Coll 29/56 'Duzdap: question of retention of vice consulates' [‎78r] (157/247)

A
land itaalf#
9 # intii regard to tine payaent of ittui-ul-Ar*,
I am iapreaeed by the argument contained in your deepatch
No. 106-30/0 of November 30th 9 1933, that it would aeea
quite unreaeon able that the tax should be levied at the
full rate on hie i^ajeety’e Viee-oonBulate, seeing that it
lies outeide the town, even though technically within the
Municipal boundaries, on open desert which has virtually no
<>/KtAs wuAto iMf
value and not even a water supply You have pointed out
in your despatch No. 56-30/6 of July 33nd, 1966, that a
possible course of sction would be to surrender part of the
area at present occupied by the Vloe-Qonsulate, which would
reduce our liability both for Haq—us-^abt and Haq-ul-^s,
but that this would Involve considerable expense is
rebuilding. In general X concur in your view that with the ^
uncertainty surrounding the future of the Vice-Consulate at
Sahedan it would be a mistake to expend any considerable
sums on the existing property and X an therefore Inclined to
agree that our best policy would seen to be to endeavour to j
bargain with the authorities, both over the rate at which
Haq-ul-,jrz is claimed and over the payment of any arrears
that may be demanded. Until I hear, however, whether you
have modified your views on this point and until X learn
precisely the extent of the claim that la being made by the
taxation authorities, X am obviously not in a position to
fora mors than a tentative judgment*
10* X am sending copies of this despatch to Kls
Majesty's principal decretory of State for foreign Affairs
(No* 320), and to the Foreign secretary to the Government of
India (No* 146), jl
X am, air.
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) H.M. Knstchbull-Hugessen.