Page 288 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

258 Part III.
lijr (ho local authorities without the presence of a Consular Officer, Her Majesty* $ Government
feel bound to require that the search should be made either at Fao or at Basrah where such offi­
cers are stationed.”
d>12. In October 1S95 Nalcoda Elias of the Sagalpasa, No. 4901-S.of
Mandvie, from Karachi, consigned to llaji
External A., April 183G, No*, 1GG170.
Taber of Mohammorah, with a cargo of
kerosino and charcoal, complain that lie was compelled by the authorities at
Fao to stop there, lie told them he was bound for Mehammerah, but they
compelled him to do quavantmo charging him Rs. 15 ; the customs official de­
tained two sails and one anchor which t hey would return on his bringing a cer­
tificate from Sheikh Mizal, that the cargo was lauded at Mohammerah. The
Customs official also made him pay Its. 2. At Dovasir lie was again ordered to
stop and had to pay another Rs. 2 there. He had no bill-of-bcalth from
Karachi, and stated that he did not know that it was required.
413. The Consul at Basrah brought this case to the notice of the Vali and
informod him that Turkish officials were not entitled to interfere with any
foreign vessel proceeding up the Shat-cl-Arab until she placed herself within
exclusively Turkish jurisdiction either by touching at or communicating With
the Turkish bank of the river or by passing the Khanyan creek about three
miles above Mohammerah on the Persian bank, where ho understood the Per­
sian territory ends. This proposition referred to vessels bouud for Basrah
as well as Mohammerah (Mr. Whyto’s letter to tho Vali, No. 912, datod 12th
December 1S95).
414. In forwarding copy of this letter to the Resident, Consul Whyte ex­
pressed as bis opinion that “ a Persian vessel proceeding to Mohammerah by
the Shat-el-Arab, which does not touch at any point on tho Turkish bank
of the river and which docs not on her voyage approach so close to that bank,
as to give just causo for objection, is as much outside Turkish jurisdiction as
she would he on the Persian Gulf.’* The same principle would apply to a
British vessel. Colonel Mocklcr approved of Consul Whyte’s communication
to tho Vali of his views “ such as they arc.’*
415. But suppose that the only navigable channel in the Shat-cl-Arab runs
close to the Turkish bank, does Turkish jurisdiction fall in? This is a point
on which Colonel Mockier put the Consul at Basrah on his guard against com­
mitting himself to.
416. Then, as to vessels hound for Basrah, suppose Turkish officials insisted
after their arrival at Basrah on their returning to Fao to undergo quarantine
or observation ?
417. The Consul at Basrah was asked for a report by Colonel Mockier on
these points, hut what the reply was does not appear from the records.
418. Sir P. Currie concurring with Consul Whyte, considered it quite
inadmissible that British ships hound for a Persian port should be forced to
pay dues to any Turkish administration on the Shat-el Arab.
419. The India Oflioc expressed the opinion that “ until a British ship
passes upstream beyond the Khayan creek,
External A., Anguit 16SG, No*. 67-CO.
or until it touches any point on the right
or tceslern bank of tliQ sh'canp within Turkish territory, it cannot be properly
subjected to interference whether on sanitary or any other grounds by Turkish
officials'*
420. And that as regards the Turkish claim to search vessels for arms, a
search should be allowed only at Basrah or at Fao in the presence of a British
Consular Officer" (India Office letter to the Foreign Office, dated 17th April
1896).
421. Under instructions of tho Foreign Office a communication was then
ndt'io col made to tho Porto in this sense in May
1896 by tho British Embassy (see Mr.
Herbert's letter datod 27th May 1896, to the Foreign Office.