Coll 28/95 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Private claims against H.M.G.: case of the S.S. “Kara Deniz”.’ [‎101r] (201/691)

Claim No. 2.—Mr. T. Casey claimed £1,200 for the plunder of his house at
Tehran during the conflict on the 14th-l7th July, 1909, between the Shah’s
troops and the Nationalist troops, which ended in the deposition of the Shah.
The Persian Government denied liability for the damage done by the late Shah’s
troops on the ground of force majeure. We rejected this plea on the ground that
it was not open to them to plead force majeure in connexion with the incidents
^ out of which the claim arose and to repudiate the responsibility incurred by their
predecessors. No headway, however, has yet resulted, and the claim is supported
by a statutory declaration made at the time by Mr. Casey as to the value of his
goods looted or destroyed.
Claim No. 3.—Mrs. Nanagan Rizzo made a claim for similar losses on the
same occasion, amounting to 1,000 krans, which was also at the time preferred
by our Legation against the Persian Government, but we have no statutory
declaration from her in support of it, and no information concerning the lady
herself.
Claim No. 5.—Messrs. Lynch claimed 2,302,905*07 krans for expenses
incurred in running the steamship Shushan on the Karun River from 1902 to
1913. Not having been able to get a concession for working their steamer on this
part of the river, and as they wished to keep the traffic in their own hands, they
made a present of the vessel to the Shah, and offered to work it, on the under
standing, they say, that the profits, if any, would be paid to the Shah, while their
out-of-pocket expenses would be made good to them. A rescript of the Shah of
the 4th February, 1890, runs thus: “His Imperial Majesty accepts from the
Euphrates and Tigris Navigation Company the steamship Shushan for trans
porting passengers and goods between Ahwaz, Shuster and Dizful. His Imperial
Majesty gives assurances to the above-mentioned company that the steamship in
question will constantly run in conjunction with the company’s ships running on
the Karun from Mohammerah to the Ahwaz Ham unless prevented from doing
so by accidents.’’ This appears to be the main basis on which the claim rests,
and it will be for Messrs. Lynch to furnish any other evidence of which they may
be in possession in support of their contention that the understanding involved
payment to them of their out-of-pocket expenses. The vessel was seemingly
throughout the whole period run at a loss, and the claim mounted annually, until
in 1913 it reached the total mentioned above. The Persian Government have
throughout emphatically denied that they were in any way liable for any accounts
connected with the running of the vessel, which, they said, had under strong
pressure been accepted as a gift by the Shah. Our own view, expressed in
minutes in 1919, was that the claim was rather absurd. From a recent letter
from the Persian Transport Company it would seem that the latter now regard
the vessel as their own, as they said it had broken its back, and that the remains
of it when sold would add something to the assets of the company.
Claim No. 6 .—Messrs. Lynch claimed 10,663 krans for attacks made in
Persian territory on the steamship Shushan (mentioned above) by Arabs, who
were Turkish subjects. As this vessel appears from the above to have been in
1902 and 1904 (the time when the attacks were made) to have been the property
of the Shah, and as the Turkish Government at the time denied responsibility, it
does not seem clear that a liability rests on the Persian Government to meet this
claim, which was presumably for repairs to the vessel, though it included also
some goods. Anyhow, it will be for Messrs. Lynch to provide the requisite
evidence to support it, as no documentary evidence is furnished, and the claim at
present rests on statements only.
Claim No. 7.—Messrs. Lynch claimed 7,199*30 krans for the robbery of their
caravans at Dehdiz on the 9th July, 1906, by Kuhgelu tribesmen. Notification
was duly made to the Bakhtiari khans by His Majesty’s consul-general at
Isfahan, but pursuit of the robbers was delayed owing to those khans referring •
to the Persian Government for instructions, which were given that steps should
be taken to arrest the robbers and recover the property. Nothing, however,
resulted. It appears to have been the practice of Messrs. Lynch simply to notify
our Legation of these robberies by letter only, and it will accordingly be necessary
for that firm in this, as in other cases, to substantiate their claim by the
production from their records of such documentary evidence as is necessary of
the losses incurred.
Claims Nos. 8 and 9.—These were claims by Messrs. Lynch for the
destruction of their toll-house at Kasr-i-Dokhtar, between 1906 and 1908, and
[11541 ; f 2