511.4 A 2/118
The Chargé in Persia (Murray) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 22.]
Sir: Referring to paragraph two of the Department’s telegram No. 65 of August 13, 4 p.m.,80 informing the Legation that there was being forwarded to the Legation certain written, instructions regarding cooperation with the British representative in Teheran in bringing to the attention of the Persian Government the reported illicit trade in opium from the Persian Gulf ports, and instructing the Legation furthermore to await receipt of these instructions before taking action, and the Department’s telegram No. 83 of September 15, 5 p.m. regarding the hope of the American Government that the Persian Government will be represented at the forthcoming opium conference in Geneva in November next, I have the honor to inform the Department that, on the day of the receipt of these latter instructions, a note dated September 16, 1924 was delivered to the Persian Government transmitting the substance of paragraph one of the instruction in question. A copy of this note is herewith appended for the information of the Department.80
On the same day I discussed the matter informally with Dr. A. C. Millspaugh and was informed that the Persian Government would, in fact, be represented at Geneva by Mirza Eissa Khan, the Persian oil commissioner attached to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in London. The Department was duly advised of this fact in the Legation’s telegram No. 120 of September 17, 2 p.m.81
Dr. Millspaugh, at the same time, promised to supply me with an exhaustive report on the whole question of opium with relation to Persia which is just being completed by Colonel MacCormack, the Director of Direct and Indirect Taxation in Persia. This report, I inferred, will contain a consideration of measures that must be taken in order to enable Persia to substitute other crops, namely, wheat, cotton, tobacco and silk for opium. From a remark in a conversation which I recently had with Colonel MacCormack I gathered that Persia contemplates demanding aid even to the extent of financial subsidies from the nations most interested in suppressing [Page 589] opium traffic in order to enable her to reduce opium production in the country without imperilling her economic welfare.
On September 17 I likewise addressed a note to the British Chargé d’Affaires requesting the appointment of a time suitable to him when I might discuss the question in the light of my last instructions.
At the time agreed upon, September 23, he expressed his pleasure at the present attitude of the American Government and informed me that the King’s Regulations referred to in paragraph 3 of the Department’s telegram No. 83, September 15, 5 p.m. had already, upon August 15, been notified to the Persian Government together with a covering despatch on the subject, a copy of which is herewith enclosed.82
As the Department will note from the letter of Mr. Ovey, dated July 30 to Dr. Kornfeld,82 he stated that Mr. MacDonald “has given me discretion to postpone, for a short time, my communication to the Persian Government in order that I may, if possible, have the benefit of your support. I should therefore be most grateful if you would be so good as to inform me whether you have received any instructions from Washington in that sense.”
I understand that Dr. Kornfeld verbally informed Mr. Ovey, in the spirit of the Department’s telegram No. 65 of August 13, 4 p.m. that he was unable, pending the settlement of the Imbrie case, to take up this matter. Hence the British communication, originally dated, as will be seen, July 30, was finally delivered on August 15 to the Persian Government. I am informed that no reply has, until now, been received to this communication.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I have [etc.]