Page 263 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

87

2io. This suspicion was confirmed when on the night of the 3rd June 1892
these slaves escaped from the Consulate and the Arab disappeared from
Mattrah the same night. The destination of the party had been Zaki, and there­
fore it was supposed that they had fled there. The name of the Arab was Seit
bin Khatir.
It was discovered by reference to the Administrator, Imperial British East
Africa, that the owners of the slaves were Hamis bin Nasur and Seif bin
Suleiman, wealthy Arabs of position, known to the British Superintendent of
Melindi Seif bin Suleiman originally came from Zaki and had relatives in the
place.
211. On 23rd June 1893, in the course of correspsndence with the Sultan
of Maskat, His Highness stated that Hamis bin Nasur and Seif bin Suleiman, the
alleged owners of the slaves, were in Oman. They were summoned before
Colonel Jayakar on 19th August 1893 and examined. They denied all know-
•No. 70cf External A, January ,894. No*. 63-73, ledKe °f the transaction.* Their statements
and p'eceding page No 180 o( External a., Ocio* directly contradicted the account given
ber 1894. Nos. 179-181. by Mr. Bell Smith, the Superintendent of
Melindi, who concurred in the belief that these men were guilty.
212. It had been suggested that the property of these men in Melindi
should be attached. However, the Consul-
No. 179 of the «bove Collection.
General in Zanzibar said in letter dated
i8th June 1894—
0 1 fear that, as far as this Agency is concerned, no further steps are likely to be of
much use, but it will be for the Government of India to decide whether they wish me to take
any; " and to this we replied In view of the opinion expressed by you the
Government of India must leave you to act or not upon the suggestion (that the property
should be attached) as you think best. It is evident therefore that the property has not
been attached."
213. The evidence of Hamsini, father of one of the slaves, who had remained
at Melindi and was examined by Mr. Bell
Ho. 70 of External A., Match 1895, No*. 68-73.
Smith, practically proved the case against
Hamis bin Nasur, and this was confirmed by evidence of Rubayyah, a runaway
slave taken by the Political Agent at Maskat. This evidence stated that four
of the slaves were living with their masters at Zaki and three had been sold.
One of the latter was dead. This evidence was taken on the 17th April 1895,
and on it the Political Agent requested that the two men, Hamis bin Nasur and
Seif bin Suleiman, be detained. The Political Agent was informed through the
Agency Munshi that they were confined in Fort Merani.
214. In May 1896 on a reference from the Resident, the Government of
India passed the following orders
External A., June 1896, No*. 73-75.
“ These two men have been detained for more than eleven months, and notwithstanding
their detention, there appears no longer any hope of recovering the seven Africans, with
whose sale into slavery they are supposed to have been concerned. In these circumstances
it is considered that the further imprisonment of these men is unnecessary aud you can
inform His Highness the Sultan that they may be released.
2x5. The Sultan of Maskat also requested that the property of the two Arabs
at Melindi might be restored to them. This
External A., May 1897, No*. 135-138.
request was referred to the Consul-General
for such action as he thought fit.

(v) Dismissal of the Coal Agent at Bassidore for possessing slaves, 1887.
a 16. There was at Bassidore an old coal agent, Haji Abbas by name, who
r«m,«i A., July 1877. No., ,46-sj. !" ,877 was found in possession of a num-
ber of slaves. 1 he man being a Persian
subject was not, in Lieutenant-Colonel Prideaux’s opinion, liable to punishment, but
having regard to the enormous sacrifices the British Government incurred for the
suppression of slavery, it was incompatible with his position of British Gov­
ernment servant to hold slaves and thus encourage slavery. The Resident there-