No. 579.
Mr. Fairchild to Mr. Evarts.
Madrid, July 3, 1880. (Received July 24.)
Sir: The labors of the international conference on affairs in Morocco having come to an end, I beg to submit a general report of the proceedings of each session, of the position taken by each government, and of the final result of the conference. I also beg to transmit, for your further information, a complete set of the procès verbal of each meeting, which for convenience of reference I have repaged.
first meeting of conference.
As I had the honor to report in my No. 26 of the 20th of May, the first formal meeting of the conference was held at the palace of the presidency on the 19th of that month. At this meeting were present the representative of Germany, Count Solms; of Austria, Count Ludolf; of Belgium, Mr. Anspach; of the United States, Mr. Fairchild; of Spain, Señor Cánovas del Castillo; president of the council of ministers of France, Admiral Jaurès; of Great Britain, Mr. West (who also represented Denmark); of Italy, Count Greppi; of Morocco, Sid Mohammed Yargas, minister of foreign affairs of that empire; of the Netherlands, Baron Heldewier; of Portugal, Count Casal Ribeiro; and of Sweden and Norway, Mr. Akerman; all of whom, with the exception of Spain and Morocco, are the diplomatic representatives of their respective governments at Madrid.
It was decided that all should take the title of plenipotentiary. It was also decided that no government should have precedence, but that the representative of each power should be seated at the table in alphabetical order.
On the proposition of the plenipotentiary of Germany, Señor Cánovas del Castillo was chosen president. Mr. Cánovas then proposed Messrs. Figuera and Muro, of the ministry of state, as secretaries of the conference; and Messrs. Villa Urrutia, secretary of legation; and Osma, attaché (Spanish service), as aids.
[Page 898]This proposition of the president being accepted, the gentlemen in question were presented to the conference The documents relating to the conference held at Tangier were placed before the plenipotentiaries, and the latter then presented their full powers. This formality through with, Señor Cánovas del Castillo read a speech, in which he set forth the object of the conference (See Protocol 1.)
After having arranged in regard to certain rules of routine, the president proposed to listen to any general observations which the plenipotentiary of Morocco might have to make. Sid Mohammed Vargas, in reply, expressed the hope that he would find in the plenipotentiaries of the powers represented in the conference the same spirit of equity which he had found in his relations as minister for foreign affairs with the representatives of the same powers in Morocco. He announced at the same time that he should propose some modifications to the demands which he had made at Tangier, adding that his idea in general was to put a stop to the abuses of protection. The plenipotentiaries deeming it of importance to the regularity of discussion to know the exact text of the proposed modifications, the conference adjourned in order to permit Sid Mohammed Vargas to make known, in writing, the character of his new observations. (See Protocol 1.)
second meeting of conference.
The conference re-met on tire 24th of May, when the plenipotentiary of Morocco presented the additional declarations referred to in the session of the 19th. (For these declarations see Annex 1 to Protocol 2.) As to demand No. 1, made by him at Tangier (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1.) Sid Mohammed Vargas stated that they had tried it for nearly seventeen years, and had found that it caused prejudices to the commercial transactions in the interior of the country, and that it impeded the administration of justice and the maintenance of order in the markets of the interior and of the cities, as he had already shown at Tangier on the 19th of July, 1879. (See Annex 2 to Protocol 1.) For these reasons he prayed the conference to endeavor to arrive at a solution which, preventing in the future these prejudices, would be equally advantageous to foreign merchants and to merchants subjects of the Sultan. (See Annex 1 to Protocol 2)
In regard to demands Nos. 14, 15, and 16 (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1), he proposed, in substance, the following modifications: That agents (courtiers or censaux) of foreign merchants should be chosen from among the inhabitants of the cities and ports, and not from among the inhabitants of the country; that they should be subject to local jurisdiction, and to arrest for a punishable offense; that an inventory of any property found in the possession of the agent at the time of arrest should be made and sent to the governor of the city where the agent is to be tried by the local authorities, in the presence of the consul (who protects him); that the agent, if found guilty, shall be immediately struck from the list of agents, and the merchant shall name another to take charge of his property; that every agent shall be furnished with a letter from the governor of the city from whence he proceeds, stating that he is the agent of such a one, in order that the authority of the country may be informed; that protection shall extend over the merchandise and money of foreign merchants; that, should a governor of the country commit an injustice against an agent, complaint shall be made to the minister of foreign affairs at Tangier, and should such injustice be proven, the agent may obtain satisfaction in proportion to the injustice [Page 899] committed by the governor; and, finally, that subjects of the Sultan may be put on the same footing as foreign subjects, and that the independence of the Sultan and of his authorities may not be interfered with. (See Annex 1 to Protocol 2.)
On irregular protection, Sid Mohammed Vargas stated that certain fears having been expressed by the representatives at Tangier in the case of persons taken from their lists, and desiring to do away with such fears and to annul the propositions made by him in his two letters of the 18th of February and 12th of April, 1879 (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1, he would propose the following: That all questions relating to inheritances (immovable property) which come under the Chra may, as is now the practice, be submitted to the Kadi; that other questions, such as assassination, quarrels, &c., which come under the governor, the ex-protégé, should he not wish to submit his case to that official, will have the right to place it before the minister for foreign affairs at Tangier, and when sentence shall have been pronounced by him, if the ex-protégé deems himself wronged thereby, the minister will listen to the ambassador, and explain to him the grounds on which he based his sentence; and, finally, the representatives will send to the minister for foreign affairs a special list containing the names of the individuals who have been protégés and withdrawn from protection on account of this agreement. (See Annex 1 to Protocol 2.)
The plenipotentiary of France stated that he had summarily made known to his government the new propositions of Sid Mohammed Vargas, but that until it should be able to examine the propositions in full and make known to him its wish, he could not enter into a discussion upon them, declaring at the same time that he would not be permitted to allow international acts which bound France to Morocco to be put in question. (See Protocol 2.)
The plenipotentiary of Morocco, in view of these observations, declared that he only wished a solution satisfactory to the interests of all. The president, Señor Cánovas del Castillo, stated that he thought the plenipotentiary of Morocco might be able to renounce, without inconvenience, the proposed additions, but he felt himself bound to declare, with equal frankness, that if they must not, in the course of their deliberations, touch the text of the agreement of 1863, the conference would find itself under conditions less favorable than that at Tangier.
The plenipotentiary of France, in reply, called attention to the difference between the demand made at Tangier and the language used at Madrid by Sid Mohammed Vargas. He accepted the propositon of the president (Señor Cánovas del Castillo) to do away with the previous declaration; but there were also other points, the study of which had become necessary on account of the new additions, and which would not permit him to take part in the immediate discussion of the Moroccoian propositions.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco repeated that he only looked for a solution which would put the subjects of the Sultan and those of foreign powers on the same footing, and which would guard the rights of the Sultan. He recalled the words of the representative of France, who stated at Tangier that it only depended on Morocco to disengage itself if it desired to break the agreement of 1863. (Meeting 27th of March, 1879.) Nevertheless, he was bound to expose to the conference the present state of affairs, in the hope that the plenipotentiaries would be able to find a solution.
The plenipotentiary of France insisted on the point that his government [Page 900] had accepted the invitation to take part in a conference having for its end the examination of certain abuses and to endeavor to remedy them, and not to attack and destroy a convention. The denunciation of the agreement of 1863, if it was in question, seemed to him more naturally reserved to a direct negotiation between Morocco and France.
The president (Señor Cánovas del Castillo) observed that the plenipotentiary of France was the only judge whether or not he must await new instructions from his government, in view of the observations presented by Sid Mohammed Vargas. In this case the conference must adjourn. However, he believed it necessary, before suspending the deliberations, to fix the exact state of the question. According to his opinion the convention of 1863 had not in any way been put in question by Sid Mohammed Vargas, because a similar pretension must necessarily provoke from other plenipotentiaries declarations such as those made by the plenipotentiary of France; that Nos. 1 and 2 of the demands presented to the conference at Tangier (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1), are an attestation of the fact, and imply the recognition of the absolute force of the agreement of 1863. He then recalled the fact that Spain was bound by an identical convention. He thought, however, that the plenipotentiary of Morocco had only wished to state the difficulties resulting from the application of the convention of 1863, which forced him to pray the conference to endeavor to make conciliatory modifications of this international act, adding, in conclusion, that the conference at Tangier had discussed not only the absolute force, but also the eventual modifications of the agreement of 1863, and what had been discussed at Tangier may be discussed at Madrid.
The plenipotentiary of Great Britain declared himself in entire accord with the observations made by the president.
The plenipotentiary of France stated that he was equally in accord with the observations made by the president, but that he must, however, ask that the discussion be postponed until the next meeting, in order to permit the examination by his government of the other points newly raised.
The president then asked the plenipotentiary of France if, in the event of addition to demand No. 1 being retired, he would be able to take part in the immediate discussion of the demands (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1), up to No. 14.
The plenipotentiary of France insisted on his request for a postponement, adding that he would inform his government that the proposed addition to demand No. 1 being retired, the discussion would seem to be free up to demand No. 14.
On the request of the president, the plenipotentiary of Morocco declared that he would retire the proposed addition. The conference then adjourned until the 26th of May.
third session.
On reassembling on the 26th May, the conference at once proceeded to consideration of the demands presented by Sid Mohammed Vargas to the conference at Tangier in 1879 (see Annex 1 to Protocol 1.) Demands numbered 1 and 2 were considered as an attestation of facts, and were adopted with little or no discussion. Demand No. 3 was then taken up, when the plenipotentiary of France observed that, in view of the possibility of some day having consuls in the interior of Morocco, it would be well to suppress the restrictive phrase “dans les villes de la côte.” The president proposed to adopt the terms of the Spanish and [Page 901] English treaties. This proposition being accepted, No. 3 was adopted to read as follows:
Consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents, chiefs of port, who reside in the states of the Sultan of Morocco, shall not be able to choose more than an interpreter, a soldier, and two domestics from among the subjects of the Sultan. These shall not be subjected to any dues, impost, or tax whatever.
The conference equally adopted demand No. 4 with the amendment proposed by the representative of Germany at Tangier, viz:
Nevertheless, he (the native consular agent) shall be able, for the exercise of his duties, to have a soldier protégé.
In the consideration of demand No. 5 a discussion arose as to the exact sense of the expression “des gens poursuivis,” for which had already been substituted by the conference at Tangier that of “aucun sujet marocain sous le coup de poursuites.” The plenipotentiary of Belgium proposed to develop the sense of the expression, by adding that “I1 reste entendu que les procès civils engagés avant la protection se termineront devant le tribunal qui en aura entrainé la procedure.” The demand with the above addition was reserved in order to permit the plenipotentiary of France to refer it to his government.
Demand No. 6 as amended and adopted reads as follows:
The foreign representatives shall inform the minister for foreign affairs of the Sultan, in writing, of the choice which they have made of an employé. However, the right of protection shall not be exercised in behalf of persons pursued for an offense or crime before they may have been judged by the authorities of the country, and who have not, if it (the trial) has taken place, fulfilled their sentence.
On reaching demand No. 7 in regard to protection, the plenipotentiary of Austria remarked that the words “de certains parents mineurs” were too vague, and proposed that they be replaced by the words “des parents mineurs,” which was agreed to. In regard to hereditary protection the plenipotentiary of France stated that the convention of 1863 formally accorded such protection to the family Benchimol that the reasons which moved this exception were duly appreciated at the time by the Government of Morocco and had been preserved in all their force, and that consequently it was impossible for his government to abandon a family which had enjoyed for seventeen years this most just consideration. He therefore demanded the maintenance of this legitimate exception.
The plenipotentiary of Portugal maintaining in all its extent the right to the treatment of the most favored nation clause, admitted that France was able to allege special reasons in favor of an exception, which, according to his opinion, did not invalidate the principle. He accepted with reserve, therefore, that protection should not be hereditary, with the exception nominatively made in the convention of 1863, but in case where the Moroccan Government accorded other exceptions of this nature, he would reserve the right of his government to claim an analogous exception. Similar reserve was claimed by the other plenipotentiaries for their respective governments. Demand No. 7 was then adopted with amendments, of which the following is a translation:
According to treaties and conventions, protection ah all extend to the family of the protégé, and his home shall be respected, but it is understood that the family must not be composed of more than the wife, children, and minor relations who live under the same roof. The conference declares that protection shall be limited to these individuals. Protection shall not be hereditary. A single exception is made, however, in favor of the family Benchimol, it being established in the convention of 1863, but it shall not create a precedent. However, if the Sultan of Morocco shall accord another exception, all the powers represented at the Conference will have the right to claim a similar exception.
The plenipotentiary of Italy stated that he did not feel himself authorized, without instructions from his government, to renounce the hereditary protection which the representative of Italy had claimed at the Tangier conference in favor of the family Toledano. At a subsequent meeting he stated that he had been instructed to withdraw the claim made in favor of this family.
Demand No. 8 was adopted with amendments. It reads as follows:
The representatives shall communicate every year to the minister for foreign affairs a nominative list of the persons whom they protect or who are protected by their agents in the States of the Sultan of Morocco. Said list shall be transmitted to the local authorities, who must not consider as protégés more than those thereon inscribed.
Fourth Session.
The conference remet on the 28th May, and at once took up the discussion of demand No. 5, reserved for further deliberation in the meeting of the 26th. The president asked the plenipotentiary of France if he was prepared to accept this number. The latter replied affirmatively.
The plenipotentiary of Austria proposed to add the following words to No. 5:
The execution of the sentence shall not be interfered with. However, the local Moroccan authority shall have care to immediately communicate the sentence rendered to the legation, consulate, or consular agency upon which the protégé depends.
This clause being accepted, No. 5 was adopted, and reads as follows:
The Moroccan Government recognizes in the ministers, chargés d’affaires, and other representatives, the right which is accorded to them by treaty of choosing the persons whom they employ, either in their personal service or in that of their governments, provided they are not cheiks or other employés of the Moroccan Government, such as soldiers of the line or of cavalry outside the Maghazinas employed as their guards. Neither shall they be able to employ any Moroccan subject under the act of prosecution. It is understood that the civil proceedings begun before protection, shall terminate in the tribunals which had opened the procedure.
The execution of the sentence shall not be interfered with. However, the local Moroccan authority shall take care to immediately communicate the sentence rendered to the legation, consulate, or consular agency of which the protégé is a dependent. As to protégés who may have had a process begun before protection had been withdrawn-from them, their case shall be judged by the tribunal which was trying it.
The conference then entered upon the discussion of demand No. 7 likewise reserved at the last meeting, when the plenipotentiary of Italy declared that he was authorized to accept the demand as amended in the session of May 26. The conference consequently declared demand No. 7 adopted.
Demand No. 9 was declared to be a repetition of demand No. 3. It was therefore amended so as to read as follows:
There shall not be accorded to the consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents, chiefs of post, more than the number of protégés stipulated in No. 3—at least when they shall not have need of a native secretary.
In discussing demand No. 10, the plenipotentiary of France thought it would be well to understand that the lists of protection, regularly drawn up, should have full effect from the day on which they were made out and transmitted, and that they should not await the ratification, direct or indirect, of the Moroccan Government. The conference admitted the justice of this observation, which was also admitted by Sid Mohammed Vargas. The latter asked, and the conference conceded the request, that there might be no delay in communicating the changes made in the personnel of the consulates.
Demand No. 10 was then adopted with slight modifications. The following is a translation of the text as adopted: [Page 903]
The agents shall remit each year to the authority of the country where they reside a list, with their seal, of the persons whom they protect. Said authority shall transmit it to the minister for foreign affairs, in order that, should it not conform to the rules, the representatives at Tangier may he informed of it.
The consular officer shall immediately announce the changes made in the personnel protégés of his consulate.
As to demand No. 11, the plenipotentiary of France observed that the position of consular agents, subjects of the Sultan, having been regulated by demand number four, it was advisable to regulate by the present number eleven, that of agents of vice-consulates, subjects of the Sultan.
Demand No. 11 was therefore amended to read as follows:
The agents of vice-consulates, subjects of the Sultan, shall enjoy during the exercise of their duties, the rights recognized in No. 4 to consular agents.
Demand No. 12 was adopted as amended by the conference at Tangier without discussion. The following is a translation of it:
The domestics, farmers, and others native employés of secretaries and native interpreters, shall not enjoy protection.
Demand No. 13 was amended and adopted to read as follows:
The employés or Moroccan domestics of foreign subjects shall not be protected. However, the local authorities shall not be able to arrest an employé or domestic of a native officer in the service of a legation, of a consulate, or of a subject or foreign protégé without the authority of which he is a dependent being previously advised. If a Moroccan subject shall kill any one, or injure him, or violate his domicile, he shall be immediately arrested, but the diplomatic or consular authority under which he is placed shall be advised without delay.
fifth session.
The next session of the conference was held on the 1st of June. (See protocol 5.) The president (Señor Cánovas del Castillo) proposed to consider as one demands numbered 14 to 16, inclusive, as they all bore on the situation of censaux. The plenipotentiary of France was of opinion that they should be examined separately.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco, recalling the fact that the new demands which he had presented at Madrid in regard to these numbers (14 to 16) were no less than a reproduction of the language used by him at the meeting of the foreign representatives held at his house in Tangier, on the 19th of July, 1879 (see annex 2 to protocol 1), asked to retire them, and to hold to what he had said at Tangier.
He further stated that, he had only wished to express the wrongs which his country was suffering—that he would await the remedy of the conference, and that he would prefer to discuss what it might propose, adding that, in the presence of the prejudices occasioned by protection accorded to censaux, the Sultan would be able to use the right which the treaties gave him of suspending exportation, and that he (the Sultan) would also be able to declare that henceforth commerce should only be carried on in the ports which he might designate. He added, however, that the Sultan would not avail himself of any of these measures, preferring to submit to the equity of the plenipotentiaries called to discuss the question which was of such vital interest, to Morocco.
The plenipotentiary of Great Britain then asked permission to present some observations. He stated that the plenipotentiary of Morocco, having retired the additions to demands numbered 14, 15, and 16, the conference must discuss other means in order to arrive, by common accord, to a solution of the points which form the subject of those numbers; but before submitting to the conference the propositions [Page 904] which he had drawn up to this end, he must declare that his government desired to maintain the independence of the Sultan of Morocco, as well as his authority in his own proper territory, and that it (Great Britain) wished that he be liberated from the abuses of foreign protection. He then submitted for the consideration of the conference the propositions, nine in number, which appear on page 42 as substitutes for Nos. 14, 15, and 16 of the Moroccan demands.
The president observed that he had knowledge of other propositions which had been prepared by the plenipotentiary of Austria, and asked if he wished to present them. The latter replied that the priority of discussion should be given to the British propositions, and that the presentation of his would depend on the reception of those of Mr. West.
The plenipotentiary of France stated that the amendment which he had proposed to submit to No. 14 of the Moroccan propositions reproduced the text of the convention of 1863, from which the French Government was unable to depart. He further stated that no treaty limited for France the number of protégés, and that in fixing in 1863 two censaux for each branch house, it had perhaps gone beyond what the interests of French merchants exacted. He declared in conclusion that he was unable to consent that the number of censaux should be reduced.
The plenipotentiary of Austria remarked that it was essential to examine, in the first place, if censaux continued to be protected, and if so, in what degree.
The plenipotentiary of France replied that he only intended to discuss the existing fact; that is to say, the situation established by the convention of 1863, which only mentioned censaux protégés.
A long discussion then followed as to the order of procedure, and it was finally decided to discuss the propositions presented by the plenipotentiary of Great Britain.
The plenipotentiary of France then declared that he was ready to discuss the Moroccan demands, but as it had been decided to discuss the propositions presented by England, he must ask the conference to adjourn in order to permit him to make known to his government these new propositions. In view of these declarations the conference adjourned.
sixth session.
The conference reassembled on the 6th June, when the plenipotentiary of France spoke at length on the propositions presented by the plenipotentiary of Great Britain. (See protocol 6.) I shall not undertake to give a synopsis of his remarks. It will suffice to say that he declared that his government would not listen to the proposition in question.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco followed the plenipotentiary of France, stating in substance that the propositions presented by the plenipotentiary of Great Britain were acceptable to him, and that they guarded in effect the legitimate interests of commerce. He declared at the same time that he was ready to accept any arrangement which, according the same advantages to native merchants as to foreign merchants, would assure the most complete protection of foreign commerce, adding that he only protested against personal protection accorded to native courtiers (trading agents), which was the cause of the wrongs from which his country was suffering. The plenipotentiary of Great Britain, in view of the declarations made by the plenipotentiary of France, retired his propositions in order to leave the field free to others.
[Page 905]The president then asked the plenipotentiary of Austria if he intended to present his propositions. The latter replied in the affirmative, but he must say, nevertheless, that his articles, though based on existing treaties and comprised in the convention of 1863, established for the censaux certain protection deemed strictly necessary. He then read his propositions, the complete text of which will be found in annex 1 to protocol 6.
The plenipotentiary of France stated that the articles which had just been read constituted an extenuation of the last demands, but they contained, however, three essential points on which his government could not make concessions, viz, the number of censaux, the limitation of the choice of these agents, and the suppression of consular jurisdiction for the censaux.
The plenipotentiary of Italy asked to present a counter project, equally regulating the situation of censaux, the text of which appears in annex II to protocol 6, whereupon the conference adjourned until the 9th of June.
seventh session.
At the next session (June 9) (see protocol 7), the plenipotentiary of Austria announced that he had prepared new propositions, and that, with a view to reconciling them to those presented by the plenipotentiary of Italy, he had inserted many articles of the latter’s project, but that there were two essential points on which it had been impossible to agree with Count Greppi, viz, that agents shall not be arrested except in the case where they may be caught in the commission of the flagrant crime of murder; and, second, that agents must be placed exclusively under consular jurisdiction. Count Ludolf explained at length the reason why he objected to these provisions. Then on the invitation of the president he read his new propositions, which will be found in annex to protocol 7.
The plenipotentiary of Italy, in view of the new propositions presented by the plenipotentiary of Austria, asked permission to substitute another article for No. 4 of his project. This being done, the question arose as to which of the propositions should have priority of discussion, and it was decided that those of Austria should take precedence.
The plenipotentiary of France began the discussion. He stated that it was impossible for him to adhere entirely to the Austrian propositions—that he was willing to accept No. 1, but in No. 2 he must ask the suppression of the words “de préférence,” as they established a vague restriction which would only lead to difficulties. As to No. 3 he had already agreed, in principle, that censaux should pay certain determined taxes, provided the right of holding property should be conceded to foreigners; he had nothing to say in regard to No. 4, but he could not in any fashion accept No. 5. In conclusion he stated that France was unable to admit the suppression of protection of censaux, as it would be equivalent to the suppression of her commerce.
The plenipotentiary of Italy supported the observations made by the plenipotentiary of France.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco was of opinion that he should be able to accept the greater part of the new propositions presented by Austria, but he must ask the conference to adjourn in order to permit him to take them into more detailed examination, adding, at the same time, that his instructions prevented him from formally accepting that censaux should be chosen in the country.
[Page 906]The other plenipotentiaries reserving for discussion the different articles, the general discussion closed, and No. 1 of the Austrian propositions was adopted. No. 2 was necessarily reserved in view of the declaration made by the plenipotentiary of Morocco.
eighth session.
The conference re-met on the 12th of June, and after some discussion in regard to article 1 of the Austrian propositions adopted at the last session, the plenipotentiary of Morocco replied at length to certain observations made by the plenipotentiary of France in the session of the 6th of June. He also discussed the propositions presented by the plenipotentiaries of Austria and Italy, and in conclusion presented an amendment to No. 2 of the former’s propositions to the effect that agents or censaux should be chosen from the cities on the coast and in the interior, and not from among the inhabitants of the country where the population is submitted, as a reserve, to military service. (Protocol 8.) Exceptions being made to this amendment by the plenipotentiaries of Austria and France, the president asked the plenipotentiary of Morocco if he was disposed to accept article No. 2 of the Austrian project. Sid Mohammed Vargas replied in the negative, adding that he was unable to accept that protection should be extended to censaux chosen in the country.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco then stated that in view of the declarations made by the plenipotentiary of France in regard to the number of censaux, the limitation of the choice of such agents, and the suppression for them of consular jurisdiction, the conference seemed unable to find a remedy to correct the evils which arose under the agreement of 1863. Under these circumstances and for other reasons given by him, Sid Mohammed Vargas declared that he should reserve the right of his sovereign to obtain what he desired through diplomatic means. He further declared that in the mean time the agreement of 1863 should be punctually and scrupulously observed in every particular, and closed his remarks by praying the conference to be good enough to continue the discussion on the other demands, beginning with No. 17.
The president, in view of the gravity of the declaration made by the plenipotentiary of Morocco, proposed that the conference adjourn. The plenipotentiary of France observed that he was not alone in his declarations, that the plenipotentiaries of Austria and Italy demanded, as well as himself, the right to select censaux in the interior. The conference then adjourned subject to the call of the president.
Thus you will see that the conference had come to a dead-lock, and there was no immediate sign of its being broken, as neither the plenipotentiary of France nor of Morocco seemed disposed to concede anything on the part of their respective governments. A general conversation followed the adjournment, on the present state of affairs, when I took occasion to say to Sid Mohammed Vargas that I thought it would be for the interest of Morocco to consent to censaux being selected from the country and governed according to the stipulations of existing treaties and conventions. I said to him frankly, “If you do not concede this point, what will Morocco get? Nothing; while France and the other powers will still have their treaties and conventions, and things will continue as they are to day.” He appeared to appreciate my remarks, but did not seem disposed to give way. From the very first, I did not think that any of the propositions presented would be agreed to, but I had, nevertheless, prepared certain amendments to certain articles [Page 907] which I proposed to offer in the event of their being discussed. I even went so far as to prepare an entire new set of propositions during the time that elapsed between the last meeting and that of the 19th of June, but just as I had finished them I was informed that Morocco had conceded everything demanded by France, and that the selection and government of censaux would be in accordance with the stipulations of the convention of 1863, except as to taxation. Thus my proposed propositions were not needed.
ninth session.
In view of this concession on the part of Morocco, the president called a meeting of the conference for the 19th of June. (See protocol No. 9) The president stated that the conference had taken a recess since the 12th of June, in order to allow the plenipotentiaries time to exchange ideas on the subject of the important declarations made by the plenipotentiary of Morocco. He then asked Sid Mohammed Vargas if he intended to maintain these declarations. The latter replied that he intended to maintain them in effect, but would propose as a substitute for Nos. 14, 15, and 16 of the demands presented by him at Tangier, the following article:
Nothing shall change the situation of censaux such as it has been established by treaties and by the convention of 1863, save that which shall be stipulated relative to imposts in the following articles.
In view of this declaration by the plenipotentiary of Morocco, the plenipotentiaries of Austria and Italy withdrew their propositions, and the conference then adopted the article proposed by Sid Mohammed Vargas.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco then asked the conference to be good enough to consider the request made by him at the last meeting in regard to adopting some measure which would put an end to existing abuses contrary to treaties and conventions. The plenipotentiary of France observed that it would be difficult for the conference to make a declaration of this nature, that it properly belonged to the Moroccan Government to denounce, by diplomatic means, to the foreign representatives at Tangier the existing abuses or those which might be practiced in the future. The conference ratified these observations.
The conference then proceeded to discuss No. 17 of the Moroccan demands (see annex 1 to protocol 1), which treats of the payment of imposts by protégés. The plenipotentiary of France stated that his government was willing to consent in principle to the censaux and other protégés paying agricultural taxes, but that it demanded in return the right of foreigners to hold property in Morocco, and that the exercise of this right must be regulated by a special rule between the Government of Morocco and the foreign representatives at Tangier. He then offered as a substitute for No. 17 the article which appears on page 69. The plenipotentiary of Morocco was ready to accept the first part of the proposed article, but as to the second part he must observe that the exercise of this right had never given place to difficulties nor to abuse, and that questions of procedure relative to immovable property had always been regulated by the law of the country; that if the rule demanded was no more than a reproduction of the law, it would be superfluous, if on the other hand it set aside the law, it would be impossible for his government to accept it. He added, in reply to a question of the president, that the right of property was already stipulated in the English and Spanish treaties and recognized by Morocco for all foreigners, [Page 908] but that immovable property was, and must continue to be, submitted to the national laws, and that he could not accept that it be made the object of a special rule.
The plenipotentiary of France then proposed to modify his article, but it was finally agreed to adopt the article on this subject (see annex 1 to protocol 1,) which had been agreed to at Tangier. This article reads as follows:
The right of holding property in Morocco is recognized for all foreigners. The plenipotentiaries admit that the purchase of property must be effected with the previous consent of the government, and that the titles to said property must he made out in the form prescribed by the laws of the country, and that any question which may arise on these rights must be decided according to the laws of the country with the appeal stipulated in the treaties; that is to say, to the minister for foreign affairs.
On taking into consideration No. 16, relative to the payment of an agricultural tax by censaux and other protégés, a discussion arose as to how this tax should be regulated. A majority of the plenipotentiaries were of opinion that the conference might establish the principle of equality, and leave it to the representatives at Tangier to regulate the details of application. I suggested that the payment of this impost should be made by foreigners and protégés through the diplomatic and consular representatives. The plenipotentiaries of Germ any, France, and Italy, without denying the principle, thought that its application should naturally be reserved to the sanction of the representatives at Tangier. The following article was finally adopted:
Foreigners and protégés, proprietors or tenants of cultivated lands, as well as censaux given to agriculture, shall pay the agricultural impost. They shall remit each year to their consul an exact statement of what they possess, placing in their hands the amount of the impost. He who shall make a false declaration shall pay a fine doable the amount of the impost which he would regularly have paid on the undeclared property. In case of a repetition of the offense said fine shall be doubled. The nature, the mode, and the quota of said impost shall be the object of a special agreement between the representatives of the powers and the minister for foreign affairs of His Sheriffian Majesty.
The conference then adopted an article relative to the payment of gate taxes on beasts of burden, which the representatives at Tangier had declared themselves ready to accept. (See annex 1 to protocol 1.) The following is a translation of the article in question:
Foreigners, protégés, and censaux, owners of beasts of burden, shall pay gate tax. The quota and the mode of collection of said tax, common to foreigners and to natives, shall be equally the object of a special agreement between the representatives of the powers and the minister for foreign affairs of His Sheriffian Majesty. The said tax shall not be increased without a new agreement with the representatives of the powers.
The conference then accepted the demand contained in No. 18 of the Moroccan propositions (see annex 1 to protocol 1,) relative to the mediation of interpreters, &c., by adopting the following article:
The mediation of interpreters, native secretaries or soldiers of the different legations or consulates, when in behalf of persons not placed under the protection of the legations or consulates, shall not be admitted unless they are the bearers of a document signed by the chief of mission, or by the consular authority.
I then asked to present propositions regulating the situation of protégés who ceased to be on the lists on account of the revision of said lists of protection. The conference, reserving these propositions for ulterior deliberation, adjourned.
tenth session.
The next session of the conference, June 21, was exclusively devoted [Page 909] to the question of abuses which arose from subjects of the Sultan becoming naturalized in a foreign country and then returning to reside in Morocco. The opinions of all the plenipotentiaries on the subject will be found in full in protocol 10. My own remarks on the subject were as follows:
The United States admits of no distinction in the status of their native-horn and naturalized citizens, at home or abroad, and cannot concede to the Government of Morocco the right to disregard documents which certify one of its former subjects to be a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, nor can it admit its (Morocco’s) right to disregard a passport lawfully issued to any native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States. I do not, however, hold it to be right that a native of Morocco, who has become a naturalized citizen of the United States or of any other country, should return to Morocco with intent to remain there and continue to claim his naturalized citizenship. I concede that such return, with the intention to permanently remain, ought to work the forfeiture of his new citizenship and place him again in the same position in which he was before he left Morocco. I believe that it would be fair to consider such a person who returns to and resides in Morocco a certain number of years, to be agreed upon between the governments (with intent not to return to his adopted country), to have forfeited his new and résuméd his former citizenship. While I hold it to be the right and the duty of the Government of the United States to fully protect in every lawful manner its naturalized citizens, wherever they may be, I do not believe that any person should be allowed to become a naturalized subject of another country solely for the purpose of returning to reside in and evade the laws of his native land; and I will gladly join the members of this conference in recommending to our respective governments any measures which will protect Morocco from such injustice and fraud. My government, I have no doubt, would be willing to enter into a treaty with Morocco covering this question.
eleventh session.
At the next session, on the 24th of June (see protocol No. 11,) the discussion on the subject of naturalization was continued. The plenipotentiary of Morocco stated at length the views of his government on this question, the substance of which was that Morocco did not object to its subjects acquiring nationality in a foreign country, but if they returned to their native land they must subject themselves to the authority of the Sultan and the local jurisdiction. He then submitted to the consideration of the conference the following article:
The Government of Morocco does not object to Moroccan subjects changing their nationality, but on returning to their native country they will not be able to withdraw themselves from the authority of His Majesty the Sultan, nor from local jurisdiction.
A general discussion followed, two or three different propositions were presented, among the number another by Sid Mohammed Vargas in the place of the one above mentioned, when the following article was finally adopted:
Every Moroccan subject naturalized in a foreign land, who returns to Morocco, must, after a sojourn of residence equal to that which was necessary for him to regularly obtain naturalization, choose between his entire submission to the laws of the empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proven that foreign naturalization had been obtained with the consent of the Moroccan Government.
Foreign naturalization acquired up to the present time by Moroccan subjects according to the rules established by the laws of each country, will be maintained in all its effect, without any restriction.
This was thought by the conference to be a happy solution of the question, and met with the hearty approval of all the plenipotentiaries, who were of the opinion that their respective governments would fully coincide in this decision. The conference then took into consideration the facts expressed to that at Tangier by Sid Mohammed Vargas in his letter of the 18th of February, 1879 (see annex 1 to protocol 1), relative to the interference of consuls with the Moroccan tribunals.
[Page 910]The president (Señor Cánovas del Castillo) stated that all the plenipotentiaries recognized, as well as the representatives at Tangier, the justice of the observations presented on the subject by His Sheriffian Majesty’s minister for foreign affairs, but it did not seem that it was for the conference to decide the point, since the representatives at Tangier had declared it their right to demand it of Sid Mohammed Vargas.
The plenipotentiary of France then proposed the following article:
The right to the treatment of the most favored nation is recognized by Morocco to all the powers represented at the conference.
This article was unanimously adopted, when the president observed that as the conference had examined and decided upon each one of the nineteen demands presented at Tangier by the Moroccan Government, and had also adopted, in conclusion, a new article, it appeared to have arrived at the end of its labors, but he would ask the plenipotentiaries, nevertheless, in case they desired to submit new matters to common deliberation, to be good enough to lay them before the conference.
The plenipotentiary of Morocco then made the following declarations, which he deemed necessary, in regard to protection in Morocco:
The Government of Morocco will not recognize other protégés than those whose number and quality have been determined by the articles which the conference has adopted. The individuals who do not find themselves within these conditions must consequently be taken from the lists and deprived of foreign protection; they will come under the direct protection of His Sheriffian Majesty, and the proceedings in respect to them in all cases where they may have disputes with other subjects of the Sultan or with subjects or foreign protégés shall be in the following manner:
Every question shall be submitted to the kadi or to the governor, according to what may be the jurisdiction of the one or the other, but always with the appeal stipulated in the treaties to the minister for foreign affairs at Tangier. In the case where an ex-protégé objects that his case was submitted to the Moroecaai authorities of his place of residence, he will have the right to carry it directly before said minister, who, after having pronounced sentence, and in the case where the ex-protégé thinks himself injured thereby, will listen to the foreign representative of the nation who previously protected the party interested, and will make known to him the facts on which he founded the sentence.
The foreign representatives will remit to the minister for foreign affairs a special list, giving the names and residence of the individuals who have been taken from the lists of protection on account of the present arrangements, in order that the local authorities may be advised by them.
The president remarked that this proposition reproduced the observations made by Sid Mohammed Vargas in his letters of the 11th of February and 12th of April, 1879 (See annex 1 to protocol 1), and recalled the fact that the conference had knowledge of a projét of the plenipotentiary of the United States, regulating the situation of ex-protégés, but this projé, which suppresses an anterior decision, appeared to be reserved to ulterior deliberation.
The plenipotentiary of Italy then addressed the conference at length, in regard to the number and quality of protégés in Morocco.
twelfth session.
On the reassembling of the conference (26th of June), the plenipotentiary of Morocco replied to the observations made by the plenipotentiary of Italy at the last meeting. The following article was then provisionally adopted (in order to allow the plenipotentiary of Italy to consult his government) in regard to irregular protection:
Irregular protection cannot be accorded in the future. However, the exercise of the customary right (droit censuétudinaire) of protection shall be reserved in the single case where it is given to recompense notorious services rendered by a Moroccan subject [Page 911] to a foreign power, or for other services entirely exceptional and particular to said power. The minister for foreign affairs must he previously notified of the nature of the services and the intention to recompense them by protection, in order that he may be able, if necessary, to prevent observations; the definitive resolution will remain, nevertheless, reserved to the government to which the service may have been rendered. The number of protégés thus created shall not exceed that of three for each power.
The situation of protégés who have obtained protection in virtue of the customs henceforth regulated by the preceding arrangement, shall be for them and their families identical to that established for the other protégés.
The conference not having admitted that its decision should be retroactive and that consequently no names would be removed from the present lists of protected persons, I considered my propositions regarding ex-protégés unnecessary and therefore withdrew them.
The president then observed that the conference, having accomplished on the one hand the task which had been submitted to it, was on tine eve of adjournment; but he must bring to the knowledge of its members, before separating, an important communication which had been addressed by the Pope to the Government of His Catholic Majesty in regard to religious liberty in Morocco. (The communication in question appears in full in protocol 12.)
Señor Cñnovas del Castillo added that he had replied to the communication through the Nuncio at Madrid, that he was ready to present and support the propositions of the Pope should the plenipotentiaries of other powers be able to treat of questions outside of those which had brought about the meeting of the conference.
The plenipotentiary of Austria informed the conference that his government, on account of a similar communication from the Pope, had consulted other governments, and had been assured that they were disposed to join in recommending to the Sultan of Morocco the abolition of incapacities which still weigh oil certain classes of his subjects on account of their religious belief, and that, in view of this, he had been instructed to prepare an address to the sovereign of Morocco, which he had the honor to submit to the conference.
The address in full may be found on pages 91, 92. The following is a translation of the two essential paragraphs:
- 1.
- To respect in his states the principle that all those who live there and who may reside there in the future, may be able to profess and exercise without interference their religious beliefs.
- 2.
- To prescribe to his government, as an immutable base of the legislation of Morocco, the maxim already adopted in the decree of 26th Chaban, 1280, and according to which neither religion nor race will ever be a reason to establish a distinction in the treatment, by and before the law, between his Mussulman and non-Mussulman subjects, nor serve as a pretext to impose humiliations on the latter, to deprive them of any civil right whatever or to impede them from the free exercise of all professions and industries which the Mussulman subjects of the empire are permitted to enjoy.
The address was approved by all the plenipotentiaries, with the exception of the plenipotentiary of Morocco, who stated that he was unable to do more than to bring to the knowledge of his sovereign the views of the plenipotentiaries expressed in the name of their respective governments. Sid Mohammed Vargas added that he believed it his duty to state, however, that in Morocco Mussulmans, Christians, and Jews enjoyed the same liberty in religious matters; that he had no instructions from his sovereign which would permit him to treat of this question or of any other which was not directly the object of his mission to Madrid; but in view of the address adopted by the conference, he would read a letter which he had received from his sovereign in regard to his Jew subjects.
[Page 912]The following is a translation of the essential part of the letter:
It has come to our knowledge that certain of our Jew subjects have on many occasions complained to their brothers resident in Europe and to the foreign representatives at Tangier, that they are unable to obtain justice in their reclamations relating to murders, robberies, &c. They allege that the governors show indifference in causing satisfaction to be made to them by the persons who attack them, and that their demands never reach our Sheriffian Majesty unless by the mediation of these persons (the Jews resident in Europe and the foreign representatives). Our Sheriffian wish is that they may obtain justice without the intervention of powers or of representatives, because they are our subjects and our tributaries, having thus the same rights as Mussulmans before us, and all abuse against them being forbidden by our religion.
This is why we order you to receive the reclamation of every Jew who may complain of not having obtained justice from a governor, and to inform us when you shall not find the means to right their complaints. We have sent orders in this sense to the governors of the cities, of the ports, and of the country, in order that they may make them known to the Jews, and at the same time we have warned them that if any one of them opposes himself or puts obstacles in the way of the complaint of a Jew reaching you, we will punish him severely. We order you to treat their affairs with all justice, and to conceal nothing from us in regard to the arbitrariness of the governors in respect to them, because all men are equal before us in matters of justice. 22 Joumadi, 1297.
The president stated in the name of all the plenipotentiaries the lively satisfaction with which the conference had received these declarations.
thirteenth session.
The next session of the conference was held on the 28th of June. The plenipotentiary of Italy not having been authorized by his government to accept the proposed article in regard to irregular protection, the president proposed to review the articles already voted and to examine the projét prepared by the secretaries which comprised and arranged the articles in question.
The proposition being accepted, the projét of the convention was adopted after an attentive examination of each article. Articles 16 and 18 were, however, reserved. (See protocol.)
fourteenth session.
The conference reassembled on the 30th June, when article 16 came up for further discussion. The president, recalling the fact of the final adoption of this article having been reserved at the request of the plenipotentiary of Italy, proposed a new article, which he thought would be acceptable to the plenipotentiaries of Italy and Morocco.
This article was the same as the original one, save two amendments, the first of which was as follows:
The Moroccan authorities will not recognize other protection, whatever may be its nature, than that which is expressly stated in this convention.
The second amendment was as follows:
The number of these protégés shall not exceed that of twelve for each power, which is fixed as a maximum, without obtaining the assent of the Sultan.
Article 16 as amended was then adopted.
The conference then proceeded to examine article 18 of the projét of the convention which had equally been reserved. The following article was proposed by the plenipotentiary of Belgium in place of the original one:
The present convention shall be ratified. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Tangier, with the shortest delay possible.
[Page 913]By exceptional consent of the high contracting parties, this provisions of the present convention will be in force from the day of the signature at Madrid.
The article was adopted with the reserve for all the powers made by the plenipotentiary of Austria, viz, that the exceptional arrangement consented to should not create a precedent. The plenipotentiary of Italy stated, however, that he must reserve his formal approval of the convention; that while his government accepted in principle said article, it must have knowledge of the complete text of the convention before authorizing its representative to sign it.
The conference then adjourned, subject to the call of the president, for the purpose of signing the convention.
fifteenth session.
An extraordinary meeting of the conference was called on the 2d 01 July, when the president, recalling the fact that the plenipotentiary of Italy had reserved his formal approval of the projét of the convention in order to permit his government to examine the complete text, announced that Count Greppi wished to make a statement to the conference. The latter then stated that his government had authorized him to sign the convention on the condition that he obtain a slight modification of the last paragraph of article 16, which did not seem to sufficiently establish the principle of non-retroactivity in favor of former protégés created by customary right (le droit consuétudinaire.) He then submitted the following amendment (prepared by his government) to the paragraph above referred to:
The situation of protégés who have obtained protection in virtue of the practice henceforth regulated by the present arrangement shall be without limitation of number for the present protégés of said category, identical, for them and for their families, to that which is established for other protégés.
The plenipotentiaries stated that while they had always understood that the original article established the fact of non-retroactivity, they were disposed, in deference to the Italian Government, to accept this amendment. The plenipotentiary of Morocco asked that the meaning of the words “sans limitation du nombre” be more clearly established. The conference replied that it was understood that the new article as well as the old one signified that the number of protégés of this category at present on the lists could not be reduced by erasure (i. e., that they should remain on the lists). The article was then adopted as amended by Count Greppi.
sixteenth and last session.
On the following day (3d of July) the conference met to sign the convention, but before proceeding with this duty the plenipotentiary of Germany begged to express to the president the thanks of the conference for the impartiality and conciliatory spirit with which he had directed its proceedings, and which had tended so much to bringing about the happy result of its labors.
The president replied, thanking the plenipotentiaries for the kind assistance which they had given him throughout the labors of the conference, without which it would have been impossible to have fulfilled the task imposed upon him.
The convention was then signed, as was also the address to the Sultan of Morocco in regard to religious liberty; the latter was intrusted to Sid Mohammed Vargas for conveyance to his sovereign.
[Page 914]The president then thanked, in the name of the conference, the secretaries and interpreters for the zeal and intelligence with which they had discharged their several duties, and after giving a short résumé of the result attained, the conference adjourned sine die.
In conclusion, I beg to add that the provisions of the convention give to Morocco the assurance that irregular and unauthorized protection will not in the future be extended to any of the subjects of the Sultan, and that all abuses of the right of protection shall cease; the right to collect certain taxes, under the supervision of the foreign representatives, from the resident foreigners and their brokers or agents; and the establishment of the status of Moors who, having become naturalized citizens or subjects of other countries, return to Morocco to reside. Morocco, on the other hand, renews her agreements as expressed in treaties and conventions, accords to foreigners the right to hold property, and fully acknowledges the foreign citizenship of such of her subjects as may become naturalized citizens or subjects of other countries.
Thus all the questions which have been at issue between Morocco and the powers with which diplomatic and consular relations are entertained have been happily settled, justly and fairly, and to the reasonable satisfaction of all concerned. The provisions of the convention are to take effect from the date of its signature, subject, however, to the ratification of the powers at an early day. I found no difficulty in agreeing to this, because 1 felt, and still feel, that the United States will join the other governments in approving the action of the conference.
I transmit herewith the convention.
I have, &c.,