'File 82/34 II (F 94) APOC Concession' [‎59r] (124/362)

13
In any event, the fact that the company admitted, in 1920, that it
owed a million pounds sterling in respect of arrears and claims by
the Persian Government certainly proves that for years it had with
held considerable sums belonging to the Government.
Sir John Simon then mentioned a fact which, he alleged, clearly
showed that our statement did not correspond to the facts. He
referred to the royalty of 2,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. . I take up this point to
prove that our intentions were not, I think, bad and that we were
telling the truth.
We did not say in our memorandum, with regard to the royalty
of 2,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. , that a subsequent settlement was not reached.
We simply desired to show that, even when so small a sum as
2,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. a year was involved, the company did not fulfil its
obligations, except after inadmissible delay. Sir John Simon himself
said, moreover, that it was in 1911—that is to say, after ten years'
delay—that the company fulfilled its obligations and paid us this
sum, which it should have paid in 1901.
Consequently, when we said in our memorandum that the
company was not fulfilling its obligations, our intention was simply
to show, from the history of our relations, how the company behaved.
The sum in question was very small—2,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. ; and the
company delayed payment for ten years. There is thus nothing
incorrect there. Our statement was entirely in accordance with the
truth. As the facts were so eloquently presented by the United
Kingdom representative, however, this truth might appear in another
light and create a different impression.
Sir John Simon spoke just now of the employment of Indian
labour. I should like to correct him on one or two points.
The question was not that of the employment of Indian labour
at the beginning of the Concession. Although the company has been
working in Persia for many years, it still employs this foreign labour.
In spite of all the Persian Government's protests, it still has
thousands of foreign employees who are not skilled workmen, but
mere labourers.
I will not go into details here regarding the negotiations between
ourselves and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. What was asked of
the company and what it was given in exchange are matters of no
importance for the moment. The company itself knew very well,
and knows very well, that there were certain circumstances which
justified the Persian Government's demands. I will not go into
details now, as a discussion of them would, I think, be entirely
premature for the moment.
As mention has been made of the Imperial Commissioner's having
initialled a preliminary agreement, we must be quite clear on that
point. There was no engagement at all; there was an agreement of
principle, but—as the company knows very well, and as the British
memorandum moreover mentions—the agreement had to be ratified
by the Government and approved by Parliament. There were there
fore simply proposals or plans in no way constituting an engagement
between ourselves and the company.
It has been said that if the Persian Government thought that
the 1920 agreement concluded by Mr. Armitage-Smith was not valid
it ought to return the sum of £1 million received by it from the
company. If we enter upon a discussion of this matter, if it is
taken before a competent tribunal, we shall of course return the
amount in question; but we shall claim everything that the company
has acquired by way of profits gained without legitimate cause, and
I think that in the last analysis we shall benefit by doing so.
Again, mention has been made of the sums received by the Persian
Government, £11 million. That is, of course, a very striking and
impressive sum. Let us, however, compare it with the gains of the
Government of the United Kingdom and the shareholders. Down to
1926 that Government received more than £40 million, whereas, from
the beginning of the Concession, we have received only £11 million.
We have calculated that, if we had left our entire oil resources
at the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's free disposal, we should have
received £10 million under the head of duties collected by the
Customs Administration.
The United Kingdom representative told us that the reasons
adduced by the Persian Government in its memorandum, even