مجموعة ‎٢٨ /٩٥ "بلاد فارس. العلاقات مع الحكومة البريطانية.‏ المطالبات الخاصة ضد الحكومة البريطانية‏: قضية السفينة البخارية "كارا دينيز‏"." [ظ‎‎٨‎٧] (٦٩١/١٧٤)

Evacuation of Persian towns (7 cases) : 237,789-75 krans.
Murders—
Aga Ferrukh Khan : 30,000 rupees.
Consulate Sowar : 25,000 rupees.
Postal losses : £4 195. Qd.
Resht disturbances (1920-21) : 62.620 krans.
Theft (peculation by Deputy-Governor) : 2,400 krans.
Tribal raid : 2,352 krans.
18. The above claims placed in category {a) yield a total of peace-time
claims of 2,083,368-27 krans, £2,214 85 . lid., and 111,282-5-9 rupees—and of
war-time claims of 787,160-90 krans, £6,273-9-0, and 56.990 rupees—or a
combined total in the 202 claims of 2,870,529-17 krans, £8,487 175. l\d., and
168,272-5-9 rupees. Highway robberies form the greater part, it being held by
the consuls that it was the plain duty of the Persian Government to safeguard
the public highways. But the figures, like those of the Legation claims, can only
be regarded as provisional. There are a number of weak spots. Interest at an
excessive rate is sometimes claimed—the claim for barracks construction in 1914
(the claimant, Mr. Haycock, now seems to be dead), e.g., is more than five times
the original debt. Burglaries we appear to have decided in 1925 not to claim for,
( E though seemingly on grounds of policy and as likely to prejudice other and more
of 1925 .) ' important claims. Thefts, our Legation once told the Persian Government in
1923, might elude the vigilance of the police. Peculation by a Persian Deputv-
(See para. 47.) Governor seems a matter he was personally liable for. Civil riots at Lingah in
1899, and at Bushire in 1909 (the year of the revolution), raise questions of
liability in international law; and in the former case the promise to defray
British losses came from a local Governor now dead. Customs losses, many
Governments deny liability for. The claims for evacuations of Persian towns in
war-time include one for 180,000 krans by Messrs. Ziegler for the removal of
their entire establishment from Sultanabad in 1921. which, on the facts shown,
has but small prospect of success.
19. It cannot be said either that the allocation of claims by the respective
consuls to category (a) has been performed with any great regard to the terms of
Chapter XXII of the Consular Instructions, to which their attention was
specially directed by the Legation in its circular of 1924. Some of the claims
placed in this category are well supported by evidence; some are imperfectly
supported; some are backed by no evidence except the consul’s own statement of
the facts. There is a wide range. In the volume Consulate Claims, in which the
various claims are set out in detail chronologically, analysis has been made of the
evidence furnished in each claim under the heads—
(1) The claimant’s original representation.
(2) The evidence of witnesses.
(3) The representations made to the local Administration.
(4) The notifications made to His Majesty’s Legation.
(5) The sworn depositions of the claimants.
It will be seen that in most cases we are not furnished with complete
documentary evidence on these points.
20. There are also manifest differences of view among the consuls, both as
regards offences for which the Persian Government may be deemed liable, and the
grounds on which claims may be included in category (a). One return excludes
looting of caravanserais as approximating to burglaries, which it also excludes;
returns from elsewhere include both. One return excludes claims where no
answer can be traced from the local authorities to representations made to them;
other returns include claims wherever due notification was made to the local
authorities. One return excludes claims because the robbers came from without
the consul’s district; other returns include claims whatever the local jurisdiction.
At Isfahan the consul in 1925 required many claimants to furnish statutory
declarations in respect of past events before including them in category (a)\ if
they failed they went into category (b) or (c); most other consuls did not make
this requirement. At Shiraz, where the consul was similarly exacting.
Messrs. Ziegler, who have more claims than any other firm, furnished at a late
hour, after the returns had been made up, a comprehensive affidavit which might