other matters prevented completion of the treaty at this time. I hope however that the Department feels that the circumstances justified the effort. BOUNDARY DISPUTE WITH COLOMBIA (See volume I, pages 287 ff.) SOUTH PERSIA [The Department of State had hoped to print in the present volume of Foreign Relations the full record of the case concerning the killing of Vice Consul Robert W. Imbrie at Teheran, Persia, on July 18, 1924. However, when certain documents in the case were, in accordance with established practice, submitted to the Iranian Government with a view to obtaining permission for publication, that Government requested that the documents in question be not published at this time. In view of the importance of the Imbrie case from the point of view of international law, the Department considered that it would be undesirable to publish only a part of the record since such publication would detract from a proper understanding of the case. In the circumstances the Department reluctantly reached the conclusion that it would be best to defer publication until such time as the Iranian Government was in a position to give its consent to the publication of the above-mentioned documents, and at that time to publish the entire record.] DELAY IN THE CONFIRMATION OF AN OIL CONCESSION IN NORTHERN PERSIA TO THE SINCLAIR EXPLORATION COMPANY1 891.6363 Standard Oil/328 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State (Dulles) 2 [WASHINGTON,] January 24, 1924. When Mr. Wellman called on me on January 23rd to take up the Mesopotamian oil question he read me, asking for any comments, correspondence between the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and a person in the far west who had written to inquire of the Company whether it was true that they had joined with a British Company to exclude another American oil company from Persia. Mr. Wellman said that this was rather a serious accusation and that as they found out that the person making the inquiry was a substantial citizen they thought his letter should be answered. 1 For previous correspondence concerning granting of the oil concession, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. I, pp. 711 ff. 'Guy Wellman, associate general counsel of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. Mr. Wellman then read the reply which the Company had already sent. This reply gave a somewhat full history of the negotiations of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey with the Persian Government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company with regard to North Persia, and explained the Company's cooperation with British interests on the ground of a pre-existing concession granted to Koshtaria and acquired from Koshtaria by the Anglo-Persian Company. Reference was also made to the conferences which the Standard Oil Company's representatives had had with the Department in December 1921, at which time, according to Mr. Wellman's letter, the Department had indicated that it favored a policy of cooperation rather than of conflict in Persia. As I recall (Mr. Wellman did not leave a copy), the letter also indicated that the Standard Oil Company proposed to defend their share of the Koshtaria claim acquired from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. After reading me this letter Mr. Wellman said that the Standard Oil Company had felt that it was desirable to make this frank statement, that they naturally planned to protect their interests. Mr. Wellman further indicated that the Standard Oil Company contemplated making the letter public. I told Mr. Wellman that I could not comment in any way upon the letter. It expressed the views of the Standard Oil Company not the views of the Department. I realized that the Company had a right to protect its interests in the way which seemed best to it. (The letter which Mr. Wellman read was of a character to precipitate the controversy between the Standard Oil and the Sinclair with regard to their rights and interests in Persia which will be inevitable in case the Sinclair concession is formally ratified. I gathered the impression from Mr. Wellman that the Standard Oil Company expected the Department to maintain a position of neutrality as between the 50% Standard Oil Company interest in the Koshtaria concession and the prospective 100% Sinclair Oil Company interest in the concession recently signed by the Persian Ministry but not ratified by the Parliament. Mr. Wellman apparently felt that the Department, in case issue should be joined on this point, would favor the settlement of the controversy by an impartial arbitration which would determine the respective merits of the Koshtaria and the possible Sinclair concession. I said that the Department, as far as I knew, had not definitely decided the course it would take in case the contingency to which he referred should arise. There were two possibilities, one that the Department might itself examine the records and claims of the rival American concessionnaires and decide which had a valid concession and therefore the right to support. On the other hand the Department might feel that the question was one for arbitration outside the Department.) 8 Mr. Wellman as he was leaving said that Mr. Bedford had recently expressed the view to him that the Standard Oil Company, by following the line of policy which the Department had favored in Russia and in Persia, had apparently been placed in a disadvantageous position vis à vis other Companies which were willing to go ahead irrespective of the Department's general policy. He then referred to the fact that the Standard Oil Company had refused Russian offers similar to those which had been taken up by the Sinclair. Mr. Wellman added that however this might be the Standard had no idea of changing the policy which it was following, namely, of taking into account what they considered to be the policy of this Government. A[LLEN] W. D[ULLES] 891.6363 Standard Oil/347 The Persian Minister (Alai) to the Secretary of State WASHINGTON, February 21, 1924. SIR: Your Excellency has doubtless been informed that, in connection with the contract signed in December last by the Persian Government and the representative of the Sinclair Consolidated Oil Corporation in Teheran for the exploitation of petroleum in four of the five northern provinces of Persia, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey have let it be known in a letter addressed by them to Mr. A. G. Berger on January 18th, referred to by the New York Times of February 4th last, as about to appear in the current number of The Lamp (a copy of the advance sheets of which is enclosed) that they hold jointly with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd., a British corporation, a one-half interest in the so-called Khoshtharia grants covering approximately three and one-quarter provinces in north Persia, and that they will take the proper steps to protect their rights and to develop a petroleum production. In view of this attitude on the part of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, I deemed it advisable to publish, on my own initiative, a letter in the New York Times of the 8th instant, reciting briefly the various phases of my Government's negotiations with the Standard Oil and the Sinclair interests. That letter has, I understand, been brought to Your Excellency's attention, but nevertheless I enclose herewith a copy to complete the record. 4 Having kept my Government informed of recent developments, I have just been instructed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to submit the following points for Your Excellency's consideration. 'Alfred C. Bedford, chairman of the board of directors of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. 'Not printed. |