ways at home at the Atabak Park after five in the afternoon, and that I would be delighted to see His Excellency. He departed and on the next day sent me a note saying that the Sar- dar-i-Asad would await me at six that evening at his residence in Bakhtiyari street. The day following the Secretary again called to inquire why I had disappointed His Excellency, " who was a very powerful man and of great pride." I told him that in my country we did not allow those minor considerations to outweigh the ordinary social customs and rules of hospitality, and that I would be glad to receive his distinguished chief. That evening the Sardar-i-Asad. called and we had a friendly talk. I returned his call the next day. I afterwards learned that His Excellency at the instigation of his clansmen, had tried to make the American Treasurer-general call on him as special mark of distinction and prestige, in order that he might lower the prestige of his great rival, the Prime Minister, Sipah- dar. Had I gone, I should have made a sworn enemy of the ' latter.

A week after our arrival in Teheran one of my Persian visitors took occasion to inquire politely when I would find time to call at the Russian Legation; a little later an emissary came apparently on a similar errand from the British Legation. I replied that I would not have my household furniture or be settled, after such a long journey, for at least a month. From this time on scarcely a day passed that I did not receive a direct or indirect intimation that the foreign legations were awaiting my call. After two weeks the affair became truly laughable, and when I was able to inquire what was the custom in such matters when Persian officials arrived at the capital, and learned that the newcomers into official circles always received the first call, it became almost interesting. It seems absurd as a statement, but the question of whether or when I would call on the foreign legations (meaning thereby the British and Russian Legations) actually became the all-absorbing topic, not only in European social circles, but in Persian officialdom.

I bad been told the sad history of Mons. Bizot, the eminent French " finance-doctor," who had arrived at Teheran some two years before us, and finding that the Eussian, British and other foreign diplomats were most charming and hospitable men, ever ready to advise him as to his work, had been so thoroughly entranced by their good fellowship and the numerous social festivities given at the different legations in his honor, that he completely forgot the trifling fact that he had gone to Persia to reform the finances of that country, and not merely to drink tea, play bridge and ride out for his health. If he ever awoke to a sense that he ought to take hold of his duties, he doubtless found that the Medjlis, whether rightly or not, had already classified him with his Belgian predecessors, and that so far as doing anything with Persian support and cooperation was concerned, he might as well start back to la belle France. At all events, Mons. Bizot displayed a masterly inactivity in making any financial reforms during his two years at Teheran, and at the end of that time he bequeathed to the patient and trusting Persian Government a thirty-page typewritten report, edited in beautiful French, and expressing Bizot's opinion as to what somebody should do to reorganize Persia's fiscal system. He returned to his Government post at Paris greatly improved in health, but the Persian finances continued to stumble and stagger as before.

Finally the Begent, in one of our talks, asked me whether I was going to call on the Eussian and British Ministers. Having no desire to debate these delicate subjects I replied, in truly oriental fashion, that I was very busy getting my house in order and preparing a basic financial law for submission to the cabinet and the Medjlis. Finally, at one of the sessions of the Cabinet, to which I was often invited, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a most oleaginous personage, Mutashamu's-Saltana by name, brought solemnly before his colleagues the fact that the foreign ministers at Teheran did not know why I had not called on them and were anxious about it. Said he: " The Belgian, French and other employees in the Persian service have always considered it an honor to call at the legations. The diplomats cannot understand why the Americans do not follow the same rule."

I said: " Your Excellency, there are a number of points to this very delicate and complicated question, but before going any further I should like to inquire whether I am not an official of the Persian Government; if I am, should I not observe the rules of etiquette laid down by that Government % "

After some discussion, the entire Cabinet agreed and decided that I was under no obligation to pay first calls; quite the contrary, and they seemed rather to like the idea of a foreigner considering himself to be a genuine part of their Government, instead of merely condescending to accept their money.

As I look back now, the case seems even more amusing. The Russian and British Ministers knew that I was intending to present to the Medjlis a financial law for enactment; Russian agents and proteges had openly threatened to kill that law, or at least to emasculate it; they had found that the great majority of the deputies, after some three weeks' intercourse with us, had a surprising degree of confidence in our plans and our desire to help their country, and they, the diplomats, were confronted by the dismal prospect of a foreigner, a mere outsider, actually walking in and assuming his duties without first doing public homage to them.

One little call, or even a bent card, and the music would have begun to play, the dinner invitations to rain in, with return calls to follow, and we would have been socially certified as fit for the rarefied atmosphere of Eastern diplomatic circles,— and, merely en passant, my finance law would never have passed the

Medjlis and we might have spent the rest of our time in Persia playing tennis and bridge.

During this little by-play the Persian people were not entirely idle. They rubbed their eyes a few times and then commenced to have a new sensation. " Inshallah, have we a faranghi among us who takes not his orders from the foreign legations. Let us help him."

In the real East rumor wears seven-league boots, and on the 13th day of June, just one month after our arrival at Teheran, the deputies by a practically unanimous vote, passed a law giving to a foreigner full and complete powers in the handling of their finances, and we were ready to commence work in earnest.

As it seems now, I think that we would have called on the foreign diplomats,— certainly as soon as the pressing matter of establishing and defining by legislation our official status and positions had been arranged,— but these diplomatic gentlemen, by their own loud outcries and running around in circles, from the very day after our arrival, had so attracted the attention of every one and so sharpened this point of the whole affair, that for me to have yielded at that time would have lost for us, with the already suspicious and oft-deceived Persian people, the last chance of gaining their confidence and obtaining the legislative authority necessary to give to our efforts any hope of success. Thus before we could arrange a chair to sit on at home, there had been thrust upon us a mild diplomatic intrigue in full swing. If we had succumbed to it, by that trifling action we would have lost any real cooperation of the Persians, and by refusing to walk into the prearranged trap, we have been charged with the high-crime of lack of tact.

At this point the reader may laugh without offending the writer in the least; he feels that way himself, but this little story is told because it shows the real spirit pervading certain quarters in Teheran which shortly set on foot the countless intrigues and chicaneries which during the succeeding months of our stay in Persia were employed to distort the truth, to falsify the record, and to discredit publicly a few men who refused to become the mere tools of alien political interests.

On June 1 the Sipahdar gave a garden fete at his beautiful and spacious park in Teheran. It was understood that one of its purposes w^ras to bring the Americans into contact with the diplomatic society of the capital. I remember very well driving with my wife through the dusty streets towards the Sipahdar' s that rather hot afternoon. On the way, as we neared the British Legation gate, the distinguished-looking Minister and his wife drove out, escorted by Indian sawars with their lances, and preceded us up the roads. It was the first time that I had seen Sir George Barclay. Once in the garden, the air was cool and fresh. Dozens of beautiful fountains played on all sides. We approached the reception tent by a winding road, bordered with trees and flowers, while the Royal band played martial airs in the background.

Arrived at the entrance to the tent, after greeting our host and his receiving party, we were ushered into the midst of a gloomy and forbidding circle of European ladies and gentlemen who, posed in attitudes of studied indifference, stared stonily at the intruders. Though the tent was closed on three sides and not a breath of air was stirring, I could detect a distinct atmosphere of frost. We stood in the very center, my wife and I, with Mr. and Mrs. McCaskey, who had come with us, and, recognizing the situation, I whispered to the others to give their best representation of four people conversing in a desert. The trouble was partly with the Sipahdar and his chef de ceremonie, Mutashamu's-Saltana, Minister of Foreign Affairs. These worthies had been willing to bring " hostile foreign elements " into the same enclosure, but as for deciding which one should be presented to the other — Inshallah! no; that would be going too far.

There we stood, gazing in awe and admiration at the various archaic types of top-hats worn by the gallant secretaries of the legations,— most of them of rare vintage (the hats), and many sizes too large. Why the young Englishmen wore top-hats which were prevented from engulfing their entire countenances only by their ears puzzled me for sometime afterwards. I subsequently learned that the supply of these social weapons is limited in Teheran and, as they are hard to transport over the Elburz mountains, they are treated by the junior diplomats as official heirlooms. From which I take it that megalocephalia was prevalent among their predecessors in office.

After ten minutes of standing around, during which we gave no cry of distress, the ice thawed somewhat and the guests began to mingle. Some friends of ours arrived and Mr. Mc~ Caskey informed me that Sir George Barclay (whom he had met) was desirous of making my acquaintance — as I was his. After meeting Sir George and while chatting with him as to the financial situation of Persia and the prospect of doing any work, I noticed a very distinguished gentleman whose uneasy expression suggested to my mind a diplomat of high rank. He gazed long and hard at Sir George, and finally catching his eye, nodded very distinctly. Said Sir George: " My dear Mr. Treasurer-general, have you met Poklewski, the Russian Minister,— a splendid fellow, you know." I expressed regret that I had not been favored. " I think he may be passing this way soon. I will introduce you," added Sir George. As I soon learned, the uneasy gentleman standing not eight feet away, was Mons. Poklewski. At this precise moment it occurred to him to stroll by us, swinging his cane and gazing at the concourse. As he passed, Sir George touched him on the arm, and by this accident Mons. Poklewski and I met, without further disturbing the diplomatic balance of the world. The French Minister was likewise present in the tent, but either missed his cue or changed his mind, and I never had the pleasure of his acquaintance during my stay in Teheran.

Sir George Barclay and Mons. Poklewski-Koziell were on this occasion, as ever afterwards when I talked with them, most pleasant and polished gentlemen. But their official tasks in Persia seemed to weigh heavily upon them, and their duties, I fear, were not infrequently distasteful.

One must at times separate a.gentleman and a diplomat from his official acts performed under orders from his home government; otherwise great confusion and injustice would occur. Some governments have a little way of telling those who represent them abroad and especially in the Orient, to get such and such a thing done, and done it must be. Nor would those high Government officials at home care often to hear the painful details of the successful execution of many such orders which are given.

One of the first financial questions submitted to me for an opinion was that of the continuance of the salt-tax which had been established about a year. The people were complaining very bitterly about it, and I found on investigation that there was a tax of 64 krans (about $5.70) per 600 pounds on Persian salt mined within the country, whereas the Customs tax on foreign salt imported was only $.09 for the same quantity. As no internal tax could be imposed, under the Customs stipulations, on imported articles, the salt-producers of Persia and the people living in the interior districts were most unjustly treated. In addition, the Persian Government had received in the course of a year from this purely revenue-producing measure the insignificant net sum of 42,000 tumans (about $37,000), although the gross taxes collected from the people were nearly 209,000 tumans,— the expenses of collection absorbing all the difference. I immediately recommended tlie abolition of this •unproductive and uneconomic law and the Medjlis approved the proposal.

This comparatively trifling affair did much to strengthen the prestige of the Constitutional Government with the people in the provinces, who had really been suffering from a measure which benefited no one but the tax-collectors who fattened on its proceeds.

CHAPTER II

THE POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL SITUATION IN PERSIA AS WE FOUND IT. POWERS OF THE REGENT, THE CABINET AND THE MEDJLIS. FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SOURCES OF REVENUE. THE PUBLIC DEBT. THE VARIOUS FOREIGN LOANS.

ROM! the day that we reached Teheran we were constantly warned that we would never be allowed to do any real work in behalf of Persia; that other foreign advisers and officials who had come to Teheran and attempted to bring about practical reforms had early been compelled either to leave the country or to " go over to the other side," and that we had better make our peace with those in power. " The other side " and " those in power " we soon found to mean the clique of reactionary Persian officials, principally hold-overs from the despotic past regimes, and comprising men of great wealth, power and influence, who, as a rule, had received a European education and training. They had reached the conclusion that it was far safer and easier to become the tools, agents and proteges of the Russian Government, for instance, and have its powerful influence exerted in their favor, than to side with their own people who were struggling heroically, but with all the faults of inexperience and ignorance of the technique of representative government weighing heavily against their efforts.

It early became the jest of the diplomatic corps at Teheran that the Americans would not, remain in Persia three months; the wife of one distinguished foreign minister said that a month would see them on the road back to Enzeli; and the idea that any serious attempt would be made to straighten out Persian financial affairs only called forth laughter.

On onr way to Persia we had spent five days at Constantinople, where there is a large colony of Persians. The Turkish capital is always in close touch with Teheran, and there we met many Persians who had but recently come from their own country. Some were in political exile, like the famous Constitutionalist deputy from Tabriz, Taqi-zada, who called on me and talked for an hour of the troubles in Persia. Others whom we met had taken prominent parts in the Nationalist movement, among them being merchants, priests, foreign-office officials and diplomats. Here I received my first insight into the conditions prevailing in Persia and I confess that the prospects were not particularly encouraging.

I was given friendly warning of many things, ranging from foreign intrigues to personal injury, but among all the diverse advice vouchsafed there was a clear agreement of opinion to the effect that the Persian Medjlis, or National Parliament, represented the actual progressive movement of the people of Iran, and that it was, both by law and by reputation, the symbol of Persian nationalism and liberty. " Gain the confidence and good will of the deputies of the Medjlis," said our friendly callers, " and half of your work will already be done. Fail to obtain its cooperation, and you may as well give up your efforts to accomplish any real results,"

It was not so very long afterwards that we all saw how true this statement was. Ignorance of the fact, or wilful neglect of its portent, was the rock upon which preceding foreign advisers and administrators in Persia had invariably split. No one of them had ever experienced any difficulty in gaining the confidence of the innermost diplomatic circles in Teheran — the method of doing so was plain and even inviting — but the very evident intimacy thus established by them with the representatives of certain foreign powers, which the Persian people believed were hostile to their aspirations, sealed the fate of any such foreign adviser or administrator so far as winning the confidence and support of the Medjlis or of the Nationalist party was concerned.

The diplomatic corps at Teheran was composed at this time of the Russian, British, German, American, Italian, Austro- Hungarian and Dutch Ministers, and the Turkish Ambassador. With the exception of the first two and the Turkish Ambassador, three who had political roles to play, these distinguished representatives had no greater task than to keep a number of their citizens and subjects on the salary and pension rolls of the bankrupt Persian Government. Most of these pensioners bore splendid titles, it being rare to find less than a colonel, while one Italian officer who was supposed to be in some manner dimly connected with the Persian War Office rejoiced in the self- created rank of full general.

This work is not put forth as a study of Persian geography, nor as a chronicle of social life in the oriental center of civilization, but it would be cruel to leave this subject without paying a tribute to the real authors of the fascinating and continuous round of gossip, scandal and small talk which so thoroughly enlivens existence in the European colony at Teheran. Imagine, if you will, a fast decaying government amid whose tottering ruins a heterogeneous collection of Belgian customs officers, Italian gendarmes, German artillery sergeants, French savants, doctors, professors and councilors of state, Austrian military instructors, English bank clerks, Turkish and Armenian courtiers, and last, but not least, a goodly sprinkling of Russian Cossack officers, tutors and drill instructors all go through their daily task of giving the Imperial Persian Government a strong shove toward bankruptcy, with a sly side push in the direction of their own particular political or personal interests. In this pleasant diversion the gentlemen and even the ladies of the foreign legations were somewhat peacefully engaged, when several unfortunate Americans landed on Persian soil with the truly extraordinary idea that they were to he employed under the orders of the Persian Government. Later, lest the gaiety of the scene should diminish, some ten or more Swedish officers were added to the list of those whom the raiyat of the provinces paid their tithe to maintain.

For several weeks before the financial law of June 13 was voted by the Medjlis, we had been seeking to obtain some accurate information as to Persia's financial condition.

The Customs service under Mons. Mornard had its own books and records, but there was no way of our getting reports from them at that time. Certainly none were volunteered. In the other departments of the Ministry of Finance there was nothing in the way of permanent or coherent records or statistics. The desks and chairs themselves were as eloquent of facts as the suave but uncommunicative Persian gentlemen who then presided over the financial destinies of their native land.

I might say that the Persian finances were tangled — very tangled — had there been any to tangle. There were no Persian finances in any ordinary sense of the word. The so- called Ministry of Finance, presided over by a succession of frequently changing Persian gentlemen whose sole claims to financial genius lay in their having run through their own money and thus become in need of pecuniary recuperation, was in reality an unorganized collection of under-officials who had charge of various bureaus or offices through which the internal taxes, called, generically, maliat, were supposed to be collected for the benefit of the Persian Government. There were no such things as civil service, or examinations or tests for fitness or integrity. The places were doled out by the different Ministers of Finance to those having sufficient family or political influence to obtain them. No official could be sure of

PRINCE SALARU'D-DAWLA. The brother of Muhammad Ali and twice pretender to the throne. He entered Persia and captured Hamadan during the summer of 1911 with several thousand Kurdish tribesmen from the Turkish frontier.

the Legation, I "would be pleased to secure him in some manner for the purpose of organizing the proposed Treasury Gendarmerie. After some correspondence with the Legation, I was informed, in writing, on July 22, by the British Minister, that he was authorized by his Government to tell me " that Major Stokes, before accepting the command of the gendarmerie, will have to resign his commission in the Indian Army." As the original tender made by me to Major Stokes contained no suggestion that he would be required, in order to accept it,, to resign from the British-Indian Army, and as the situation would have been equally well met from the standpoint of the Persian Government by his being seconded for three years, I naturally assumed that on his tendering his resignation, in response to the condition thus made by his own Government,—■ a thing which he immediately did by cable,— it would be accepted. After two weeks, during which we had regarded the matter as practically settled, I was astonished to learn that the British Government had presented a note verbale on August 8 to the Persian Foreign Office " warning the Persian Government that it ought not to persist in the appointment of Major Stokes unless he is not to be employed in Northern Persia." This remarkable communication went on to say that "if the Persian Government does persist, His Majesty's [British] Government will recognize Russia's right [sic] to take such steps as she thinks are necessary in order that her interests in Northern Persia may be safeguarded."

This action was followed on August 19 by another note repeating " the warning given on the 8th instant."

Thus the British Government, presumably acting in its right senses, had received a request for the services of a British subject for a period of three years to take part in the reorganization of one branch of the Persian Government and had formally expressed its consent, requiring only that the individual in ques- tion should resign his commission in the British-Indian Army, and, upon his doing so, in good faith, had suddenly executed a complete volte face and without any change in the legal aspects of the situation or in the rights of the parties concerned, had not only receded from its promise and agreement, but had combined with another foreign government in a cold-blooded attempt to intimidate the Persian Government in the exercise of its most elementary sovereign rights.

I had desired to secure Major Stokes, not because he was a British subject, but in spite of that fact, and solely in the belief that he was the most efficient and capable man for the important work which was to be done, and because the prompt and thorough execution of this task was vital to my whole scheme of financial reform in Persia. The Treasury Gendarmerie was not to be a dress-parade feature which might adorn the fiscal organization which we were endeavoring to create, but it was an indispensable part thereof, since without a well- trained, well-equipped force to assist the tax-collectors, and, by their mere presence, to maintain a certain degree of order in the provinces and distant districts, there was no possible hope of getting in the revenues. I knew perfectly well that, through personal acquaintance with them, I could probably have secured the services of any one of a number of retired officers of the United States army who would have done everything possible under the circumstances; but Major Stokes met the requirements of the situation exactly and possessed qualifications which no other man lacking his experience could possibly have, however intelligent he might be, and it was for this reason alone that he was selected. To this day I have never discovered just what were those indefinite " interests" in Northern Persia on which so much stress was laid by both the British and Russian Governments. It seems clear that they were not defined in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907.

It is equally clear that the Persian Government did not know of them. Nor did the British Government know of them as late as July 22; as otherwise how could that Government have contemplated accepting Major Stokes' resignation from the British-Indian Army in order that he might sign the contract which I had offered him to serve as Chief of the Treasury Gendarmerie ?

To complete the record of this affair it should be mentioned that the Russian Legation, on August 19, addressed a memorandum to the Persian Foreign Office stating that " the Imperial Government of Russia, for reasons explained at the time to the Persian Government, considers the engagement by the latter of Major Stokes as chief of the armed forces—called gendarmerie — for the collection of taxes as incompatible with its interests, and I am charged to protest against that appointment. Failing satisfaction, the Imperial Government would reserve to itself the right to take such measures as it might judge to be necessary for the safeguarding of its interests in the North of Persia."

On learning of the first note presented to the Persian Government by the British Legation, I expressed the following views to the British Minister at Teheran:

I beg leave to address you, unofficially, on a subject of great importance to my work here. I have been intensely surprised to learn this evening that your Government has conveyed to the Persian Foreign Minister a note of warning or protest against my proposed employment of Major Stokes in the Treasury Gendarmerie. You are doubtless aware of the course of this matter up to tbe present. Need I say that in view of tbe tone of the communication which your Government instructed you to address to me on July 22 last, in effect that Major Stokes could accept the position upon resigning from the Indian Army, the apparent volte face indicated by their note of to-day is almost incomprehensible.

. . . Does your Government quite realize the position in which it is placing me before the Persian people and their Government in now suddenly joining another power to prevent the exercise of the most elemental act of sovereignty by this country whose independence and integrity both of those foreign powers have solemnly pledged themselves, jointly and severally, to respect?

My personal feelings are of no importance, but the success or failure of my mission here is of moment both to Persia, which entrusted her financial affairs to my care, and to my countrymen who are not unnaturally interested in the creditable accomplishment of my task.

Before accepting this work I was given clearly to understand that neither of the two principal powers having interests here offered any objection to my undertaking it, and surely such a statement was something more than an empty pledge.

No one, I am assured, knows better than yourself that the choice of Major Stokes was actuated by no political motive in the faintest degree, and no thinking person could suspect me of any intention to engage in political jobbery here,— a thing which would only make me ridiculous and spell absolute ruin for my work.

What, then, am I to think when I see the first vital step which I undertake in the task of bringing order out of chaos here obstructed and relentlessly opposed by the very two nations who have time and again professed their sincere desire to see the progress and prosperity of the stricken country which I am seeking to serve?

Does your Foreign Office fully realize that in adopting its most recent attitude in this affair it is inevitably producing the impression on the Persian People that it is in reality opposed to the successful accomplishment of my work, in addition to forcing me to assume that I can count on no friendly moral assistance from your Government in a vital matter of this kind?

If this were a normal place, where well-trained, capable and experienced men could be had, in comparative abundance, the result (though not the principle) of your Government's objections might not be so bad, but here, where, as you know, good men are extremely scarce, the attitude adopted amounts to a virtual veto of my efforts and a nullification of my chances of success.

I hope and trust that in some manner your Government may be brought to see the matter in this light, apart from what I am frank to sa'y seems to me a totally uncalled-for interference in the purely routine and internal affairs of the financial organization which I am endeavoring to build up.

Personally, I feel so strongly on the subject that I am forced to contemplate the necessity of setting right my own countrymen, at least with a formal public statement of all my experiences in this connection since arriving at Teheran. Needless to say, such a course would be much to my regret, but there is such a thing as just dealing even between Governments and individuals, and certainly in this case I feel that my own

THE. SPIRIT OF THE CONVENTION 77

record is sufficiently clear to bear the light of the most thorough inspection.

From a review of this incident it is manifest that unless the Convention of 1907 was a farce and a deception, by its own terms it had no hearing whatever on the proposed appointment of Major Stokes as a financial aid to the Treasurer-general. First, because the preamble of that document, as published in the World, avows that Britain and Russia mutually engage to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and declares the sincere desire of the two signatories for the preservation of order throughout that country and its peaceful development. Yet one of the primary elements of sovereignty is the right of a country to manage its internal affairs, at least within the limitations of the law of nations, and surely the appointment of its own officials by any country can be considered as nothing else. Secondly, the plain purpose of the Convention was that neither signatory power should seek for herself, or support in favor of her subjects, any concessions of a political or commercial nature — such as concessions for railways, banks, telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, etc.— within the so-called sphere of influence of the other power. But this was no case of a " concession." Major Stokes is not a bank or a railroad, or a political or commercial concession of any kind, and the voluntary tender to him of any post in the Persian service could, by no stretch of the imagination, be converted into a " seeking " or " supporting " by Great Britain of such a concession.

The second fallacy in the position of the two powers lay in the fact that the British Foreign Office itself never thought of construing Major Stokes' appointment into a violation of even the so-called " spirit of the Convention" until Russia raised the point. The evidence of this has been cited above.

Without in any manner recognizing the application or validity of the Convention as relating to herself, Persia might well
have pointed out that where the language of a document is plain and clear there is no room for interpretation of the spirit.

THE SPIRIT OF THE CONVENTION

Between individuals such action as that taken by the British Government towards the Persian Government or the Treasurer- general would clearly be considered bad faith. Sir Edward Grey, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has on more than one occasion since sought to explain his action in failing to keep his plain agreement in regard to permitting Persia to utilize the services of Major Stokes, on the grounds that Major Stokes' appointment would be a violation of what he, Sir Edward Grey, chose to term the " spirit" of the Anglo- Russian Convention of 1907. The use of the expression " spirit³' would seem to indicate clearly that there was nothing in the language of the document itself which could justify any such interpretation. Furthermore, if the appointment of Major Stokes would have been a violation of the so-called " spirit " of that Convention, might one not inquire why this proposed violation was not recognized by the British Foreign Office at the very outset of the negotiations, and how was it that the British Foreign Office consented to that violation on condition that Major Stokes resign his commission in the British-Indian Army % The truth is that the Russian semi-official press, and particularly the Novoe Vremya, had begun to bluster about the appointment, doubtless inspired by the Foreign Office at St. Petersburg, and inasmuch as the tension in Europe over the Moroccan affair had greatly increased at this time, Sir Edward Grey apparently felt himself compelled to invent some pretext for withdrawing from his previous promise to allow Major Stokes' appointment lest he do anything to displease the Russian Government to which he undoubtedly looked for some form of support in case of unpleasant eventualities with Germany. Under these circumstances was born that novel and marvelous doctrine of the " spirit of the Convention" under which each of the powers signatory might interpret any action which the Persian Government contemplated taking as an infringement of the self-created interests, mentioned but never defined with any degree of accuracy in that famous document.

On Sunday, July 9, the flighty Sipahdar returned quietly to Teheran, and locking himself in his house and denying himself to all visitors except a few particular favorites and confidants, he allowed the rumor to spread that he was contemplating taking some drastic action against the Medjlis and the Treasurer-general, who he claimed had shorn him of the power and privileges which he had won with his sword at the head of the Nationalist forces in 1909. In the meantime the Prince Salaru'd-Dawla, brother of the ex-Shah, had entered Persia from Asiatic Turkey in the neighborhood of Bagdad, and was gathering Kurdish tribesmen about him in what he announced to be another attempt to establish himself upon the throne of Persia. The Government forces in the neighborhood of Ha- madan seemed utterly unable to cope with him and the situation was getting so bad that I felt compelled to point out to the Regent that if some adequate measures were not taken to check this filibustering movement, the most serious consequences might follow.

On July 1, "Mons. Mornard not having kept his promise to turn over his bank balance to me, I both wrote and wired to him at his summer residence outside Teheran, where he was staying, telling him that if I did not hear that all Customs balances had been transferred to my credit in the banks by four o'clock that afternoon, I would be compelled to report his refusal to do so to the Medjlis and to consider his action as a breach of faith. Shortly after sending this telegram and before the written message which I had despatched by a mounted gendarme had reached him_? he wired me to take possession of the Customs funds in the bank and to exhibit his message as authority for doing so.

On July 13, fearing that the Russian Bank (Banque d'Es- compte de Perse) might endeavor to discredit the new administration of the Treasurer-general by failing to transfer from the ample balance of Customs receipts, which they had on hand, the funds necessary to pay the instalment due on that day of the interest and amortization charges on the Russian debt, I went to the bank that morning, saw the Acting Manager, Mons. Diamantopoulos, and obtained his statement that the transfer had been duly made on his books and that the balance of this amount, in accordance with the loan agreement, had been placed to the credit of the Government in the name of the Treasurer-general.

The Medjlis had by this time approved several proposals which I had made to them for the employment, under contract, of a number of additional American assistants, and I was endeavoring to select suitable men to bring out for that purpose. I received several letters during the next few days from the British Legation asking whether I would not be willing to accept a Swedish officer to take charge of the Treasury Gendarmerie, or whether I would not agree to employ Major Stokes only in the so-called southern sphere of Persia. Neither suggestion was of any practical value, since the Swedish officer was not familiar with the language or the country. As to the second suggestion, it was perfectly well known that the Persian Government had steadfastly refused to recognize any division of the country into " spheres of influence." Indeed, one of the great difficulties which I had encountered in endeavoring to secure the authorization of the Medjlis for the employment under contract of Major Stokes had been the fear that I would do just what England now suggested — send him only into the South, thereby tacitly recognizing by my official

EPHRAIM KHAN, CHIEF OF THE POLICE AND GENDARMERIE OF TEHERAN. He did more than any other to defeat Muhammad All. "Persia's Garibaldi," as he is called, was killed In battle May 19, 1912.

with the Electoral Law separately promulgated, at one hundred and sixty- two, but in case of necessity the number above mentioned may be increased to two hundred.

Art. 5. The Members shall be elected for two whole years. This period shall begin on the day when all the representatives from the provinces shall have arrived in Teheran. On the conclusion of this period of two years, fresh representatives shall be elected, but the people shall have the option of reelecting any of their former representatives whom they wish and with whom they are satisfied.

Art. 6. The Members elected to represent Teheran shall, so soon as they meet, have the right to constitute the Assembly, and to begin their discussions and deliberations. During the period preceding the arrival of the provincial delegates, their decisions shall depend for their validity and due execution on the majority [by which they are carried].

Art. 7. On the opening of the debates, at least two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly shall be present, and, when the vote is taken, at least three-quarters. A majority shall be obtained only when more than half of those present in the Assembly record their votes.

Art. 8. The periods of session and recess of the National Consultative Assembly shall be determined by the Assembly itself, in accordance with such internal regulations as itself shall formulate. After the summer recess, the Assembly must continue open and in session from the fourteenth day of the Balance (October 7), which corresponds with the festival of the opening of the First Assembly.

Art. 9. The National Consultative Assembly can sit on occasions of extraordinary public holidays.

Art. 10. On the opening of the Assembly, an Address shall be presented by it to His Imperial Majesty, and it shall afterwards have the honor of receiving an answer from that Royal and August quarter.

Art. 11. Members of the Assembly, on taking their seats, shall take and subscribe to the following form of oath:

{Form of the Oath)

" We the undersigned take God to witness, and swear on the Qur'an, that, so long as the rights of the Assembly and its Members are observed and respected, in conformity with these Regulations, we will, so far as possible, discharge, with the utmost truth, uprightness, diligence and endeavor, the duties confided to us; that we will act loyally and truthfully towards our just and honored Sovereign, commit no treason in respect of either the foundations of the Throne or the Rights of the People, and will consider only the advantage and well-being of Persia."

Art. 12. No one, on any pretext or excuse, shall have any right, without the knowledge and approval of the National Consultative Assembly, to molest its Members. Even in case of a Member committing some, crime or misdemeanor, and being arrested flagrante delicto, any punishment inflicted upon him must be with the cognizance of the Assembly.

Art. 13. The deliberations of the National Consultative Assembly, in order that effect may be given to their results, must be public. According to the Internal Regulations of the Assembly, journalists and spectators have the right to be present and listen, but not to speak. Newspapers may print and publish all the debates of the Assembly, provided they do not change or pervert their meaning, so that the public may be informed of the subjects of discussion and the detail of what takes place. Every one, subject to his paying due regard to the public good, may discuss them in the public Press, so that no matter may be veiled or hidden from any person. Therefore all newspapers, provided that their contents be not injurious to any one of the fundamental principles of the Government or the Nation, are authorized and allowed to print and publish all matters advantageous to the public interest, such as the debates of the Assembly, and the opinions of the people on these debates. But if any one, actuated by interested motives, shall print in the newspapers or in other publications anything contrary to what has been mentioned, or inspired by slander or calumny, he will render himself liable to cross-examination, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Art. 14. The National Consultative Assembly shall organize and arrange, in accordance with separate and distinct Regulations called " the Internal Code of Rules," its own affairs, such as the election of a President, Vice-presidents, Secretaries, and other officers, the arrangements of the debates and divisions, etc.

On the Duties of the Assembly and its Limitations and Rights.

Art. 15. The National Consultative Assembly has the right in all questions to propose any measure which it regards as conducive to the well-being of the Government and the People, after due discussion and deliberation thereof in all sincerity and truth; and, having due regard to the majority of votes, to submit such measure, in complete confidence and security, after it has received the approval of the Senate, by means of the First Minister of the State, so that it may receive the Royal Approval and be duly carried out.

Art. 16. All laws necessary to strengthen the foundations of the State and Throne and to set in order the affairs of the Realm and the establishment of the Ministries, must be submitted for approval to the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. IT. The National Consultative Assembly shall, when occasion arises, bring forward such measures as shall be necessary for the creation, modification, completion or abrogation of any Law, and, subject to the approval of the Senate, shall submit it for the Royal Sanction, so that due effect may thereafter be given to it.

Art. 18. The regulation of all financial matters, the construction and regulation of the Budget, all changes in fiscal arrangements, the acceptance or rejection of all incidental and subordinate expenditure, as also the new Inspectorships [of Finance] which will be founded by the Government, shall be subject to the approval of the Assembly.

Art. 19. The Assembly has the right, after the Senate has given its approval, to demand from the Ministers of State that effect shall be given to the measures thus approved for the reform of the finances and the facilitation of cooperation between the different departments of the Government by division of the departments and provinces of Persia and their governments.

Art. 20. The Budget of each Ministry shall be concluded during the latter half of each year for the following year, and shall be ready fifteen days before the Festival of the Nawruz.i

Art. 21. Should it at any time be necessary to introduce, modify or abrogate any Fundamental Law regulating the [functions of the] Ministries, such change shall be made only with the approval of the Assembly, irrespective of whether the necessity for such action has been declared by the Assembly or enunciated by the responsible Ministers.

Art. 22. Any proposal to transfer or sell any portion of the [National] resources, or of the control exercised by the Government or the Throne, or to effect any change in the boundaries and frontiers of the Kingdom, shall be subject to the approval of the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 23. Without the approval of the National Council, no concession for the formation of any public Company of any sort shall, under any plea soever, be granted by the State.

Art. 24. The conclusion of treaties and covenants, the granting of commercial, industrial, agricultural and other concessions, irrespective of whether they be to Persian or foreign subjects, shall be subject to the approval of the National Consultative Assembly, with the exception of treaties which, for reasons of State and the public advantage, must be kept secret.

Art. 25. State loans, under whatever title, whether internal or external, must be contracted only with the cognizance and approval of the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 26. The construction of railroads or chaussees, at the expense of the Government, or of any Company, whether Persian or foreign, depends on the approval of the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 27. Wherever the Assembly observes any defect in the laws, or any

i The Xworws, or Persian New Year's Pay, falls about M^rcli 21 in each year.

neglect in giving effect to them, it shall notify the same to the Minister responsible for that department, who shall furnish all necessary explanations.

Art. 28. Should any Minister, acting under misapprehension, issue on the Royal Authority, whether in writing or by word of mouth, orders conflicting with one of the laws which have been enacted and have received the Royal Sanction, he shall admit his negligence and lack of attention, and shall, according to the Law, be personally responsible to His Imperial and Most Sacred Majesty.

Art. 20. Should a Minister fail to give a satisfactory account of any affair conformably to the laws which have received the Royal Sanction, and should it appear in his case that a violation of such law has been committed, or that he has transgressed the limits imposed [on him], the Assembly shall demand his dismissal from the Royal Presence, and should his treason be clearly established in the Court of Cassation, he shall not again be employed in the service of the State.

Art. 30. The Assembly shall, at any time when it considers it necessary, have the right to make direct representations to the Royal Presence by means of a Committee consisting of the President and six of its Members chosen by the Six Classes. This Committee must ask permission, and the appointment of a time for approaching the Royal Presence through the Master of the Ceremonies {Wazir-i-Darftar).

Art. 31. Ministers have the right to be present at the Sessions of the .National Consultative Assembly, to sit in the places appointed for them, and to listen to the debates of the Assembly. If they consider it necessary, they may ask the President of the Assembly for permission to speak, and may give such explanations as may be necessary for purposes of discussion and investigation.

On the representation of affairs to the 'National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 32. Any individual may submit in writing to the Petition Department of the Archives of the Assembly a statement of his own case, or of any criticisms or complaints. If the matter concerns the Assembly itself, it will give him a satisfactory answer; but if it concerns one of the Ministries, it will refer it to that Ministry, which will inquire into the matter and return a sufficient answer.

Art. 33. New laws which are needed shall be drafted and revised in the Ministries which are respectively responsible, and shall then be laid before the Assembly by the responsible Ministers, or by the Prime Minister. After being approved by the Assembly, and ratified by the Royal Signature, they shall be duly put into force.

Art. 34. The President of the Assembly can, in case of necessity, either personally, ox on the demand of ten Members of the Assembly, hold a private conference, consisting of a selected number of Members of the Assembly, with any Minister, from which private meeting newspaper correspondents and spectators shall be excluded, and at which other Members of the Assembly shall not have the right to be present. The result of the deliberations of such secret conference shall, however, only be confirmed when it has been deliberated in the said conference in presence of three quarters of those selected [to serve on it], and carried by a majority of votes. Should the proposition [in question] not be accepted in the private conference, it shall not be brought forward in the Assembly, but shall be passed over in silence.

Art. 35. If such private conference shall have been held at the demand of the President of the Assembly, he has the right to inform the public of so much of the deliberations as he shall deem expedient; but if the private conference has been held at the demand of a Minister, the disclosure of the deliberations depends on the permission of that Minister.

Art. 36. Any Minister can withdraw any matter which he has proposed to the Assembly at any point in the discussion, unless his statement has been made at the instance of the Assembly, in which case the withdrawal of the matter depends on the consent of the Assembly.

Art. 37. If a measure introduced by any Minister is not accepted by the Assembly, it shall be returned supplemented by the observations of the Assembly; and the responsible Minister, after rejecting or accepting the criticisms of the Assembly, can propose the aforesaid measure a second time to the Assembly.

Art. 38. The Members of the National Consultative Assembly must clearly and plainly signify their rejection or acceptance of measures, and no one has the right to persuade or threaten them in recording their votes. The signification by the Members of the Assembly of such rejection or acceptance must be effected in such manner that newspaper correspondents and spectators also may perceive it, that is to say their intention must be signified by some outward sign such as [the employment of] blue and white voting-papers, or the like.

The proposal of measures on the part of the Assembly.

Art. 39. Whenever any measure is proposed on the part of one of the Members of the Assembly, it can only be discussed when at least fifteen Members of the Assembly shall approve the discussion of that measure. In such case the proposal in question shall be forwarded in writing to the President of the Assembly, who has the right to arrange that it shall be subjected to a preliminary investigation in a Committee of Inquiry.

Art. 40. On the occasion of the discussion and investigation of such measure as is mentioned in Article 39, whether in the Assembly or in the Committee of Inquiry, notice shall be given by the Assembly to the re- sponsible Minister, if any, concerned in the measure, that if possible he himself, or, if not, his Assistant Minister, shall be present in the Assembly, so that the debate may take place in the presence of one or other of them.

The draft of the [proposed] measure, with its additions, must be sent from ten days to a month before the time (with the exception of matters added at the last moment) to the responsible Minister; and so likewise the day of its discussion must be determined beforehand. After the measure has been discussed in the presence of the responsible Minister, and in case it should, by a majority of votes, receive the approval of the Assembly, it shall be officially transmitted in writing to the responsible Minister, so that he may take the necessary steps [to put it in force].

Art. 41. If the responsible Minister cannot, for any reason, agree with the Assembly about a measure proposed by it, he must offer his excuses to it and give it satisfaction.

Art. 42. Should the National Consultative Assembly demand explanations on any matter from the responsible Minister, the Minister in question must give an answer, which answer must not be postponed unnecessarily or without plausible reason, save in the case of secret measures, the secrecy of which for some definite period is to the advantage of the State and the People. In such cases, on the lapse of the definite period the responsible Minister is bound to disclose this measure in the Assembly.

On the Conditions regulating the formation of the Senate.

Art. 43. There shall be constituted another Assembly, entitled the Senate, consisting of sixty Members, the sessions of which, after its constitution, shall be complementary to the sessions of the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 44. The Regulations of the Senate must be approved by the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 45. The Members of this Assembly shall be chosen from amongst the well-informed, discerning, pious and respected persons of the Realm. Thirty of them shall be nominated on the part of His Imperial Majesty (fifteen of the people of Teheran, and fifteen of the people of the Provinces), and thirty by the Nation (fifteen elected by the people of Teheran, and fifteen by the people of the Provinces).

Art. 46. After the constitution of the Senate, all proposals must be approved by both Assemblies. If those proposals shall have been originated in the Senate, or by the Cabinet of Ministers, they must first be amended and corrected in the Senate and accepted by a majority of votes, and must then be approved by the National Consultative Assembly.

. But proposals brought forward by the National Consultative Assembly must, on the contrary, go from this Assembly to the Senate, except m the case of financial matters, which belong exclusively to the National Consultative Assembly. The decision of the Assembly, in respect to the above-mentioned proposals, shall be made known to the Senate, so that it in turn may communicate its observations to the National Assembly, but the latter, after due discussion, is free to accept or reject these observations of the Senate.

Art. 47. So long as the Senate has not been convoked, proposals shall, after being approved by the National Consultative Assembly, receive the Royal assent, and shall then have the force of Law.

Art. 48. If any proposal, after undergoing criticism and revision in the Senate, be referred by a Minister to the National Consultative Assembly, and be not accepted, such disputed proposal shall, in case of its being of importance, be reconsidered by a third Assembly composed of Members of the Senate and Members of the National Consultative Assembly elected in equal moieties by Members of the two Assemblies. The decision of this [third! Assembly shall be read out in the National Council. If it be then accepted, well and good. If not, a full account of the matter shall be submitted to the Royal Presence, and should the Royal judgment support the view of the National Consultative Assembly, it shall become effective; but if not, orders will be issued for a fresh discussion and investigation. If again no agreement of opinion results, and the Senate, by a majority of two-thirds, approves the dissolution of the National Consultative Assembly, this approval being separately affirmed by the Cabinet of Ministers, then the Imperial Command will be issued for the dissolution of the National Consultative Assembly, and at the same time orders shall be given for the holding of fresh elections, the people, however, having the right to reelect their former representatives.

Art. 49. The new representatives of Teheran must present themselves within the space of one month, and the representatives of the provinces within the space of three months. When the representatives of the Capital are present, the Assembly shall be opened, and shall begin its labors, but they shall not discuss disputed proposals until the provincial representatives shall arrive. If, after the arrival of all its Members, the new Assembly shall by a clear majority confirm the first decision, His Most Sacred and Imperial Majesty shall approve that decision of the National Consultative Assembly, and shall order it to be carried into effect.

Art. 50. In each electoral period, which consists of two years, orders for the renewal of representatives shall not be given more than once.

Art. 51. It is agreed that the kings of our successors and posterity shall regard as a duty of their sovereign state and an obligation incum- ' bent upon them the maintenance of these laws and principles^ which we

and put into force for the strengthening of th of the State, the consolidation of the foundations of the Throne, the superintendence of the machinery of Justice, and the tranquillity of the

Dhu'l-Qada 14, AJBL 1324 (= December 30, 1006).

These Fundamental Laws of the National Consultative Assembly and the fifty-one Articles, are correct. " Dhu'l-Qada 14, A.H. 1324" (= December 30, 1906).

e concluding words is the signature of the late Shah, I'd-Din, and on the back of the page are the seals of the then Crown Prince or Wali-ahd (the deposed Shah, Muhammad Ali) and of the late Mushiru'd-Dawla.1

(II) THE SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF OCTOBER

7, 1907.

The original Fundamental Law, containing Fifty-one Articles, was _:

gated on Dhu'l-Qada H, AM. 132-i (== December 30, 1906) by the late Muzaffaru'd-Dm Shah. The following supplementary laics were ratified by his successor, the now deposed Shah, Muhammad Ali, on Bhaban 29, AM. 1325 (= October 7, 1907).

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Forgiving.

The Articles added to complete the Fundamental Laws of the Persian ratified by the late Shahinshah of blessed memory, Muzaf- t'd-Din Shah Qajar (may God illuminate his resting-place!) are as

If, however, in the case be bom to the King, the

of the Sovereign, the Crown Prince

of the Throne, provided that If he has not reached this with the sanction and approval of the and the Senate, until such time as the

his corona-

the Throne

Art. 37. The succession to the Throne, in case of there being more than one son, passes to the eldest son of the King whose mother is a Princess and of Persian race. In case the King should have no male issue, the eldest male of the Royal Family who is next of kin shall rank next' in succession to the above, male heirs should will de jure revert to such Art. 38. In case of the can only undertake in perse he has attained the age of age, a Regent shall be National Consultative Crown Prince shall attain this Art. 39. No King can ascen

tion, lie appears before the National Consultative Assembly, in presence of the Members of this Assembly and of the Senate, and of the Cabinet of Ministers, and repeat the following oath:

"I take to witness the Almighty and Most High God, on the glorious Word of God, and by all that is most honored in God's sight, and do hereby swear that I will exert all my efforts to preserve the independence of Persia, safeguard and protect the frontiers of my Kingdom and the rights of my People, observe the Fundamental Laws of the Persian Constitution, rule in accordance with the established laws of Sovereignty, endeavor to promote the Jafari doctrine of the Church of the Twelve Imams, and will in all my deeds and actions consider God Most Glorious as present and watching me. I further ask aid from God, from Whom alone aid is derived, and seek help from the holy spirits of the Saints of Islam to render service to the advancement of Persia."

Art. 40. So in like manner no one who is chosen as Regent can enter upon his functions unless and until he repeats the above oath.

Art. 41. In the event of the King's decease, the National Consultative Assembly and the Senate must of necessity meet, and such meeting must not be postponed later than ten days after the date of the King's decease.

Art. 42. If the -mandate of the deputies of either or both of the Assemblies shall have expired during the period of the late King's life, and the new deputies shall not yet have been elected at the time of his decease, the deputies of the late Parliament shall reassemble, and the two Assemblies shall be reconstituted.

Art. 43. The King cannot, without the consent and approval of the National Consultative Assembly and the Senate, undertake the government of any other kingdom.

Art. 44. The person of the King is exempted from responsibility. The Ministers of State are responsible to both Chambei-s in all matters.

Art. 45. The decrees and rescripts of the King relating to affairs of State can only be carried out when they are countersigned by the responsible Minister, who is also responsible for the authenticity of such decree or rescript.

Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.

Art. 47. The granting of military rank, decorations and other honorary distinctions shall be effected with due regard to the special law referring to the person of the King.

Art. 48. The choice of officials as heads of the various government departments, whether internal or foreign, subject to the approval of the responsible Minister, is the King's right, save in such cases as are specifically excepted by the Law; but the appointment of other officials does not lie with the King, save in such cases as are explicitly provided for by the Law.

Art. 49. The issue of decrees and orders for giving effect to the laws is the King's right, provided that under no circumstances shall he postpone or suspend the carrying out of such laws.

Art. 50. The supreme command of all the forces, military and naval, is vested in the person of the King.

Art. 51. The declaration of war and the conclusion of peace are vested in the King.

Art. 52. The treaties which, conformably to article 24 of the Fundamental Law promulgated on Dhu'l-Quada 14, A.H. 1324 (= December 30, 1906), must remain secret, shall be communicated by the King, with the necessary explanations, to the National Consultative Assembly and the Senate after the disappearance of the reasons which necessitated such secrecy, as soon as the public interests and security shall require it.

Art. 53. The secret clauses of a treaty cannot in any case annul the public clauses of the same.

Art. 54. The King can convoke in extraordinary session the National. Consultative Assembly and the Senate.

Art. 55. The minting of coin, subject to conformity with the Law, is in the name of the King.

Art. 56. The expenses and disbursements of the Court shall be determined by law.

Art. 57. The Royal prerogatives and powers are only those explicitly mentioned in the present Constitutional Law.

Concerning the Ministers.

Art. 58. No one can attain the rank of Minister unless he be a Mussulman by religion, a Persian by birth, and a Persian subject.

Art. 59. Princes in the first degree — that is to say the sons, brothers and paternal uncles of the reigning King — cannot be chosen as Ministers.

Art. 60. Ministers are responsible to the two Chambers, and must, in case of their presence being required by either Chamber, appear" before it, and must observe the limitations of their responsibility in all such matters as are committed to their charge.

Art. 61. Ministers, besides being individually responsible for the affairs specially appertaining to their own Ministry, are also collectively responsible to the two Chambers for one another's actions in affairs of a more general character.

Art. 62. The number of Ministers shall be defined by law, according to the requirements of the time.

Art. 63. The honorary title of Minister is entirely abolished.

Art. 64. Ministers cannot divest themselves of their responsibility by pleading verbal or written orders from the King.

Art, 65. The National Consultative Assembly, or the Senate, can call Ministers to account or bring them to trial.

Art. 66. The Law shall determine the responsibility of Ministers and the punishments to which, they are liable.

Art. 67. If the National Consultative Assembly or the Senate shall, by an absolute majority, declare itself dissatisfied with the Cabinet or with one particular Minister, that Cabinet or Minister shall resign their or his ministerial functions.

Art. 68. Ministers may not accept a salaried office other than their

own.

Art. 69. The National Consultative Assembly or the Senate shall declare the delinquencies of Ministers in the presence of the Court of Cassation, and the said Court, all the members of the tribunals comprised in it being present, will pronounce judgment, save in cases when the accusation and prosecution refer to the Minister in his private ca- . pacity, and are outside the scope of the functions of government entrusted to him in his ministerial capacity.

(N.B. So long as the Court of Cassation is not established, a Commission chosen from the Members of the two Chambers in equal moieties shall discharge the function of that Court.)

Art, 70. The determination of the delinquencies of Ministers, and of the punishments to which they are liable, in case they incur the suspicion of the National Consultative Assembly or of the Senate, or expose themselves to personal accusations on the part of their opponents in the affairs of their department, will be regulated by a special law.

Powers of the Tribunals of Justice.

Art. 71. The Supreme Ministry of Justice and the judicial tribunals are the places officially destined for the redress of public grievances, while judgment in all matters falling within the scope of the Ecclesiastical Law is vested in just mujtahids possessing the necessary qualifications.

Art. 72. Disputes connected with, political rights belong to the judicial tribunals, save in such cases as the Law shall except.

Art. 73. The establishment of civil tribunals depends on the authority of the Law, and no one, on any title or pretext, may establish any tribunal contrary to its provisions.

Art. 74. No tribunal can be constituted save by the authority of the Law.

Art. .75. In the whole Kingdom there shall be only one Court of Cassation for civil cases, and that in the capital; and this Court shall not deal with any case of first instance, except in cases in which Ministers are concerned.

Art. 76. All proceedings of tribunals shall be public, save in cases where such publicity would be injurious to public order or contrary to public morality. In such cases, the tribunal must declare the- necessity of sitting clausis foribus.

Art. 77. In cases of political or press offenses, where it is desirable that the proceedings should be private, this must be agreed to by all the members of the tribunal.

Art. 78. The decisions and sentences emanating from the tribunals must be reasoned and supported by proof, and must contain the articles of the Law in accordance with which judgment has been given, and they must be read publicly.

Art. 79. In cases of political and press offenses, a jury must be present in the tribunals.

Art. 80. The presidents and members of the judicial tribunals shall be chosen in such manner as the laws of justice determine, and shall be appointed by Royal Decree.

Art. 81. ISIo judge of a judicial tribunal can be temporarily or permanently transferred from his office unless he be brought to judgment and his offense be proved, save in the case of his voluntary resignation.

Art. 82. The functions of a judge of a judicial tribunal cannot be changed save by his own consent.

Art. 83. The appointment of the Public Prosecutor is within the competence of the King, supported by the approval of the ecclesiastical judge.

Art. 84. The appointment of the members of the judicial tribunals shall be determined in accordance with the Law.

Art. 85. The presidents of the judicial tribunals cannot accept salaried posts under government, unless they undertake such service without recompense, always provided that [in this case also] there be no contravention of the Law.

Art. 86. In every provincial capital there shall be established a Court of Appeal for dealing with judicial matters in such wise as is explicitly set forth in the laws concerning the administration of justice.

Art. 87. Military tribunals shall be established throughout the whole Kingdom according to special laws.

Art. 88. Arbitration in cases of dispute as to the limitations of the function and duties of the different departments of government shall, agreeably to the provisions of the Law, be referred to the Court of Cassation.

Art. 89. The Court of Cassation and other tribunals will only give effect to public, provincial, departmental and municipal orders and by-laws when these are in conformity with the Law.

Provincial and Departmental Councils (Anjumans).

Art. 90. Throughout the whole empire provincial and departmental councils (anjumans) shall be established in accordance with special regulations. The fundamental laws regulating such assemblies are as follows:

Art. 91. The members of the provincial and departmental councils shall be elected immediately by the people, according to the regulations governing provincial and departmental councils.

Art. 92. The provincial and departmental councils are free to exercise complete supervision over all reforms connected with the public interest, always provided that they observe the limitations prescribed by the Law.

Art. 93. An account of the expenditure and income of every kind of the provinces and departments shall be printed and published by the instrumentality of the provincial and departmental councils.

Concerning the Finances.

Art. 94. No tax shall be established save in accordance with the Law.

Art. 95. The Law will specify the cases in which exemption from the payment of taxes can be claimed.

Art. 96. The National Consultative Assembly shall each year by a majority of votes fix and approve the Budget.

Art. 97. In the matter of taxes there shall be no distinction or difference amongst the individuals who compose the nation.

Art. 98. Reduction of or exemption from taxes is regulated by a special law.

Art. 99. Save in such cases as are explicitly excepted by Law, nothing can on any pretext be demanded from the people save under the categories of state, provincial, departmental and municipal taxes.

Art. 100. No order for the payment of any allowance or gratuity can be made on the Treasury save in accordance with the Law.

Art. 101. The National Consultative Assembly shall appoint the members of the Financial Commission for such period as may be determined by the Law.

Art. 102. The Financial Commission is appointed to inspect and analyze the accounts of the Department of Finance and to liquidate the accounts of all debtors and creditors of the Treasury. It is especially deputed to see that no item of expenditure fixed in the Budget exceeds the amount specified, or is changed or altered, and that each item is expended in the proper manner. It shall likewise inspect and analyze the different accounts of all the departments of State, collect the documentary proofs of the expenditure indicated in such accounts, and submit to the National Consultative Assembly a complete statement of the accounts of the Kingdom, accompanied by its own observations.

Art. 103. The institution and organization of this commission shall be in accordance with the Law.

The Army.

Art. 104. The Law determines the manner of recruiting the troops, and the duties and rights of the military, as well as their promotion, are regulated by the Law.

Art. 105. The military expenditure shall be approved every year by the National Consultative Assembly.

Art. 106. No foreign troops may be employed in the service of the State, nor may they remain in or pass through any part of the Kingdom save in accordance with the Law.

Art. 107. The military cannot be deprived of their rights, ranks or functions save in accordance with the Law.

{Copy of the august Imperial Rescript.) " hi the Name of God, blessed and eocalted is He.

" The complementary provisions of the Fundamental Code of Laws have been perused and are correct. Please God, our Royal Person will observe and regard all of them. Our sons and successors also will, please God, cpnfirm these sacred laws and principles.

"29 Shabcm, A.H. 1325, in the Year of the Sheep (= October 7,

1907),

"In the Royal Palace of Tehercm

B.¹

(Translations.)

(1) Law passed by the Medjlis on May 30, 1911, for the control by the Treasurer-general of the money derived from the Imperial Bank Loan of 1911.

(2) Law of June 13, 1911, passed by the Medjlis "to organize the financial system of the Persian Empire."

A LAW RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF THE LOAN. Dated 30 May, 1911. 1st Jemadi ul sani, 1329.

With Regard to the project for the control of the amount of the loan,

i These laws were originally prepared in French, from which an accurate translation was made into Persian, the official language of the Medjlis.

the Parliament voted and passed by a majority on Wednesday, the 1st Jemadi us sani, the following articles:

Article I. The High and efficient control of the transactions concerning the £1,250,000 loan which, in accordance with the terms of the Law of 5th Rabi us sani, 1329 (5th April), was done with the Imperial Bank of Persia and the control of the expenditure which in agreement with Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the law of 19 Jemadi-ul-avval (18th May) has been specified therewith, is entrusted to the Ministry of Finance under the supervision of the Treasurer-general.

Art. II. Until the new Institutions at the Ministry of Finance are created, the control of the transactions and expenses aforesaid shall be temporarily delegated to a section to be specially formed, such action being under the control of the Treasurer-general.

Art. III. At the end of each month, the Ministry of Finance will prepare a statement on the financial affairs concerning the Loan, which, with a covering report, he will submit to the Parliament.

Art. IV. The section referred to in clause 2 of this project shall take the place of and substitute the Commission mentioned in the law of Jemadirul-avval, 1329.

REPORT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FINANCE REGULATIONS

COMMISSION.

Dated 14 Jemadi II, 1329 — 12th June, 1911.

On Saturday the 10th June, Sunday the 11th, and Monday the 12th, the Finance Regulations Commission sat, and duly discussed the project of Law regarding the establishment of financial organization of the Empire of Persia which had been submitted to it. At Sunday's stance, their Excellencies the Ministers of Finance and of Justice, and the Assistant Minister of Finance, were present; at the sitting on Monday, the Assistant Minister of Finance and Mr. Shuster, the Treasurer- general, attended; and the aforesaid project of Law was amended and is hereby submitted to the National Assembly, as follows:

(1) The Treasurer-general of the Empire of Persia is charged with the direct and effective control of all financial and fiscal operations of the Persian Government, including the collection of all receipts of every description and the control and accounts of all Government expenditures.

(2) The Treasurer-general shall establish the following organizations in the Ministry of Finance:

(a) Chief Office for the collection of the maliat, taxes and Government revenues of every description — whether such maliat and taxes as actually exist, or shall hereafter be established.

(b) Chief Office for the inspection and control of all receipts and approved expenditures and the keeping of accounts in connection therewith.

(c) Chief Office for fiscal operations. All transactions of the Government with the Bank and operations respecting the minting of bullion, and questions of exchange, loans, interest, amortization, conversion, concessions and financial agreements, whether any such. Agreement yield a revenue to the Government or whether it imply a financial obligation of the Government, shall, the provisions of the laws established being duly observed, be effected by this office.

(3) In each of the three offices referred to in Article 2, the Treasurer- general shall establish such sections and subsections as he may deem necessary.

(4) Whenever the central organization shall have been effected, the Treasurer-general shall, whenever expedient, establish the services he may consider essential for the organization of eacb of the different' Provinces.

(5) The Treasurer-general shall be charged with the custody of the Treasury of the Empire, and no Government expenditure shall, without his signature — in the case of direct mandates,— or without his authorization— in the case of credit orders,— be made.

(6) The Treasurer-general shall prepare such regulations as hie thinks fit for the proper execution of the reforms referred to in the preceding Articles, which regulations shall, after being visaed by the Minister of Finance and published, have the form of law.

(7) A credit of Tumans Sixty thousand (Ts. 60,000) shall be granted to the Treasurer-general for the purpose of establishing a special Corps d'Inspection. In the event of new employees under contract for the establishment of such Corps d'Inspection being required, the contracts shall, as customary, be submitted to Parliament for approval.

(8) The preparation of the Budget of the Empire which is to be submitted to Parliament on behalf of the Government is one of the functions of the Treasurer-general, and all the Ministers and Government employees are bound to furnish and submit without delay such information as the Treasurer-general may require.

(9) The Treasurer-general shall make any such economies in the Government expenditure and transactions as are proper and expedient — this being one of his specific functions.

(10) The Treasurer-General shall prepare and submit to the Government every quarter a report on the situation of the finances of the Empire.

(11) The Treasurer-general shall make the necessary investigations as to reforms in existing financial laws and the creation of new sources of revenue which shall be at the same time expedient, profitable and favorable to the Empire, so that such may be submitted by the Government to Parliament.

(12) The Treasurer-general shall have authority over the personnel of the services which, by virtue of the above articles, shall be established under his control.

(s) Muazziz-ul-Mulk

(Hon. Sec. to the Commission.)

The above Project of Law was passed by a majority of sixty-one votes in Parliamentary session on the 13th of June, 1911.

MR. SHUSTER'S OPEN LETTER TO THE LONDON " TIMES."

Tehekan, October 21, 1911.

to the Editor of the Times.

Sxb: According to a Reuter's despatch, dated London, October 18, the

Times states editorially that my recently expressed opinions of Russia's hostility to Persia's financial regeneration and of Britain's acquiescence in Russia's attitude are unjust and unfounded.

Much as I dislike this class of controversy, still, the importance of the subject, my belief in the fair-mindedness of the British public and in the desire of your journal to be entirely just, and a slight regard for my own reputation, lead me to address you this letter, with the request that you give it due publicity in your columns. It is but a relation of certain facts and incidents which have either come under my personal observation or are of official record during the past five months of my stay in Teheran. My opinion was reached after a calm and impartial consideration of those facts, in addition to the corroborative impressions received in a great uumber of transactions in which I personally participated but which are not susceptible of legal proof. I am, of course, willing to abide by the judgment of the thinking public for whatever justification may seem necessary.

I arrived here on May 12, last, with three American assistants and with but one object in view—to do a fairly creditable piece of constructive work in behalf of Persia's finances.

On June 13 the Medjlis passed a law, drafted by me, conferring on the Treasurer-general plenary powers in matters fiscal. The law was a public one, voted after full and open discussion, and was manifestly designed to bring some order out of the pitiable state of chaos into which Persia's finances had fallen. The Persian Cabinet and Medjlis had almost unanimously approved it. One might expect that the foreign powers in interest here would gladly have done likewise. Unfortunately they did not. Direct legal proof, of course, being lacking, I nevertheless assert that there is ample documentary evidence of a circumstantial nature to show that there was a deliberate agreement between a number of foreign legations here, headed by the Russian Legation, to defeat my execution of that law, and to thwart the general system of centralization of collections, payments and accounting prescribed thereunder. The pretexts urged against the system were flimsy and untenable in the extreme and their manifest purpose was to prevent any material change in the old style of conducting Persia's fiscal affairs. This campaign of threats, nagging and general opposition, which even descended into vulgar personalities against me, and into crude attempts to frighten the Persian Government, failed utterly, though it did entail a period of delay and confusion in initiating certain financial reforms. Among the threats made was that of one legation to seize the Northern Customs and put in their own officials to collect the revenues.

Last July, in defiance of Article II of the Protocol of September 7, 1909, Russia and Britain, and particularly the former, permitted Muhammad Ali, ex-Sliali, to escape from Russia; that is, Russia failed utterly " to take efficacious measures³⁹ to prevent political agitation against Persia on his part. In fact, he passed through Russia with a suite, a false beard and a consignment of guns and cannon marked " mineral water," if we may believe the ante-mortem statement of his late lieutenant, Arsliadu'd-Dawla. He embarked with his party from a Russian port on the Russian steamer Christoforos and landed, about July 18, at Gumesh-Teppeh on Persian soil — a filibusterer in full swing.

Assuming that this escape was accidental and that the Russian passport authorities were off their guard for once, was Russia's attitude one of real regret? On the contrary, it is notorious here that her official representatives in Persia received the news of the landing with unconcealed joy. Later, I shall prove that they did not even scruple to show that feeling in official communications addressed to Persian Government officers.

On July 23 the Persian Government addressed a note to all the legations here, informing them of a law which had just been passed declaring a state of siege. Most of the legations replied in the usual manner, merely calling attention to certain provisions in the Treaty of Turkman- chay, but the Russian Legation adopted from the very outset a far different and most unfriendly tone, claiming among other things the right to arrest directly the so-called " illegal Russian subjects" (who were defined in the Legation's note), "who might take part in the events actu- ally going on in the country." The patent object of this claim put forward at this time was to give the Russian Legation and Consuls throughout Persia the excuse to arrest, 011 the mere allegation that they were a kind of Russian subject, any Persian fighting men of known reputation who might take the side of the Government against Muhammad Ali. If this threat to arrest all Russian subjects "who might take part in events" had been literally executed, it would have been necessary, as we shall see shortly, to arrest most of the Russian Consuls and consular employees themselves.

At Resht, the Russian Consul went further and actually informed the Persian Government of his intention to arrest any one on suspicion of his being a Russian subject, to investigate the matter at his. leisure and to hold them until the end of the trouble.

On July 31, when Muhammad Ali had barely put foot on Persian soil, and had made no appreciable advance towards subjugating the country, Britain and Russia addressed to the Persian Government the following identique de facto recognition of the ex-Shah's belligerency:

" Seeing that the ex-Shah, contrary to the advice frequently given him by the Governments of England and Russia, in effect that he should forbear from any agitation whatever in Persia, has now landed in Persia, the British (Russian) Government declares that the ex-Sliah has now forfeited his right to the pension fixed by the Protocol. But, on the other hand, the British (Russian) Government believes that, as the ex-Shah is now in Persian territory, the British (Russian) Government cannot intervene. Therefore, the British (Russian) Government states that, in the conflict that has unfortunately arisen in Persia, they will in no way interfere"

Scant comfort from friends of a government plunged into the throes of civil strife through the negligence or worse of those who had solemnly pledged themselves to prevent exactly this contingency! But even this declaration of "neutrality" (though the word itself was omitted on the demand of the British Legation) might have passed had it been observed. And here let us examine what nature of advice was given to the ex- Shah by the Government of Russia through its Ambassador at Vienna, according to the ante-mortem statement of Arshadu'd-Dawla. I quote from the account given by the Times' correspondent at Teheran, who speaks Persian and heard the statement a few hours before Arshadu'd- Dawla died. (See Times of October 11.)

"Then Muhammad Ali and I met in Vienna. The Russian Ambassador came to see us, and we asked for help. He told us that Russia could not help us. Russia and England had an agreement with regard to Persia, from which neither would depart. They had resolved not to interfere in any way, internally. ⁴ But, on the other hand/ he said, ⁴ the field is clear. If we can do nothing for you, we equally will do nothing against you. It is for you to decide what are your chances of success. If you think you can reach the throne of Persia, then go. Only remember we cannot help you, and, if you fail, we have no responsibility.' ⁴ Well, there is something you can do for us/ we answered. ⁴ Lend us some money.' ⁴ No, it is quite impossible/ he replied. And, though we begged much and had a second interview, he rejected our proposal. Only he suggested that, if Muhammad Ali had a receipt for some jewels which were in the keeping of the Russian Bank at Teheran, money could be raised on that receipt. But Muhammad Ali had not got the document, and so nothing came of that."

Perhaps this is " advising the ex-Shah to forbear from any agitation whatever in Persia," and perhaps it is not. Perhaps, also, the Russian Ambassador (who has never denied the interview) did not advise his Government of Khalil's projected journey through Russia, and of his purpose, but the unbiased public will probably continue to hold its own' opinion.

We shall now see how well Russian officials in Persia observed neutrality in the internal struggle thus precipitated.

On July 29 the Russian Acting Consul at Isfahan, proceeding upon his conception of neutrality, wrote to the Persian Foreign Office representative there in a plain attempt to stifle a public expression of the people in favor of the Constitutional Government. He said: ⁴⁴ According to information received by this Consulate, the Government of Isfahan intends to hold a meeting of the clergy, nobles, prominent citizens and merchants for the purpose of framing a telegram to the representatives of foreign powers to the effect that they, the people, do not desire Muhammad Ali, and to protest against his arrival in Persian territory. I request you in advance to inform the proper quarters that, as this matter concerns Persia and the Persians (delightful sarcasm), it would be useless to give trouble (sic) to the Imperial Legation and the Consulates of Russia."

Later he wrote;

" You must not uselessly give trouble in the matter of Muhammad Ali Shah (sic) to the Imperial Russian Legation and the Consulates. It is the duty of the Persian Foreign Office representative and of the Government to restrain and prevent any such incidents and they must fulfil it."

Comment seems unnecessary.

Rashidu'l-Mulk, Persian subject, former Governor of Ardebil, Laving been in command of Government forces, had treacherously fled before an inferior number of Shahsevens, tribesmen who had always remained supporters of the ex-Shah. He was accused of high treason, arrested and confined at Tabriz. On July 27, the Russian Consul-General at Tabriz, having demanded his release of the Acting Governor, and having been informed that Rashidu'l-Mulk was held by orders of the central Government, sent three hundred Russian soldiers, fully armed, to the Governor's palace, beat off the Persian guards, insulted the Acting Governor, liberated Rashidu'l-Mulk and took him away. Shortly afterwards he joined the rebel forces of Shujaju'd-Dawla, which were threatening Tabriz.

To the formal protest lodged by the Persian Government over this affair, the Russian Legation replied, officially admitting responsibility for the orders given to the Russian Consul-General at Tabriz to " take the necessary steps" to prevent certain punishment, which was alleged* to be threatened, from being inflicted on Rashidu'l-Mulk. We have seen what steps the Russian Consul-General took — steps which, in the case of two equal powers, would have meant immediate war.

The sole justification attempted by the Russian Legation for this outrage was that " the representatives of the Government of Russia have accorded a certain protection (sic) to Rashidu'l-Mulk." As a matter of fact, no sentence at all had been passed on Rashidu'l-Mulk, though, even if it had, the outrage would have been none the less.

After a full examination of the record, I unhesitatingly assert that a clearer and more flagrant case of violation of sovereignty could with difficulty be found.

At the moment when Shujaju'd-Dawla was preparing to attack Tabriz and the garrison of the city was preparing for defense, the local Government received a note from the Russian Consul-General there, stating that no defensive measures should be taken and that under no circumstances should there be any fighting within the city. At the same time, a Russian subject was in charge of the advance guard of Shujaju'd- Dawla.

Shuja-Nizam, likewise accused of high treason, had been arrested by the Governor of Marand. The Russian authorities took him from prison.

Shuja-Nizam afterwards succeeded in establishing himself at Marand and in capturing the Governor. The Russian authorities, alleging that he is in the service of the Russian road company of Djulfa-Tabriz, continue to protect him.

The citizens of Tabriz having inflicted serious losses on the forces of the rebel Shujaju'd-Dawla, the commander of the Russian troops at Tabriz sent a detachment of Cossacks to the field, and there, on the pretext that the director of a road station had been slightly wounded in the forehead by a bullet (he having voluntarily gone to the neighborhood of a skirmish), arrested seven Persian gendarmes and took them prisoners to the Russian barracks.

When the rebel leader, Mujallalu's-Sultan, was about to enter the town of Ardebil, the inhabitants prepared to resist him. The Russian Vice- Consul thereupon sent his agent, Esmail Bey, to the Vice-Governor and chief of police to give them the following false information: That Muhammad Ali had arrived at one day's journey from Teheran with an army of twelve thousand men and had announced a general amnesty; that he had charged His Highness the Sipahdar with, the control of the city and that the latter had accepted; that the prohibition ordered by the police of Ardebil about speaking of Muhammad Ali Mirza was wrong; " I announce these facts to you privately and for your personal information. The Consulate has received instructions, in effect, telling them to watch over the security of the town." Similar announcements were made by public criers, the inhabitants were advised to illuminate the town in honor of Muhammad Ali's victory and to prepare to receive the Governor whom he was sending to them. Later, Mujallalu's-Sultan, protected by Russian Cossacks, entered Ardebil in triumph and committed the usual acts of barbarism.

After a stay at Ardebil, Mujallalu's-Sultan joined Shujaju'd-Dawla, leaving behind Ghavamu's-Sultan as Governor of the town. The tribe of Khameslous having refused to submit to Muhammad Ali's rule, the Russian Vice-Consul sent Cossacks to reduce them.

A Russian cruiser having been stationed for some time at the port of Enzeli, the commander, with the Russian Consular agent, visited all merchant vessels entering the port, searched passengers, arrested some and forced them to return to Russia.

When the force of Muhammad Ali was defeated and dispersed, many of the leaders demanded refuge at the Russian Consulate at Astarabad. The Consul received them and refused absolutely to deliver them up to the Persian Government for punishment.

The Russian Commissioner for Gonbad-Ghabous came to Gumesh- Teppeh to concert with Muhammad Ali. Later he returned to his post, whence he continued to force Turcoman-Persian subjects, by threats, to take part witli Muliammad Ali. He lias since come to Astarabad and made himself virtual governor of that place, while the forces of Muhammad Ali remain outside the town.

At Bender, Djez, the Russian Consular agent, with a party of Russian Cossacks, arrested the Persian frontier official and sent him a prisoner to Astarabad, treating liim in a thoroughly brutal manner.

At Resht, a number of Russian subjects, armed and led by the son of an employee of the Russian Consulate there, arrested a Persian subject and heat liim to the point of death. They announced at the same time that those who might come to the aid of a certain Persian officer there would be shot.

An employee of the Russian Consulate at Resht called a great number of Russian subjects to his house and discoursed to them on the lack of security in the town. Failing to arouse sufficient response and his plan being discovered, he sent Russian deserters to make trouble in the streets — all for the manifest purpose of creating disorder as a pretext for calling in Russian troops to quell it.

After the departure of Muhammad Ali from Savad Kuh, a Russian officer came to Barfrush to visit Muhammad Ali's camp, where he remained six hours, returning to Sari with six thousand tumans in notes.

When the Teheran Government arrested the well-known reactionary, Majdu'd-Dawla, on July 23, the British Minister immediately interfered in his behalf; as a result, he was released and immediately took T>ast in the Russian Legation. The effect produced on the excited minds of the Persians at this time was that both Britain and Russia were siding with Muhammad Ali and the reactionaries, thus making the task of the Constitutional Government vastly more difficult.

About July 31, the Consular agent of Russia at Enzeli arrested several persons as deserters, while the Russian Consul at Resht sent Russian Cossacks to police headquarters to release a Persian subject who had been arrested, pretending that the latter was the " lamplighter " of the Cossack barracks.

According to the Convention of 1907 between Russia and Britain, which both parties are so fond of quoting to Persia, the latter's complete independence and sovereignty are fully recognized, although the need for such avowal is not apparent. Yot in the face of that document Russia has put forward and still maintains, under the name of " Prot6g6- ship," the most novel and remarkable theory ever heard of in international relations. The Russian Legation and Consulates not only claim absolute rights in Persia over all Russian subjects, " legal or illegal," but they claim a species of protectorate over another class of persons, chiefly well-known reactionaries and traitors, who are admittedly Persian subjects, yet against whom Russia will not permit the simplest govern- mental step to be taken, under penalty of incurring her anger and her ■vengeance. This prot6g6-ship is likewise used to shield these persons from paying their taxes to the Persian Government, and, as most of them are rich through methods well known in the former regime, there is not only a decided financial loss, but the loss of prestige to the Government and the encouragement thus given others to rebel against the payment of their just dues are even worse. In many instances the Russian authorities do not even claim that the protegg is anything but a Persian subject; in others, some of the pretexts alleged for claiming for them Russian nationality are bizarre beyond the wildest dreams. Ask the Russian Legation to explain seriously, for instance, why the Princess Banou Uzma, of Isfahan, should not pay the Persian Government the thousands of tumans of taxes which she has been owing for the past few years, and you will be unable to restrain a smile at the answer. Or the famous Kamran Mirza, uncle of the ex-Shah. Or why the Russian Legation interfered recently when the tax collector of Teheran seized the horse of Prince Ezted Dawla for failure to pay his contributions to the Government under which he lives. Beyond all this, of course, is the trilling fact that even foreign subjects in Persia are not exempt from paying their local taxes, despite the truly absurd claims as to the meaning of Article IV of the Customs Convention between Persia and Russia.

The Persian law of naturalization is based on the consent of the sovereign, given in a formal manner through prescribed channels, yet we have such claims put forth and maintained as that a certain Persian subject, having once taken bast in a Russian Consulate, he was a Russian, or that he claimed Russian nationality under a decree (unpro- duced) from the Emperor of Russia. Naturalization laws and regulations are generally esteemed to be the subject of friendly negotiation and arrangement between nations at peace, not as the pretext for abuses of the grossest description by the stronger power.

A better example of Russia's open hostility to the Persian Government could hardly be found than the very recent actions of the Russian Consul- General at Teheran, Pokhitanof, with all the details of which I am personally familiar. The facts are still fresh in the public mind, but it may be noted that the arrest and brutal treatment of a few Treasury gendarmes by a superior force of Russian Cossacks, led by two Russian Consular officers in full uniform, and the subsequent incarceration of the Persian gendarmes in the Russian Consulate General, is but a fair sample of Russia's real attitude. When it is remembered that this was done in the face of the Convention of 1907, whereby Britain and Russia mutually engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and that Russia has completely ignored the Persian protest over this incident, and that Britain, the other signatory, has quietly looked on, the real value to Persia of the famous Convention in question becomes immediately apparent.

To Persia's protest demanding the removal of these three Consular officers, the Eussian Legation returned the ludicrous answer that in certain instances in Mazandaran and Veramin the Eussian sovereignty had been insulted, in that certain insurgents in arms in the field against the Government having hoisted a Eussian flag over themselves, they should not have been touched. Presumably, they should have been allowed to attack the Government forces in pcace.

I could go further and cite the attempts made by Eussia to prevent any arrangements by which Persia might emerge from her present state of financial bondage to Eussia, and the claims of Britain that, under the rescript of Nasiru'd-Din-Shah of 1888, the Persian Government itself has no right to build railroads in the south, that right being reserved to Britain, but the list grows too long.

I do want to mention the Stokes case, not because it is transcendentally important in itself, but because of the noxious principle which both Britain and Eussia have labored to have established with Persia's acquiescence. The British Minister here wrote me on July 22 that he was authorized by his Government to tell me "that Major Stokes, before accepting the command of the gendarmerie (Treasury), will have to resign his commission in the Indian Army."

As the original tender made by me to Major Stokes did not mention that he would be required to resign from the British service, and as the situation would have been equally well met from Persia's standpoint by his being seconded for three years, I naturally assumed that on his tendering his resignation, which he immediately did, by cable, it would be accepted. To' my intense surprise, I learned that the reply of the British Government was the presentation of a note verbale on August 8 to the Persian Foreign Office, " warning the Persian Government that they ought not to persist in the appointment of Major Stokes, 'unless he is -not to be employed in Northern Persia. If the Persian Government do persist, His Majesty's Government will recognize Eussia's right (sic) to take such steps as she thinks are necessary in order that her interests in Northern Persia may be safeguarded."

A mere trifling threat between friends, this.

This was followed on August 19 by another note, repeating " the warning given on the 8th instant to the effect that, unless Major Stokes is not to be employed in North Persia, the Persian Government ought not to persist in the appointment, and, if they do persist, His Majesty's Government will, recognize the right of Eussia to take what steps she thinks necessary (sic) to safeguard her interests in North Persia."

Is it at all pertinent to inquire here just what are those undefined ⁴⁴ interests" in Northern Persia on which so much stress is thus laid? Certainly they are not defined in the Convention of 1907; and it is equally clear that the Persian Government does not know them; nor did the British Government know of them as late as July 22. Otherwise, how could she have contemplated accepting Major Stokes' resignation from the Indian Army in order that he might sign the contract offered him?

To complete the record, it should be mentioned that the Russian Legation, on August 19, addressed a memorandum to the Persian Foreign Office, stating that ^{^[10]} the Imperial Government of Russia, for reasons explained at the time to the Persian Government, considers the engagement by the latter of Major Stokes as chief of the armed forces — called gendarmerie — for the collection of taxes as incompatible with its interests, and I am charged to protest against that appointment. Failing satisfaction, the Imperial Government would reserve to itself the right to take such measures as it might judge to be necessary for the safeguarding of its interests in the North of Persia."

On learning of the first note presented to the Persian Government by the British Legation, I expressed the following views to the British Minister here: who are not unnaturally interested in the creditable accomplishment of my task.

" Before accepting this work I was given clearly to understand that neither of the two principal powers having interests here offered any objection to my undertaking it, and surely such a statement was something more than an empty pledge.

" No one, I am assured, knows better than yourself that the choice of Major Stokes was actuated by no political motive in the faintest degree, and no thinking person could suspect me of any intention to engage in political jobbery here — a thing which would only make me ridiculous and spell absolute ruin for my work.

" What, then, am I to think when I see the first vital step which I undertake in the task of bringing order out of chaos here obstructed and relentlessly opposed by the very two nations who have time and again professed their sincere desire to see the progress and prosperity of the stricken country which I am seeking to serve?

" Does your Foreign Office fully realize that, in adopting its most recent attitude in this affair, it is inevitably producing the impression on the Persian people that it is in reality opposed to the successful accomplishment of my work, in addition to forcing me to assume that I can count oix no friendly moral assistance from your Government in a vital matter of this kind?

" If this were a normal place, where well-trained, capable and experienced men could be had in comparative abundance, the result (though not the principle) of your Government's objections might not be so bad, but here, where, as you know, good men are extremely scarce, the attitude adopted amounts to a virtual veto of my efforts and a nullification of my chances of success.

" I hope and trust that in some manner your Government may be brought to see the matter in this light, apart from what I am frank to say seems to me a totally uncalled-for interference in the purely routine and internal affairs of the financial organization which I am endeavoring to build up.

" Personally, I feel so strongly on the subject that I am forced to contemplate the necessity of setting right my own countrymen, at least with a formal public statement of all my experiences in this connection since arriving at Teheran. Needless to say, such a course would be much to my regret, but there is such a thing as just dealing even between Government and individuals, and certainly in this case I feel that my own record is sufficiently clear to bear the light of the most thorough inspection."

From a review of this incident it is manifest that, unless the Convention of 1907 is a farce or a deception, by its own terms it has no bearing whatever on the proposed appointment of Major Stokes as a financial aide to the Treasurer-general.

First, because the preamble of that document, as published to the world, avows that Britain and Russia mutually engage to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and declares the sincere desire of the two signatories for the preservation of order throughout that country and its peaceful development. Yet one of the primary elements of sovereignty is the right to manage internal affairs, at least within the limitations of the law of nations, and surely the appointment of its own officials by any country can be considered as nothing else.

Secondly, the plain purpose of the Convention was that neither signatory power should seek for herself, or support in favor of her subjects, any concessions of a political or commercial nature — such as concessions for railways, banks, telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, etc.,— within the so-called " sphere of influence" of the other power.

But this is no case of a " concession." Major Stokes is not a bank, or a railroad, or a political or a commercial concession of any kind, and the voluntary tender to him of a post in the Persian service can, by no stretch of the imagination, be converted into a " seeking " or " supporting " by Britain of such a concession.

The second fallacy in the position of the two powers lies in the fact that the British Foreign Office itself never thought of construing Major Stokes' appointment into a violation of even the so-called "spirit of the Convention" until Russia raised the point. The proof of this has been cited above.

Without in any manner recognizing the application or validity of the. Convention as relating to herself, Persia might point out that, where the language of a document is plain and clear, there is no room for interpretation of the spirit.

Now that the forces of Muhammad Ali and Salaru'd-Dawla have just been routed and dispersed, and before the Persian Government can get a breathing-space after all the anxiety, expense and difficulty from which it might have been spared by a due observance of the Protocol regarding efficacious measures against the agitations of Muhammad Ali, the announcement is made that Britain proposes to send two regiments of Indian cavalry to Southern Persia to strengthen various Consular guards. The reason stated is the unsafe condition of the southern roads and the disorders at Shiraz. Regarding the latter, it might be mentioned that the prolonged asylum granted up to a short time ago by the British Consulate at Shiraz to Ghavamu'l-Mulk, the sworn foe of the Kashghcm, has tended in no small degree to render the task of the

Persian central Government in restoring order there more difficult, especially in view of the continued efforts of the son of Ghavamu'l-Mulk to stir up the Arab tribes against the late Governor, Nizamu's-Saltana.

The generally expected effect of this incursion of the Indian troops into Southern Persia at this time will be the despatch of even larger forces of foreign troops into Northern Persia on even smaller pretexts.

I have so far confined myself to incidents occurring during the five months of my stay here, but this account by no means exhausts the evidence of the unfriendly attitude of Russia and Britain toward Persia. The spectacle given to the world last winter, when the British and Russian Legations stooped to personal insults and had the footsteps of the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs dogged by their uniformed Legation servants, on the ground that the pension of the ex-Shah was in arrears, was sufficiently indicative of the disposition of the two powers and their representatives at Teheran towards the Persian Government.

In all the cases cited above the Persian Foreign Office has lodged formal protests against the evident violation of her sovereignty and her dignity, and in but few, if any, instances has even a pretense of reparation or

satisfaction been made.

Perhaps many of these incidents do not constitute absolute acts of _war — perhaps some of them may be accounted for as the unauthorized acts of subordinate agents, even though they have rarely, if ever, been disavowed by the guilty Government,—but that they indicate a "genuine friendly feeling " on the part of Russia and Britain toward Persia, I do not believe any fair-minded person will maintain.

Some one may here be tempted to ask what all this has to do with finance, and with the financial regeneration of Persia. If so, let the answer be that no one who has been in Persia a week can fail to realize that all possibility of reforming Persia's finances is absolutely dependent upon the prompt restoration of order throughout the Empire and the creation and maintenance of a strong central Government, powerful enough to make itself felt and its decree respected to the furthermost parts of the country. So long as the present policy of thwarting the upbuilding of such a government continues — so long as it is the manifest attitude of the powers to nullify all serious efforts on one pretext or another, but always selfish — and to ruin the Government's prestige in the eyes of the Persian people themselves, meanwhile keeping the country in a state of financial collapse,— just that long will any efforts at financial regeneration be as unavailing as certain documents written on the sands of temporary advantage or as promises of a neutrality which does not neutralize.

The internal difficulties of Persia are great enough to tax her resources to the uttermost limit; they alone will retard her progress for many years. If to them we are to add flagrant bullying by outsiders, varied by " finger-on-the-nose " diplomacy, the situation is very bad.

If money is to be obtained for permanent improvements, it must be taken on impossible political terms; if railroads are to be built, they must be coterminous with our old friends, the " spheres of influence "; if rifles are to be bought, they must be paid for to a rich and friendly foreign government at just three times their market price; if officers of experience are to be taken into the Persian service to hasten progress, they must come from a minor power, or prove themselves to have been of the spineless, nerveless type of which the tools of foreign interests are produced; even if they are from a minor power, there must not be so many of them taken as to indicate .a serious attempt at reform.

Surely in these days of humanitarian "principles and international comity the land of Cyrus has fallen upon evil times.

However, even the ragged misery of the beggar and his indifference to fate does not justify us in giving him a gratuitous kick.

The incidents and facts cited in this letter do not constitute one-third of those with which I am familiar; they are merely typical, and, if any one doubts the facts, the documentary evidence is available to substantiate them and many more of the same style.

I therefore venture to hope that, with the knowledge of these cases before it, the Times, with that spirit of fairness for which it is noted, will withdraw the opinion expressed in its leading article of October 18, to the effect that my statements as to the attitude of certain powers toward Persia were unjust and unfounded.

I am,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shtjster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SIR GEORGE BARCLAY, K.C.M.G., BRITISH MINISTER AT TEHERAN, AND MR. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, TREASURER-GENERAL OF PERSIA.

Treasury General

OF THE

Empire of Persia.

Teheran, July 6, 1911.

Major C. B. Stokes,

Military Attache,

British Legation, Teheran.

Dear Sir:

Having heard that you will shortly be giving up your present post in the British Legation and leaving Teheran, it has occurred to me that your thorough knowledge of Persia and her general conditions, coupled with your military training and acquaintance with the Persian language, would render you exceedingly valuable to the Imperial Government in connection with one most necessary branch of the financial reorganization with which I have recently been charged. I refer to the proposed formation of a small but efficient Treasury gendarmerie, whose duty it will be to give the necessary aid and support, especially in the provinces of the South, to the financial agents engaged in the collection of the maliat, opium, boyaux and other direct taxes.

The Medjlis lias authorized me to enter into a contract i with a suitable person to serve as a financial aide in charge of this particular work. I, therefore, take pleasure in tendering you a three years⁵ contract for this work on the terms set forth in the accompanying draft.

I should be glad to know as soon as possible whether you are willing to accept this offer, in order that in such case I may at once take steps to have a formal application made to the British Government for your services.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

(Note: The above letter was the original tender of appointment to Major C. B. Stokes, from which the subsequent correspondence arose.)

i See draft of contract at end of this Appendix.

British Legation,

^Teheran' July 14, 1911.

Dear Mr. Sinister:

My Government, to whom I have referred the question of the proposed' appointment of Major Stokes as organizer of the " Treasury gendarmerie," evidently thinks that the appointment might cause some international jealousy, and they ask me whether the appointment of a Swedish officer or of a subject of some other Minor Power would not be a way out of the difficulty.

I should like to have your views as to the willingness of the Persian Government to accept this alternative before I reply to my Government.

Believe me, dear Mr. Shuster,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

Treasury General of the

Empire of Persia. Teheran, July 14, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

I am in receipt of your note of to-day's date, in which you state that your Government evidently thinks that the appointment of Major Stokes to organize the Treasury gendarmerie might cause some international jealousy. You ask me whether the appointment of a Swedish officer or of a subject of some other minor Power might not be a way out of the difficulty.

In reply, I beg to state that the Medjlis having recently authorized me to appoint a suitable person to organize, under my direct supervision and control, a force of Treasury gendarmerie, I tendered the position to Major Stokes for the sole reason that I consider him to be the best fitted man for the work whom I could possibly obtain. I am personally aware of Major Stokes' peculiar qualifications for this task — such as his military training, his four years⁷ sojourn in Persia, his knowledge of the country, of the Persian language and of French (which is widely spoken here) — and, in general, of the high esteem in which he is held in this community as an officer and a man.

I have no hesitancy in assuring you that, in seeking the most efficient financial aide whom I could find for this particular branch of my work, the question of nationality played no part whatsoever in making up my opinion. Had this been so, it is but natural to presume that, the matter being left entirely to my discretion, I would have sought such an assistant from my own country. «

I may take this occasion to repeat that the work of financial reform liere, which I have undertaken in the midst of many grave difficulties, and on which I have in a manner risked my professional reputation, is in no sense political in its character. No act of mine has been guided by political considerations, either local or international, and I naturally feel that I could not in any manner accept any suggestion which would cast upon my perfectly frank and disinterested tender of a post to Major Stokes the light of political bias.

With all due respect to the subjects of minor Powers, and without any disrespect to several of my own countrymen whom I have appointed to serve with Major Stokes in the Treasury gendarmerie, I believe that Major Stokes is the best qualified to give efficient service to this country in connection with my own financial mission, and I would be unwilling, under any circumstances, to appoint any one, from any power whatsoever, for this or any other branch of my work unless I, personally, was aware of and satisfied with the appointee's special qualifications.

We know, of course, that one of the greatest handicaps from which any foreigner suffers here is, as in my own case, a lack of knowledge of the language, habits and modes of thought of the Persian people. This defect becomes even more serious in the case of one called upon to deal directly with a large number of such men as would go to make up an armed force. A Swedish officer, be he ever so competent, would have to spend at least a year or more before he could possibly be of any real assistance in this line of work, whereas the necessity of getting my gendarmerie force organized and at work at once is urgent in the extreme.

In conclusion, permit me to say that, as the fact of my tender of this post to Major Stokes is now generally known here, any withdrawal of that offer by me could not fail to be interpreted as being dictated by purely political considerations, which I could by no means permit. .

Trusting that this statement will enable you to reassure your Government upon this subject, and that I may receive an early and favorable consideration by your Government of Major Stokes' acceptance, I am, dear Sir George,

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, July 16, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has transmitted to me the enclosed receipts (2), which I understand are for the sum of Fes. 12,500, which the

Imperial Government is accustomed to receive from your Legation on behalf of the Indo-European Telegraph Baluchistan line. The Minister requests me to have these payments made to me direct, if entirely agreeable to your Legation, in return for my official receipts. I suggested that he should indicate this change to you, but he requested me to take the matter up.

If, therefore, there is no objection on your part, I will be very glad to receive the payment (and future payments) and to give my official receipt as Treasurer-general,— in which case I would request that the enclosed receipts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs be returned.

With kindest regards, 1 beg to remain, dear Sir George, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster, 2 Enclosures. Treasurer-general of Persia.

His Excellency,

Sir George Barclay, etc., etc., etc., Ghulhak.

British Legation, Teheran.

Ghulhak, July 18, 1911.

Dear Mr. Shuster:

I regret to say in reply to your letter of the 16th instant that a draft for the 12,500 francs drawn as usual in favour of the Minister of Finance had been already purchased for the payment of this half-year. I therefore inclose the Foreign Office receipts for the favour of return to me with the addition of whatever countersignature legally represents that Minister. On their receipt I will despatch the draft which on future occasions will be made payable to the Treasurer-general.

I cannot, however, I fear, do otherwise than continue to transmit the drafts and receive discharge through the channel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with which department alone I am authorized to communicate officially.

Trusting that this arrangement will suit your convenience, I am

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

W. Morgan Shuster, Esq., etc., etc., etc.

P.S. May I take this opportunity of drawing your attention to the fact that I have an accumulated balance of some 25,000 francs on account of the rental of the Central Persia line at the disposal of the Persian Gov- ernment as soon as they have signified their acceptance of our capital account for the construction of the line (see our notes of March 20 and July 1911).

G. B.

Treasury General

of the

Empire of Persia.

Teheran, July 20, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

May I trouble you by asking whether you can suggest any manner in which the signing of Major Stokes' contract with the Persian Government may be hastened.

The fact is that the entire matter of the Treasury Gendarmerie is necessarily being held up, pending the settlement, of this question, and I have no hesitancy in saying that the formation of this force is most urgently and vitally necessary to the financial reorganization of Persia.

Without this gendarmerie, I am practically helpless, and without Major Stokes I am at a loss where to turn for a man possessing anything like his qualifications.

I therefore beg of you to do what you can to expedite this matter. May I suggest that you cable your Government, asking for a prompt and favorable reply.

With kindest regards, I am, dear Sir George, Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., etc., etc., etc., Ghulhak.

British Legation, Teheran.

July 21, 1911.

Dear Mr. Shuster:

I yesterday telegraphed to the Foreign Office privately to hasten their decision about Stokes, and now that I have had your letter of yesterday I have telegraphed officially.

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

British Legation,

Teheran. _July
22, 1911.

Dear Mr. Sinister:

I am authorized by my Government to tell you that Major Stokes, before accepting the command of the gendarmerie, will have to resign his commission in the Indian Army.^{^[11]}I am, dear Mr. Shuster,

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

Treasury General of the

Empire of Persia. Teheran, July 22, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

I have just received your note of to-day informing me that your Government holds that Major Stokes, before accepting the command of the Treasury Gendarmerie, will have to resign his commission in the Indian Army.

I still feel that the Imperial Government should have Major Stokes' service at any cost, and I trust that the matter may be speedily arranged.

Permit me to thank you for the friendly efforts which you have made to expedite the decision in this ease, and to express the belief that the kindly attitude thus displayed towards the financial regeneration of this nation will be duly appreciated by all well-wishers of Persia.

With kindest regards, I am, dear Sir George,

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., etc., etc., etc., Ghulhak.

Treasury General of the

Empire of Persia. Teheran, August 8, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

I beg leave to address you, unofficially, on a subject of great importance to my work here.2 I have been intensely surprised to learn this evening

that your Government has conveyed to the Persian Foreign Minister a note of warning or protest against my proposed employment of Major Stokes in the Treasury gendarmerie. You are doubtless aware of the course of this matter up to the present. Need I say that, in view of the tone of the communication which your Government authorized you to address to me on July 22 last, in effect that Major Stokes could accept the position upon resigning from the Indian army, the apparent volte face indicated by their note of to-day is almost incomprehensible?

I recognize that I would have no right to say such things to you in an official communication, and nothing is further from my thoughts than to give offense to any one, but does your Government quite realize the position in which it is placing me before the Persian people and their Government in now suddenly joining with another power to prevent the exercise of the most elementary act of sovereignty by this country, whose independence and integrity both of those foreign powers have solemnly pledged themselves, jointly and severally, to respect?

My personal feelings are of no importance, but the success or failure of my mission here is of moment both to Persia, which entrusted financial affairs to my care, and to my countrymen, who are not unnaturally interested in the creditable accomplishment of my task.

Before accepting this work, I was given clearly to understand that neither of the two principal powers having interests here offered any objection to my undertaking it, and surely such a statement was something more than an empty pledge.

No one, I am assured, knows better than yourself that the choice of Major Stokes was actuated by no political motive 111 the faintest degree, and no thinking person could suspect me of any intention to engage in political jobbery here,— a thing which would only make me ridiculous and spell absolute ruin for my work.

Does your Foreign Office fully realize that, in adopting its most recent attitude in this affair, it is inevitably producing the impression on the Persian people that it is in reality opposed to the successful accomplishment of my work, in addition to forcing me to assume that I can count on no friendly moral assistance from your Government in a vital matter of this kind?

had cabled his resignation and the British and Russian Governments had made a faint protest to the Persian Government against his proposed employment.

If this were a normal place, where well-trained, capable and experienced men could be had in comparative abundance, the result (though not the principle) of your Government's objections might not be so bad, but here, where, as you know, good men are extremely scarce, the attitude adopted amounts to a virtual veto of my efforts and a nullification of my chances of success.

I hope and trust that in some manner your Government may be brought to see the matter in this light, apart from what I am frank to say seems to me a totally uncalled-for interference in the purely routine and internal affairs of the financial organization which I am endeavoring to build up.

Please pardon me for writing you thus freely, but I know you will acquit me of any desire to offend or to increase the perplexities of your situation. Unfortunately, we all appear to have our own peculiar difficulties in this strange land, and the Stokes case happens likewise to be one of mine.

With kindest regards and best wishes for what you may yet be able to do, I am, dear Sir George,

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., etc., etc., etc.,

Ghulhak. •

British Legation, Teheran.

Ghulhak, August 12, 1911.

Dear Mr. Shuster:

I did not fail to communicate to my Government the substance of your letter to me of the 8th instant, drawing attention to its purely personal nature.

His Majesty's Government desire me to assure you in reply that they appreciate your work and the singlemindedness of your motives and they express their regret that there should be any wish of yours with which they are unable to conform. But, His Majesty's Government point out, they might themselves have had occasion to object to the appointment of a Russian officer to organize an administration, say, on the Indian ■ frontier, and that, as soon as they found that Russia would make objections to the appointment of Major Stokes, they could not deprecate such objection and were bound to warn the Persian Government of the difficulties that would arise.

An understanding with the Persian Government has existed for some time past that only subjects of minor Powers should be selected for their service.^{^[12]} The only exception made was in favour of the United States, and the Russian agreement to this exception was influenced by the opinion of His Majesty's Government that 110 political motives in Persia could be imputed to the United States. If a departure from this understanding was to be made, my Government think it a pity that the Persian Government did not sound the Russian Government in advance.

Sir Edward Grey fears that the appointment of some subject of a minor Power in the place of Major Stokes is the only way out of the difficulty that has now arisen.

In communicating this purely private message, permit me to add the assurance of my kindest regards towards yourself and believe me to remain,

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

W. Morgan Sinister, Esq.,

Treasurer-general of the Empire of Persia, Teheran.

British Legation, Teheran.

August 21, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

Would it suit you if I visited you at five o'clock on Friday? If not, please fix another hour on that or any other day except Wednesday.

Also, should I come to the Treasury General or to your private residence ?

Yours sincerely

(Signed) G. Barclay.

P.S. I should like particularly to talk to you about railways, and I am very keen to hear something of Hart's proposals before the Persian Government in any way commits itself to his group.

Treasury General of the

Empire of Persia. ™ ____ „ ₀ , , , _n

Teheran, September 13, 1911.

His Excellency,

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., Minister of Great Britain, Teheran.

My dear Mr. Minister:

I take pleasure in informing you that on the 15th ultimo I applied to Colonel H. R. Beddoes, the representative of Messrs. Seligman Bros, of London, for a loan of £4,000,000 sterling. I enclose herewith copy of my letter to him.

I now request the good offices of Your Excellency's Government and Your Excellency's great personal influence to the end that this loan may be successfully and satisfactorily negotiated. I am, Mr. Minister, with great respect, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Dear Sir George

The delay which has occurred in getting any intimation of the attitude of your Government and of that of the Russian Government towards the proposed loan contract with Seligman Brothers of London is proving somewhat embarrassing to my work. Even after the matter is under way there will inevitably be a number of delays, and if, for any reason, there is going to be opposition to the proposed contract, I should like to know about it as soon as possible, since it will then be necessary for me to take up immediately certain other similar propositions which I have had presented.

I should like very much to know the views of your Government on this matter without further delay, and should likewise appreciate anything you could do to secure an expression of opinion from the Russian Government in this same affair.

It certainly seems to me that the frank manner in which we have laid

this proposed loan before the two Legations should entitle us to a reasonably prompt and clear expression of opinion from the respective governments upon this, to us, important and urgent matter. With kindest regards, I remain, dear Sir George, Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgax Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

His Excellency,

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., H. B. M. Legation, Teheran.

British Legation,

Teheran. September 23. 1911.

My clear Shuster:

1 am doing my best to hasten an expression of views as to the Selig- man proposals.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

British Legation,

^TeheraK' October 3, 1011.

My dear Shuster:

It has been suggested to me that there might be no objection, if the organization of your gendarmerie by Swedish officers is impossible, to Stokes⁷ organizing a force at or near Isfahan, provided, of course, any portion of it employed in Northern Persia would he commanded by Persians or by officers of a minor Power.

Could you let me know what you think of the idea?

Yours very sincerely,

G. Barclay.

Treasury General of the

Empire of Persia. Teheran, October S, 1011.

Dear Sir George:

Regarding your note of the 3d, to which I was about to reply, let me say that the suggestion as to localizing Stokes at Isfahan is, of course, out of the question, both on principle and as a matter of practicability.

I hope that some day the British and Russian Foreign Offices will come to believe that when I said I wanted Stoken here in Teheran to aafttel ma, by bis advice and peculiar knowledge, in the formation of a Treasury gendarmerie, I meant just that and nothing more: no arri&re pens6e, no military expeditions, no intrigues, nothing but what I said.

It seems impossible at times for one to gain any credence for a frank, open statement of facts or intentions, but it is equally true that it was neither within the letter nor the spirit of my statement to go through the truly absurd performance of marooning him at Isfahan or anywhere else in order that he might advise and assist me here.

Is it not about time, dear Sir George, that two big Governments stop playing at this matter, and state plainly whether they intend to continue to oppose the employment of Stokes along the lines which I have mentioned, or not?

With kindest regards, I am, dear Sir George, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., British Minister, Ghulhak.

British Legation, Teheran.

October 5, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

The suggestion as regards the localization of Stokes' functions to Isfahan came to me through the Foreign Office and I ought to reply to-day.

I remembered what you had said about the impossibility of giving any expression to any localization of his work, but I did not like to reply to the Foreign Office without having submitted to you the particular suggestion in regard to Isfahan, which does not come so near to a recognition of the hated spheres of influence as would any undertaking regarding Stokes' employment at Shiraz.

Yours very sincerely

(Signed) G. Barclay.

British Legation, Teheran.

October 10, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

Many thanks for your letter. I will await you this afternoon. I don't think you will have any further difficulty about Shuau's- 19

Saltana's garden, but I am sure that your men have been told to avoid all unnecessary activity. A conflict would be quite disastrous.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, November 2, 1911.

Purely Personal. Dear Sir George:

Mrs. Shuster and I have received yours and Lady Barclay's very kind invitation to dine with you on Monday, the 13th of this month. Needless to say that it would give us great pleasure to do so. I feel, however, that under all the circumstances I should not accept the hospitality of the British Legation without acquainting you with the fact that I have felt impelled, in an open letter to the Times, to criticise in no uncertain terms the general attitude of your Government towards my work and the nation which I am serving. While there is nothing personal in my statements, and though, as I think you know, I entertain the highest respect and warmest regard for you, it occurs to me that it would relieve you of any possible embarrassment if Mrs. Shuster and I did not attend a formal dinner at the Legation. It is solely from this standpoint that I write. I feel sure that you will realize that nothing but some such reason would keep us from partaking of your hospitality.

May I even suggest, to avoid all possible misunderstanding on your part, that Mrs. Shuster and I would be very happy, should you so desire it, to dine with you and Lady Barclay informally some time, or something of the sort.

Personally, I do not believe in mixing business or political differences with purely social matters, but others may not share my view, and it is sometimes difficult to draw the line. In doubtful cases, it is probably safe to err on the side of caution.

If, however, in spite of what I say above, you still desire that we should accept your kind invitation, we will do so, but only after having from you that you considered that it could be in no manner used as a source of criticism of you by either your Government or your colleagues here in Teheran. _

With kindest regards and best wishes, believe me, dear Sir George,

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., British Legation, Teheran.

British Legation, Teheran.

November 2, 1911. Many thanks, my dear Shuster, for your friendly note of to-day, the spirit of which I warmly appreciate.

In all the circumstances, I think perhaps it would be better that we should postpone our dinner till times are better. It is most kind of you to have been so open with me. Please give my kindest regards to Mrs. Shuster, and believe me

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

British Legation, Teheran.

November 7, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

Could I see you for a moment to-morrow?

I have to read you a telegram I have from my Government about Lecoffre's appointment which tells me that I am to " point out" certain considerations to you in regard to this appointment; no doubt you can guess what these are.

So far as I know, any time to-morrow will suit me, but I have asked for an audience of the Regent and I can't tell what hour he will fix.

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

British Legation, Teheran.

November 10, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

I see that your open letter has been published. I should be very much obliged if you would let me have a look at it.

Yours very sincerely,

G. Barclay.

British Legation, Teheran.

November 14, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

You once said that you would let me see your contract. I wonder whether this still holds good, and, if so, whether I could have a copy.

I have read your open letter with the greatest interest, but I think you are too hard on the two Powers.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay*

British Legation, Teheran.

November 15, 1911.

My dear Shuster:

Could you let me know whether I am right in telegraphing that the Prime Minister requested you to withdraw the gendarmes from Shuau's- Saltana's house in town and that you replied that the order to seize the property had been signed by all the Ministers in the Cabinet, and you would only withdraw the gendarmes on a similar order ?

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

Treasury General

of the

Empire of Persia.

Teheran, November 15, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

I have your note about the rumor of a letter from the Samsamu's- Saltana to me and my reply. Personally, I should be most happy to give you any facts, but, as you apparently request them for transmission to your Government, I feel somewhat doubtful, in the present difficult situation, as to whether I should say anything.

Let me illustrate: Suppose I should ask you to confirm the story that the Indian Government had accepted Stokes' resignation, would you feel at liberty to do so, not knowing the final outcome of the affair? If you wish to know personally, as a friend, the exact situation re the Shuau's-Saltana matter, I will be glad to run over and tell you, unofficially.

I may add that, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no Prime Minister or Cabinet for two days. With kindest regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shusteb.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., En Ville.

Beetish Legation,

Teheran. November 15, 1911.

My dear Shuster: I quite understand and shall not telegraph.

In a letter which I wrote yesterday, but which I omitted to send till now, I ask for something else. "You will, of course, feel perfectly free to decline. For I see that what you might have been ready to let me know some weeks ago may be impossible now.

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) G. Babclat.

Treasury General

or the Empire of Persia.

November 17, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

I have your two notes of the 14th, and thank you very much for the friendly view-point which you took of my last note to you.

I have not the slightest objection to having you see a copy of my contract, nor even to having your Government see a copy of it, if I could be assured that it would not go further. But as it is not a matter that, strictly speaking, concerns any one but myself and the Persian Government (and my friends), I could not see that any government could desire to see it for any good purpose. If you would like to examine it, I should be very glad to send you a copy.

With kindest regards, believe me, dear Sir George,

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster.

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., British Legation, Teheran.

Treasury General

of the

Empire of Persia. November 19, 1911.

Dear Sir George:

Colonel Beddoes is leaving to-morrow for home, and expects to go via St. Petersburg.

I think that it would be a great advantage, certainly from the Persian point of view, and I think, possibly, from that of England and Russia, if he could secure a personal interview with Mons. Kokovtsoff. I have fully explained to Colonel Beddoes my own views upon the financial problems of Persia and the lines upon which a durable working arrangement, satisfactory to these Governments, Persia, Great Britain and Russia, might be reached. If you also think that this end is desirable, I should be very gratified if you would give to Colonel Beddoes such a letter of introduction to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg as would secure Colonel Beddoes a talk with the Russian Premier. If you should wish to state in your note that it is given at my request, I should see no objection. With kindest regards, I am, dear Sir George,

Sincerely yours,

Sir George Barclay, K.C.M.G., ^(SiS^{ned) W}" ^{MoEGAN SHUSTEB}'

British Minister, Teheran.

British Legation, Teheran.

January 10, 1912.

My dear Mr. Shuster:

Many thanks for your kind thought in writing and also for the kind words of your letter.

I also have very much regretted that we have not seen more of each other during your time here and I hope that we may meet again one day in happier and less constrained circumstances.

Wishing you a pleasant journey and really agreeable recreation in Paris, where I believe you will be staying, I remain

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) G. Barclay.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIS EXCELLENCY, S. POKLEWSKI- KOZIELL, RUSSIAN MINISTER AT TEHERAN, AND MR. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, TREASURER-GENERAL OP PERSIA.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, August 10, 1911.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell,

Russian Minister, Teheran. (Through the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Persia.) Excellency:

Pursuant to Requisition No. 205 of the Minister of War of the Imperial Government, I have the honor to transmit to Your Excellency here- with an order of payment on the Imperial Bank of Persia for Roubles Three hundred and sixty thousand, three hundred and ninety-five (360,395), the same being in settlement of some seven thousand (7,000) rifles and three million five hundred thousand (3,500,000) cartridges purchased in accordance with the authority of the Medjlis heretofore granted.

Enclosed herewith please find receipt for this amount, which I request that Your Excellency sign and return at your convenience.

With the assurances of my highest esteem, I remain, Excellency, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Legation Imperials de Russie Teheran.

August 12, 1911.

W. Morgan Shuster, Esq., Treasurer-general of Persia, Teheran.

(Through the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Persia.) Dear Mr. Morgan Shuster:

I beg to acknowledge, with many thanks, the receipt of your letter of August 10 and of an order of payment on the Imperial Bank of Persia for Roubles 360,395, the same being in settlement of rifles and cartridges purchased in Russia by the Persians.

Enclosed please find receipt for the above-mentioned amount. I remain, dear Mr. Morgan Shuster,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, August 19, 1911.

My dear Mr. Minister:

I have just received word from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the effect that there has been a delay in the payment of the Cossack Brigade, and requesting me to take the matter up directly with Your Excellency. This I am very happy to do.

I may say that up to the present time I had supposed that the Banque d'Escompte would promptly inform me when any further payment to the Cossack Brigade fell due, in the same manner as the Banque did on July 18, 1911, in the ease of a payment for Tumans 16,304.90 for certain expenses/ for which I immediately sent my check.

It appears now that, without my knowledge, there has heen some delay in the matter of paying the Brigade. I regret this exceedingly, hut I must state that I cannot hold myself responsible for it. I have been at any and all times entirely ready to pay the sums due the Cossack Brigade, and to in every manner maintain the guarantees given by the Persian Government in the Convention of December, 1910.

In order to prevent any further delay, I suggest to Your Excellency that the Banque d'Escompte, or the Colonel of the Brigade, immediately inform me of the amount now due, in order that I may give the Banque an order to transfer this sum on the books of the Banque to the credit of the Colonel or any other officer whom he may designate,—in the same manner as the transfers are made for the annuities of the loans. It seems to me that this procedure is in entire compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Convention, and effectually assures for all time the payment of these expenses from the Customs revenues of the North.

Under any circumstances, in order to avoid any further delay in this matter, I suggest to Your Excellency that the sum now in arrear be paid at once in this way, with the understanding (if Your Excellency so desire to have it) that this particular payment shall not be regarded as a precedent, but is only adopted at this time to prevent further loss of

, time. _ _ .

I may say that I will be lunching in Ghulhak to-morrow (Sunday), and

hope to run over and shake hands with Your Excellency during the after- noon,—when we may have a chance to chat for a few moments on this subject.

With kindest regards, I remain, Mr. Minister,

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell,

Minister of Russia, Zargundeh.

Legation Imperiale de Russie, Teheran.

Zargundeh, August 20, 1911.

Dear Mr. Morgan Shuster: Many thanks for your letter and your desire to promptly settle the

payment of the Cossack Brigade.

I regret, however, to say that I have very precise instructions on this subject from my Government and am unable to change them. My Government has always thought it necessary, in dealing with Oriental coun- tries, to hold them to the strict execution of the very letter of their engagements, as otherwise the respect of the treaties themselves would be easily shaken.

The Convention of December, 1910, provides that certain fixed charges of the Persian Government be paid by our Bank "a Intervention de 1'Administration des Douanes " and I am told by my Government to see that this procedure shall not be changed while the Convention remains in force. I therefore earnestly hope that you will see your way to giving Mr, Mornard the necessary powers,— once for all, or every year,— to send to our Bank his " mandats" for all the payments mentioned in the above-named Convention.

The payment to the Brigade on July 18 last was an extra one, quite outside of its yearly budget and the scope of the Convention, and for these reasons it naturally could not be effected without your direct intervention.

I am most pleased at the prospect of seeing you this afternoon and hope that our personal intercourse will make in future any misunderstandings between us impossible and will facilitate that cordial cooperation which I sincerely desire.

With kindest regards, I remain, dear Mr. Morgan Shuster,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

Legation Imperials de Rtjssie, Teheran.

September 2, 1911.

Dear Mr. Morgan Shuster:

I have just received a telegram from my Government which took nine days to reach Teheran.

Before giving a final answer to the points raised in the conversation we had here two weeks ago, my Government would like to have detailed information about the numbers and composition of the future Treasury Gendarmerie, about its functions, and also where and how it will perform its duties. Will there be another Gendarmerie for other purposes, or will the Treasury Gendarmerie be the only force of this sort performing ordinary gendarmerie duties besides collecting taxes?

There is also another point which I personally should like elucidated. If, after six months' work at Teheran, Major Stokes is going to be removed to the South of Persia, is he to retain the command of the Gendarmerie also in the North? Would it be possible to arrange that, after six months, one of the Swedish officers should be put in command of the whole Gendarmerie and that Major Stokes should work then nominally under him and outside the so-called Russian zone and that both these last conditions should be clearly expressed in Major Stokes⁵contract ?

Or would it not be simplest to appoint at once the senior Swedish officer to the chief command of the Treasury Gendarmerie while retaining Major Stokes for six months in the town of Teheran to assist him and with the explicit undertaking that Major Stokes should, at the expiry of that time, be sent to the British or neutral zone?

No doubt the assurances about the character and territorial limits of Major Stokes' activities ought to be given to us in writing by the Persian Government. Do you think the latter is prepared to do so?

I should be most grateful to you if you would enable me to give to my Government clear and comprehensive data about the points raised above and I feel sure that our decision will largely depend on the character of your reply.

Believe me, dear Mr. Morgan Shuster,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

Treasury General, Empire op Persia.

Teheran, September 3, 1911.

Dear Mr. Minister:

I am in receipt of your note of the 2d instant, stating that your Government, before giving a final answer to the points discussed in our friendly conversation some two weeks ago, would like to have certain information concerning the proposed Treasury Gendarmerie.

In reply, I take pleasure in laying before you all the data which I possess along these lines.

As to the numbers and composition of the Treasury Gendarmerie, and its functions: As the name implies, the main purpose of the proposed organization is to collect the taxes, both by direct intervention under the orders of the different representatives of the Treasurer-general, and by producing that feeling of public security and order without which, in this county at least, the collection of the internal taxes becomes impossible; the composition will be Persian, with the exception of a few European or American supervising officers: as to the number, I estimate that from 12,000 to 15,000 will eventually be necessary to perform the work properly throughout the Empire, though probably we will be unable to reach that strength for eighteen months or more.

As to whether there will be another gendarmerie, my own view is, very positively, that two gendarmerie forces would be both unnecessary and uneconomic in view of the existence of a regular army. This, however, is only my personal opinion. The mere presence, in most instances, of a well-organized and disciplined force will be sufficient to maintain public order; such attempts at local disturbances as might arise from time to time could well be repressed by a force having general police powers, unless the disorder became serious enough to demand the attention of the regular army.

With regard to your personal question, I would say that I have selected Major Stokes as chief of the entire Treasury Gendarmerie, and have tendered him a three-year contract for that post. I could, therefore, have no intention of putting any other officer over Major Stokes during the period of the satisfactory performance of his duties. The same reasons which led me to select him would of course lead me to retain him, so long as his duties were satisfactorily fulfilled.

The expression of any conditions concerning Major Stokes working outside the so-called Russian zone either in his contract or otherwise is, for reasons which I have already stated and which I am sure your Government fully recognizes, impossible of consideration.

I have no intention of appointing any one but Major Stokes to be my principal assistant in my task of organizing the Treasury Gendarmerie, for a number of valid reasons touching upon his qualifications which are too well known to require repetition here. Major Stokes will, of course, be under my personal orders and he will pursue no other policy in any respect than that which I may direct.

Regarding the next-to-last paragraph of your note, my clear understanding and belief is that the Persian Government is not prepared to give any assurances whatsoever as to the territorial limits of Major Stokes' activities. Certainly I am not, and it is my intention to utilize his services throughout the Empire in such manner as to me, during my period of responsibility for the financial reorganization, might seem best calculated to accomplish my task.

I have sought, dear Mr. Minister, to give you with entire frankness my views on this matter, and I trust that your Government will see by this statement that what is contemplated is but a necessary and proper organization for the accomplishment of the difficult task which I have undertaken. It seems unnecessary to add that, with the reorganization of the finances and internal taxation system of Persia on a modern basis, nothing but benefit can accrue to all legitimate commercial interests, both foreign and domestic, which are connected with the Persian Empire.

With kindest regards, I remain, dear Mr. Minister, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell,

Treasxjey General, Empire of Persia.

Teheran, September 5, 1911.

Dear Mr. Minister:

It has come to my knowledge that in some manner my note to you of yesterday has been misconstrued by you and that it is regarded as an intentional termination of the discussion of the Stokes affair. If such is the fact, please permit me to say that nothing of course could be further from my wishes. I did not understand your note of the 2d inst. as written in a spirit of negotiation, but that it was, as it appears on its face to be, a categorical request for certain detailed, clear and comprehensive data, which you and your Government desired to have in order to enable you to formulate future action. It was in this light that I endeavored to reply to your note by giving to you a full, frank and unevasive statement of such information on the questions propounded as I possess.

I should sorely regret that you should have found anything in either the tone or the contents of my written reply which would lead you to presume on my part any change in the ardent hope which I have felt ever since our original conversation that your Government might be brought to see the difficulties of this Government and of myself in this particular instance over this affair and thereby be inclined to perform a gracious and friendly act in withdrawing certain objections which up to the present have been maintained against the proposed contract with Major Stokes.

It was my original intention to see you yesterday and endeavor to learn more of the recent view which your Government may be taking of this matter, but I afterwards felt that perhaps you were not prepared to discuss the probable future action of your Government in any more detail than has already been done, until you had conveyed to it the precise and detailed information which your letter alone appeared to call for and which I had hoped my reply conveyed.

I should like very much to see you soon, especially if there has been any misconception on your part of the purport of my note, and if agreeable will endeavor to get up to Zargundeh some time to-morrow afternoon, say about three o'clock. I will ask you to be good enough to let Colonel Beddoes know whether this hour is agreeable to you, and he will find the means to convey the news to me.

With kindest regards, dear Mr. Minister, I remain Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster, His Excellency Treasurer-general of Persia.

S. Poklewski-Koziell, Minister of Kussia, Zargundeh.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, September 3, 1911.

Dear Mr. Minister -A

In reply, I take pleasure in laying before you all the data which I possess along these lines.

As to the numbers and composition of the Treasury Gendarmerie, and its functions: As the name implies, the main purpose of the proposed organization is to collect the taxes, both by direct intervention under the orders of the different representatives of the Treasurer-general, and by producing that feeling of public security and order without which, in this country at least, the collection of the internal taxes becomes impossible; the composition will be Persian, with the exception of a few European or American supervising officers; as to the number, I estimate that from 12,000 to 15,000 will eventually be necessary to perform the work properly throughout the Empire, though we will probably be unable to reach that strength for eighteen months or more.

With regard to your personal questions, I would say that, as I hope to see you at an early date, I will take that opportunity of giving you, in conversation, such information as I may have along these lines.

I have sought, dear Mr. Minister, to give you, with entire frankness, my views on this, matter, and I trust that your Government will see by this statement that what is contemplated is but a necessary and proper organization for the accomplishment of the difficult task which I have undertaken. It seems unnecessary to add that, with the reorganization

i This letter was sent to replace the preceding letter of September 3, which was subsequently withdrawn.

of the finances and internal taxation system of Persia on a modern basis, nothing but benefit can accrue to all legitimate commercial interests, both foreign and domestic, which are connected with the Persian Empire. With kindest regards, I remain, dear Mr. Minister, Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell, Minister of Russia, Zargundeh.

Treasury G-eneral

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, September 13, 1911.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell, Minister of Russia, Teheran. My dear Mr. Minister:

Sincerely yours,

_L( Signed) W. Morgan Shuster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

Treasury General

of the Empire of Persia.

Teheran, September 13, 1911.

Dear Mr. Minister:

May I ask whether you have had any indication from your Government, which could be communicated to me, on the subject of our last conversation concerning Major Stokes. I would not trouble you on this score

were it not for the fact that each day's delay is proving a very serious handicap to one of the most necessary features of our work. With kindest regards, believe me, dear Mr. Minister, Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) W. Morgan Shxjster,

Treasurer-general of Persia.

His Excellency

S. Poklewski-Koziell,

Minister of Russia, Teheran.

Legation Imperiale de Russie, Teheran.

September 16, 1911.

Dear Mr. Morgan Shuster:

I have not heard yet from my Government concerning Major Stokes, and am expecting a reply at any moment. The delay must be due to the absence of the Emperor from St. Petersburg.

I will not lose time in communicating with you, as soon as the telegram reaches me.

With kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

Legation Imperiale de Russie, Teheran.

October 15, 1911.

Dear Mr. Shuster:^{^[13]}

I duly submitted to my Government the proposal you made at our last interview and I have now received their reply. It is to the effect that, as unfortunately it appears to be impossible to restrict Major Stokes' work to the South, my Government are compelled to adhere to their protest against the proposed appointment of the officer in question to organize a fiscal gendarmerie in Persia. Believe me, dear Mr. Shuster,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

January 10, 1912.

Personal. Dear Mr. Sinister:

Many thanks for your kind letter, which has deeply touched me. I shall always keep the most pleasant recollection of our personal

acquaintance * * *

iWith best wishes for your journey, I remain, dear Mr. Shuster, Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) S. Poklewski-Koziell.

FORM OF CONTRACT TENDERED MAJOR C. B. STOKES BY THE TREASURER-GENERAL OF PERSIA.

This Agreement, made this twenty-fourth day of July in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, by and between the Imperial Government of Persia, acting through its duly authorized agent, W. Morgan Shuster, Treasurer-general of Persia, and Major C. B. Stokes, a British subject, late of the Indian Army, resident in the City of Teheran, Persia, wit- nesseth that:

(1) Whereas the Imperial Government of Persia has by a law of the Medjlis voted on the 23d day of Jauza, 1329, authorized the Treasurer- general of Persia to establish a special corps of inspection, and to make contracts, with the approval of the Medjlis, for the financial aides who may form a part of said special corps of inspection, and whereas the Medjlis has by subsequent laws authorized among others, a contract to be made by the Treasurer-General with an European now residing in Persia, for the purpose of serving as financial aide to the Treasurer- general in charge of the organization of the Treasury Gendarmerie, said contract to he made on the same general terms as the contracts already made with certain other financial aides to the Treasurer-general, now therefore it is hereby stipulated and agreed:

(2) The Imperial Government of Persia does hereby appoint, designate and engage the said Major C. B. Stokes to be and serve as financial aide to the Treasurer-general, in special charge of the organization and formation of the Treasury Gendarmerie, for the full term of three years from the date of this contract.

(3) The Imperial Government of Persia hereby agrees to pay to the said Major C. B. Stokes, as full salary and compensation for his services as said financial aide, the sum of Five thousand (5,000.00) Dollars, U. S. Currency, or its equivalent in pounds sterling, per annum, in twelve monthly installments, at the end of each month.

(4) The said Major C. B. Stokes does hereby accept the appointment, designation and engagement to serve as said financial aide to the Treasurer-general, with the general powers and duties, and at a salary and compensation and under the general terms and conditions hereinbefore and hereinafter set forth, and in consideration of the same does hereby agree faithfully and well to perform his duties during the continuance of this contract.

(5) The said Major C. B. Stokes hereby agrees to obey, in the performance of his duties, the instructions and rules of the Treasurer-general of Persia.

(6) In case the said Major C. B. Stokes shall neglect or fail to perform his duties or to obey the instructions or rules aforesaid, the Imperial Government of Persia, on the recommendation of the Treasurer-general, shall have the right to terminate this agreement on the payment of a sum equivalent to six months' compensation.

(7) In case the said Major C. B. Stokes shall resign of his own accord before the termination of the period prescribed in this contract, he shall be paid only for the period of actual service rendered.

(8) During the existence of this contract, the said Major C. B. Stokes hereby agrees not to interfere with the religious or political affairs of the Persian Empire, except in so far as the proper performance of his lawful duties might be in any manner so construed.

(9) The said Major C. B. Stokes hereby agrees, during the continuance of this agreement, to use his best efforts and endeavors for the upbuilding of the finances and revenues of the Imperial Government of Persia and, in general, within the sphere of his proper activities, to work for the welfare, happiness, prosperity and progress of the people of Persia and for the honor and prestige of the lawfully constituted government of said Empire.

"ONE BRITISH VIEW OF THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION

OF 1907."

Speech Delivered by Mr. H. F. B. Lynch, Chairman of The Persia Committee, at a Public Dinner Given Under the Auspices of the Committee, in Honor of W. Morgan Shuster, at the Savoy Hotel, London, on Monday, 29th January, 1912.

The Chairman (Mr. H. F. B. Lynch): Ladies and Gentlemen, I have now to propose to you the toast of " The guest of the evening, Mr. Morgan Shuster." In welcoming Mr. Shuster and in inviting this distinguished company to meet him, the Persia Committee have been pursuing a course strictly in accordance with their past action. From the very first we have supported Mr. Morgan Shuster in the extremely difficult and delicate task which was committed to his charge. When we realized that difficulties were being placed in the way of the execution of that task — I think it was towards the close of last summer's session — we approached the Foreign Secretary and pointed out the nature of those difficulties, and we asked that steps should be taken to have them, as far as possible, removed. On the 7th of November last, at a fully attended meeting held at the House of Commons, we passed unanimously a resolution which was sent in to the Secretary of State. I should like to read you that resolution, because it expresses the point of view which we of the 'Persia Committee have consistently taken up:— . . . "In view of the great importance to the interests of this country that the finances of Persia should be placed on a sound basis and that Persia may thereby be enabled to proceed with the reforms necessary for the proper administration of that country, including the security of her communications,

" And whereas Mr. Morgan Shuster, as Treasurer-general of Persia, has shown himself a capable and energetic administrator,

" This meeting of Members of Parliament and others invites the serious attention of His Majesty's Government to the difficulties placed by the Russian Government in the way of Mr. Shuster's efforts to reorganize Persian finance, and offers His Majesty's Government their support in any action His Majesty's Government may see fit to take, as signatories of the Anglo-Russian Convention, to support Mr. Shuster."

That was the resolution, and I am sorry to say that it only received a somewhat curt acknowledgment. That was in November. Those, of course, who follow events in Persia know that the despatch of that Resolution was followed pretty promptly by the issue of an ultimatum by the Russian Government to that of Persia, and then by the issue of a second ultimatum, which demanded the dismissal of Mr. Shuster. I still do not know the precise grounds upon which the Russian Government demanded his dismissal. I think a good deal of light ought to be thrown in Parliament upon that interesting point. But what, after all, concerns us most nearly is the attitude which was taken up towards Mr. Morgan Shuster by our own Government. (Hear, hear.) Sir Edward Grey, in the recent debate on Persia in the House of Commons, which took place as recently as the 14th of December last, stated to us pretty fully the nature of that attitude. I should just like to read you his words. He said: " The first demand of the Russian Government is that Mr. Shuster, the Financial Adviser to the Persian Government, should be withdrawn. We have said that we cannot object to that demand, and I will explain to the House why. A short time ago, to take only a most recent incident, I received news by telegram to say that Mr. Shuster had appointed three British officials in Persia as Treasury officials in important places. I quite admit Mr. 'Shuster's ability and his good intentions, but you cannot have the spirit or the intention of the Anglo-Russian Agreement upset by the action of any individual, however well intentioned. What advice I could give to avoid this I gave at the earliest possible moment; that advice having failed I, of course, have been absolutely powerless to support Mr. Shuster's action. Had I supported him"—I call your attention to these words —" Had 1 supported him, I should have been supporting him in the appointment of British officials in the Russian sphere of Persia, and I should at any rate have been breaking the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement."

Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not here to deliver an attack upon our Foreign Secretary. Many of us have a warm personal regard for him, and I am sure that anything which I, or any other speaker, may say will be couched in language which at all events we shall have calculated not to have any such effect.

I should like in the first place to dwell upon the satisfactory part of this pronouncement, because it contains a satisfactory part. Our Foreign Secretary tells us, in the name of His Majesty's Government, that he quite admits Mr. Shuster's ability and his good intentions. Therefore, you see there is no question either as to Mr. Shuster's capacity or character. The only question that we have to judge to-night — and which will have to be judged by larger audiences outside these walls — is this: whether or not Mr. Shuster has broken the spirit — there is no question of his having broken the letter—of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.

Now I scarcely know the exact date upon which our Foreign Secretary adopted this view of his, that Mr. Shuster had violated the spirit of the Agreement. Unless I be wrong — in that case he will correct me—Mr. Shuster, when he commenced to reorganize the administration of the Persian Treasury, approached our Foreign Office through our Minister at Teheran, and asked them whether they would have any objection to his appointing Major Stokes to reorganize the Treasury gendarmerie. Major Stokes, of course, is a British subject, and he was to take up his duties in Northern Persia. Now it is a matter of common knowledge that the reply which was handed to Mr. Shuster was to the effect that our Foreign Office saw no objection whatever to the appointment. When, therefore, did the change come over the attitude of our Foreign Secretary and what were the causes which brought it about? When and why did he come to his later conclusion that British nationality is a bar to appointments in the Persian Civil Service in Northern Persia? There again is another question upon which we require light. But if I ask myself: "Did Mr. Shuster violate the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention in making these appointments in Northern Persia?" then, as a careful student of that convention and of the declaration of policy issued in connection with it by His Majesty's Government, I answer without hesitation that there is nothing whatever in the spirit of that Agreement which would support a contention of that kind (cheers). We have had, quite a few days ago, a very interesting pronouncement as to the spirit of this Agreement by no less an authority than His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, Sir George Buchanan, who in the course of an eloquent speech, delivered on the occasion of the British visit to Russia, spoke as follows: He said " I cherish the hope that the Anglo-Russian entente will take root in the hearts of the two peoples. It is not by diplomatic acts that true ententes are made between nations; it is by feelings of friendship, sympathy and mutual confidence that peoples are attracted towards each other. Let our entente repose on this basis and nothing can shake it." I think we can all subscribe to those words of our Ambassador (hear, hear) and take them as an authoritative and a perfectly just exposition of the spirit which ought to animate the execution of the Anglo-Russian Agreement. So we have to ask ourselves: — when Mr. Shuster appointed these three Englishmen, was he violating the spirit of the Agreement, as defined by His Majesty's Ambassador and as explained by His Majesty's Ministers when defending the Convention before Parliament — a spirit namely of mutual confidence between Great Britain and Russia giving place to the old spirit of rivalry and suspicion?

What did Mr. Shuster actually do? He appointed three Englishmen to subordinate positions in the Persian Treasury Service in three cities of Persia: Tabriz, Isfahan and Shiraz. Now Tabriz is sixty miles from the nearest Russian frontier and is the emporium of the great British trade with the north of Persia. Isfahan is hundreds of miles from any Russian frontier, and it is the terminus of two of the greatest of the British trade routes from the Gulf; Shiraz is within the area of what we may call the Gulf region. How could Mr. Shuster have known, when he was making those appointments of Englishmen in cities of that description, in subordinate posts, that he was violating the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention (cheers) ? Ladies and Gentlemen, just let us consider the matter a little more closely. The Russian sphere, as drawn in the Anglo-Russian Agreement, is a sphere drawn for commercial purposes. It has nothing whatever to do with appointments to their Civil Service made by the Persian Government. Nothing whatever. Think what it would mean if we were to subscribe to the doctrine that no British subject can be appointed by the Persian Government within the Russian sphere! Why, it would mean that throughout a territory with an area greater than that of France, containing the capital and all the principal cities of Persia — throughout that immense area the fact that a man might happen to be a British subject would constitute an effectual bar to his employment in the Persian Service. (Shame!) Ladies and Gentlemen, suppose that any of you were to go out to Persia and were to desire to take up an appointment in the Persian Civil Service. Suppose they were to tell you: " House full, no applications received," and you were to demur to that, and they were to say: " Well, we are very sorry, we should like to have your services, but there are reasons against it." Then, if you inquired further, they might say to you: " Well, we refer you to the Russian Legation." (Laughter.) And, if you went to the Russian Legation, what would be the reply that you would receive? You would be told, I have no doubt in a very pleasant way, that the reason why you could not be appointed was that the Governments of Great Britain and Russia had signed a Convention; that this Convention was intended to inaugurate an era of reciprocal confidence and trust between those two great Powers, and that for that very reason you, a British subject, would never be allowed to enter the Persian Service anywhere nearer to the Russian frontier than a distance equal to the length and breadth of France (loud laughter) and that you would have to hand over your prospects of employment to the Russian, to the German, to the Italian, to the Belgian, to the Swede — they all would be welcome, but in the new halcyon era of Anglo-Russian confidence every Englishman would be shut out. (Cheers and laughter.)

Now I want to carry your minds from that point to another. I want to ask you to consider what were the circumstances which brought Mr. Shuster to Persia. I was very closely connected with those circumstances, and, therefore, you may excuse me if I tell you very briefly what exactly it was that brought Mr. Shuster there. At the commencement of the year 1909 the Persian people, seeing that their monarchy, a dynasty of Turcoman rulers, was falling upon evil days, seeing that their country was being sold, as they put it, to foreigners, owing to the large amount of foreign loans that were being raised — the Persian people determined to put an end to this state of things. They had before them the example of the West, and their aim was to infuse new life into their political institutions. They organized two expeditions, one from the North, the other from the South; and in July, 1909, was consummated in Persia an almost bloodless revolution, the result of which was that the reigning monarch, Mohammed Ali, was forced to take refuge in the Russian Legation, and a Constitutional regime was established — or rather, I ought to say, restored, because it had had a very short life before.

But the new Government found itself in this predicament. Here was a people which had existed for centuries under an absolute despotism — a despotism which had crushed out all the elements of vitality in the nation, which had prevented all young Persians from traveling to Europe, which, whenever a man showed signs of integrity, capacity or independ- ence, put him on the shelf, or proscribed him. Here was a country which had long lain under the heel of the despot — and, where the heel of the despot has once trodden, the seeds of national life are slow to sprout and still more slow to bear fruit. It was out of ground of that kind that the Persian Government had to call forth a new race of administrators and law-givers. They recognized that they could not do that at once, and they said to themselves, and I think rightly: Let us go to the West, let us take from the West our first lessons in civil order and administration. Let us find there men to recognize our great administrative departments, and to train up a new generation of Persian Officials. Ladies and Gentlemen, in pursuing that course, Persia was merely copying the example of Japan; and is there any one here who would be inclined to throw a stone at the Japanese people because they called into their councils foreign administrators — administrators from the West — to inculcate some of the lessons of Western civilization?

Well, their first necessity was the reform of their financial system. They turned for help in this department, in the first instance, I think, to France. M. Pichon was then Foreign Minister. M. Pichon was quite willing to send them a Financial Mission; but obstacles were raised by Russian diplomacy in Paris, and these overtures came to nothing. Italy was also approached, with a view to despatching a mission to reorganize the Gendarmerie. Here, again, the Persian overtures were brought to nothing. Persian statesmen then bethought themselves that, perhaps, the same impediments might not be operative in the United States of America. They applied to the President of a Free Republic, and he sent them Mr. Morgan Shuster (cheers). That accounts for Mr. Shuster's presence in Persia.

Let me say one word as to the nature of his work. It has been said that Mr. Shuster endeavored to upset the Anglo-Russian Agreement. Now I think that is the exact contrary of the fact. I had the bad fortune to be kept all last summer in London — you know it was a very hot summer, and I had to be in attendance all August and September in London, where I was in constant communication by telegraph with Mr. Shuster in connection with railway operations in Persia. All through those negotiations it was Mr. Shuster's aim to reconcile the railway policy of the Persian Government with the provisions of the Anglo- Russian Agreement. He went further, and he was prepared to use his great influence over the Medjlis in order to induce them to accept — as regards British and Russian participation in railway construction — those commercial spheres which were delimited by the Convention. Mr. Shuster proved himself an excellent friend to the Convention, in so far as its objects were public and avowed.

Then what was the real reason for his dismissal? It can be expressed in a sentence — not one of my own coining, but extracted from a letter which 1 received some time ago from a countryman, resident in Persia, who is not a sympathizer with the Nationalist or Democratic Party. It was penned immediately after Mr. Shuster's dismissal, and it runs: — " Mr. Shuster's mission was doomed at its inception, seeing that a prosperous Persia would have brought about a weakened Eussian control."

In conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen, what are our objects in giving this dinner? First of all, what are not our objects? I need scarcely tell you that we of the Persia Committee are not in any way animated by feelings of hostility towards the Eussian people. Most of us, I imagine, are great admirers of the Eussian people. If we could summon to this table the great spirits of Eussian thought and of Eussian literature — the Tolstoys, the Tourg6nieffs and the rest — why, they, would all be on our side! (Cheers.) At this very moment the Liberal Press of Eussia are writing articles on Persian affairs, which, if yoti were to translate them, might almost have been taken from the columns of the Daily News or the Manchester Guardian. The representatives of Labor" in the Eussian Duma — speaking for the coming force in politics not only in Eussia, but all over the world — have gone so far as to refuse to participate in the reception of the British visitors, on the ground that Great Britain is joining with their own Government in stamping out an ancient people like the Persians.

It is sometimes said that we of the Persia Committee are bent on destroying the Anglo-Eussian Agreement. That is a deliberate and it is a wicked falsehood. We are not out for the destruction of the Agreement; but we are out for its loyal fulfilment. (Cheers.) Hostility to Eussia, destruction of the Agreement—those are not our objects: How, then, can they be defined? First, we have come here to receive at first hand from Mr. Morgan Shuster an account from the inside, culled from his own experience and insight, of the situation in Persia. He will be able to state how far in his opinion the Persian people are capable of effecting their own regeneration, provided that they be given elbow-room and breathing-space by their two powerful neighbors. Our second object is, perhaps, a more personal one. It is to give expression to our appreciation of the high purpose which distinguished Mr. Shuster's work in Persia, and to our sympathy with Mm in the untoward circumstances which brought that work to a premature close. We are also hoping, by this demonstration of our appreciation and of our sympathy with Mr. Shuster, to dispel any doubts which may be felt by our kinsmen across the Atlantic as to the sentiments of the British nation towards this distinguished citizen of the United States. It is with these objects in mind that I ask you to raise your glasses and to drink to the health of Mr. Morgan Shuster. (Cheers.)

Two Articles Republished from The Nation.

I. " THE LOST INDEPENDENCE OF PERSIA."

Two weeks ago there seemed to be for one brief moment a ray of hope in the Persian situation. Persia lay, indeed, under the menace of a Russian invasion. But there came from Lord Curzon a plea for a change in British policy, as weighty as it was unexpected. The Persians threw themselves upon our mercy, and, whether from calculation or from sympathy, the good offices of our diplomacy were placed at their disposal. If our Foreign Office had been capable of firmness in its dealings with a slippery and unscrupulous partner, and if there had existed in the minds of Russian statesmen the smallest intention of obliging a friendly and singularly complacent associate, the invasion must at once have been checked, and Persia, at the cost of some humiliation, must at least have kept her territory intact. We fear that these hopes are ended. The Russians have proved themselves implacable and disobliging. They have turned a deaf ear alike to the apologies of Persia and the mediation of Great Britain. Their armies continue to advance on Teheran, and their diplomacy at length avows a claim which destroys forever the pretense that Persia is a sovereign state. This would not in itself be decisive. But, on Monday, Sir Edward Grey defined his own attitude. In a speech rather fuller and rather franker than any he has yet delivered, there is not a sentence which can be interpreted even as a faint depreciation of Russian action, not a word to limit her drastic intervention, not a hint of resentment at the rejection by Russia of the counsels of moderation which apparently he gave, not a phrase which could assist the Persians in saving something from the wreck of their national fortunes. The case is even worse than this. Sir Edward Grey has not merely gone out of his way to make a wholly gratuitous defense of the action which Russia is now taking; he has explicitly sanctioned and adopted the stealthy extension of the Anglo-Russian compact which underlies the whole of the Russian aggression. So far as the wording of that treaty goes, it provides for the division of Persia into economic spheres, within which each power binds itself not to compete with the other for concessions. We have never thought that arrangement compatible with the integrity and independence of Persia, and we have always argued that it would be stretched, and must be stretched, into a political partition. At length, the avowal has been made, and made apparently without any consciousness that the terms of the compact have been left behind. The word " political" has been subtly introduced by Sir Edward Grey to describe the character of the particular interests which each power reserves to itself in its own sphere. When once that word is used, the independence of Persia is gone, and its partition virtually accomplished.

It may be advisable to set forth very briefly the grounds of the quarrel between Mr. Shuster and the Russian Government, which is the pretext for this intervention. The quarrel dates almost from his arrival in the country, and it has passed through many phases. It began with an attempt by Russia to veto his demand that, as Financial Controller, the customs payments should pass through his hands. The • next phase was a steady, detailed effort to prevent him from increasing Persian revenues from direct taxation, by shielding of Russian prot£gSs, the Persian grandees who had hitherto evaded their taxes. Then came the Russian veto on the appointment of Englishmen versed in the Persian language, and trusted by the Persian people, to posts under the Treasury in Northern Persia. We are not sure that Mr. Shuster was altogether wise to press these appointments in the absence of any backing either from Mr. Taft or from Sir Edward Grey. But, as a matter of right, he did well. Here was a test case as to the meaning of the agreement. If Persia is still an independent state, she may appoint whom she pleases to supervise the collection of her taxes. If Britain and Russia are bound only to respect each other's monopoly in economic concessions in their respective spheres, then clearly the nationality of a tax collector is not a matter affected by their bargain. But if it is political predominance which they claim north and south of two arbitrary lines, then clearly the sending of an English official into the Russian sphere may be regarded, as both parties to the Treaty do regard it, as a breach of its spirit, if not of its letter.

This episode served finally to define the political character of the partition. Next came the Shuau's-Saltana incident, over which Sir Edward Grey passed lightly. Not even the Times has attempted a defense of Russian action here. If a Persian Government may not send Persian gendarmes to serve a warrant on a Persian subject who is its debtor, it has ceased to be the sovereign of its own territory. This incident led to the Russian invasion, but the pretext for the continuance of the Russian march after the Persian Government, under British advice, had tendered an apology, and for the presentation of new Russian demands, whose acceptance Sir Edward Grey will, we suppose, again counsel, is that Mr. Shuster meanwhile had circulated a translation of the Times letter, in which he defended himself against Russian criticisms, and made with deadly effect some countercharges against Russian agents for the assistance they had given to the ex-Shah. It seems to be doubtful whether Mr. Shuster was personally responsible for circulating this document. But if a little country may be invaded by a great power because a foreign official in its service bias ventured to write a reasoned and temperate letter to the Times, in reply to editorial attacks of semiofficial British and Russian newspapers, we must revise all our conceptions of international intercourse. If a German official had written to the Times to deny McKenna's charges of accelerated shipbuilding, should we have been entitled to treat his letter as a casus bellit It is a case of the wolf and the lamb, so flagrant and so cynical, that one is hardly tempted to analyze it further.

The plain fact is that Russia from the first has determined to thwart Mr. Shuster, because he displayed an American energy and fearlessness, which would soon have made Persia solvent and well governed. He was not the man to succumb without a struggle, and in the end the Russian sword has got the better of Mr. Shuster's pen. The episode ends in the formal presentation at a bayonet's point of a Russian demand, which Sir Edward Grey justified in his speech on Tuesday, for the recognition of a Russian right to put her veto on the employment of foreigners in Persia. With that claim, the powers have formally torn up their guarantees of Persian independence. The usual loan to pay the usual indemnity for the Russian invasion will be the next step, and, with the installation of a foreign official supervisor subservient to Russia, her dictatorship in Teheran will be finally established. The next question will, of course, be how far we are prepared to allow Southern Persia to be governed from Teheran after that city has become a center of Russian policy. In the end, the logic of partition must be followed, and some separate political organization provided for the South. A British sphere can hardly be administered from a city wholly dominated by Russian Cossacks, Russian diplomatists, Russian financiers, and foreign inspectors subject to a Russian veto. Our own procedure has been less drastic, less brutal, less hasty than that of our partner. But, because we have acquiesced in what she has done, we shall sooner or later be forced to imitate it. The lapse of a few years will almost inevitably see us as openly in occupation of the South as Russia is of the North, and the nightmare which has haunted generations of Anglo-Indian soldiers will at length have been realized with our own consent. Russian and British armies will confront each other across a vague land frontier and we shall have become in the military sense a Continental Power, with Russia and Turkey and their vast conscript armies for our uneasy neighbors.

Had it been possible to argue this Persian question on its merits, the history of recent years would have followed a totally different course. With or without an agreement, we should have held Russia to a policy of abstention in Persian affairs. We have, from first to last, violated our natural instincts of chivalry, our liberal principles of respect for nationality, and every sane calculation based on our Eastern interests.

Disastrous and foolish, though we believe this policy to be, we do not call it unintelligible. It is a consequence, and one of the worst consequences, of Sir Edward Grey's European policy. One simple and elementary principle has governed it from the first — his dread lest this or the other power might be drawn into what he has called the " orbit" of German diplomacy. Year in, year out, we have been paying, chiefly in other people's goods, for the satisfaction of keeping ce'rtain Powers from coming to any intimate understanding with Germany. The French side of the account is represented by the Moroccan transaction and its sequels. To Russia we have given a free hand over the greater part of Persia. It was a large price to pay for anything. But what has been gained, even on the low plane of such diplomatic huckstering? Kussia was the more or less reliable ally of France when the chapter opened. To-day no one even suggests that she would have intervened with arms, had war resulted from the Agadir incident. For that we are far from blaming her. But the fact is that we have failed to keep her even where she originally was within the Franco-British "orbit." She came to terms with Germany at Potsdam, and neither a free hand in Persia nor even the rain of British gold which falls upon all her investments and enterprises avails to buy her loyalty. The reason is simple. We cannot assist her in the military difficulties to which our policy may at any moment expose her. Our failure to make good our violent words in the Bosnian crisis settled that forever. We are playing a continental rOle without continental resources, and from great ambition based on unsuitable means there must issue in the end either the humiliation of a surrender or the disaster of a defeat. When we are driven to pay so high a price as Persia to secure the bare neutrality of Russia, it is evident that our star is not in the ascendant.— From The Nation (London), December 2, 1911.

II. "THE PERSIAN SUPPLIANT."

In the days when the predatory instincts of mankind were qualified by a tradition of chivalry, the suppliant enjoyed certain rights which it was the pride of the strong to respect. A wretch who embraced the knees of a Homeric chieftain became from that moment a proUgS, whose life and cause he was bound by honor to defend. A fugitive who flings himself on the mercy of an Albanian clan may count upon it to espouse his interests as though they were its own. These are the pretty manners of savages; modern diplomacy has evolved its own code of honor and decency. Two weeks ago Persia, menaced by a Russian invasion, performed the conventional rites, made herself a suppliant at our doors, and embraced the stony knees of Downing Street. We accepted the flatter- ing but responsible position. We gave her sage, though by no means heroic, advice. We recommended her to conform to Russian demands, which even our diplomatists cannot have thought equitable, and we bade her go in sackcloth and ashes to apologize for the offense of being so obviously in the right. The advice was followed, and the Persians in their simplicity supposed that our influence would then be used to stay the Russian advance. If pity did not move us, one might have supposed that pride would have prompted us to aid them. They had followed our unpalatable counsels, they had made what we considered an adequate reparation to Russia. It seemed to follow that our prestige, if not our honor, required us to protect them from further exactions and aggressions. The event has taught them that one should not rashly assume that a modern Foreign Secretary will act with the spirit of a Homeric chief or an Albanian brigand. We have done nothing to protect them, but, on the other hand, we cannot be accused of mere inaction or indifference. We have, it appears, approved of the further exactions of our Russian partner. He has presented three demands — the dismissal of Mr. Shuster, the acceptance by Persia of an Anglo-Russian veto on all denominations of foreign experts, and the payment of an indemnity to compensate Russia for her trouble in pressing these demands by an armed invasion. Of these claims, the first two have been presented with our acquiescence, and apparently with our approval, and the second of them establishes for us a privilege which we shall share with Russia. Our magnanimity is triumphantly vindicated by the reserves which we have expressed against the Russian demand for money. We have suffered the suppliant to be torn from our knees; we have joined in violating his rights. We save our honor by averting our eyes while his pockets are " rifled at the conclusion of the process.

Public opinion has not authorized the Government which acts in its name to follow a policy at once so mean and weak as this. Sir Edward Grey cannot be wholly indifferent to the wishes of his countrymen, and his policy may yet be reversed. It is worth while to show that the instinctive disgust which every normally constituted Englishman feels at this climax of a disastrous course is based on reasonable grounds. It is hardly necessary to how that the Anglo-Russian demands involve a violation of Persian sovereignty. To require the dismissal of Mr. Shuster because he dared to defend himself in the Times against the scurrilous personal attacks of the Russian press, is an act which any self-respecting nation would treat as an attempt at coercion and interference to which in the last resort war would be the only possible reply. But this is not the most fundamental of the three demands. A nation may be coerced by invasion or the threat of invasion into an isolated compliance with the will of the stronger power, and yet retain its inde- pendence, subject only to the risk of a repetition of the aggression. But the second demand renders the interference normal and continuous. Persia is so unluckily situated that she must employ foreigners to reorganize her armed forces and her finances. She cannot hope in any other way to achieve rapid and effective reform, and on no other terms could she secure the loans which she requires in foreign money markets. Mr. Shuster's integrity and strength of will was an asset which entirely satisfied the bankers. So long as Persia was allowed to go to neutral and disinterested powers for such assistance, her independence remained intact. The new condition, imposed as much by Sir Edward Grey as by Russia, will henceforth enable them to force upon her foreign experts who will be their agents. It matters little whether they confine their choice to men of British and Russian birth; their object manifestly is to secure nominees who will be the tools of their policy. They will stand behind these men, and Persia must unavoidably be bound to do their bidding. We rule in Egypt by no other means. Our agents give " advice"— they hold in the civil departments no executive authority — but it is advice which the Egyptian Government is expected to accept. At the least, this condition is a gross infringement of Persian sovereignty; it will probably amount in practice to a dual control not less drastic than our single control in Egypt.

So far have we traveled since 1907. We cannot refrain from citing the despatch in which our Minister explained to the apprehensive Persian Government the meaning of the Anglo-Russian Convention. The object of the despatch was to assure the Persians that the Convention would lead neither to intervention nor partition. Sir Edward Grey and Mons. Isvolvsky, it declared, were in " perfect accord," that " neither of the two Powers will interfere in Persian affairs, unless some injury is inflicted on the property or persons of their subjects." No principle could be plainer than this, yet from first to last no suggestion has been made that this occasion for intervention has arisen. We need not consider whether Mr. Shuster was well advised in choosing British subordinates, or in attempting to levy taxes on Persian grandees, or in writing to the Times. Nothing which he has done has touched the person or property of a Russian subject. Nor can it be urged that we are not our brother's keeper. We have, in fact, approved the Russian intervention. But, if we had merely tolerated it, we should still have violated our own interpretation of the obligations which we assumed in the Convention. The despatch concluded by assuring Persia that the two Powers desired to "ensure her independence forever," and it went on:

" Not only do they not seek a pretext for intervention, but their aim in these friendly negotiations is not to permit one

another to intervene in Persia on the pretext of safeguarding their own interests."

If this sentence meant anything at all, it was intended to suggest to the Persians that the Anglo-Kussian partnership was actually a league for the protection of Persia, in which each partner would check the other if he were tempted unduly to intervene. We are breaking our word to-day, and breaking it with a wanton completeness. Russia intervenes against her own pledge, and not only do we permit her to do so; we actually endorse their action. We promised that Persia should be " forever delivered from the fear of foreign intervention," and that she should " enjoy complete freedom to manage her affairs in her own way." Four years later, we insist that we shall nominate the foreigners who are to manage those affairs in our way. The ascendancy which Sir Edward Grey has retained over public opinion in this country during his anxious and ill-starred years of office rested, we believe, rather on his character than on his talents. No one has said of him that he was subtle, or adroit, or expert, or possessed of encyclopedic knowledge. But on his stability, his caution, and above all upon his honor, the nation builded. The final betrayal of Persia would not be the expression of such a character.

The act is not yet completed, and we refuse to recognize that it is inevitable. The brief and embarrassed replies of the Foreign Office to questions reveal that it is ill at ease, and Lord Morley's reply to Lord Ourzon suggests at least a change of tone, which is even echoed in the Times. Let us hope that it is groping to find a way of escape. Some of the consequences, if the act should be consummated, are generally understood. It means, in moral and intellectual damage, perhaps the worst blow which our prestige could suffer in the East. For no one thinks that we have been wilfully base. We appear as the weak partner who dares not check a powerful and unscrupulous associate. It means in fresh commitments a burden at which the advocates of conscription must secretly rejoice, for it draws the real boundary of India across the sandy wastes of Central Persia, with Russian Cossacks confronting our Indian Cavalry upon a vague and indefensible frontier. It contains the possibilities of acute disputes with Russia, to which our present pusillanimity make a sorry preface. One-third of Persia is neutral territory, and within it is the greater part of the Gulf coast-line. When Russia dominates Teheran, who is to control this no-man's land? But of all the consequences latent in this situation, perhaps the gravest is the likelihood that Germany will demand the usual compensation. Russia has bought a free hand for herself at Potsdam. But we have not yet paid the usual toll. This remote Asiatic question may become, at any mo- ment, a European problem, and if that should happen, we may find that Turkey, the neighbor of Persia and Egypt, will be deeply interested in the resulting " conversations." The Persians, indeed, are impotent to resent our share in strangling their national existence at its birth, and it will not be from motives of chivalry that another Power will embarrass us. But empires are commonly expected to submit to blackmail for an outrage on nationality. It is into some such embroilment as this that our complaisance to Russia may drag us. From this train of disasters Sir Edward Grey can yet escape. He can enter the most emphatic protest against the Russian ultimatum. He can demand the withdrawal from Persian soil by a fixed date, not merely of the new forces, but also of the garrisons permanently settled at Tabriz and other centers. He can declare that the invasion is a breach of the whole spirit of the convention. The mere intimation by private diplomatic channels of an intention to take this course would probably suffice. But, if it did not, it is time to ask for some return from France for the gift we made to her of a North African Empire. Russia could not survive a coldness which would close to her at once the Paris Bourse and the London money market. The means of dealing with this anxious situation are at Sir Edward Grey's disposal, if only he will bring himself to be half as rough with a disloyal partner as he was with an open, honest rival. A leading article in the Times, backed by another in the Temps, would probably avail to check the pace of the Russian advance. We can use such expedients to enslave the Moors. Let us use them to free the Persians.— From The Nation (London), December 9, 1911.

Abbas Aqua, shoots Atabak, the

prime minister, xxv Aiwan-i-Kaif, 124

Alau'd-Dawla, 153, 175, 298; portrait of, 51; assassination of, 176 Alau's-Saltana, Minister of Public

Instruction, 100 American financial administrators, Persia decides to obtain, 3; efforts of, ridiculed, 35; opposed by foreign powers, 53; end of work, 230, 268; incidents of departure, 319, 320

American State Department, its relation to tlie financial advisers employed by the Persian government, 4, 5 Aminu's- Sultan (Atabak-i-Azam), Prime Minister, character of, xxiv; assassinated, August 31, 1907, xxv, 11; portrait of, xxxi Amir Azam, Vice-Minister of War,

16, 60, 62, 65; portrait of, 63 Amir Bahadur Jang, xxxvii Amir-i-Mufakhkham, 123, 206; portrait of, 208 Amir-Mujahid, 124, 158, 206; portrait of, 208, 256 Amnieh, Persian road guards, picture of, 144 Anglo-French entente of 1905, 252 Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, effect on Persian people, xxvi, xxxiii; text of, xxvi; Persia not a party to, xxxiii; Sir Cecil Spring- Rice's communication on, to the Persian Government, xxxiii, 272, 275; breach of promise of by both countries, xxxvii, 84, 104, 110; nullified by Potsdam Agreement, lvi; purport of, 47; did not define special interests, 74; purported "spirit" of, 78; Russia's secret understanding with Germany about, 251, 257; results of, 259; " One British View Of"; speech by H. F. B. Lynch of the Persia Committee, at dinner given Shuster in London, 399 Anjumans, see Secret societies. Anti-American Society, 66 Arbab Kaikhosro, 16, 98; portrait

of, 244 Arbad Jemshid, 11 Arshadu'd-Dawla, 107, 116, 124, 128; portrait of, 119, 126, 131; execution of, 129; character of, 130

Asiatic diplomatic field in 1911, 252 Astarabad, 135

Atabak-i-Azam, see Aminu's-Sultan. Atabak Park, Shuster's residence, 11, 104, 121, 225; pictures of, 14, 46, 327 Aynu'd-Dawla, the Shah dismisses,

xx; portrait of, xxvi. Ayvan, portrait of, Ixi Azadu'l-Mulk, declared Regent, xlviii; death of, September 10, 1910, lix; portrait of, 274 Azarbayjan, province of, 278

Bagdad railway concession, 253 Bagh-i-Shah, Muhammad Ali takes

refuge in, xxxviii Bahais, Americans accused of being, 21

Baker, chief, assassinated, 172 Bakhtiyari tribesmen, side with Nationalists, xlv, 90; demands for money, 115, 124; bribed by Russia, 200; threaten Treasurer- general, 206, 212 Baku, 159

Banque d' Escompte de Perse, see Russian State Bank

Barclay, Sir George, British Minister at Teheran, meets Shuster, 32; favors Shuster's financial plans, 67, 68; the Stokes affair, 70-78; intervention in execution of Majdu'd-Dawla, 99; proposes policing of Persia's southern trade routes, 123; delivers message concerning Mr. Lecoffre, 160; Joint Note of 1912, 329, 330; Shuster's correspondence with, 372 Baskerville, H. C., killed aiding Nationalists, xlv; portrait of, xlvii Beddoes, Colonel H. R., 117 Belgian Customs officials harrass

Treasurer-general, 68 Bell, Edward, Secretary of American Legation at Teheran, 225 Bieberstein, Baron Marschall von, German diplomat at Constantinople, 253 Bismarck, 258

Bizot, M., employed to organize finances of Persia, 1; failure of, 28.

Blagovestchenk, 220 Boycott against tobacco by Islamic clergy, xix; against anything Russian, 183, 189 Bread situation, 170 British Blue-Book, xxxv, 272, 331 British foreign policy, 251-276, 331, 332

British Government, see England British Legation, attempts to em- barass Shuster, 27, 29; the Stokes incident, 70-80; joins Russian legation in forcing out American financial administrators, 319 Browne, Professor E. G., author of " Persian Revolution," xvi, 4, 272 Buinak, 229

Cabinet, approves law concerning control of Imperial Bank loan of 1911, 24; functions of, 47; attitude toward the law of June 13, 1911, 55, 67; friction with the Medjlis, 62; "resignation" on July 2, 1911, 67; coalition cabinet formed on July 19, 85, 98; new cabinet formed on July 26, 99;

approves Stokes contract, 100; onslaughts of, on the treasury, 115; marked hostility toward Shuster, 116; agrees to payment of troops by the treasury, 121; Shuau's Saltana affair, 136, 159, 165; action on Russia's first ultimatum, 158, 159, 161, 162; the second ultimatum, 166, 167, 177, 178, 181, 183; new cabinet, 165, 172, 175; executes coup d'etat against Medjlis, 199; attitude toward Shuster, 205-210, 213, 214; dismisses Shuster, 214-216, 224; approves Shuster's fiscal plan, 308 Cabinet ministers, character of, 239 Cairns, F. S., Director of Taxation, 9, 66, 121, 147, 223-225, 319, 320, 323; portrait of, 7 Charkovsky, Colonel, 293 Chester, Admiral, 253 Coinage system in Persia, 317 Constantinople, Shuster meets Persians in, 36; German activity in, 253

Constitutional monarchy, established August 5, 1906, xix, xx, 47; people poorly prepared to sustain, li; Russian minister predicts overthrow, 108; sordid ending of, 200 Cossack Brigade, xxxv, xxxvii, xxxviii, xlii, 290, 293; picture of, xxxviii. Curzon, Lord, 259, 264 Customs tariff, 289, 313-315

Dabiru'l-Mulk, Minister of Posts

and Telegraphs, 100 Darab Mirza, started movement to overthrow constitutional government, lii Dardanelles, 253, 257 De facto government, 199 Deficit, annual, 303; Mornard's attack on Shuster concerning current account of the treasury, 319 Democratic Club at Teheran, picture of, 17

Democratic party, 235 Denghil Tepe, 220 Diamantopoulos, M., 80

Dickey, Bruce G., Inspector of Taxation, 6, 9, 323 Dillon, Dr. E. J., 269 Diplomatic corps at Teheran, 37

England, interference of in Persia, xxxvii; timidity of in Persia, li; "ultimatum" of October, 1910, lvi; attitude in Stokes incident, 70-80; sides with Russia on customs funds, 83; requests protection in Southern Persia, 122; advises Persia to accept Russia's ultimatum, 162; waning influence in Turkey, 253; effect upon, of Potsdam agreement, 261; attitude toward Russia, 263; weakness of in Persian affairs, 247, 331-334; loan to Persia, Joint Note of March 18, 1912, 329; see also British foreign policy Enzeli, Russian troops at, 159, 223 Ephraim Kalin, Armenian, leader of Nationalist forces, xlvi; out- manoeuvers Royalists, xlviii; polices Teheran, xlix; surrounds Rahim Kahn¹, lii; character of, 86; military plans, 97; success against ex-Shah's forces, 127, 135; loses heart, 200; trouble with the Bakhtiyari, 209; pictures of, 81, 144, 256, 279 Esiehlal, newspaper of Moderates, 20

European crisis, 248 European diplomatic field in 1911, 252

Farajoolah Kahn, 103 Farman Farma, 298 Fars, province of, 287 Fighting men, picture of, 185 Finance Regulations Commission,

report of, 356 Financial conditions in Persia, 1, 38, 297, 316

Financial law of June 13, 1911, 30, 38, 49; attitude of foreign powers toward, 53; difficulties of enforcing, 66, 68, 297; value of, 301; purpose of, 302; text of, 356

Financial loans, see Loans Financial system planned by Shuster, 49, 295-313 Foreign debt, 48; better secured by

law of June 13, 1911, 302 Fundamental Laws of December, 1906, 337; Supplementary, of October, 1907, 345.

German North Sea Fleet, 248 Germany, secret understanding with Russia, lvi, 253-261; interests in Persia, 53, 54; interests and policy in Asia, 253, 258; see also Potsdam Agreement Ghavamu's-Saltana, Minister of Justice, 85; Minister of Interior, 100, 210; portrait of, 163 Giers, M. de, 161 Graft, 288, 294, 305 Grey, Sir Edward, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, on the nature of the Anglo-Russian Convention, xxxiii; attitude in Stokes incident, 78; attitude on the control of Persian customs funds, 83; attitude toward Le- coffre appointment^ 160; favors Russian ultimatum, 169; charges against Shuster, 169; Shuster's reply, 268; Shuster's estimate of, 248, 251-253; Shuster's interview with, 259; the Moroccan affair and forgetfulness of Persia, 267; the Joint Note to Persia, 1912, 329

Guard Homayoon, 199 Gulhak, 117

Haase, Major, 94, 124; portrait of, 279

Hague Tribunal, 251 Hajji Agha, portrait of, 51 Hajji Husayn ibn Khalil, 184 Hakimu'l-Mulk, Minister of Public Instruction, 85; Minister of Finance, 99, 115 Haldane, Lord, 259, 325 Hartwig, M. de, Russian Minister at Teheran, threatens Persian government, xxxvii

Hildebrand, M., Russian Vice-Consul, 147

Hills, Ralph. W., accountant, 6, 21 Hjalmarsen, Colonel, portrait of, 72 Hormuz Khan, 12 Husayn Kuli Khan, the Nawwab, Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs, lvi; insulted by British and Russian legations, lix; resigned, lix; letter to Persian Legation at Washington, 3; character of, 94, £)7; portrait of, 95

Imamzadeh-Jaffar, 124 Imperial Bank of Persia, 43, 44, 67, 284, 318, 320, 321; loan of 1911, 23, 290; law relating to control of loan₃ 24, 355 Imperial Mint, 44, 318 India, 166

International brigandage, 247 International Postal Convention, 315

Irani-Noh, newspaper of Democrats, 20

Iswolsky, Alexander, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, xxvi, xxxiii

Joint Note of Russian and British Legations, March, 1912, 329

Kasvin, 183, 229

Knox, Secretary of State, Washington, letter to Shuster, 5

Lansdowne, Lord, 252 Laws, see Financial law; Fundamental laws Lecoffre, M., Controlleur, 20, 21, 41, 160, 210

Liakhoff, Colonel, protects Shah, commands Shah's troops, xxxviii; virtual dictator of Teheran, xli; carries out designs of Czar, xli; surrenders to Nationalists, xlviii Liberal cabinet, of England, 248 Loans, Imperial Bank, of 1911, 23, 290; law relating to its control, 24, 355; Shuster's plan for, 122, 306; Joint Note of Russian and British Legations, March, 1912,

329

London Times, 107, 153, 154, 161, 270, 276, 301; Shuster's open letter to, 154, 161, text, 358 Lynch, H. F. B., speech at dinner given Shuster in London, January 29, 1912, 399

McCaskey, Charles J., Inspector of Provincial Revenues, 6, 31, 32, 44, 224, 323; portrait of, 7 Majdu'd Dawla, 99 Map of Persia, facing page 4 Marling, Mr., British Charge d' Affaires, threatens Persian government, xxxvii Medjlis, see National Assembly Merrill, Colonel J. N., 124, 332 Military operations against ex-Shah, 116

Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Persian Charge d^JAffaires at Washington, 4, 121

Mirza Muhammad Riza, assassinates

Nasiru'd-Din Shah, xix Mirzayantz, portrait of, 244 Moderate party, 235 Moloney, Mr., London Times correspondent, 124 Moore, W. A., London Times correspondent, xlv, 107, 117, 127 j portrait of, xlvii Morley, Lord, 264

Mornard, M., Administrator-general of Customs, 22, 289; irregularities in accounts of, 47, 53; refuses to recognize authority of Treasurer- general, 53, 67; yields, 69, 79; designated to succeed Shuster, 224; threatens Cairns, 319; his charge against Americans concerning deficit in current account of Treasury, 319; plans for Trans- Persian Railroad, 326 Moroccan affair, 166, 178, 267, 332 Muawinu'd-Dawla, Minister of Finance, 43, 85, 90, 93 Muhammad Ali Shah, begins reign, January, 1907, xxiii; character of,

xxiii; portrait of, xxxi, xliv, lviii; attacked by press of Telieran, xxxv; determines to destroy Medjlis, xxxv; attempt to assassinate, xxxvi; causes arrest of constitutionalists, xxxviii; abdicates throne, July 16, 1909, xlviii; formally deposed, xlviii; terms for leaving Persia, xlix; at Odessa, xlix, 83; plans to overthrow constitutional government, lix; efforts to regain throne, 83134; proclamation offering reward for, 88, 89 Muliammadan societies, 187 Muhammadans, 226, 262, 332, 333 Muin-Homayun, 115, 117, 134, 135 Mullah Abdullah al-Mazandarani, 184

Mullah Muhammad Kazim al-Kho-

rasani, 184 Mullahs, conduct last to force

granting of constitution, xx Mumtazu'd-Dawla, Minister of Finance, 15, 16, 20; portrait of, 51 Mushiru'd-Dawla, Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, 85; portrait of, xxvi; Minister of Justice, 99, 189 Musliiru's-Saltana, 176 Mustawfi'l-Mamalik, 235 Mutaminu'l-Mulk, portrait of, 249 Mutasliamu's-Saltana., Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15, 31, 85; portrait of, 51; Acting Premier, 67; Medjlis asks for resignation of, 99; attempt to get in cabinet, 169; demonstration against, in tlio Medjlis, 172 Muzaffaru'd-Din Shah, constitution established in reign of, xix, xx; death of, xxiii

Naib I-Iusayn, 135

Names, complicated system of, xvi Nasiru'd-Din Shah, grants tobacco concession to British corporation, xix; assassinated, May, 1896, xix; portrait of, xix Nasiru'l-Mulk, Eegent, organizes cabinet, xxvi; detained with cabinet by Shah, xxxv, lix; receives Shuster, 15; portrait of, 58, 233, 291; threatens to leave Persia, 61; approves fiscal reforms, 118; character of, 231; obsession of, 235

'Nation, The, articles republished from, 406, 409

National Assembly, people win right to elect, xx; first session, October, 1906, xxiii; makes plans to check Shah, xxiv; plans national bank, xxiv; Muhammad Ali Shah plans to destroy, xxxv; people resent Shah's attempt to destroy, xxxvi; attacked by Shah's forces June 23, 1908, xxxviii; opens after restoration of constitutional government, xlix; seeks loan of Russia and England, lv; approves Shuster's appointment, 6; sustains Shuster against M. Mornard, 24; passes fiscal law of June 13th, 1911, 30; abolishes salt-tax, 34; real progressive movement of Persia, 36; powers of, 47; friction with Cabinet, 62; recognizes no " Spheres of influence," 80; approves coalition cabinet, 85; declares martial law, 85; puts price on Muhammad Ali's and brothers' headSj 100, 103; employs more Americans, 161; almost disrupted, 175; defies Russia, 183; attempts at conciliation, 188; destroyed, 198, 199; pictures of building and grounds, 201; factional hatred in, 236; character of deputies, 240; aim of, 241; truly representative, 242

National Bank, xxiv

National council arranges terms for Muhammad Ali's leaving Persia, xlix

Nationalists, resist cossacks, arrested, executed, xli; behavior of troops of, xlviii; fear for government, 85; success of troops of, 127; body-guard of₂ 187; pictures of troops, 137, 149, 211, 265, 300

Naus, M., Belgian, customs official, influence of cheeked by Medjlis, xxiv; dismissed by Shah, xxiv, 22; responsible for Persian fiscal bur- dens, 23; portrait of, 26; tariff scheme of, 313 Mcolson, Sir Arthur, British Ambassador, xxvi Nizamu's-Saltana, Prime Minister,

xxxvi, 97 Nizatu's-Saltana, Lady, 168 Novoe Vremya, Russian newspaper, 78, 220

Passport Bureau, 284, 289 Pension system, 308-311; redemption plan, 306, 312 Persia, not a party to Anglo-Russian Convention, xxxv; physical characteristics, lvi; political divisions, 42; political situation, 47; strategic position, 262; injured by tariff discriminations, 314; by concessions to foreigners, 315

Persia Committee, dinner to Shuster, address by H. F. B. Lynch, 399; by Shuster, 270 Persian army, 41, 304 Persian artillery, pictures of, 149, 185

Persian Defense Society of Calcutta, 188

.Persian exiles, 36 Persian Gulf, 262

Persian officials, characteristics of,

35; corruption of, 294, 304 Persian people, ignorance and irresponsibility, li; character and capacity of, 239-245; Shuster's tribute to, 203 Petroff, M., Russian Vice-Consul, 147

Pokhitanoff, M., lvi, 147, 151 Poklewski-Koziell, M., Russian Minister at Teheran, 32, 66, 117, 148, 153, 157, 219, 330; explanation of Russia's second ultimatum, 167; correspondence with Shuster, 388

Political affairs, peculiarities of, in

Persia, xv Political parties, 189, 190 Port Arthur, 257

Posts and Telegraphs, Ministry of, 284, 289

Potsdam Agreement of November, 1910, lvi; secrets of, 253; provisions of, 254; significance of, 259; effects of on England, 262; cause of Persia's downfall, 267 Press, Persian, 19, 20, 245 Preuss, Major, 324, 325 Public debt, 43, 44

Quadt, Count, German Minister at Teheran, 53

Rahirn Kahn, xlv, lii

Railroad development in Persia,

307, 318, 325, 326 Rashidu'l-Mulk, 111 Regent, functions of, 47 Religion of Persia, official, Mohammedanism, 305 Representative government, hopes

for, revived, xlix Reslit, massacre at, 223; army of, 301

Reuter's News Agency, 124 Revenue, sources of, 42, 277, 289; mortgage on, 290; difficulties of collecting, 293; customs tariff, 289, 313-315 Revolution of 1906, resumS of, xvi-

Royalists, struggles of, with Nationalists, following destruction of Medjlis, xlii; take refuge at Russian Legation, 94 Ruski Slovo, Russian newspaper, 238

Russell, Charles W., American Minister at Teheran, 10, 15, 16 Russia, threatens Medjlis, xxv; interference in Persia, xxxvii, xlvi; troops of, in Tabriz, xlvi; hostility toward new Medjlis, li; bad faith of, revealed, lv, 118, 148; enabled by Potsdam agreement to adopt drastic attitude, lvi; petty tyranny of, lix; attempts to prevent Shuster's appointment, 5; attitude in Stokes incident, 75, 103; connives in Muhammad Ali's plans to regain throne, 104; violates neutrality, 110; ignores

Persian protests, 112; openly aids Persian rebels, 157; threatens to seize Persian territory, 159; ultimatum to Persia, 157, 159, 161, 162; second ultimatum, 166, 169, 177, 181, 182, 223; pours troops into Persia, 184; cruelties of in Tabriz, Resht, Enzeli, 220, 223; reason of, for attack on Persia, 251; understanding with Germany about Asia, 253-261; sovereign in Persia, 267; loan to Persia, Joint Note with England, Sept. 11, 1907, 329, 331, 332; selfishness of, in Persia, 331-334 Russian Consul at Isfahan, letter of, 110; at Resht, statement of, 109

Russian Legation, attempts to em- barass Shuster, 27, 29; hostility of to new fiscal system, 53; attitude in the Stokes incident, 75; joins British Legation in forcing out American financial administrators, 319 Russian State Bank (Bauque d'Es- compte de Perse), 48, 80; attempts to defraud Persian Government, 151; methods of, 290, 316

Russo-Japanese war, 252 S.

iSalaru'd-Lawla, "madcap" prince, defeated and captured at Niha- wand, June, 1907, xxv; portrait of, 39; rumor of capture of Tabriz by, 61; threatens government, 79; gathers forces, 86; reaches Kirmanshah, 115; occupies Hamadan, 117; threatens Teheran, 121; military operations against, 134; defeat of, 135; estates confiscated, 136 ^alt-tax, 33

Samsamu's-Saltana, aids Nationalists, xlv; Minister of War, 85; military governor, 87, 90, 93; Premier, 99; hostility toward Treasurer-general, 116; apology of, 159; loyalty of, in doubt, 162; sides with Russia, 199; portrait of, 309

Saniu'd-Dawla, Minister of Finance, assassinated, February, 1911, 187; portrait of, lxi Sardar-i-Asad, aids Nationalists,

xlvi, 24; portrait of, 114, 286 Sardar-i-Buhadur, 127; portrait of,

119, 144, 279 Sardar-i-Jang, 124, 206; portrait of, 208

Sardar-i-Muhiy (Muizzu VSultan),

112, 157; portrait of, 156 Sardar-i-Mutasliem, 127, 199 Sardar-i-Zaffar, portrait of, 208 Sattar Khan, portrait of, 156 Sayyid Fathu'llah, 296 Schools of Persia, 245 Secret service, Persian, organized by

Shuster, 317 Secret societies, composed of patriots, xxv, 176; among Persian women, 193, 324 Secretai-y of State for India, despatch of, 260 Self-government, Persians capacity for, 203

Seligman Bros., of London, 117 Shahsevens, 111, 133 Sharud, 100

Shuau's-Saltana, 100, 134; confiscation of estate of, 136, 139; portrait of, 92 Shujau'd-Dawla, 111, 133 Shuster, W. Morgan, portrait of, frontispiece; tendered Treasurer- generalship of Persia, 4; Russia's attempt to prevent appointment of, 5; leaves New York, April 8, 1911, 6; journey to Teheran, 912; drafts law relating to Imperial Bank loan of 1911, 24, 355; advice on the salt tax, 33; takes charge of fiscal affairs, 43-48; drafts law of June 13, 1911, 49, 356; plans for reorganization of the finances, 49, 295-313; takes over offices of finance department, 66; plans the Treasury Gendarmerie, 70, 74, 105, 190, 226; life of, threatened, 100, 103, 184, 187; offered post under ex-Shah, by Russian Minister, 118; letter to London Times, 154, 161, text, 358; charges against, made by Sir Ed- ward Grey, 169; answers to charges, 268; relations with dc facto government, 205, 213; note of dismissal of, 214; reply by, 215; transfers office to Mr. Cairns, 224; leaves Teheran, 225230; views of departure. 228; charges against Russia and England, 247, 331-334; changes made and recommended in taxation system, 282-288, 305; difficulties * of administration, 295; efforts to prepare a budget, 303; attempt to restore credit of Persia, 317; correspondence with Sir George Barclay, 372; with M. Poklewski- Koziell, 388; dinner given to, in London, by Persia Committee, January 29, 1912, 399; address to Persia Committee, 270 Sikutu'd-Islam, hung, 219 Sipahdar-i-Azam, aids Nationalists, xlv; made prime minister and minister of war by restored Medjlis, xlix; Shuster calls upon, 16; description of, 19, 20; prestige of, 27; garden fete of, 31; schemes of, 55; leaves Teheran in anger, 61; at Resht, 62, 66; returns to Teheran, 79; declared prime minister again, 85; treachery of, 90, 97, 99, 116; Medjlis asks resignation of, 99; dishonesty of_: 301; portrait of, 102, 149, 286 Skobeloff, 220

Spring-Rice, Sir Cecil, British Minister at Teheran, communication to Persian Government explaining Anglo-Russian convention, xxxiii, 272, 275

Stokes, Major C. B., Military Attache of British Legation, proposed appointment of, as aid to the Treasurer-general, 69-78, 80, 100, 187; portrait of, 72; form of contract tendered by Treasurer- general, 398 Strikes by government employees, 66

Sulayman Mirza, leader of Democrats, 175, 238; portrait of, 174 Sultan Ahmad Mirza, son of Muhammad Ali, proclaimed Shah, July, 1909, xlviii, xlix, 121; portrait of, 221; farewell to Shuster, 225

Tabriz, struggle between Royalists and Nationalists, xlii; famine in, xlv; Russians take possession of, xlv: rumor of capture, 61; threatened by Shall sevens, 133; views of, 218; massacre at, 216, 219, 223

Tamadun, Persian newspaper, 161 Taqi-Zada, 36; portrait of, .174 Tariff system, Russia's scheme, apparent in, 313 Tax collectors of Persia, 281, 284, 287

Taxation system of Persia, 42, 277294; changes made bv Sinister, 282-288, 305 Tea, its use in Persian diplomacy, 20

Teheran, capture of bv Nationalists, July, 1909, xlviii, 19; social life at, 37; climate of, 121 Tobacco concession, agitation

against, 1891, xix, 316 Trans-Persian Railway, 325, 326 Treasurer-general, see Shuster Treasury Gendarmerie, 70, 74, 190,

226, 283; picture, of, 105 Treasury officials, picture of, 180 Triple Entente, 253, 257 Tripoli, 332

Turcomans under ex-Shah, 86; pillage Sharud, 100; defeated,, 127; picture of heads of, 322 Turkestan, Russian massacre in 1881, 220 Turkey, protests with Persia against England's "ultimatum" of October, 1910, Ivi; political situation in, 262

Turkmanchay, Treaty of, lii, 109

Vadbolski, Colonel, 209 Varnet, M., 226, 229 Vladivostok, 257

Wahidu'l-Mulk, portrait of, 249 Women of Persia, courage, and bravery of, 191-198; picture of woman, 196 Wood, A. O., 56

Wuthuqu'd-Dawla, Minister of Interior, 85; Minister of Foreign Affairs, 99, 165, 210, 214, 330; portrait of, 163

Young Turk movement, 246 Z.

Zapolski, Captain, leads Persian

Cossacks, xlvii Zarghamu's-Saltana, aids Nationalists, xlv Zargundeh, 94

Zillu's-Sultan, people of Isfahan revolt against, xxv

[1] have been informed on good authority that when Russia first found that the idea of securing finance administrators from America was making headway among the deputies of the Medjlis, she gave the matter her official attention at Teheran. An early attempt was made by Russian emissaries to employ certain persuasive and notorious members of the Parliament to defeat the project. Failing, however, to change the purpose of the great majority of the deputies, the story runs that Russia next approached the American State Department, which at that time was in complete ignorance of the idea of the Persian Government, and delicately intimated that it would be unwise or unkind to send American financial experts to Persia. The

[2] Mr. Moore understands Persian very well, and based on this testimony, it seemed safe to state that the Russian Ambassador at Vienna had held these reported conversations with the ex-Shah and his general. After I had published this statement, however, in my open letter to the London Times of October 21, the Russian Government in an official communique denied that its Ambassador at Vienna had ever said these things, claiming that they were pure invention. This denial, when it was subsequently mentioned in the British House of Commons, was greeted with laughter.

I learned, subsequently, however, that it was very probable that this time, at least, the Russian official denial was justified — that is, so far as it went,— taken literally. It seems that it was not the Russian ambassador at Vienna who had held these interviews with the ex-Shah and his general. In the Persian language the word for " ambassador" and for " minister" is the same, and when Arshadu'd-Dawla had stated in the presence of Mr. Moore and the officers of the Persian Nationalists the night before his death that these interviews had taken place with the Russian "diplomatic representative" (using the common Persian expression therefor) at Vienna, Mr. Moore and the others had naturally assumed that he was referring to the Russian Ambassador at that place. It seems, however, that the Russian diplomatic representative to whom reference was made was the famous Mons. de Hartwig who had formerly been Minister at Teheran and had done everything in his power to retain Muhammad Ali on the throne and who, at the time that these interviews took place at Vienna, was accredited as Russian Minister to Belgrade, from which place he came up to Vienna on several occasions and had these interviews with the ex-Shah and Arshadu'd-Dawla. I did not learn these facts until after I had reached Vienna on my way back from Persia last January.

[4] The ambiguity contained in the qualification " aggressive" is approved diplomatic style.

[5] Her ability to do so, since the destruction of the Medjlis on December 24, 1911, can hardly be questioned.

[6] A translation of this communication will be found in the Introductory Chapter.

[7] _urged the passage of a law prohibiting the cornering by private individuals of grain and other prime necessities of life.

I estimated that a net increased revenue of about 5,000,000

[8] Throughout the entire affair, Mons. Mornard lost no opportunity to demonstrate his malice and general unfitness for any responsible position. He had not been named as Treasurer-General, but merely as Acting Treasurer, and although he had at first refused to accept the latter designation, he finally decided to take what he could get as a means of furthering his candidacy for the permanent post. Shortly after taking possession of the offices, in a manifest attempt to curry favor with the St. Petersburg Government, he sent a despatch to Belgium to be given to the press, criticizing the American administration of Persia's finances and insinuating that there was a deficit of 2,000,000 francs in the current account of the Treasury with the different banks at Teheran. He gave similar statements to the Russian newspaper correspondents at the capital informing them that he would have the Americans who were still in Persia detained until this matter was explained. When this charge was brought to my attention in London, I of course promptly denied the statements of Mons. Mornard, adding that he was well known in Persia to be a mere Russian tool and decidedly irregular in his fiscal methods.

As I knew the exact status of the current banking accounts of the Treasury on the day that I left Teheran, I was unable to imagine what could have caused Mons. Mornard to make a charge which was not only absolutely false, but even absurd. It was sometime later that I learned

[9] Translation made by Professor E. G. Browne, of Cambridge University, England. See " The Persian Revolution, 1905-1009."

337

^{^[10]}1 beg leave to address you, unofficially, on a subject of great importance to my work here. I have been intensely surprised to learn this evening that your Government has conveyed to the Persian Foreign Minister a note of warning or protest against my proposed employment of Major Stokes in the Treasury Gendarmerie. You are doubtless aware of the course of this matter up to the present. Need I say that, in view of the tone of the communication which your Government authorized you to address to me on July 22 last, in effect that Major Stokes could accept the position upon resigning from the Indian Army, . the apparent volte face indicated by their note of to-day is almost incomprehensible ?

⁴⁴. . . Does your Government quite realize the position in which it is placing me before the Persian people and their Government in now suddenly joining with another Power to prevent the exercise of the most elementary act of sovereignty by this country, whose independence and integrity both of those foreign Powers have solemnly pledged themselves, jointly and severally, to respect?

⁴⁴ My personal feelings are of no importance, but the success or failure of my mission here is of moment both to Persia which entrusted her financial affairs to my care and to my countrymen

[11] This condition, laid down by the British Government itself, was promptly complied with by Major Stokes, who cabled the resignation of his commission in the British-Indian army.

[12] The Persian Government had no knowledge of this alleged understanding, and sometime later a British subject was engaged by me under contract to serve in the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs with the full official approval of the British Government (which was necessary as he was in the Indo-European Telegraph Department of the Indian Government), and without objection, special or general, by Russia.

[13] This was Russia's final refusal to withdraw her opposition to Major Stokes. Up to this time Mr. Shuster had been in negotiations with the British and Russian Legations to secure, on some terms not incompatible with Persia's recognition of the so-called " spheres of influence/' his badly needed services.