BRITAIN AND PERSIA

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 January 1933, Page 7

BRITAIN AND PERSIA

DISPUTE BEFORE LEAGUE. [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY, January 26. Before the League Council at Geneva, Sir John Simon presented the British case in the dispute with Persia. Sir John Simon gave a detailed reply to the statements in the Persian memorandum, regarding allegations that the company, over a number of years, failed to pay a fixed annual sum of 2000 tomans, due under the Darcy concessions, that in 1909 the arrears, amounted to 16,000 tomans, and that the company refused either payment or arbitration.

Sir John. Simon said the real facts were that the matter was amicably settled by the payment by the company in 1911 of £2OOO, in respect of past claims, and that 2000 tomans had been paid every year since. Th© Persian memorandum stated that no payment on account of the 16 per cent royalty due to the Persian Government, had been paid by the company up to 1919, whereas in actual fact the company paid £325,000 between 1914 and 1919. To fit Persian subjects for employment, the company spent over £lOO,OOO on education in-recent years. It had built schools in Khursistan, where none existed, and for six years provided free university education in England foi* two Persian students annually. Ninety per cent of the company’s non-European employees in Persia were now Persian subjects. Persia had benefited directly or indirectly through the company’s expenditure by £22,000,000 and tens of thousands of Persians annually received free medical treatment from the company’s doctors. In 1931, Persia put forward new exorbitant claims on the company, for an annual payment of £2,700,000, nearly twice the amount of royalty ever paid in the most prosperous year, which would have meant, in 1931, paying the whole of the company’s profits from all sources, leaving no return for the 52,000 shareholders.

Justifying the British Government’s action in bringing the dispute before the League, under Article 15, Sir John Simon pointed out that the Persian Government’s announcement of cancellation of the concession was valid under Persian law binding on Persian Courts, so no Persian Court could have given a remedy against it. The situation in December was serious, as Persia repeatedly refused to guarantee, as provided by the terms of the concession, the safety of the Company’s property and personnel. These were thus gravely threatened in the wild area among somewhat turbulent tribes. It was only after the matter had been brought before the League that at. the Council’s request, Persia gave such a guarantee. Even so. it applied only while the dispute was before the League. The British Government invoked Hie Covenant, because they were completely confident. of the justice of their case, and believed that the friendlj' offices of the League afforded the surest hope of an amicable equitable settlement. The Council adjourned the hearing to give the Rapporteur tiH opportunity of further communication with both parties and draw up a report.