ORIGIN OF THE MISCHIEF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13589, 10 May 1906, Page 7

ORIGIN OF THE MISCHIEF.

AN INTERESTING LETTER. In- the course of a letter dated February 21, Laffan's correspondent at Constantinople \gave tho following interesting description of the origin of the Akabah dispute:— "In the middle of January an AngloEgyptian ollicer, Rumbley Bey, an inspector of tlio Turko-Egyptian frontier, was making a tour in tlio Sinaitio Pcninsuii',, when he was not a little surprised to find a garrison of 100 Turkish soldiers at tlio village of Taba.li, on tlio sea coast-, eight miles southwest of the Turkish port-of Akahah, at the head of the gulf of that nair.o. Tlio Turks were decidedly on Egypiian soil, but they seemed to consider the Anglo-Egvptian inspector as the intruder, and, although ll.c report has not been confirmed, it- is alleged that they temporarily arrested him. On his .release, Rumbley Boy immediately communicated with his department, and it was not long before t-ho matter readied Lord Cromer's ears, who passed it on to Downing street-. A note, strongly worded, was sent through the Khedivnl Government to tlio Sublime Porte, protesting against this violation of Egyptian territory. "It may be mentioned that by a Firman of t-ho Imperial Ottoman Government, a line of demarcation was regulated between 151 Arisb (of Napoleonic fame) and the Turkish port of Akabah (tlio ancient Ezion Gobar of Solomon). According lo this Firman that part of the S'inaitio Peninsula south-west, of this lino should be nndev the ' personal administration of the Khedive.' A? such it has always been recognised. The Porte's reply to the Khcdival Government, which asked- why no intimation had been "iads to it cf this strategical movement beforehand, was to this effect- that- sueli a. question was hevond Ilia power of the Egyptian Government to ask. seeing tl.lt it was no more than a vassal province of the Sublimo Porlo. To this the Khorliv: • Government retorted that this theory mighthave held good long ago. but sueli was not the care now. The Turks, however, refused to budge, and so the matter vas ajjain referred to London, which instructed the British Embassy at Constantinople to act. Thus fnr_ no tangible result has boon arrived a-t. and it is possible tbat a naval demonstration on the part of I lie Egyptian Government, which has several ' wellequipped gunboats in its r.c.rvice, may l-e appealed to aa a last, resort, heforo tho garrison at Tabah is shelled out of its position—a very easy manceuvre. Tho British Government could not interfere for international reasons—actively, that is, although. of course, it is Lord Cromer who is really conducting the negotiations. There ia, therefore, the likelihood of a. paradox taking placc in tlio form of a rupture of relations between the two States, which are lo all outward etiquette ona and the same."

THE TURKISH VERSION. Tho theory of Turkey's African dominion has, with the exception of the Vilayet of Tripoli, in Barbarj, vanished as completely as the Isthmus of Suez. Tho Turkish version of the incident is that the battalion had been ordered to Duba, a post on the Arabian shore of the Gulf of Akabah, but tho captain in charge had .misunderstood liis instructions to reach Tabah, a very plausible cxcuse, which might be ncwplod in view of tho difficulties of Turkish orthography, were it aiot swept away by the bare facts of the Turks persisting in their occupation. Several theories have naturally sprung up regarding the purport of this frontier incident. One is, and it is an old one, that, the Turks are wanting to get a better hold in the Sinaitic Peninsula, in favour of their strategic Hodja-/. line, eo that tnoy may one day make a dash on E'jypt, and occupy il'Jir lost province. In further development of this theory it is said that they once sank a Turkish steamer in the Canal in order to see whether it would bo possible to block up the Canal and prevent a navy_ interfering with the passage of Turkish troops. Another, that, this is a counter-move to tho opening of Port Soudan, which will tend more than ever to make the Red Sea, and, therefore tlm Hedjaz, como under the Ang'.o-Hgyptian jurisdiction and political influence, which, of course, it is the Sultan's policy and interest to oppose, as lie is now doing, with the Hadjaz railway. Thirdly, that, this occupation is only a ballon dessai to divert England's attention from Asia Minor, which has become of interest just now owing to the Mining Law iievision.

. 'hat it is ■ merely an intriguo similar to that practised on Persia, in ordor to sceure sonic concossion or other in compensation for a withdrawal. In any ease the finoillness of the number of Turkish troops, shows the slig-ht plausibility of all these versions,