No. 581.
Mr. Evarts
to Mr. Fairchild.
Washington, August 11, 1880.
Sir: Your dispatch No. 39, in relation to the Morocco conference, dated 3d ultimo, was duly received, and the convention, signed by you in company with the representatives of the other powers at that conference, has received careful examination in the light of the very full and intelligent summary you give of the proceedings which led up to that agreement. I am unable to perceive anything therein which can be regarded as militating in any way against the legitimate representative or commercial interests of the United States in the Empire of Morocco. On the contrary, the convention seems to me to be an eminently proper one for submission by the President to the Senate at the next session of that body, with a view to the stipulated ratification.
I may, however, express some regret that the result of the deliberations of the eminent men who represented at Madrid, in this matter, the most advanced spirit of civilization and freedom of the present day should not have shown it convenient or practicable to embody in the convention itself a provision recognizing the full and free liberty of conscience and of worship, if not throughout the empire, then to the persons for whom protection is in whole or in part stipulated.
With respect to the clause of the 18th, and concluding article of the convention, which provides that, “by the exceptional consent of the high contracting parties, the provisions of the present convention shall take effect from the day of its signature at Madrid,” I have to observe that while the constitutional provision prevents this government from according validity to such an international compact in advance of the consent of the Senate, yet in view of the exceptional circumstances under which the present convention was framed, and its limited operation within the territory of Morocco involving no apparent question of conflict with the domestic legislation of this country, I deem it entirely unlikely that any issue will arise, pending formal ratification, which would call for diplomatic intervention on the part of our Executive in a sense opposed to the provisions of the convention.
I am, sir, &c.,