821.6363 Barco/130: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Colombia (Piles)

41. Your 64 and 65, August 5 and 6.13 Address a note to the Foreign Office reading as follows:

“My Government directs me to say that it notes with much concern that the recent resolution of the Colombian Government in the case of the Barco concession, refusing a petition for revocation of the resolution of forfeiture of February 2, 1926, materially departs from the causes of forfeiture set up in the original resolution, namely, that a map of the territory in question was not submitted within one year and exploitation was not begun within three years from the date of the concession, and advances and relies upon new grounds alleged to support such decree of forfeiture, which new grounds the concessionaire has had no opportunity to answer. While it was [Page 625] doubtless necessary for the Colombian Government, in view of its approval of the transfer of the concession in the year 1918, that is, long after the causes of forfeiture alleged in the decree had arisen, to avoid reliance upon such causes, this obviously furnished no sufficient reason for endeavoring to support the same decree upon distinctly different grounds.

My Government assumes that in view of the action of the Colombian Government in attempting to justify the cancellation of the concession upon new grounds, the concessionaire has a ‘period of 30 days from the publication in the Diario Oficial of the recent resolution within which to present a new memorial addressed to and answering said alleged new grounds. It is hoped and expected that the Colombian Government will confirm this assumption.

My Government was surprised at the action of the Colombian Government in issuing the recent resolution without replying to the Legation’s note of July 30. Because of the urgent character of the matter discussed above an early reply to this communication is requested.”

Kellogg
  1. Latter not printed.