"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎٢] (٣٦٢/١٨)

- a -
v
interest; ana t&« promlsea series under fcto® title "tae
d'Aroy sorsp of peper" has aot yet Appeared. la its issue
of the 13th January this paper criticises a statement made
fey the 'ifear jjast' on the 19th Isecemher to the effect that
the approval ef the Majlis to the oaucellatios of the d'Arey
coaceasioii was given because of the faet that the
precipitate action of the Oovemaeat without previous
sanction of the aajlls was irregular} so that the retroaotivi
approval of the Majlis gave validity to the previous aot
of the shah, {the allusion appears to he to the passage
headed "Action of the .fajlie * in the Bear Mm* of Oeoember
89th). The Shafaq's eoaaent is that Mis IfaiJesty is
hiaself the expressicm of the thoughts and of the Ideals
of both Majlis and people, and therefore no one can conceive
the least separation between the Shah and his govern'sent.
0» the 17th January the evening paper
"Ittili'lt", published a statesent tnat onsieur
Veyaourtache"waa confined, under surveillance, in his own
'
house* rots thence forward the press has unanimously
and progressively begun to abuse the former Minister of
Court. He is now not even given a ".tensieur* in front
of his nana} he is slnply Teyaourtache, an individual who
was, it is true, employed for a tiae as Minister of Court,
but who really had no power or responsibility except that
which the august sovereign deigned to allow hla in the
execution of the royal coasaandsj the attitude of the
iirltiah press in alleging that he had groat influence and
power is derided: and the mere fact that the London
papers dare to say such a thing is shown to be an obvious
proof that Teysourtache was a creature of the British, for
which no doubt he received financial consideration, the
newspaper ''i^joBhirti" published on the 2&th January a
translation from a French paper saying that the ex-Ministsr
/was