Page 142 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol IV_Neat

Vi

11
and 1903; nnd in each of the Conventions drawn
up at.these Conferences clauses wore incorpo­
rated embodying measures intended to secure
this end.”
Stated briefly, the Regulations framed under
the Paris Convention of 1891., which had special
reference, to cholera, have in the main been a
dead letter. The Regulations contemplated the
establishment of a number of sanitary stations,
under the control of the Turkish authorities,
in the Persian Gulf, and the enforcement of
quarantine against arrivals. The British Govern­
ment, in adhering to the Convention, refused to
accept the Appondix containing the Persian Gulf
Regulations, on the grounds (1) that the posts
wero unnecessary; (2) that Turkey nnd Persia
were too far otT to maintain effective control;
and (3) that the great expense entailed in
establishing the ports would fall chiefly on
British shipping, which formed 98 per cent, of
the shipping in the Gulf. The scheme was not
carried out.
When plague appeared in India in 1896 the
Constantinople Board of Health* discussed at
great length and on repeated occasions the
question of new ports and the regime to be
applied in the Gulf ports. It was ultimately
decided to establish a permanent port at Fao,
and to repulse plague-infected ships from
Russorah. A Commission was sent to Fao to
select a site, but nothiug further was dono, and
Fao rcraaiued a sanitary office with no lazaret
and no sanitary apparatus.
In the Venice Sanitary Convention of 1897 pro­
vision was made simply for a sanitary station near
Bussorah and another at or ir. the neighbour­
hood of the Island of Ormuz or of Kishm, near
the. entrance of the Gulf, tlieso stations to bo
under the control of the Constantinople Board
of Health. The establishment of the Ormuz
• This in a body of international composition, Great Britain
being represented ou it by Dr. F. 0. Clemow, Physician to
His Majesty’s Embassy at Constantinople. Dr. Dickson,
Dr. Cleinow's predecessor. Physician to the British Embassy,
thus described the Board in January 1898: “Notwithstanding
its nominal international character, the Board is iu reality a
Turkish Department, guided by the real or pretended will of
the Sultau, and administered by its Turkish members;” oud
the British Government has always consistently maintained
the view that the Board “ is not independent of the Turkish
Government, . . . and that tho Porte is responsible for all
measures adopted on its advice.