"ملف 60/20 I ‏(C 93) بنك إيران الامبريالية: البحرين وغيرها" [ظ‎‎٨‎٦] (٤٠٩/١٧٣)

Enclosure in No. 1.
Persian Minister of Finance to Mr. Butters, 1mferial Bank of Persia.
My dear Mr. Butters, Tehran August 4 1931.
AS you are well aware, by virtue of the supplement to the Trade Monopoly
Law of the 20th Esfand, 1309, a " reglement" was instituted by the Imperial
Persian Government appointing the National Bank of Persia as the sole agent
of the Government for purchase of the exchange sold by the exporters.
On the 20th April, 1931, the Imperial Bank of Persia addressed a letter to
the Ministry of Finance protesting against this exclusive agency of the National
Bank and claiming the appointment contrary to the spirit of the agreement
concluded in May 1930. The bank did specially refer to the letter written to her
in May 1931 by his Highness the Prime Minister.
By my letter dated the 2nd May, 1931, I clearly refused to agree to the
argument advanced by the bank, and by stronger arguments refuted the claim of
the Imperial Bank to any right of equality in this or similar matters with the
National Bank of Persia, pointing out in the clearest manner that " there was
absolutely no place to raise any question of principle."
I informed the bank, however, that " the question of how a solution could be
found so as to give the bank the possible facilities and satisfaction and reach an
eventual arrangement by which the Government might extend to the bank the
desired facilities in this question and the hank give the necessary guarantees and
promise of assistance to the Government was under consideration.
Reference to my above-mentioned letter will make this whole matter quite
clear to you.
You will note that we did not in the least recognise any right for the Imperial
Bank of Persia in its claim, but that, on the contrary, we rejected same entirely.
If the Government took the matter under consideration, it was on their own
choice and solely in order to do, if possible, a mere favour to the Imperial Bank
of Persia, but in no wise because her claim was thought to have any foundation.
Though no formal decision in the matter is yet reached by the Government
which might lead to an amendment of the " reglement/' I thought I could give,
during an interview with Mr. Wilkinson, to his repeated representations and
his request for answer, an optimistic reply, giving him hope of an arrangement
and referring him to the Ministry of Economy to take part in the drafting of the
would-be amended project of the "reglement," in anticipation of the hoped-for
decision of the Government.
I should say, however, that statements such as that made recently by
Sir Hugh Barnes, chairman of the Imperial Bank of Persia, on the occasion of
the forty-second ordinary general meeting of the bank (topic, " Foreign Trade
Monopoiy," last paragraph), statement which, you will readily admit, is quite
inconsistent with the facts and misleading, do not seem to be of nature to induce
the Council of Ministers to take a very favourable decision.
Sir High Barnes pretended that " the Persian Government, as might be
expected, admitted that a mistake had been made and undertook that the
regulation would be amended."
Would it not have been much better if the chairman had stated the facts as
they were and as they stand now, and not have told his audience publicly things
which not only are entirely erroneous, but also certainly not meant to draw the
Persian Government's special favour toward the Imperial Bank of Persia in the
matter ?
Having been quite surprised to read that part of the speech, I thought to
write you these personal lines in the hope that you will understand and take it
as a friendly notice meant to call your attention to the possible effect of such
utterances in the opposite direction.
Yours verv truly,
S! H. TAQIZADEH.