Page 350 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

62
118. The view oxprcssetl by the Sultan of Maskat in his letter dated
25tb September 1879, must be noted, as
Politic*! A, Novoinber 1870, Noa. 251*254.
it tacitly admits the right of the Joaami
Chief to tribute from the Sheikh of Fajaira. Its translation is quoted
below:—
The tract of country aliudod to above is not the country of the Joasmis, neither liaa it
been a possession of theirs at any time. It is an independent trnot between tho two countries
neither belonging to one or the other. It is probable an agreement was drawn up between
rayself and Hamad bin Majid, but it went uo further. My obj-ct in the correspondence
that has passed ard at the proient moment has not beon to claim a right of sovereignty over
Fajeyrab, so that it may be a grievance against me, but throughout our request to the Govern­
ment of India was to preveut the usurpation of this tract of country os a possession by- the
Joasmi Chief. The tribute which it has been customary for Fajeyrab to pay tho
JonBmis is, we are of opinion, still their due, but tho act of Salim bin Sultau in seizing on the
country and fort as a possession and driving its Chief and nobles into exile, is in uo way
justifiable.
If it is possible for the great Government to prevent the annexation of this strip of
country by tho Joasmi Chief, and letting it remain as heretofore a tributary State, it will bo
reckoned to them as justice which they are ever anxious to see administered, but if it connot
be, it matters not, and we beg your consideration for the trouble we have giveu you in the
matter.
119. In January 1880 the Political Agent, Maskat, reported that on the
Joasmi Chief seizing Fajeyrab, Hamad-
Political A, Fobruary 1880, Noi. 343-341.
bin-Abdullah bad fled and sought refuge
in Maskat, that be had, however, recently left Maskat and succeeded in
retaking it partly by treachery.
120. The Joasmi Chief then asked permission to send an expedition by sea
to take Fajeyrab. On a report from the
Politic*! A. May 1881, Nos. 284-311.
Resident, the Government of India asked
for report on the following points (No. 922-E.P., dated 5th May 1881)
(1) the circumstances, under which Fajeyrah was wrested from the
Shnrguli Chief,
(2) the nature and extent of the Joasmi rights on the eastern coast of
the Cape,
(3) if the Shargah Chief was unable to advance by land to his territory
(if any) on this coast, and if any place belonging to him there
was wrested from him by means of a naval expedition, as appeared
to he the fact in this case, whether the policy of Maritime Truce
ought to bo rigidly enforced, inasmuch as under certain
circumstances a rigid adherence to it may press unfairly upon a
Chief whose possessions do not happen to be compact.
121. Colonel Ross’s report No. 97,
Political A., July 1881, Nos. 64-87. dated 26th May 1881, on these points is
printed below:—
No. 97, dated Bashirs, the 26th May 1881.
From—LisoTKirxMT-CoLOiiit. E.O. Koss, Political Resident in tho Persian Golf and Her Majesty's
Consul-General for Kars, etc.,
To—A. C. Ltxll, Esq., C.B., Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department.
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter No. 922-E.P., dated 6th inetant, and
to submit the report therein called for regarding Shargah and Fajeyrah.
2. The question of allowing or forbidding the Chief of Shargah to send an expedition
oy sea to ooerce the present occupants of Fajeyrah can, as the case now stands, be discussed ond
isposed of before proceeding to the description of the history and political status of Fajeyrah
rl' *TII1£> ®n,ce my Previous reference to Government was written, had interviews with the
Uuef of Shargah that Shaikh, instead of pressing for the permission I had understood him
to desire, disclaimed all intention or wish to operate by sea, but preferred other requests which
Llim fQurlh!rL.0n\ From the conversation that passed, it was clear that Shaikh
If, »klde no.d?DbtLof h,« ability to send forces to the territory in question by land. When
.i r -?Xp,,am that the complaint of this Chief that Fajeyrah was captured from the sea,
with the aid of external enemies, is not warranted by the facts, I think enough will be said
® kLhat n° t’7eat hard<hiP wou!d befall the Chief of Shargah by the prohibition of
operaung by sea, and that such probation would not necessarily constitute a claim for