مجموعة ‎٢٨ /٩٥ "بلاد فارس. العلاقات مع الحكومة البريطانية.‏ المطالبات الخاصة ضد الحكومة البريطانية‏: قضية السفينة البخارية "كارا دينيز‏"." [و‎‎١‎٠‎٣] (٦٩١/٢٠٥)

the latter took certain measures, which were to an extent successful, in retrieving
some small part of the goods, while at the same time they denied their
responsibility for affording any compensation for the loss of the remainder. On
his part Sir P. Loraine definitely maintained their liability for the losses.
Unfortunately, it is added that there is little to go on in the case, as His
Majesty’s consul at Kerman had never furnished full details, and that no
further attempt had been made to press the claim upon the Persian Government
since 1923. Search among the Kerman returns fails to add anything, and we
have accordingly neither the names of the claimants nor other evidence to support
this claim of some thirteen years’ standing, and in the circumstances it is not
clear how it can be further pursued unless fresh material can be brought forward.
Claim No. 93.—This is perhaps the most important claim of all. The
Persian Railway Syndicate claim £202,207, with accrued interest, amounting in
1932 to a total of £326,082 25. Id., for the costs of survey of certain specified
railway routes in Persia. Their claim depends upon options granted them in
1920 by the then Persian Government, and the material clause on which their
claim is based runs : ‘ c Should the Persian Government, after the expiry of the
periods mentioned, decide not to construct the railways as State railways, and
should the syndicate not be agreeable to accepting a concession on reasonable and
practicable terms, then the Persian Government shall give notice that, after six
months following the above-mentioned period, they will take over the plans and
surveys and pay for them at a price equal to the cost thereof and interest
thereon.”
Ihe contention of the Persian Government is, in short, that the options given
were never sanctioned by the Majlis, and so were not in accord with article 26 of
the Fundamental Law; an argument which, as Sir R. Hoare has pointed out, was
untenable, as no Majlis was in existence at any of the material dates. In 1933,
however, the Persian Government still maintained their view; if the syndicate
were not satisfied they might refer the matter to the competent courts, in which
event the Persian Government would set forth in detail their arguments and
evidence in support of the non-existence of their responsibility. It was
ascertained that by the phrase “ competent courts ” the Persian courts of justice
were meant.
In November 1933 the Persian Railway Syndicate wrote to say they were
prepared to compromise for the actual costs of the survey, viz., £131653 85 . 2d .;
if this offer was not accepted their original claim would hold good. Later, in
March 1934, they furnished an opinion on their case by Sir Leslie Scott, and in
April a further statement of account, plus interest, amounting in all to
£348,907 175.
Claim No. 96.—This is a claim for arrears of salaries and pension allowances
of officers of the Indian Medical Service formerly employed in the Persian Gulf
Quarantine Service. The period for which these arrears are claimed is from the
1 st July, 1923, to the 30th June, 1924, and the amount due is stated by our
Legation to be 69,967 10 rupees and 16,814 krans.
J he Persian Gulf Quarantine Service remained under the supervision of
British medical officers until 1928, when, by agreement with the Persian Govern
ment, it came to an end. The correspondence shows that these quarantine
arrangements were confided to British medical officers about as far back as 1864;
their services, however, rested upon no contract or written agreement, though
their presence had been recognised in numerous ways by the Persian Government
and the service expanded and elaborated from time to time with their express
approval. Down to 1928 their salaries appear to have been paid by the Persian
authorities out of the local Customs Administration funds, with the exception of
the period in 1923-24 for which they are claimed, and the reason for this
omission is said to be obscure, but appears to have been due to some overlapping
of accounts, which resulted in the payments for the period mentioned not having
been sanctioned by the Majlis.
As apart from some budgetary difficulties in framing estimates, it is not
clear that the Persian Government really disputed the right of these British
officers to be paid for work which they were efficiently rendering up to the time
when the Quarantine Service was in 1928 handed over to the Persian authorities.
But the correspondence seems to have passed mainly at Tehran, and I cannot find
that we have any very accurate particulars here of the payments made to these
officers in such detail as to make evident the precise deficiency left in such