ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 28 January 1933, Page 5

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL

DISPUTE BEFORE LEAGUE BRITISH CASE SUBMITTED SIR JOHN SIMON’S STATEMENT (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Jan. 2(3. 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 statements in the Persian memorandum 'regarding allegation,s that the company, over a number of years, failed to pay the fixed annual sum ot 2000 tomans due under the D’Arcy concession; that in 1909 the arrears amounted to 1(3,000 tomans and that the company refused either payment or arbitration. < * Sir John Simon said that the real facts, were that the matter was amicably settled by payment by the company in 19.11. of £2OOO in respect of past claims and that 2000 tomans had been paid every year since. The Persian memorandum stated that no payment o*H account of the 16 per cent, rovalty due to the Persian Government had been paid by .the company up to 1919, whereas the/ actual fact was that the company paid £325,000 between 1914 and 1919. To fi± Persian subjects for employment, the company had spent over £IOO,OOO on education in recent years, had built school's in Khuvbistan, where none existed, and for six years 'had provided free university education in England for two Persian students an* nually. Ninety per cent, of the company’s non-European employees in Persia were now Persian subjects. Persia benefited directly or indirectly through the company expenditure bv £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 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 and leaving no return for 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 announced concdliation of the concession was 1 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 had •repeatedly refused a guarantee as provided by the terms of the concession of the safety of the company’s property and personnel. These were thus gravely threatened in a- wild area among somewhat turbulent tribes. Lt was only after the matter had been brought before the League that-, at the Council’s request, Persia gave such guarantee. Even so, it applied only while t'he dispute was before the League. Ihe British Government invoked the covenant because they were completely confident of the justice of the case and believed that the friendly offices the League afforded the surest hope of an amicable and equitable settlement. The Council, adjourned the hearing to give the rapporteur an opportunity of further communication with both parties and draw up a report. (The toman is a Persian gold coin worth about 7s 2d.)