The Minister in Persia (Hart) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 10.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department’s special written instruction No. 198 of November 14, 1932, file [Page 810] No. 661.9131, and telegram No. 27 of December 30, 4 p.m.,16 directing me to dispatch to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs a first person note protesting formally in the matter of the discrimination against American trade with Persia resulting from the Perso-Soviet Convention of October 27, 1931.
As a matter of record, I enclose a copy of the note, No. 411, which in accordance with those instructions, I addressed to the Persian Foreign Minister under date of January 5, 1933.
Permit me, at the same time, to refer to the following passages of the written instruction under acknowledgment:
[Here follow paragraph 3 and the first sentence of paragraph 4 of instruction No. 198, printed on page 808.]
I shall comment briefly on the points raised in the second and third of the above quoted paragraphs, to the end that the Department may be informed of my reasons for not incorporating reference thereto in my above-mentioned note.
Under the first point I found, after consultation with local representatives of American automotive interests, that no discrimination in fact, prejudicial to their interests or to those of their principals, results from the privilege in question. Practically all of their importations are, in the ordinary course of the trade, made either through Mohammerah or via Baghdad through Kermanshah. And I have not been able to learn of any specific case where the Persian port quotas have prevented their making such importations by way of such port as, in any particular instance, they may have preferred. Further, these port quotas are flexible figures, used rather as a guide than as a fixed “control” factor. Frequently one sees reported in the local press notice of the increase of one port’s quota together with a corresponding decrease in that of another. This, I am reliably informed, is to facilitate the normal movement of imported goods.
On the second point I was unable to ascertain any facts whatsoever tending to substantiate the report of the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce. I believe that report may have had its origin in the fact that at Pahlevi the Soviet Trade Delegation (Torgpred) has constructed at its own expense and is permitted to use its own bonded warehouses. Obviously, on merchandise in such warehouses the Persian Customs Administration makes no demurrage charges, whereas on goods in its Government-built-and-owned warehouses such “service” charges are levied.
- Latter not printed.↩