Page 248 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

72
159- The complainant stated that he was a Baluchi of the name of Esa
and that he had been kidnapped from Gurdeen, a place near Tank on the Mekran
coast. On arrival at Henjam he managed to escape 10 the telegraph camp
where he was received and protected until the arrival of the Sphinx.
160. The dhow belonged to a place called Shuza on the Kishm Island.
Its Nakhoda and crew asserted that the boy Esa had been taken at Gurdeen as
one of the crew on payment to him of 20 dollars. The dhow had no name
and papers of any sort whatever.
161. As the only evidence against the Nakhoda was that of the boy
himself, Commander Kemp stated the facts of the case in telegram to Major
Cox and asked for his instructions. The Resident replied that having in view the
readiness with which indigent Mekranis placed themselves in such situations, he
did not think the case was one for detention and adjudication and advised the
release of the dhow after warning the Nakhoda.
162. When Major Cox was asked to explain more fully his reasons for the
course he had advised, he stated the following grounds among others
“ We had only just asserted ourselves at Henjam and it was undesirable to have
inconvenient questions in connection therewith. While the action of the telegraph
clerk in detaining the dhow at Commander Kemp's orders was no doubt morally justi­
fiable, it would certainly have been difficult lor His Majesty’s Minister to justify
it on political grounds, at any rate it would have been particularly inconvenient at that
moment to have had such a question raised as would have been the case without the
slightest doubt, if the dhow had been brought up for adjudication by a Persian court.'’
163. As to the procedure to be followed in future cases, the Government
of India (Foreign Department letter No.
Secret E„ December 1904, Nos. 70-71.
2416-E. A., dated 30th July 1904)
authorised the Resident to issue to the officer in charge of the telegraph
station at Henjam instructions in the sense of those approved in the Foreign
Department letter No. 5i7*E., dated 1 ith April 1885 (see paragraph 157 above).