The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1885-04-25
SIR PETER LUMsDEN's REPLY.
He Flatly contradicts Komaroff.

SIX PETER LU mSDEN1S REILLY :.
He Flatly Contradicts Komaroff.
LoNDox, April 2l.-Sir Peter Lumsden's
dispatch in reply to the governments inquiry
as TO the correctness of Gen. Komaroff S re-
port of the encounter between the Russians
and Afghans on the Kushk river is dated
Turpul, April II, and is addressed to Earl
Granville. The dispatch reads:
General komaroff' S account of the attack
on Penideh is considered incorrect. General
Komaroff saws: sOn the 25th March one de-
tachment approached fash Kepri. on our
bank of the Kushk river reply-Tash-
Kepri is Kurt for Pul-i-Khisti. General
Komaroff's claim to either bank Of the Kushk
is untenable. The left bank has always been
held by the Afghans, and was never subject
to Russian occupation. On the 10th OF Feb
ruary the Russians located an outpost of %
Turcomans at Kizil-Tepe mound, one mile
north of Pull Khisti, and about mile from
the nearest point on the Kushk river and the
Kushk's junction with the Murghab river.
This had always remained the extreme of the
Russian advance within their line of vldettes.
The Russian cavalry detachment alluded to
did advance against Pul-i-Khisti on March
25, but they retired before reaching there,
when warned by the Afghan commander, as
they had been on February 20
Secondly. Gen. Komarof states that near
the bridge he found an intrenchment occupied
by Afghans. | reply that this position was
occupied by the Afghans previous to Gen.
Komaroff7s advance and to the agreement OF
March II.
Thirdly. Gen Komaroff says, in order
to avoid conflict | placed my troops five
versts from the Afghan position In reply
70 i TO he YloaI hnnu a
the Russian troops were in Keel Tepe, mile
from the Afghan position, and the Russian
videttes were considerably in advance of that
point.
'Fourthly Gen. Komarof says: When
the Afghans were convinced that we had no
intention of attacking them they began to
come daily nearer to our camp reply that
far from the Afghans being convinced of Gen.
Komaroff7s innocent intentions, the contin-
.ued, irritating, daily attempts to provoke hos
tility convinced the Afghans that, the Rus
slams were determined to provoke conflict,
and induced the Afghans to what appeared
to be military necessity-to extend their de-
fensive positions.
'Fifthly. Gen. Komaroff states that on the
9th of March the Afghans sent against one
company, which was charged with covering
a reconnaissance, three companies, with can
The reconnaissance in force itself meant a
hostile intention. The Russian company
meant $50 men, more than equivalent to the
three Afghan companies, which aggregated
225 men. On the 9th two bodies of Rus
slams simultaneously advanced. Col. Alik-
hanoff. with the cavalry, pushed past Pull
Khisti. The Russian infantry penetrated the
right flank of the Afghan position on the right
bank of the Murghab Colonel Alikhanoff
only returned when intercepted by the
Afghans. The cavalry was four miles in the
rear of the Afghan position. The Russian
infantry only retired when the Afghan COM
mander drew up three companies, warning
the Russian officer that if he advanced further
he would be fired upon. Gen. Komaroff' $
chief of staff, at the interview had on the 29th
called Col. Alikhanof7s advance merely a
pleasure trip, but he was informed that the
Afghan commander viewed it in the most Sc
rious light.
"Sixthly. Gen. Komarof states that the
arrogance and audacity of the Afghans in
creased by degrees. reply that it may have
been so, and if so, it was entirely caused by
the Russian action. The Afghans did their
utmost to avoid collision. Its solely owing
to their patience and forbearance during two
months incessant irritation that peace was
preserved so long. The Afghan commander
courteous reply of March 20 to Gen. Komars
offs ultimatum proves his wish to the last to
avoid conflict General Komarof says
that on the 28th the Afghans occupied a
height commanding the left flank of the Rus
sian camp, and began to throw up entrench
ments there to establish post of cavalry be-
hind the Russian line, and placed picket
within gunshot distance. | reply that the
Afghan commander did, on the 28th, after the
hostile reconnaissance on the 9th, place a
post of observation on the hills on the right
bank of the Murghab river for the purpose of
giving notice of any fresh Russian advance,
but the post was Withdrawn the next day.
HEighthly. Gen. Komaroff says that on the
29th he sent to the Afghan commander an
energetic summons, etcetera, and received an
answer that by the advice of the English he,
the Afghan commander, refused to retire
across the Kushk river. In reply to this, |
may state that the fact itself is reported to
me to be totally incorrect. Nowhere in the
Afghan commanders reply is there any such
statement. On the contrary, the wording is
distinct, thus: Il have duly received your
letter regarding the withdrawal of certain
pickets. As | had received orders from the
government at Herat to consult Capt. Yate,
who was deputed to Penjdeh by Sir Peter
Lumsden in such matters, l showed him your
letter. Capt. Yate afterwards had an inter-
view with Col Zakrchewski, and informed me
of the conversation which ensued. Be it
known to We l must Loyalty obey the orders |
have received from his highness the Ameer.
| can in no wise act contrary to the orders of
my SOY ereign. Ofcourse in matters of details,
such as alterations in the position of advanced
pickets and vedettes, am prepared to ar
range with We with view to the avoidance of
any risk of a conflict
"Ninthly Gen. Komaroff says he again
addressed private letter couched in friendly
terms. In reply l say the letter in question
was never seen by any officer of the commits
sion, but Captain Delashoe was told the let
ter had been received few hours before the
Russian attack on the Both. 1 have now
called upon Sepeh Salav for copy of the
second letter.
"Tenthly. Gen. Komarof states; 'On the
both, to support my demands, | marched with
my detachment against the Afghan position,
counting still on pacific result, but artillery
fire and cavalry attack compelled me to ac-
cept combat In reply say the Russians
advanced to attack the Afghan position, and
of course the Afghsns were obliged to defend
themselves Certainly the engagement was
not commenced by the artillery fire, as Gen.
Komaroff states, as infantry fire was heard,
continuing several minutes before the first
rrp