Coll 28/95 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Private claims against H.M.G.: case of the S.S. “Kara Deniz”.’ [‎91v] (182/691)

4;i. As regards the cases shown, there are two (Legation Claims Nos. 23
and 77) where solicitors acting for underwriters (in one case at least unnamed)
claimed in respect of goods insured and stolen, and another (No. 13a) in which
Messrs. Loditi claimed compensation for goods which had been looted, part of
which they said would have to be refunded to unnamed underwriters. There is a
recent claim on behalf of underwriters (Legation Claim No. 114) for some
£11,403 for sealed bank-notes stolen en route from Resht to Tehran, advanced •
by the Imperial Bank of Persia. In the Isfahan (category (a)) list of claims.
Messrs. Ziegler, acting for insurers, claim various amounts in sixteen cases of
highway robberies, with a substantial addition of interest. In the same list the
Mesopotamia Persia Corporation, acting on behalf of Lloyds, claim for a high
way robbery; and in the Isfahan (b) list there is a claim for a highway robbery by
a firm whose loss had been defrayed by London underwriters. We are also to
expect from the Imperial Bank of Persia (see paragraph 30) information as to
how many of their official claims, and also those of members of their staff, have
been met by insurance companies.
44. But in general there is little mention of underwriters, and it looks as
if they have been backward in prosecuting their claims, perhaps because they
saw little prospect of recovery. Some evidence of this is afforded by the entry in
the Legation schedule against claim No. 13. where it is said of extensive highway
robberies committed by one Naib Hussein in 1910 that the claim has not yet been
formulated by Messrs. Lynch, but may be submitted by the insurance company.
Surely in the course of twenty-four years they should have formulated their claims
before this. But it would not be surprising if a good many insurance companies
or underwriters asserted claims in the event of any possible settlement with the
Persian Government, and this is a factor which must seemingly be taken into
account.
Highway Robberies.
45. Claims for highway robberies form by far the greatest proportion of
the claims recorded in the Legation and consulate lists. On the computation
made in paragraphs 6, 17 and 22 above, they amount in the aggregate to about
3,351-596 krans, £62,088 135. 2d., and 14,501 11 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , besides others for
assaults, murder, &c., which are separately classified, and others either placed by
consuls in category (c) or unclassified, concerning which documentary evidence is
now either insufficient or wholly absent. It was undoubtedly the custom of the
past to hold the Persian Government to full responsibility for these robberies
and outrages, which if not compensated by the local Administration of the
province in which they took place, then became claims against the Central
Government. It does not appear from the Tehran annual reports of the past that
many of the claims thus notified to the Central Government were ever settled by
them, but this was ascribed to the dilatory tactics of the Persian Government or
to their chronic financial straits. There is enough to show that the Persian
Government admitted their responsibility to take measures to repair the wrong
done, and that compensation was afforded in a number of instances, though
whether the amounts were paid by the Central Government or by the local
Administration concerned is not apparent—probably the latter.
46. Questions of divided responsibility sometimes arose. In one of these in
1906 we find that our Legation called the attention of the Persian Government to
a distinct assurance given by the Shah that a law would be passed making all
Governors responsible for losses occurring in their districts, irrespective of the
domicile of the robbers. In 1909 Sir G. Barclay reminded the Persian Govern
ment that under article 3 of Messrs. Lynch’s Road Concession that Government
had bound itself to provide protection of the traffic on the roads. And as late
as 1923, Sir P. Loraine in a note to the Persian Government—after the latter had
observed that robberies take place in all countries—pointed out the clear
distinction which must be drawn between highway robberies and ordinary thefts;
an ordinary thief, he said, might elude the vigilance of the police, but highway
robbers in order to commit their depredations, profited by the absence of the
security which it was the duty of every organised State to provide for all persons
using the high roads on their lawful occasions; it was because of the absence of a
proper degree of security on the high roads which had been noticeable for many
years past in Persia that His Majesty’s Government held the Persian Govern
ment responsible for losses sustained by their subjects through highway robbery;