BRITAIN AND .PERSIA.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18855, 27 January 1933, Page 7

BRITAIN AND .PERSIA.

CANCELLED CONCESSION.

SIR JOHN SIMON'S STATEMENT.

WHOLE POSITION REVIEWED,

(Official Wireless.) (Received Jan. 27, 11.15 a.m.) RUGBY, Jan. 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 statements in the Persian memorandum regarding the allegations that the company over a number of years had failed to pay the fixed annual sum 2000 tomans due under the D’Arey Concession, that in 1909 the arrears amounted to 16,000 tomans, and that the company refused either payment or arbitration. Sir John said the facts were that the matter had been amicably settled by the payment by the company in 1911 of 112000 in respect to past claims, and that 2000 tomans had been paid every year since. The 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 it was a fact that the company had paid £325,000 between 1914 and 1919. To fit Persian subjects for employment the company spent over £IOO,OOO on education in recent years, had built schools in Khurzistan, where none existed, and for six years had provided a free university education in England for two Persian students annually. Ninety per cent, of the company’s nonEuropean employees in Persia were now Persian subjects. Persia 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 and exorbitant claims on the company for the annual payment £2,700,000, nearly twice the amount of the royalty paid even 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. In justifying the British Government’s action in bringing Hie dispute before the League under Article 15 Sir John pointed out that the Persian Government’s announcement of the cancellation of the concession was valid under the 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 a 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 the Covenant because they were completely confident of the justice of their case, "and believed that the friendly offices of 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 botii parties and draw up a report.