Page 328 - PERSIAN 5 1905_1911

28 ADMINISTRATION REPORT OF THE PERSIAN GULF POLITICAL RESIDENCY

Repeated reference made to the Khans lias up to the present only brought
about the return of about 30 tomans worth of the stolen property.
45. Baklitiaris and British interests.—In the end of April a payment of
The Persian Transport Company’* ontfltnniling 9,600 tomailS WRS made by tllC KliailS
cWm'* t against the Road construction account.
This was much in excess of the amount due on date and will cover the pay­
ments due on 3rd March 1909.
Payment was also made of the bill for the repair of the bridges in
1907. b
The Khans consented to pay the claim of tomans 279-9 for the Quia
Madrassa robbery, but in spite of frequent reminders have as yet failed to
do so. They have also steadily persisted in their refusal to pay the bill for the
repairs of the bridges in 1904, amounting to some 1,500 tomans.
Happily no fresh liabilities have been incurred during the year.
46. It will be remembered that examination of this bridge in September
1907 revealed that serious cracks had
Repair of the Godar Bridgo.
made their appearance in the masonry
of the piers. Nothing further was heard until the Company in March 1908
addressed the Foreign Olhcc on the subject stating that it was necessary to
afhx some iron bands and asking that the necessary negotiations with the
Khans should be carried through.
Under instructions from His Majesty’s Legation, Ilis Majes/y’s Consul
entered into correspondence with the Khans on the subject. Eventually the
latter agreed to pay a definite sum of 1,000 tomans for the repairs, a sum
which was in excess of a rough estimate supplied by the Company’s agent at
Ahwaz. This offer was refused by the Company when the Foreign Office
informed them that they could not see their way to pressing the Khans further
in the matter.
It has since come to light that the Company after taking expert advice
had entirely altered their scheme of repairs, and discovered the necessity
for a greater expenditure than had originally been, contemplated. It also
became evident from the opinion of the expert that the defects in the bridge
had arisen from an unsuitability in its design. Under these circumstances
it appears questionable whether the Bakhtiari Khans arc chargeable with
the expense of the repairs, which are in fact structural alterations, now
considered necessary.
The matter is still under reference.
47. It was stated to the Consul by Haji Khasrau Khan that his brother
Ilaji Ali Kuli Khan, who has been in
Messrs. Lynch Brothers.
Europe during the past two years, had
this year obtained a loan of £1,000 at 6 or 8 per cent, from Messrs. Lynch
Brothers.
48. At the same time Haji Khasrau Khan stated that he was himself
desirous of obtaining a loan from Messrs. Lynch Brothers of 50,000 tomans,
as security for which he was prepared to allocate his shares in the road and
in the Oil Syndicate, or to undertake to deliver consignments of produce in
the villages he owns in the Dizful district.
As the expediency of making loans to the Bakhtiaris is dubious in any
circumstances, and in the present case the security was either insufficient or
uncertain no particular encouragement was offered to Haji Khasrau and he
was advised to enter into communication with Messrs. Lynch Brothers’ Agent
at Tehran on his return there.
49. Later, apparently in the month of November, Muhammad Jawad
Khan (eldest son of Isfandiar Khan) proposed to Messrs. Lynch Brothers,
through their Ispahan Agent, to sell them his share, which is 1/6, in the
road tolls. Here again as the realisation of the share of the tolls would bo
difficult, if not impossible, and it is questionable whether under the terms of
their concession it is permissible for the Khans to dispose of their interest
in the road to Europeans, it is unlikely that the matter will ever come up in
a definite form.