"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎٧‎٣] (٣٦٢/١٤٤)

7>
8. Confronted by this text, which was alleged to be purely an interpreta
tion of the D'Arcy Concession, the Persian Government found that it was, in
reality, an alteration in the concession, and that, consequently, parliamentary
sanction was constitutionally necessary. Such, indeed, was the opinion given to
the Persian Government, on consultation, by the firm of lawvers Lumlev and
Lumley (the 27th July, 1931) (Appendix III).
The Government, whose instructions—even the most formal and specific—
were not followed, did not submit the Armitage-Smith "Agreement" for
parliamentary sanction.
9. Consequently, the so-called interpretative agreement could only have the
provisional force of a modus mvendi.
10. The provisional situation under this modus mvendi had to be brought to
an end by the conclusion of a definitive agreement satisfactory to Parliament.
11. The company sought to make the Armitage-Smith Agreement binding.
In view of its obstinacy, the Imperial Commissioner redoubled his protests. On
the 9th May, 1928, he wrote :—
" I have frequently said, and now repeat, that Mr., Armitage-Smith was
not instructed or authorised to draw up an agreement affecting changes in
the terms of the D 'Arcy Concession " (Appendix IV).
12. In such circumstances the negotiations, which had lasted several years,
became increasingly difficult.
On the 12th August, 1928, the Minister of the Court wrote to the chairman
of the company. Sir John Cadman :—
£ £ I regret to learn that the negotiations have not as yet led to the desired
results. Must I again refer to the community of Anglo-Persian interests in
this enterprise? Must I again allude to the obsolescence of the D'Arcy
Concession, which was obtained at a time when the Government of the
Kadjars did not realise what was being taken from it and what it was
giving ? Consult any lawyer you like and you will be told that the concession
needs to be remade, recast . . . ."
13. Confronted by this prospect. Sir John Cadman said he was prepared to
negotiate with a view to the revision of the D'Arcy Concession. In March 1929
he went to Tehran to discuss the draft of a new concession.
14. Glimpses of an understanding began to appear. Only a few points,
remained to be settled. Sir John returned to London to confer with his colleagues
upon them. The negotiations continued.
15. Conversation succeeded conversation until 1931. There was still some
hope of success.
16. On the 7th August, 1931, to the Government's great surprise and
disappointment, Sir John Cadman categorically stated, in a letter to the Minister
of the Court, that the revision of the concession could no longer be contemplated.
17. The Persian Government, still convinced of the necessity of revision,
had to content itself with determining the basis for the calculation of the dues.
18. Towards the end of 1931 discussions took place, first in Switzerland
and then in London, between the Minister of the Court and Sir John Cadman,
and a preliminary draft concerning the calculation of the dues was drawn up.( 2 )
19. On the 8th January, 1932, the Minister of the Court and Sir John
Cadman again met at Paris to settle the dues of which the Government was
deprived by the Armitage-Smith Agreement. The representative of the company
offered an inadequate sum, and the interview was fruitless.
20. The preliminary draft regarding the calculation of the dues had to be
drawn up with all possible technical accuracy. It was submitted to lawyers and
accountants, and, when completed, was sent to Tehran to receive parliamentary
sanction in accordance with the Constitution, followed by the Persian Govern
ment's ratification.
itatf 21. When it received this document, the Cabinet studied it at great length,
list It found that on more than one point the document was complicated and obscure,,
fi and might thus lead to differences of interpretation.
^j: ( 3 ) It mav be well to point out that the Minister of the Court had no power to conclude an
'i || agreement on behalf of the Persian Government, fie did nothing binding on the Government, but
H" merely endeavoured to find formulae that could be submitted to it.
[691 aa—1] b 2