Page 463 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

39

Regulations under the order in Council as to Inland Persia (Article 290). As
regards the Coast and Islands Order, owing to the different wording of Article
49, this cannot be effected by regulations, and if it could the penalty would be
only Ks. 100.
Under these circumstances probably the best course would be to pass an1
Order in Council dealing with the point as regards all parts of Persia.
(3) As the ship has not been detained at Bushire this question does not
arise.
(4) The answer to this question is in the negative, as the importation of
arms is contrary to prohibition, and could not be held to constitute the offence
of smuggling as defined by Article 10.
(5) We do not think that under the circumstances stated any prosecution
would lie against the master of the Hathor.
(6) No.
(7) Such jurisdiction could not be claimed by Persia under the Article in
the treaty referred to. That treaty is not binding upon Her Majesty's Gov­
ernment and the most-favoured-nation clause in the Treaty of Paris could not
curtail the rights of Her Majesty’s Government.
(8) As stated in the answer to the fourth question, the facts would not
support a charge of smuggling.
(9) We think Colonel Kemball and Mr. Spring-Rice should be instructed
to explain to the Persian authorities the reason why proceedings have not been
instituted, and the intention of Her Majesty’s Government forthwith to apply
the Persian law of 1st January 1900 to British subjects.
(10) It is now unnecessary, as the ship has not been detained, to consider
the reply to Messrs. Bucknall’s letter.”

Fracis, Times and Company—V.—Meade.—Judgment May 1901.

70. In July 1901, Messrs. Fracis Times and Company commenced an
action for damages against Colonel Meade, Resident in the Persian Gulf in
respect of the seizure of certain of their arms and ammunition in the Persian
Gulf at the end of 1897 and early in 1898.
Mr. Justice Bigham delivered judgment on the 22nd May 1901, and
summed up in the following words:—
“The defendent-—I refer now both to what took place at Bushire and to what took
place at Bahrein—in my opinion acted not only with great discretion and great ability,
but also with the strictest regard to the requirements of the law. He never heard of the
claim now made against him personally in this action until he returned home in the summer
of 1900. It was then stated by the plaintiff; it was stated after vain attempts had been
made to obtain relief from the British Government in respect of the same seizures and it is
indeed nothing more than another attempt in the same direction.
There must be judgment for the defendant with costs.
Seizure by the Turkish authorities of arms destined forKatr, Feb­
ruary 1901.

71. In February, 1901, the Consul at Basra reported that the “ Hodeida”
had brought to Basra a considerable
Secret E., June 1901. Pro. No. 80. consignment of Martini rifles and ammu­
nition, which were seized by the Turkish
gunboat “ Zohaf ** from a Persian sailing vessel off the coast of Katr. The
number of rifles was 250 and the rounds of ammunition 12,000. The
rifles and cartridges were destined for Yasem-bin-Thani, the Sheikh of Katr,
who protested vigorously against their confiscation, asserting that in the then
unsettled state of the country he was forced to arm for self-protection. The
arms were stated to have been brought from Maskat.