity had
evor been repudiated by a Turkish authority.
“ It was, however, evident that an explanatory noto could not overrido the authority of
a treaty, and uow that tho Porto had declared to Her Majesty^ Anbassador at Constantinople
that Mohammerah vra3 to bo considered as a Persian possession, the question was dclinitely
SG4GPD