مجموعة ‎٢٨ /٩٥ "بلاد فارس. العلاقات مع الحكومة البريطانية.‏ المطالبات الخاصة ضد الحكومة البريطانية‏: قضية السفينة البخارية "كارا دينيز‏"." [ظ‎‎١‎٠‎٢] (٦٩١/٢٠٤)

38
1 st September, 1921, by a rebellious gendarmerie force operating near Meshed
against loyalist tribesmen. His Majesty’s consul-general at Meshed obtained from
the local Karguzar a written promise that six camels of equal value would be
handed over in compensation, but later the Karguzar said that he had referred
the matter to the Persian Government, who held that the camels were probably
killed at the time of fighting, and that it was uncertain whether they were killed
by the gendarmerie or by the tribes who were attacking the latter; that the
Shamser force was not liable to pay compensation; and that the owner’s loss was
due to his own carelessness in taking the animals into the fighting sphere. Later
the Persian Government informed Sir P. Loraine that the guilty parties had
never been discovered, and that it was impossible to establish responsibility for
the killing of camels while fighting was going on at night time.
This claim rests mainly on the definite promise given in the first instance by
the local authority that the camels would be replaced, and we are furnished with
copies of the correspondence to this effect.
Claim No. 79.—This is a claim which comes within the war period, since it
arose in 1919-20, but it might be regarded as having some of the elements of a
contractual claim. Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Wolseley Haig (formerly political
agent and consul-general in Persia and now Albany Herald in Scotland) claimed
£4,807 for breach of an undertaking that he would receive employment in the
Persian Service (as he thought, as adviser in the Ministry of the Interior). His
claim rests upon a letter dated the 31st May, 1920, from the then Persian Prime
Minister, Vossugh-ed-Dowleh, to the effect that he was admitted to the Persian
Service, that the terms of contract and the designation of the post would be
settled definitely later, and that the service would date from his retirement from
the British Service in August 1920. This letter was in Sir W. Haig’s possession,
and the view taken of it here in 1921 was that it constituted a distinct
undertaking. Our Legation were accordingly instructed to inform the Persian
Government that His Majesty’s Government held them definitely responsible for
the losses incurred through the non-fulfilment of this undertaking, and the
Legation did so on the 14th December, 1921.
Sir Wolseley Haig estimated the expenses he had been put to in making
adequate preparations for the promised appointment (travelling expenses of self,
wife and family, provision of furniture, plate, &c., suitable, as well as the
compensation he should receive for his frustrated expectations, at £4,807 (though
he afterwards, in conversation with our Legation, said he would be satisfied with
£2,500). The Persian Government on their part maintained that the letter of
their Prime Minister was a private one, that there was no contract and that the
rate of prospective pay on which Sir W. Haig calculated his claim was excessive.
Still, in 1921 they offered to submit the claim to arbitration, and Mr. Norman
(our Charge d’Affaires) reported that he had had an offer of £2,500 from them
in full settlement. Both these offers, however, Sir W. Haig at the time refused.
In commenting on this claim in 1924 Sir P. Loraine considered Sir W. Haig
was largely to blame for the non-success of the claim made on his behalf—his
original claim was exaggerated, he was verbally offered arbitration and later
£2,500, and refused both, though he afterwards reduced his claim to the
latter amount.
Claim No. 88 .—This is the important claim of the Persian Transport
Company for the cancellation of their road and toll concessions in November
1921. For this breach of the concessions the company claimed some £76,000, the
amount of capital said to have been expended on the construction of the roads,
plus some portable equipment seized, but they offered in 1921 to accept £50,000
on condition of a prompt settlement, which, however, has not matured.
Sir R. Hoare has recently taken up the matter anew with the Persian Govern
ment, and the company have furnished material for this representation, which is
about to go forward. The claim is one in the forefront of our proposed
settlements with the Persian Government, and the company are no doubt in a
position to produce all such documentary evidence as may be necessary to
establish their various contentions.
Claim No. 89.—This was a large claim by six British Indian subjects
(unnamed) for an extensive robbery of their goods in September 1921 on the
Yezd-Kerman Road, amounting to a claimed value of 238.454 -38 krans. The
correspondence between Sir P. Loraine and the Persian Government shows that