881.843/6

The Secretary of State to the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at Tangier (Blake)

No. 563

Sir: The Department adverts to your despatch No. 389 of May 7, 1929, and subsequent correspondence, concerning the request of the Maghzen for the application to American vessels of the tariff of the Tangier Port Concession Company, in lieu of the tariff referred to in Article 70 of the Act of Algeciras for sojourn and anchorage dues.

After careful consideration of the alternatives suggested in your comprehensive despatch, the Department has concluded that, in view of the firm position taken by this Government with respect to the irregularities involved in the original award of the port concession and in view of the subsequent irregularities in the conduct of the concession, as reported in your despatch under reference, it cannot see its way clear to accede to the request of the Residency General. You are accordingly instructed to reply to the note of April 13th substantially as you have suggested in the first paragraph on page 7 of your despatch of May 7, 1929.71

It is the opinion of the Department that the action of thus deferring its acquiescence in the application to American vessels of a tariff of dues imposed in conditions which are at variance with the terms of existing treaties, is not inconsistent with the consent, accorded in 1924, to the advance in the Tangier port dues, with the express reservation that such consent was without prejudice to the position which this Government had heretofore taken or might thereafter take regarding the port concession. The consent given in 1924 was to an “arrête” of the Sultan’s representative in Tangier, while the dues to whose application consent was asked in the Residency General’s note of April 13, 1929, are levied by the Port Concession Company, the legality of whose concession we have firmly protested, and approved by the Tangier Port Commission, established under a Convention to which we have not adhered. Furthermore, the action taken in 1924 was actuated largely by a desire not to obstruct in any way the development of the port of Tangier, despite the irregular manner in which the concession had been awarded. The continued irregularity in the conduct of the concession would make [Page 537] consent inadvisable in the present instance, even if the dues were not levied and collected by the concessionaire.

I am [etc.]

For the Secretary of State:
William R. Castle, Jr.
  1. Paragraph beginning “That I should be instructed,” p. 532.