Page 364 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

332
with fcho country; but her relation to tho Ohaab at tho same timo boro tho
character of intimidation on the one hand and of concession on the other, rather
than of the assertion and fulfilment of the acknowledged rights of a superior
Government: no attempt was ever made by JPersia to assess the lands, to ap>point
a Governor of the tribe, to levy troops for the defence of the state, or in fact
to exercise any of the legitimate functions of sovereignty. Slio was content on
ordinary occasions to accept of a JPeeshkush, which the Chaab now assert to
bavo been in lieu of the rent of the Persian lands in their possession, and when
she had adequate means at her disposal she violently extorted as much as the
Chaab had tho means of paying.
Since the reign of the present Shah it must be admitted that tho proceedings
of Persia in regard to Chaab have been
Latterly rontrol of Persia has been complete.
conducted in a manner more clearly to
establish and to realize a right of sovereignty. She lias displaced and appointed
Governors, oxacted hostages, garrisoned Chaab towns with Persian troops, levied
an annual revenue, and latterly she has undertaken to assess tho lands according
to the value of tho produco in tho same manner as is customary in other parts
of the empire, llut whether these acts
Present state of the qncition of dependency.
may be considered to have legalized tho
former partial and undefined dependency, or whether they are to be regarded
as mere aggravations of trespass upon Turkish rights can only be decided by
determining to what extent a claim to allegianco may exist “ do jure n after it
has ceased “ de facto.”
I have heard the claim of Turkey to the lands of Guban frequently insisted
on as a strong ground in favour of her right to the dependency of the Chaab;
but it appears to me that an undue consequence has been attached to this
point. 'Jhat the Chaab were Turkish subjects at tho period of Sultan Murad’s
treaty with Shah Tahmasp, which in its definition of the territorial right of
either Government is supposed to be still in force is unquestioned. That tho
tribe has been virtually independent of Bussorali for the last century is equally
a matter of notoriety. How then does it affect the present question of depen­
dency whether intermediately between these periods the tribe residod in Persian
or Turkish territory.
Right of territory.
I now proceed to examine the right of territory respectively possessed by
Turkey and Persia to the countries at the
Bigbt of territory.
embouchures of the Euphrates and at
Karoon.
The treaties of 1822 and 1746.rcfcr hack to the convention between Sultan
Murad and Shah Tahmasp for the definition of the territorial limits of the two
Empires, and unfortunately I have never been able to obtain a copy of that
document. I have understood, however, that a broad geographical distinction
is alone contained in it, between the possessions of Persia and Turkey in their
Boundsries of the two Empires Irak-i-Arab and conterminous southern territory by the
Khasiiiaa. attribution of Khuzistan to tho former
power and of Irak-i-Arab to the latter ;
and in an age when maps and surveys ■were unknown it appears to me, I
confess, that this is the only territorial division that could have been conveni­
ently adopted.
I shall assume therefore that the question of right is thus correctly stated
and endeavour in consequence to fix the
Luis of geographic al distinction between tbo
provinces. true geographical limits of the two pro­
vinces.
The rule of appropriation from the time of authentic history appears,^ then
to have been simply this; that the lands deriving water from the Tigris and
Euphrates belonged to Irak-i*Arab, while the country along tho banks of tho
Karoon, or deriving water from the Karoon, was within the limits of Khuzistan,
nothing perhaps could bo more simple in principle than this distribution : hut
nothing could be more fluctuating and perplexed than it has proved in practice,
owing to the numerous changes in the courses of the rivers.