Page 415 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

G7
(ill) Interference of Persian Officials within Jask Station limlts-Itcmoval of !
uetaclimont and agreement about Jask Statiou, 1886—1887.
127. At tho closo of tlio year 1830, wo roceivod reports of a Persian
Governor, Nasrullah Khan, having
External A., October 1887, Noi. 13*228.
established himsolf within the limits of
tho Telegraph Station collecting customs on provisions imported for uso of tho
establishment and its servants and otherwise making himsolf obnoxious to them.
It was also found that the people had planted dato offshoots round the station
well, the water-supply of which was very limited. Most of these were removed
on tho Resident's desire by tho people.
128. Soon after Sir A. Nicolson. telegraphed to us that the Shah was much
disturbed by the size of our detachment, about which and our position there
exaggerated reports had been sent to Teheran by a French morciiant and
intriguer. Tho suspicion created by these reports in tho mind of the Shah
seriously affected the chances of his getting a Railway concession, about which
negotiations hud been going on.
129. The difficulty was settled by our agreeing to remove the detachment
from Jask, in place of which it was decided at first to send a police guard of
20 men, but subsequently to levy natives of the place as guards. On the
Shah’s part, it was agreed to remove the obnoxious Governor, Nasrullah Khan,
and to conclude an agreement as to the Jask Station, in which the area and
boundaries of tho station are defined, and certain privileges secured for the
Telegraph officials and their servants, exemption from Persian interference
within those limits and from payment of customs and other taxation on
provisions. It is provided also that no protection or refuge should be given
within tho station to any natives, except to the servants of the Telegraph
establishment.* This agreement is dated 25th February 1887. It was slightly
modified later on—that is, on 3rd July 1687, by changing the boundaries. A
note was added in the margin of the old agreement stating the new boundaries.
Maps of the station were signed and exchanged between Ameen-es-Sultan and
Sir As Nicolson. A copy of thi9 map will be found in Extract A, October
1887, Nos. 13—228 (No. 222 C). Nasrullah Khan left Jask in April, aud was
replaced by Unlay at Khan.
330. In his telegram dated 22nd September 3887, the Resident reported to
His Majesty's Charg6 d’Affaires, Teheran,
External A., October J887, Nos. 296-298.
that a Persian Government patrol of over
100 men under tho command of General Mahomed Kazim arrived at Jask
from the District Rudhar. They were to return to Karman, leaving 50 men at
Jask for garrison purposes.
(iv) Alleged Persian interference within Jask Station, 1889.
131. In February 1889 Saad-ul-Mulk visited Jask in the Persepalis, with
Mir Abdul Nabbi on board, who was not,
External A., May 1889, Nos. 265*266.
however, allowed to land.
It was reported that ho was not to be released unless he paid 4,000 krans,
gave a hostage and found a security that he would not misconduot himself, as
he did, when he was chief of the Jask District. We find soon after Abdul
Nabbi tho other Baluchi Chief imprisoned in 1887, released and baok in
Mekran. Soon after the departure of Saad-ul-Mulk, a wife of a boatman in the
employ of the Telegraph establishment and residing within the station, was
dragged, when outside the lines, to the Governor's house and reported to have
been ill-treated in connection with a dispute with the wife of the
Governor’s Munshi, who appears to have also resided within the lines.
131 A. The following opinion was expressed on these proceedings by, Colonel
Ross in his letter, dated 25th March 1889, to the address of Sir Henry Drum­
mond Wolf:—
“The agreement of 26th February 1887, whioh Sir A. Nicolson concluded with the Persian
Government, provides that Persian officials shall not interfere in any way within the limp-
assigned to tho British Telegraph Department at Jask, but of count this does not confer
jurisdiction over Persian subjects within those limits on British officials, though the prohibit
lion of direct action of the Persian officials practically gives a certain protection to Persian
subjects in British employ. In case of serious offences, I am of opinion that the accused
persons being Persian subjects would have to be made over to the Persian authorities. In the
case brought to notice it does not seem clear that the terms of the agreement have been
altogether infringed and iu the circumstances as reported, I think it well to avoid possibly
incouvenient discussion by letting tho matter di-op.”
• Aitohiuson’a Treaties (1UU2J— Volume X, page 93.