Coll 28/95 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Private claims against H.M.G.: case of the S.S. “Kara Deniz”.’ [‎92v] (184/691)

18
for traders and travellers alike, and this, as mentioned in paragraph 46 above,
was also the view which Sir P. Loraine, our Minister, expressed in his note to
the Persian Government of the 5th November, 1923.
50. It may, of course, be that in a number of instances the Persian Govern
ment may be in a position to show that at the times these outrages occurred local
uprisings or other serious disturbances rendered the Central Government for the
moment powerless to prevent them, and so to argue that in these instances they
are absolved from responsibility. But such argument is rather for the Persian
Government itself to plead before an arbitral tribunal than for us to use as a
means of disposing of representations made by British subjects and firms who
incurred serious losses from the incidents complained of.
War Claims.
51. The next most important class of our claims against Persia relates to
outrages of various kinds during the war period, and to forced evacuations of
Persian towns during the internal disturbances of that period. These incidents
arose largely from the activities of enemy agents among tribes over whom the
Persian Government either neglected or were unable to exercise control, and to
the advance of enemy troops into Persian territory. The Persian Government
have consistently denied liability for any of these occurrences, on the ground
that, in spite of their remonstrances, the country had been made the battleground
of the belligerent Powers, with the resulting disintegration of all internal
organisation. We on our part appear to have almost as consistently maintained
that they failed to preserve their neutrality, and that the claims must stand,
borne exception to this attitude on our part might perhaps be drawn from the
terms of the note which bir P. Cox addressed to the Persian Government on the
9th August, 1919 {State Papers, cxii, 764), where, in obtaining Persian agreement
to a waiver on the respective sides, subject to a proviso, of damage done by British
troops in Persia and the cost of maintenance of those troops, he spoke of “ the
British troops which His Majesty’s Government were obliged to send to Persia
owing to Persia s want of power to defend her neutrality.’’ Some distinctions
exist between the incidents complained of. The evacuations of Persian towns
mainly resulted from the advance of Turkish troops upon them, or of local
disturbances engineered by enemy agents; outrages at various places were the
work of Persian tribesmen; in the outrages at Shiraz in 1915 the Persian
gendarmerie appear to have played a considerable part; elsewhere Persian local
levies were responsible for some losses; while Russian troops, in the general
disorder which followed the Bolshevik upheaval in Russia, also contributed
their share.
52. These war-time claims, which are individually set out in the volume
Legation Claims and Consulate Claims: War-Time, and are classified in
paragraphs 6, 17 and 22 abo^, may, with the amounts claimed, be placed under
four heads :—
(1) Outrages on British consular officers and subjects : 680,931-22 krans and
£38,640.
(2) Losses on evacuations of Persian towns: 1,205,196-70 krans and
£563 135. 9d.
(3) Losses of the Imperial Bank of Persia and its staff: 5,961,500-80 krans
and £100.
(4) Miscellaneous: highway robberies, &c. : 2,046,562-37 krans
£55,664 195. hd. and 1,990 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. .
Or a total in all of 9,894,191 • 09 krans, £94,968 135 . 2d. and 1,990 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. . Some
ot these claims, however, appear to rest on slender foundation.
53. As regards (1), outrages on British consular officers and subjects are
of course, serious matters, and afford just ground for demanding adequate
compensation We have, as shown in paragraph 10, settled some claims under
this head out of Persian funds during our occupation; and, as mentioned in
T a ®f- a r we ha 7 e ultlmatel y account to the Treasury and the Government
ol India for sums advanced to certain of the victims of these outrages to defrav
then-losses, should we ultimately succeed in obtaining a settlement of these
war-time claims by the Persian Government. As regards (2), the groundwork of
our claims for losses sustained in the evacuation of Persian towns does not seem