Coll 28/39 ‘Persia: Printed Correspondence 1929-1936’ [‎10r] (30/1174)

(74)
Letter from the British Legation, Tehran, to the Iranian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, No. 442/(233/12/36), dated 7th August, 1936
(Copies to D. O. T. No. A.-5, India No. 190, Baghdad No. 59 .)
His Majesty s Legation present their compliments to the Imperial
Ministry of foreign Affairs and with reference to their note-verbale No.
297 of the 10 th June ( 20 th Khordad) have the honour to enquire whether
the Ministry are yet able to inform them what is the centre designated for
the examination and disinfection of seeds under Article 6 of the Regulations
concerning the Importation of Plants.
(75)
Despatch from British Legation, Tehran, to The Right Hon’ble
Anthony Eden, M.C., M.P., etc., etc., etc., the Foreign Office, No.
388/(118/19/36), dated 8th August 1936.
Since the trial and sentence of Reza Afshar, reported in my despatch
No. 302 of the 13th June last (S. No. 58), the public interest in the Road
Ministry scandals has been kept alive by the publication in the press of
detailed statements of the accusations prepared against the various pri-
sioners, beginning with the most important of them, Ali Monsour. (It may be
remarked here that the “Journal de Teheran” called him “M. Ali Mansour”
on the 8 th July). The advocates chosen by the accused were also announc
ed. Finally, the trial of the e^-Minister was fixed for Saturday, the 1 st
August.
2 . The proceedings of the trial were reported in the press at great
length. Speeches appear to have been reproduced verbatim; and the sudden
end of the trial on the 4th August put the Tehran press in some embarrass
ment; they reproduced the findings of the court at once, but are still repro
ducing the arguments of counsel, crowded out hitherto for reasons of space.
Photographs of the venerable judges in their new robes adorned all the illus
trated papers.
3. There were three main counts in the accusation. The first con
cerned the sum of Rials 150,000 alleged to have been paid as a bribe to
Mansour by the Societe Sentab, through the agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. of Ali Asghar Taleghani.
The principal evidence in support of this charge was the statement of ^ a q e "
ghani himself. The second count stated that certain members of the
Ministry had taken bribes from the Comyagnie Hollandaise m con
nexion with the construction of the port of No Shahr a 1 nd .^f a
N abavi had been instrumental in arranging that Rials 100,000 of these
bribes reached the ^-Minister. The final count alleged that Mansour had
caused the Treasury a loss of Rials 900,000 owing to the purchase of a
dredger from the Soci4t<5 Chichav, the lower tender of another company
having been rejected.
4. The Court acquitted the accused on all three counts The written
statement of acquittal says that the evidence « support of *e fi ret d
second counts was insufficient; and that the Societe Chichav s otter was nor
fced " ,, • u- lonctw sneeches for the defence had started by
5. Mansour in his lengthy speecnes i t j lc e nlight-
saying what an excellent thing it was a defending himself in a
ened fuler of Iran everyone had th ^ 0 PP°“^grTat length the services
fair and open court. He went on f.f He had had
which he had rendered to the Iranian ^ ste al he could have taken
the control of enormous sums; had he wistiea
438(S) F&PD