Page 178 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

34

Persia was endeavouring in December 1871 to arrange for the lease of Bandar Abbas to
Maskat, the Sadr Azam stated that if the ruler of Maskat chose to send an agent to that
• Letter l,om W.T. Dick„„. E,,.. H.r Tw's declaration n'cMs^krirv^r'^ ,rec°Pn 1
Majesty's Minister, Tehran, dated i5tn December * n,s declarationi ULCCS.anly precludes the Gov-
,871. ernment of India from encouraging His High-
ness’ project of deputing an agent, and, indeed,
makes it difficult to offer any advice upon the subject; and lam to desire that His
Highness Saiyid Turki may be informed accordingly, and that it may be explained to him
that the admission of a Maskat Agent at Bandar Abbas must rest with the Persian
Government.
The matter of the Sultan's wish to obtain renewal of the lease of Bandar Abbas
docs not call for any remarks at present from the Government of India.”
142. Saiyid Turki appears to have allowed both matters to drop.

XX.—British Position and Jurisdiction at Bassidorc, 1868.
143. We have seen abovef how our station at Bassidorc came into existence.
We shall give below a prdcis of some
t Section XIV.
important correspondence^ from 1864,
l.tVVo!^“rC"C.VsVN".';r4:oct'd- wh'ch thr,ows >ight on our position
and jurisdiction of that station.
[For an account of the Naval Dep6t detachment and establishment at Bassidon
see Section XXXV, paras. j6j-2?6.]
144. The following extract from a demi-official letter, dated 22nd October
1864, in connection with the proposed telegraph treaty with Maskat puts the
case clearly as to our title by prescription and acquiescence on the part of
Persia:—
" I would mention that the island of Kishm is included in the districts leased by
S Our title lo a station on the Kishm island is Maskat, and that on one end of Kishm we have
.
based on a written pcrmis.ion given by the Imam a naval and general station of old standing
of Maskat—see Persian Gulf Prt'cis, paragraphs under OUT Own flag. It is Called Bassidore.
a36‘39‘ Our title is not written.^ It was based
originally on the oral permission of the late Imam of Maskat, and has been continued under
his successor. Persia has tacitly acknowledged our right to possession, because, when at
the conclusion of the war between Maskat and Persia in 1856, the Treaty (under which
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, 1 shall endeavour, when specifying
that our proceedings do not impy conferring sovereign rights to except Bassidore by name.
So Your Excellency would perhaps think well to avoid anything with the Shah’s Govern­
ment, which might afterwards be construed as throwing doubt on our claim to Bassidore.”
145. In writing about the Telegraph||
| Aitchinson's Treaties, Vol. XI.
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 bona, fide one. But on tele­
graphic and general considerations, the present seemed a convenient opportunity for
giving to our title the sanction of a written confirmatory deed.”
146. In 1863 a claim was made by the Persian authorites for the
surrender of a slave, who was alleged to have escaped to Bassidore from her
master, an inhabitant of Lingah with certain valuables belonging to the latter.
The following opinion was expressed by Sir Arthur Lewis, the Advocate General,
Bombay, on the question in his letter dated 10th March 1S63.
“The right of one State to demand of another the delivery up of its own subjects,
when guilty of crimes, is generally regulated by special treaty or compact, and is not
a right recognized by the law of nations. It is stated by jurists to be a right of imperfect
See Wheaton on International Law, page 167, obligation. No special treaty or compact
Sixth edition. for t]ie extradition of criminals exists between
the British and Persian Government that I am aware of, and considering that the offence
imputed 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
j
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 fugitive slave, it would be expedient or proper to comply with a request for the