Coll 35/11 'Persian Gulf: Bahrain wireless station; refusal of Persian government to accept telegraphic traffic to or from Bahrain' [‎17r] (34/284)

v^
8u>t /Kl. (✓vo/ui skk*9 «K<.
‘r* —
' Mr« Peel ,^ 1 -^ ^ i^Uxm hMy«u~4 .1 cT
{A r>\ •
i # i
%Ljj.
rto \
Ka
i-C ^VYZtS fc>
Ika+~
Arl- V ,
^CVJTN .
£y^u r v y»
The position is that the Persian Government want
the rates for public telegrams between Bushire and Bahrein,
whether by cable or wireless, to be 60 centimes a word,
to be divided equally between themselves and Messrs*
Cable and Wireless. The latter, however, though willing
to accept this division in the case of wireless, insist
that the cable rate should be such as to give them 60
centimes a word as their share. This led them to suggest
that the total rate should be 120 centimes by cable -
and therefore by wireless since the rates must be the
same (see Foreign Office telegram to Tehran No.31409 of
October 21st); but the Persians continue to insist that
the total rate should be 60 .
I have spoken to Mr. Labouchere who says that in
matters of this kind we have in practice to accept
the view of Messrs. Cable & Wireless. (Although there is
a Treasury ruling empowering H.M.G-. to coerce the Company,
any such coercion would give the latter a right to
compensation). The Foreign Office and the Tehran Legation
are therefore simply a post office between the Company
and the Persian Government, and the deadlock will have
to continue until one side gives way.
From paragraph 5 of his telegram No.T/202f. of April
2nd (which paragraph dealt with the rates for the
wireless service) it may perhaps be inferred that the
Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. considered the Company justified in
fyg'g'gpting 60 centimes a word as their share of the cable
rate. Since then neither he nor the Government of India
have shown any interest in this question, although the
subsequent correspondence has been repeated to them.
In these circumstances perhaps we might agree with what
Mr. Labouchere proposes?