Page 266 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

122
Act also provides for the forfeiture to Her Majesty of any interest acquired in a British
ship by an unqualified person (sec Section 103) except in certain cases of interests trans­
mitted by reason of death or marriage (sec Section 3a) when applications for sale to the
Civil Courts arc allowed.
(Ixiii) Demand made by the Persian Government for the surrender of one Hassan
Ahmed, a Persian subject, employed as a Pilot on board the Indian Govern-
ment Steamer " Amberwitch."

415. On the 8th January 1877 the Resident at Bushire asked Lieutenant
Stiffe, Commanding Indian Government
Political A, September 1877, Nos. 257*265.
Steamer Amberwitch, to surrender his
pilot, Hassan Ahmed, a Persian subject, in accordance with request of the
Persian Government who had claims against him. Lieutenant Stiffe replied that
Hassan Ahmed was no longer employed on board the Amberwitch, and that he
did not know where he was. He at the same time addressed the following
questions to the Government of Bombay :—
" (1) Whether should such an order for the extradition of a Persian or Arab pilot
employed on Government duty on board the vessel under my command be
complied with.
11 (a) Whether in the event of the man refusing to proceed on shore, I am authorised
to seize him by force, and deliver him to the Persian authorities on shore, or
whether the latter should send officers on board to capture him.
“ (3) Whether such extradition should be carried out in the case of a person repre­
senting himself as a refugee from oppression as was the case of this man."
416. The Bombay Government submitted the case to the Foreign Depart­
ment for orders, and observed that the
Bombay No. J972-P., dated 3rd April 1877.
Resident did not appear to have made
any enquiry into the facts of the case.
Foreign Department No. iho-p., dated 19th The Foreign Department sent the papers
M,J *®77* to the Resident for opinion and report on the
facts.
417. In reply to this call, Colonel Prideaux submitted two letters from
Resident, Persian Gulf, Nos. 147 and 148, dated 15th June 1877. In the first
he showed that it was the practice of the Persian authorities at Bushire to exact
from pilots a large portion of their earnings; in one case 530 krans were deducted
out of 600 krans, and that this was their method of taxing pilots. The latter
naturally look every possible means to evade payment; sometimes they stopped
on board the vessels in which they were employed as long as they remained at
Bushire Harbour; sometimes they landed at other ports where the authorities were
less strict. The light in which Colonel Prideaux regarded these pilots was that
of defaulting tax-payers, and he held that the Persian authorities acted within
their right in demanding the surrender of their own subjects in their own waters,
although on board an Indian Government vessel. With regard to the remark of
the Bombay Government that he had not made any enquiry into the facts, Colonel
Prideaux observed:—
“The local authorities having fulfilled every requirement of international courtesy by
demanding the surrender of the pilot through the Residency, it would have been beyond
my province to have enquired into the merits of a dispute between the Persian Government
and one of its own subjects. The Amberwitch was lying within Persian territorial waters
and the right of the Persian Government, as represented by the local authorities, to demand
the pilot's surrender was not dependent on the question whether the claim against him was
a just one or not."
418. The Government of India on their letter No. 19S4-P., dated 14th
August 1877, slates :—
In reply, I am to observe that if the steamer Amberwitch is not in the position of a
public 5hip of the Indian Government, the Persian authorities are entitled to execute process
on board the vessel, for the surrender of the pilot, in accordance with Persian law.
And even if the Amberwitch is a public ship, the Governor-General in Couucil considers
that the Persian Government can exercise the same jurisdiction in this particular <-*ase.
There may be a difference of opinion as to the precise extent to the immunity ot a pubuc