ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA). 
175 
is herewith annexed (marked E.), and also of that of the President of the United State® 
(marked F). 
Q. 22.—Can you state precisely what part of the African coast, and what islands 
besides Zanzibar, were inherited by the late Syud Saeed when he succeeded to the 
sovereignty ? 
A.—Prerious to the accession of the late fmarn, in 1806, to the government of Oman, 
the connection of that state with the territories now forming the Zanzibar dominions was 
little more than nominal. Mombasa, Lamoo, Palta, Kilwa, &c., were separate republics 
governed by their own eldeis and chiefs. When a ship of war from Muscat visited their 
ports, they usually aeknowledyed the suzeraineté of the Imaum<. Mombasa and the Island 
of Pemba weie placed under the British flag in 1823, by a convention concluded with the 
Sultan of xMombasa. 
Q. 23.—You aie aware of the feudal service owed by the tribes of Oman to the reigning 
sovereign. Was it not principally by their aid that Syud Saeed was enabled to extend his 
conquests and to consolidate his empire in Africa ? If so, and if, in addition thereto, Syud 
Saeed owed his sovereignty to election, may not the said tribes claim some right in the 
disposal of those territories ? 
A.—The late Imam succeeded in establishing his power over the coast of East Africa 
chiefly through the mutual jealousies and dissensions of the petty chiefs, who frequently 
sent envoys to Muscat to solicit his interference. I do not think that it would ever occur 
to any Arabs in Oman that they had any voice in the succession to the government of 
the Afiican possessions on the ground supposed. I think they were regarded as being at 
the absolute disposal ol the Imam, and that the fact that all the property of the State, such 
as ships of war, arms, &c., were considered as the private estate of the Imam, strengthens 
this opinion. 
Q. 24.—Have you discovered any additional proof of the statement made by Syud Majeed 
regarding the conditions on which he promised to pay annually to Syud Thoweynee the sum 
of 40,000 crowns ? You are doubtless aware that Syud llioweynee maintains that the amount 
was promised as tribute ; and he avers that Mahomed bin Salem, who conducted the nego 
tiation on his behalf received the first instalment as such from Syud Majeed. As no docu- 
memary evidence is f rthcoming with regard to this transaction, do you not conceive it 
probable that Mahomed bin Salem, for his own private ends, may have represented the 
matter in that light to Thoweynee, while, in accepting the sum from Majeed, he was willing 
to regard it as a fraternal gift ? 
A.—None. I have never been able to obtain a single document relative to the subject, 
excepting a letter from the Muscat envoy, Mahomed bin Salem, to Luddah Damjee, the 
Customs master, who was appointed Syud Majeed's agent for the payment oftiie money, in 
which he terms it “ Masaadeh,’’ i. e., aid or assistance. Also a memorandum in the hand 
writing of Syud Majeed, addressed to Ltidda Damjee, appointing him the agent, in which the 
same word is used. As I have never seen Mahomed bin Salem, attd know nothing of his 
character, I cannot form an opinion as to whether he may have deceived Syud Thoweynee 
as to the terms on which Syud Majeed had agreed to pay him the 40,000 crowns annually. 
Q. 25.—But if, as is stated, 10,000 crowns of the promised subsidy were to be paid to 
Syud Toorkee, why did not Majeed remit that amount direct to him ? It seems strange that 
he should not liave done so, especially since it appears to be maintained at Zanzibar {vide 
Syud Hilal’s testimonyj tiiat Toorkee was as independent at Sobar as Thoweynee was at 
Muscat. 
A.—I consider it very unlikely that any stipulation was made relative to one-fourth of 
the promised subsidy being paid to Syud Toorkee. I have always had great doubts on 
this point, because Thoweynee and Toorkee were on bad terms with each other at the time 
the agreement with Mahomed bin Salem was made ; and also because 1 was informed that 
the allowance made from the Muscat treasury to Sohar during the life of the late Imam 
was only 1,200 crowns per annum. If the whole of the tribute paid to the Wahabee chief 
is, and always has been, paid from the Muscat treasury, it is, I consider, a strong confirma 
tion of the doubts 1 entertain; for Syud Toorkee could have no possible claims to such a 
payment from the Zanzibar treasury. 
Q. 26.—You state that 5,000 crowns of the instalment of 20,000, paid to Mahomed bin 
Salem for Thoweynee, was to be given to Toorkee to enable him to pay the tribute to the 
VVahabees. Are you aware that the whole of the tribute to the Wahaliee Ameer is, and 
always has been, paid by the Muscat treasury ? 
A.— I am not. 1 had always been led to believe ¡hat the Sohar state paid tribute to the 
Wahabee Ameei. 
Q. 27.—Thoweynee states that the French and American Consuls, as well as the late 
Colonel Hamerton, were cognizant of the arrangement whereby Majeed agreed to pay him 
the 40,000 crowns as tribute. Was any record of the transaction left by Colonel Hamerton 
in the Consulate? 
A.—I have repeatedly been informed that no Consul was present when the arrangement 
was made with Mahomed bin Salem. No record of the transaction was left by Colonel 
Hamerton in the Consulate. The persons stated to have been present when the agreement 
respecting the payment of the 40,000 crowns was made are—1st. Mahomed bin Salem, 
the Muscat envoy; 2nd, Syud Sooliman bin Hamed ; 3rd, Mahomed bin Saeed, the 
second surviving son of the late Imam ; and 4th, the Secretary to Syud Majeed, Ahmed 
bin Naaman. 
Q. 28.—It is repeatedly noted in your correspondence that the Zanzibar treasury was in 
0.116. T 4 the 
Appendix, No. 8, 
No. 46, of 1869. 
Annexed, marked G. 
Annexed,marked H. 
No. 46, of 1859. 
No. 116, of 1869.