مجموعة ٢٩/٣٥ "الخليج الفارسي: مسألة الدفع للسلطان نظير مرافق التلغراف في مسقط" [و‎‎١‎٥‎٤] (٣٣٧/٣٠٧)

Minute Paper
Department
Karachi. (This was, of course, part of the general
settlement and cannot strictly he taken in isolation,
hut it would perhaps do for a debating point.) On
the other hand^ww^ there are certainly precedents of
which the Sultan may he aware^such as the Azores case
quoted hy the G.P.0. for a substantial payment in
cases such as this* I am afraid the Sultan may have
in mind the annual royalty of 3>000 tomans (8,000 rupee
paid to Persia from 1868 for the right to use the Jask-
Gwadur cable which v/as the property of the Government
of India hut lay in Persian territory. You will
remember that this royalty was only abandoned by the
Persians as a set-off for the handing over of the I.S.T
assets in Persia in the negotiations leading up to the
agreement of the l?th February, 1932.
I assume, though it does not seem to be
absolutely clear, that the memorandum places Gable
and Wireless under an obligation, whatever happens, to
run the Jask-Muscat branch line. If this is not so,
and they were threatening to close it down, the Sultan
would presumably change his mind quickly enough. The
cable is also no doubt of value to the Government of
India who, I think, run the Post Office in Muscat.
On the whole I think the line suggested in
Mr. Clauson’s note of 11th September would probably
be best, though I am inclined to think it would be well
to make sure orally from the Treasury (Mr. Waterfield)
that they have no direct interest in this matter.
Subject to anything they or Sir T. Fov/le may say, we
might then approach the Company rather tentatively^with