"F 80 ملف 82/34 I امتياز أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎٨‎٥] (٤٣٦/١٦٨)

j I j t /V' ^
^ 0' L
■j ' : coQfejhjiC XsNjj I TO BE ADDRESSED TO THB COMPANY
'~Xk, ^ ^ ^ n
ykji^t"'' ' "y ^" iT< '- , ^ n ■'-'
rV^*j <> c^ji'
telroraphic A ddress
anglopers.
P5> nOKflDE NTiAL HEOOfiDS
abadan r ef1ner y
P ersian gulf
C odes used
BENTLEY'S AND
MCNEILLS CODE
IN YOUR REPLY PLEASE
QUOTE
PERSON AL &
CONFIDENTIAL.
no ,C/4439/3 f dated 19th December 1932
V—^
My dear Col. Fowle,
With reference to the situation created by the
Persian Government's attempt to annul the D'Arcy
Concession, I have refrained from writing to you
until we could depend on an authentic array of facts
as opposed to the mass of rumour which has been in
circulation during the past three weeks.
I think it may now interest you to have the
following s-
(1) A note giving the chronological sequence
of events.
(2) Extracts from Reuters telegrams during the
past three weeks on this subject.
(3) A printed letter dated 6th December 1932
from the Company to the Stockholders.
(4) Copies of four articles that appeared in
"The Times" of England, two dated the 7th
December and two dated the 9th Dec. 1932.
There is no necessity for me to comment on
the British Government notes as I have little doubt
that you have more information about them than I have.
The Company's view takes the form of an historical state
ment of events during the past ten years which is a
convincing ansv/er to the accusation by the Persian
Government that the Company has been unwilling by
friendly negotiations to endeavour to meet the views
and the needs of the Persian Government. In this
connection I would draw particular attention to
"The Times" article of the 7th December 1932
(marked with a X ) which, again, is a well reasoned
statement of facts by a disinterested party in support
of the opinion expressed in the article that in law and
in equity the Companyts case is unassailable•