Page 429 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

81
Geh District.
6. All tho headmen of the districts between Sado-h and Charbar, a" per statement No. 2r
with the exception of the last two, viz., h'sa bin Slier Khan and Hote Fakir Muhammad met
me at Charbar and signed agreements. *1 he agreements with Esa bin Slier Khan and llotc
Fakir Muhammad were completed by Mr. 11. Can pi ell later on during his trip to Jask, when
all the hendmon received their first instalments of the telegraph presents in advance for the
half-year ending 80th June 1899.
G. At the beginning of last year it seems that Sardar Said Khan and Mowladad
Khan were appointed by the Persian authorities, Joiilt District Officers or Chiefs ol Geh.
Hut as this arrangement was considered unsuitable it was proposed that there ►hould be only one
di>trict oflicer of Geh and that the appointment should be gi\eu to Sardar Said Khan, son of
Hussein Khan, and that he should receive a yearly present of l-s. 1,000 as Chief of the Geh
District, provided he effected the capture of the two remaining murdeiers of Mr. Graves and
afforded clhciont protection t<- the telegraph line passing through his district in conjunction
with t"e headmen above mentioned.
6. With reference to your question about Sarfaiaz Khan, there is no record, ns far aa
I am aware, that he was ever appointed District Olliccr of Geh by the Persian authorities; but
there is no doubt he is the dc Jacto proprietor of that district.
7. Said Khau, however, did not meet me on my visit to Charbar in December 1898, but
arrived there in March 1899, and on being informed that a Persian Mamoor was shortly
expected io meet me there to settle outstanding claims against the Geh and Dashtyari Districts,
he left Charbar a couple of days previous to the ManmoFs arrival. The Mamoor and 1 wrote
to Said Khan asking him to ret urn to Charbar, but he excused himself on the plea of being
engaged assisting the Sartip of Humpur in collecting revenue at Scrbaz.
8 There will, I am afraid, be 6ome difficulty in persuading tho Chief of Gob (whoever he
may be), to accept the Hs. 1,000 yearly present foi protection of the telegraph lines as both the
Mamoor and Mowladad Khan (who accompanied him) distinctly informed me that the Chief
of Gen could uot accept any reduction in the amount originally paid this Chief without the
express permission of the Governor-General of Kerman.
9. It seem< that the whole sum of Ks. 3,100, which was formerly paid to the Chief of Geh
by the Telegraph Department, has for some yeais been paid by the Chief to the Persian Gov­
ernment. In fact tho lease of the Geh District, which is renewed each year, includes this turn as
an item of revenue, and the Chief apparently derives no benefit whatever from the subsidy.
10. This state of affairs, no doubt, accounts for the apathy shown by tho Chief of Geh
in looking after the telegraph lines, property of telegraph employes, etc., in his district.
11. In connection with this I would beg leave to point out that the Persian Government
receive from the Telegraph Department R12,000 as an annual subsidy for the telegraph line
passing through Pcrso-Baluchistan from Gwetter to Jask and that the subsidising of the
J3alucb Chiefs of Balioo, Dasht'ari, Geh, and Jask was an airang«-ment made with them per­
sonally by Sir F. Goldsmith in 1809 for the protection of the telegraph lino in their respective
districts, and was no concern of the Pci6ian Government.
12. If the Persian Government would now relinquish their claim to the Geh subsidy
I think matters would shape themselves and the Chief of Geh, whoever might be, would gladly
accept the Rs. J,0u0 yearly present offered and fulfil the conditions we require.
18. Owing, as you already know, to the non-fulfilment of the conditions of the agreement
entered into with the Baluch Chiefs by Colonel Sir F. Goldsmith the present change in.the
redistribution of the subsidies was made for the better protection of the telegraph lines and
sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India, vide Telegraph despatch No. 7, dated 19th
May 1898, a copy of which wus supplied to you last year.
14. Statement No. 8 shows the claim of the Telegraph employes against the Geh District
which were settled last year under instructions contained in your telegram, words 16, dated
28rd March 1898.
Note.—Sinoe Bottled, vide accompanimooti to f 15. Statement No. 4 gives the claims which
Mr. Campbell'a lotter Ho. 31i dated the 6th June > are still outstanding.
1898. )
16. Statement No. 5 shows the total amount of Geh subsidy withheld since 1897, and of
the expenditure debited to it and the balance in hand.
Dashtyari District.
17. The Chief of this district, Mir Abdi Khan by name, is a prisoner with the Persians at
Kerman, and a6 this m$n gave us a great deal of trouble it was decided and approved by you
that tho subsidy of Rs. 1,000 yearly for the protection of the telegraph lineB should be redistri­
buted as follows (
R«.
Mir Mahmud Khan (Abdi’a
brother) to rorcive . . 600 /
Jlaji M"hamo<ad . . lCOv yearly in two half-yearly initalmenti,
Ehai Muhammad , . 120l
Eyed Muhammad • • 120)
Total . 1,000