Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎169v] (338/644)

no hope that the ban on the captain or the ship would be lifted. His Majesty s
Legation therefore felt reluctant to pursue the matter further for fear of further
magnifying its importance. Nor was it again raised on the Iranian side, and by
the end of the year it was possible to hope that the incident was closed.
(e) Iranian Fishery Survey.
27. It was learned in the autumn that the Iranian Government had engaged
a Danish expert, by name Dr. H. Blegvad, to undertake a survey of the fisheries
in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and had bought or chartered a Danish fishing vessel, with a
crew of four, to carry out the work.
28. As it wms feared that difficulties might arise if Dr. Blegvad’s vessel
(which would be flying the Iranian flag) visited any of the Arab ports or even
any of the Arab pearl banks on the high seas, 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. explained
the position orally to Dr. Blegvad when the latter arrived in Bushire early in
December. Dr. Blegvad replied that he did not propose to call anywhere on the
Arab coast, and that he had no desire to court complications by visiting any Arab
pearl banks. He said that he would be glad to avoid them if he could be given a
chart on which they were marked, since he was not concerned with pearl banks but
solely with fishing.
(f) Lighting and Buoying.
29. The redrafted protocol for the transfer to the Iranian Government of
the lights, buoys and beacons maintained by the Government of India on Iranian
territory and in Iranian waters (see paragraph 92 of the annual report for 1935)
received the approval of the Government Departments concerned in the early part
of the year, and on the 18th March the revised text was communicated semi
officially to the Iranian Government. Most of the changes in the text were
concerned with points of form, the only one of real importance being the omission
of the article in the Iranian draft enabling the Iranian Government to purchase
and move the Qais Island lightship at a later date. The reason for this omission
was that it was thought that the Government of India were likely to need the
lightship themselves for other purposes when the Iranian Government ceased to
rent it. At the same time Mr. Butler communicated to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs a suggested draft exchange of notes containing assurances from the
Iranian Government that dues would not be levied on international shipping
at a rate greater than was necessary to cover the expenses of the lighting service,
and that sympathetic consideration would be given to any views regarding the
service expressed by the representatives of interested shipowners. Colonel
Bayendor having previously mentioned his desire to place a light on Stiffe Bank,
Mr. Butler also informed the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the Government of
India had decided to place one there themselves at an early date. None of these
points were new, but a question that was now raised for the first time was that
of the payment of dues by oilers flying the Blue Ensign. The existing position
was that the Admiralty paid a certain sum to the Government of India in respect
of these oilers in return for the latter’s lighting service, this being regarded as an
ex gratia payment, though the sum was computed on the basis of the dues which
would have been paid had Admiralty oilers been liable. The Ministry for Foreign
Affairs were now informed that, on the transfer of the lights and buoys to Iranian
ownership, the Admiralty would be happy to make a similar payment to the
Iranian Government based on the volume of Blue Ensign tonnage benefiting from
the lighting service at the rate of 3 pies per net registered ton. It was explained
that this offer was made, not because the Admiralty considered that as a matter
of international custom such dues should be paid, but because they realised the
exceptional nature of the traffic and on the understanding that they would not
subsequently be called upon to pay at a higher rate.
30. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs replied semi-officially to Mr. Butler’s
communication on the 20th June, and indicated six points on which the Iranian
Government held views different to those of the Government of India :—
(1) They considered that the preamble to the protocol was unnecessary;
(2) Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the redrafted protocol provided that the arrange
ments made for the lease of the Qais Island lightship and for the
maintenance by Colonel Ward of the lightship and of the lights, &c..