No. 577.
Mr. Fairchild to Mr. Evarts.
Madrid, April 13, 1880. (Received April 29.)
Sir: I learn that under the treaty between Spain and Morocco, all Spanish subjects residing in the latter country are held to be free from all taxation and from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Emperor. This exemption is also held to extend to such Moors as may become Spanish subjects and return to Morocco to reside. Under the most favored nation clause of other treaties some nations claim and have exercised these rights much to the detriment of Morocco. It is also I am informed the practice in Morocco to claim the same exemption for all Moorish subjects who are “protected” by foreign representatives, whether such Moors are in the direct employ of such representatives or not. It is claimed that such exemptions extend to all Moors who may [Page 896] be appointed commercial agents or brokers of foreign merchants. Such agents or brokers and other Moors, who, not acting in either capacity, are simply “protected” are liable to be “protected” in great numbers, and great abuses are said to have arisen in consequence thereof. It is supposed that these two points will come to the front as perhaps the most important questions to be discussed in the approaching conference.
As there will probably be time to hear from you before the meeting of the proposed conference I have thus briefly stated the points for your information and for your instructions should you desire to give any.
I am now inclined to the opinion that it is claiming altogether too much of any nation to demand that when its subjects go to a foreign country and there become naturalized they shall have the right to return to their native land to reside and be exempt from the payment of ordinary taxes and from the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the government. I am sure the United States would never for a monent allow such exemption.
Such exemptions claimed for Moors who may be in the employ or foreign merchants as brokers or business agents do not now seem to me to be founded upon strict justice to the Moorish Government. While such agents and brokers ought undoubtedly to be so far “protected” as to protect them from all harm and loss of property belonging to foreign merchants, I do not now understand why such agents should not bear their fair share of the burdens of taxation for the support of the government, nor why they should not be amenable to such civil and criminal laws as do not interfere with the full protection of the foreign merchants’ property while in such agents’ possession.
As a matter of course, I suppose, foreign representatives have generally claimed for the citizens of their respective countries all the rights and privileges which may at any time have been accorded to others, but now that these privileges and rights may come before the proposed conference for investigation and adjustment for the future, the question as to whether they are right or wrong, just or unjust, necessary or not, is a pertinent one, and it is well worth considering whether the United States should claim or uphold other nations in claiming in the conference any privilege which under ordinary circumstances we should not concede in our own country.
The right of foreign representatives in Morocco to see that their countrymen are not treated in an unwarrantable, unjust or harsh manner, and that they shall be free from all extraordinary taxes and services which ought not in justice and right to be demanded of them, is so clear that it will probably not be disputed or questioned at the proposed conference.
If Morocco is to be considered and treated as an independent nation, I now fail to see why foreign representatives should have the right in any way of protecting Moorish subjects, who are neither in their employ nor in the service of foreign merchants as agents or brokers. If one such moor can be “protected” out from under the jurisdiction of his government and rendered independent of the laws of his country, then a hundred, a thousand, or a million, or any other number may, and the Emperor be relieved of all his subjects and of the trouble of governing them. True the Emperor might be a happier man to be thus relieved, but why should that happiness be conferred on him, and his burdens assumed by the representatives of other powers?
I have, &c.,