Coll 28/51 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Treaty negotiations: Article regarding private claims.’ [‎31v] (62/357)

^0
♦
submission of the agreement to the Persian Majlis was insiste on y
Government; that they delayed such submission, while opposi pnlpn f
agreement in the meantime sprung up and grew in force; and tha ie g
was denounced a few years later. But in these circumstances i wou
that the Persian Government have already committed themselves by the notes
exchanged on the 9th-10th August, 1919, to a recognition that ( l ue ® l°^ s •
damage caused by British troops in Persia are set off against the cos
tenance of those troops, subject, however, to such claims as might e pre
by individuals and private institutions, which, of course, might be, an pro a y
would be, for very large amounts.
IV.
Attitude of the Persian Government.
57. Reference was made in paragraph 3 to customs of the past in invoking
compensation for losses sustained by British subjects in Persia by means of re P re "
sentations made direct to the local Administrations of the districts into which
the country was divided, and to the subsequent notification of such claims to the
Persian Government only after all prospects of redress in this way had been
exhausted. It is apparent from the Tehran annual reports of former years that
the Persian Government paid but slight attention to these notifications, with the
result that most of these older claims still exist in our records. On the other hand,
the system then followed, both in regard to the Legation and consulate claims, led
to a somewhat loose procedure in the way of collating formal and precise evidence
of the losses incurred. The loss or destruction during the war-tinie disturbances
of much of such documentary evidence as did exist in the Legation or consulate
archives is a further handicap in the way of our advancement of these older
claims. The Persian Government may doubtless be expected to be fully alive to
the disadvantage in which we are placed in this respect.
58. But apart from this there are many indications in the correspondence
of the past of their disinclination to meet claims advanced against them, where
any possible objection to doing so could be raised. Thus in regard to
Burglaries they contested claims because of delay in advancing them;
because they saw no ground for compensation, even where the robbery was
from a British consulate supposed to be guarded by police; because they
found no precedent for compensation for such robberies.
Highway robberies because no Government could be responsible for
stolen goods, but only for efforts to recover them; because having taken steps
to trace the robbers they could not be further responsible; because of delay
in advancing the claim; because of the existence of a rebellion at the time or
of war-time disturbances; because the robbers came from beyond Persian
frontiers.
Insurrections because of uncertainty whether the damage was done by
Government troops or insurgents; because of the owner’s carelessness in
taking the animals into the fighting sphere; because of the dual nationality
of the claimant, British and Persian.
Murder and other outrages because the British consular officials were
Persians; because the claimants were Persians; because, though British,
they were also Persians.
Question of Contract because there was only a written promise and not
a contract; because, though contractual, it required submission to the Majlis.
Revolution (1909) because the looting by troops of the late Shah
constituted a case of force majeure.
Riots because the Imperial Russian Government paid no compensation
for similar losses in Russia; because the ringleader was Russian and so the
claim properly one against the Russian Government; because of lapse of
time; because the claimant had not availed himself of legal remedies.
Steamship Shushan, attacks on, because these were made by Turks from
across the border.
War-time outrages because compensation should be sought from the real
instigators of the disturbances, viz., the enemy Governments; because the
Persian Government was not responsible for losses and injuries consequent