'Kerman Mining Concession' [‎113r] (3/4)

§
oonpsny is not forswd within Un yarn.
4. r. Gniwnway want# Ur. Prawe# 1 # draft aoc«pt#d, and in
this Ui# Porwign Cffic# support hia. Failing it, h# will
n«>gotiato on th# lartian countar-draft, if it is ww idad to
inoluda tiie use of building atone, to oxelud* restriction of
each working area, and Fenian control oter building plans.
Vr. ireenway agrees to a forfeitable deposit of £7,600 which
would be increased to £ 30,000 and paid, on signature of the
concession. He would prefer to keep Persian capital out, but
would in the last event accept lC5» share In capital and
royalty.
6. negotiations proceeded on these lines.
In June, 1913, however, the ibisaian Oovernnunt intervened on
behalf of the 3ooi#tl d' E’tude, (the international syndicate
created to examine the trans-Persian railway project,}pointing
out that the concession area is that throuf$ which trans-Persian
Railway would run, that all Railway concessions in the east
include the mining rights on each side and that without these
the Railway’s success would bo threatened. It suggested
reciprocal grant of facilities in Russian and British spheres,
and equal division of interest in the neutral zone.
6. Hr. f ;r»«nway objects to the intrusion of the Socidtd,
pointing out that the grant of the concession was to bo a
condition of the dyadicate's acceptance of the option for the
! ohasmaerali-Klicrreraibad Railway; that the £100,000 his Syndicate
is to advance an conclusion of the two concessions, was in
return for a mining monopoly in the specified area. He points
out that he was first on the spot, and had practically conclude
the affair with Shuster in 1911. In spite of this, he is
willing,if His ’ajesty’s Government presses it, to consider the
admittance of the .loei4t4 to a 1 aiiare in the enterprise, so
far as the neutral zone is concerned.
Political “