ملف ٤٩٤٩ /١٩١٢ جزء ١ "الخليج الفارسي: - أكسيد أبو موسى" [و‎‎١‎٩‎٧] (٥٦٦/٤٠٢)

TURKEY.
[January 10.]
^CONFIDENTIAL.
N
Section 1,
[1233]
No. 1.
Sir,
Board of Trade to Foreign Office.—(Received January 10.)
Board of Trade, January 9, 1914.
I AM directed by tlie Board of Trade to refer to your letter of the olst October,
and its enclosures, regarding Messrs. TVonckhaus and Co.’s claim to compensation in
connection with the Abu Musa red oxide difficulty, and to offer the following
observations thereon for Sir E. Grey’s consideration
1 The Board note that, while it is proposed to compensate Messrs. Wonckhaus in
respect of their losses owing to the non-fulfilment of their contract of the 1st June,
1900, for the purchase of red oxide mined in Abu Musa, His Majesty’s Government
refuse to recognise any claim on the part of the firm as shareholders in the company
which held the concession for mining in that island, more especially as their share in
that company was purchased at a date when they must have been aware that the
concession had been cancelled.
2. As regards the claims now under consideration, the Board apprehend that
these are as follows :—
(a.) That the firm’s direct losses be refunded—the counts of the claim being set
out under five sub-heads (see enclosure to Prince Lichnowsky’s note of the 5th April).
(5.) That a lump sum be paid to the firm to compensate them for the profit which
they might have been expected to make > but did not make) had their contract with
Hassan Samaiya been uninterrupted. It is understood that this proposal has been
accepted by Messrs. Wonckhaus and the German Government, and that the sum paid
is to be in final extinction of all rights which the firm may have acquired whether
under the contract or otherwise.
3. As regards (a), the Board are disposed to think that Messrs. Wonckhaus’s
claim under sub-head (1) might in principle be allowed in respect both of advances to
the mining company and of implements lost on the island. It would, however, be
incumbent on the firm to adduce satisfactory evidence as to the amount of such
advances not repaid, and it would also be necessary for them to establish the precise
nature and value of the implements destroyed or removed.
4. The Board understand, as a result of semi-official communication with your
Department since the date of your letter under reply, that the shipment by the steam
ship “ Louise ” (item 2), which consisted of 1,810 tons of oxide, was made in April
1908, in pursuance of the permission granted in Sir E. Grey’s note to the German
Charge d’Affaires of the 10th January of that year. Thus three months were allowed
to elapse between the date on which operations on Abu Musa ceased and the date on
which permission to ship the oxide already on the beach was accorded, and about
three months more elapsed before Messrs. Wonckhaus availed themselves of this
privilege. The claim here is mainly one on account of deterioration of the oxide
during this period of delay, but the Board note that, in Sir P. Cox’s opinion, no
substantial deterioration can have occurred. If, however, the fact that deterioration
did take place could be established, it would seem to have been due partly to the
firm’s own inaction and partly to circumstances beyond their control. The extent to
which these circumstances should be allowed for would largely depend upon the length
of time the oxide in question had already been lying on the beach before the cessation
of operations, and, for the purpose of any reference to arbitration, information on this
point would have to be secured.
5. The Board concur in Sir E. Grey’s decision not to admit claims under item 5.
Item No. 3, of course, disappears in view of the facts that the mines under present
arrangements are not to be handed over to Messrs. Wonckhaus and that their claim as
shareholders in the original mining concession is not to be recognised. The Board
also note that Sir E. Grey is not prepared to make any allowance in respect of item 4.
[2001 k—1]