Page 285 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

I4I
the Mujtahid. On his release Ali bin Hussain set sail for home, but was over­
taken by a boat at a short distance out. By order of the Deputy Governor he
was taken back to Bandar Abbas, was detained there five days more, and was
at last released through the good ofiiccs of one Kassim Allaf and upon payment
of Rs. 16.
518. On the 3rd April 1893 the above complaint was forwarded by the Resi­
dent (Colonel Talbot) to the Persian Foreign Office Agent at Bushire (Haji
Mirza Abdulla Khan), who was asked to obtain redress for Ali bin Hussain, the
subject of a Trucial Chief under British protection, in the same way as the
• Thi. chief was fined by Colonel Talbot for Resident had lately obtained redress for a
attacking a Persian boat, which was summarily Persian Subject from the Trucial Chief* of
released. - - - - -
Um-el-Kawain. On the 15th May the
Karguzar replied that he had ordered an enquiry ; and he enclosed an explana­
tion which he had received from the Deputy Governor, Muhammad Hussain
Beg. This explanation was most unsatisfactory.
The Deputy Governor first asserted that Ali bin Hussain was a Persian
subject, and then in effect admitted the correctness of the complaints made by
Ali bin Hussain, viz.—
(a) that he was detained at Bandar Abbas ;
(£) that his money was seized ; and
(c) that his cargo of fish was also seized and confiscated.
The Deputy Governor justified his action on the ground that Hussainoo had
laid information charging Hussain bin Ali with murder of the missing servant
and the theft of Hussainoo’s money. The explanation was forwarded to the
Chief of Rasel-Khayma, who in reply refuted the Deputy Governor’s claim to
Ali bin Hussain as a Persian subject and showed that the cargo of fish in his
ship was jointly owned by Ali bin Hussain and other inhabitants of the island
of Zaab.
519. On the 19th September 1893, the Officiating Resident (Mr. Crawford)
wrote fully to the Persian Foreign Office Agent about the case, and pointed out
in particular—
(0) that the Deputy Governor had practically admitted the truth of the
complaint;
(b) that the charge made by Hussainoo was manifestly opposed to avail­
able evidence and ordinary probabilities;
(tf) that, even if apparently true, the charge made by Hussainoo would
not have justified the Deputy Governor in dealing directly, as he
had done, with the subject of a Trucial Chief under British
protection ;
{d) that the money taken from Ali bin Hussain and the sale proceeds of
his cargo should at least be restored to him and that he was also
entitled to compensation;
(e) that the British Residency is prompt to obtain reparation for Persian
subjects who are injured on the Arab coast, and is entitled to look
for like protection to be afforded by the Persian Government to
subjects of Bahrein and the Trucial Chiefs, who moreover are in a
position to retaliate for unredressed wrongs.
520. The Officiating Resident further observed that this same Deputy Gov­
ernor, Muhammad Hussain Beg, had acted in a similar violent manner before, vis ,
in 1888, when he had seized Rs. 150 from a boat belonging to a subject of Ras-el-
Khayma, which sum he had been compelled to restore through the Resident's
intervention.
The only reply received was that Muhammad Hussain Beg, who was a
Shiraz, still denied the charges, and that the Saad-ul-Mulk was letting the cases
stand over till the Karguzar of Bushire (Haji Mirza Abdulla Khan) visited
Shiraz on leave.
S640FD