Page 458 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

34
59- As an illustration of the great cunning displayed in the arm trade from
Maskat, Captain Cox referred two distinct
Enclosure to No. 137.
cases in which dhows had slipped away
from port taking advantage of the temporary absence of a warship from Maskat.
Revival of Notification No. 1560 of the 1st October 1880.

60. The Secretary of State in a recent despatch had raised the question of
the advisibility of reviving the order con­
♦Secret, November 1880, Nos. 22
(17—30). tained in Notification* No. 1060, dated the
1st October 1880, by which arms brought
into an Indian port and declared under manifest to be consignments without
transhipment to a port on the Persian Gulf were removed from exemption from
the provisions of section 6 of the Arms Act. The main reasons for the cancella­
tion of the Notification would seem to have been that as the direct route from
England to Persia vid Maskat was open for the importation of arms into Persia,
it was no use putting obstacles in the way of importation vid an Indian port.
Circumstances, however, had now changed. There was no doubt that arms osten­
sibly destined for Persia found their way to tribes on the frontier and into Makran,
and the measures recently taken by us in concert with the Persian Government to
enforce the prohibition (which had technically been in existence since 1881)
against importation into Persia had removed any necessity that there might have
been for protecting the British India Steam Navigation Company, or any other
company trading with Persia vid Karachi, from unfair competition with other
companies dealing with Persian port direct. As the resuscitation of the old
notification would merely have the desirable effect of putting a further obstacle
in the way of what was now styled an illicit trade, it was again brought into force
by the publication of the following :—
“ Notification.—By the Government of India, Home Department. In exercise of the
powers conferred by section 37 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (XI of 1878), the Governor-
General in Council is pleased to cancel the Notification by the Government of India in the
Home Department, No. 361, dated the 8lh March 18S2, and in modification of the orders
published in the notification in the same Department No. 157a, dated the 29th August
1879, to declare that arms, ammunition and warlike stores brought into an Indian port, and
declared under manifest to be consignments without transhipme.it to any port on the sea-
"board of the Persian Gulf, shall, until further orders, be liable to the prohibition and direc­
tions contained in section 6 of the said Act.”
The Sultan of Maskat’s position as regards certain claims with
which he was threatened for seizures on the " Baluchistan,” 1900.
61. Regarding the handing over to the Sultan of the arms seized on the
” Baluchistan,” the Resident in the Persian
Secret E., August 1900, Nos. 81—92.
Gulf writing on the 16th July 1900, asked
for instructions in respect to certain claims with which the Sultan was threatened
in connection with the arms.
In reply the position was thus briefly explained
“ The Government asserts that the arms, etc., were seized by them under the authority
and on behalf of the Sultan, and that the decision of his Court of Law absolved them from
any liability for damages. If their plea is upheld, no claim for damages can be, either
against the Sultan, or against the Government. If it is upset, a claim for damages will be
against the Government who made the seizures, not against the Sultan to whom Govern­
ment handed over the arms which had been illegally seized.”
(1) The Sheikh of Bahrein restores confiscated arm to Messrs.
Fracis, Times & Co., 1900,

62. On the 29th April 1900, Captain Kemball reported the intention of the
Sheikh of Bahrein to dispense with any
Secret’E., July 1900, Nos. 165—177.
further enquiry into the matter of the^ con-
fi scat ion at Bahrein of the arms and ammunition belonging to Messrs. Fracis,
Times & Co., and to make them over to the firm. Captain Kemball suggested