Page 379 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

6S
continuance of our occupation of that spot which first took place in connec-
tion with the operations of the Eastern Telegraph Company in 1869 (? 1864).
203. The views of the Government of India were invited on the question of
maintaining the flagstaff on Telegraph Island
Secret E., August 1905, No. 297.
(Secretary of State’s Despatch No. 16 Secret,
dated 19th May 1905). Major Cox, who was consulted, telegraphed on the 14th
July 1905, that Major Grey was of the opinion that, in the circumstances, there
was no advantage in maintaining a flagstaff, and considered that it might be aban­
doned with the other two ; but that, if for any reason it was thought necessary
to retain it, he could arrange it with the Sultan. It appeared to Major Cox that,
if Henjam were turned into a sanitary station, Great Britain would want some
other place at the entrance to the Persian Gulf for a war signal station, and
Elphinstone Inlet might have been useful for the purpose, instead of Khor Kawi;
but if the reoccupation of Telegraph Island would constitute a parallel to the
Bundar Gisseh incident, he saw no alternative but to abandon the flagstaff for
the present, and trust to seizing the locality when necessity for it actually arises.
In his opinion, our claims to the island on telegraph grounds would be as good
ten years hence as they are at the present moment. After considering the
views of the local officers, the Secretary of State was informed by telegraph, on
the 22nd July, that it was proposed to defer, until the declaration of the Maskat
Arbitration Award, the actual removal of the staffs on the Isthmus and Sheep
Islands. Their presence had hitherto attracted the notice neither of the French
nor of the Sultan, and their removal now, or their consignment to the Sultan’s
care, might result in the Tribunal’s attention being drawn to our previous action.
There might be some advantage in the retention of the Telegraph Island flag­
staff, as evidence that our right to reoccupy was not affected by any assertion of
the Sultan's sovereignty subsequent to original occupation. But the Gov­
ernment of India were of the opinion that the question might be discussed; after
the declaration of the award, with the Sultan. There did not seem to be any
parallel between the possible revival of the British claim to Telegraph Island and
the Bundar Gisseh incident. The former would resemble the revival of the claim
to the station of Henjam.
204. The Secretary of State telegraphed on 16th August that he had no
objection to the proposal made by the Gov­
Secret E., January of 1906, Nos. 451*73.
ernment of India to defer until the declar­
ation of the Maskat Arbitration Award, the actual removal of the flagstaffs on the
Isthmus and Sheep Islands, but that the question of the Telegraph Island would
require further consideration before any communication is made to the Sultan.
205. When the Maskat Arbibration Award was given, the Director, Indo-
European Telegraphs, Persian Gulf, was requested to arrange for the removal of
the flagstaffs on the Maklab Isthmus and Sheep Island, by proceeding on the
Patrick Stewart, without attracting notice, after consultation with the British
Consul at Bandar Abbas, who, however, was not to be present. The latter
reported on 26th October the removal of the flag staffs from the stations on the
18th idem.
(v) The Fajeira Dispute.
206. It has been a part of our policy to regard the strip of the coast from
Dibba to Khor Kalba as part of territory of the Joasmi chief. Recently, however,
the Sheikh of Fajeira had been endeavouring to shake off the authority of the
Joasmi chief. In his letter No. 158-A., dated 20th July 1902, Colonel. Kemball
suggested that, in the event of the Chief of Shargah being unreasonable in the
treatment of his feudatory, and being unable to give him adequate protection, it
might become necessary to consider whether the Joasmi jurisdiction should
not cease to exist on this coast and whether the strip should not be handed over
to the Sultan of Maskat. We have seen what view was taken by the Government
of India in their despatch* to the Secretary of State, No. 192, dated 23rd
October 1903. In a subsequent report
Secret E.. July 1903, Noa. 192*214 (No. 199).
Colonel Kemball threshed the whole question
of the dispute between the Chief of Shargah and Sheikh of Fajeira very carefully
and modified his previous opinion. The report, throwing as it does much light on
the history of the relation between the two parties, is printed below in extenso—
[C645FD]
* Para. 184 a»t*.