File No. 881.00/586.
The French Chargé d’Affaires to the Secretary of State.
Washington, July 16, 1914.
Mr. Secretary of State: By a letter dated February 13 last, Mr. Bassett Moore made known to the Embassy the Federal Government’s intention respecting the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the new courts instituted by us in Morocco for persons subject to American jurisdiction.
At the same time Mr. Bassett Moore expressed a strong desire to arrive at settlement of various questions affecting American interests in the Shereefian Empire.
The Resident Commissioner General of the French Republic, to whom the State Department’s note was forwarded by the Minister of Foreign Affairs has returned to Mr. Viviani an answer the substance of which I have the honor to communicate to you.
With the exception of two clearly defined cases (Vacuum Oil Company and the Benatuil case), which will be fully explained hereinafter, the Federal Government formulates, but does not specify, reservations or demands of a purely general character against the Protectorate Government.
[Page 918]There is no question about the Federal Government being, as much as any other, warranted in watching over the economic rights and interests of Morocco, which, as put by Mr. Bassett Moore, are safeguarded by the treaties concluded between the Foreign Powers and the Shereefian Empire. But it is equally true that the Protectorate Government is bent on respecting to the fullest extent, in favor of Americans as well as all other foreign citizens or subjects, the principle of economic equality.
The principle being once more evoked, the reservations or claims put forth by the Federal Government are so general in their character that, from the fact that the importance of American interests and the number of persons lying under American jurisdiction appear to be out of proportion to the set of reservations and objections offered, the question arises whether Mr. Bassett Moore’s letter of February 13, 1914, is not aiming, after all, and while the Federal Government expresses itself in favor of the reforms, to reopen the question of the very principle of the Protectorate regulation powers.
As a matter of fact, it does not seem possible to maintain the protests that have been made against the Protectorate Government, upon careful examination of every one of the questions presented.
1. As regards the contemplated martial law in cases of contraband of arms, the matter having been settled by dropping the subject need not be brought up anew.
2. The Federal Government’s statement about protection leads one to believe that the meaning and scope of the Protectorate’s intentions have been misunderstood.
Indeed it never was heretofore our intention to do away with protection, but we meant merely to stop its improper use through a revision of the lists jointly with a delegate of every legation concerned. Provision, furthermore, for such a revision was made in the Franco-German treaty to which the Government of the United States gave its adhesion.
It is important, however, to take notice of Mr. Bassett Moore’s assertion that “the choice of the American protégés rests ultimately with the Government of the United States,” for the right to choose can only be exercised within the limits wherein it conforms to the treaties of the provisions of which the Maghzen may remind the Powers concerned, in order to obtain a return to the enforcement of those conventions.
If the Powers would forego, in principle, their consular jurisdiction, we might, per contra, take up such an enforcement in as liberal a spirit as possible and, to that end, come back to a bilateral revision as provided in the Franco-German treaty.
3. The remarks offered in regard to the original circular of November 1, 1912, laying down rules for the purchase of land appear to have been prompted by an incomplete study of the subject on the part of the Washington Government.
On the one hand, the consent of the Government, referred to in Article 11 of the Madrid Convention, in Article 60 of the Act of Algeciras and again mentioned in the regulations of November 1, 1912, does not, of course, apply to any but those parts where such consent is requisite, that is to say without the ten kilometre zone around the ports and the two kilometre zone allotted to Azemmour.
[Page 919]On the other hand the circular of November 1, 1912, cannot apply to the Tangier territory specifically referred to in the American memorandum, since Tangier and its purlieus do not come under the regulations decreed in the Protectorate.
As to the “habous” or Government land, the Guish lands, the circular of November, 1912, merely repeated in their respect preexisting principles that are in force in every State, that is to say, the principles that some land is public domain and inalienable. In again bringing forward that principle, the Resident General merely availed himself of the power to issue regulations granted by the Franco-German treaty.
In answer to the fault found with servitude zones, we are justified in holding that all purchases of land are permitted by the Act of Algeciras (Art. 60), subject to the obligation placed on the purchaser to conform to the laws and usages of the country. Now the Shereefian decrees creating zones of military servitude are precisely to be numbered among “local laws,” as the aforesaid Act of Algeciras could not presume to prevent on every subject whatsoever, laws and usages, or include in that phrase only those that existed in 1906.
Mr. Bassett Moore’s letter further on asserts that the “records of land titles,” which must furnish the Cadis with the means of verifying the validity of the contemplated transactions, are very incomplete. The conclusion drawn by Mr. Moore from this purely gratuitous assertion would, if accepted, have but one result; a perpetuation of wrongs based on those previously committed. Furthermore, when looking into the lawfulness of pending transactions, the local authorities do not confine their investigation to an inspection of the said records.
5. As regards Article 63 of the Act of Algeciras, the Protectorate Government never showed any intention to evade its operation and still more unfounded is the assertion that the Sultan gave notice to the diplomatic corps of measures aimed at the recovery of property of the class referred to in the aforesaid Article. Such a notice never was served. The only measures taken had for their sole object the prevention, for the future, of the wrongs the settlement of which for the past, must be effected in accordance with the procedure directed by the Act of Algeciras.
6. As for the customs grievances formulated by the American Government, the Protectorate Government is quite ready to give them full consideration when they are specified.
The only case presented in the memorandum of February 13, has been investigated at Casablanca by our Consul there.
He reports that the agent of the “Vacuum Oil Company” at Casablanca told him “he had not the slightest ground for complaint against the customs authorities.” But the memorandum of the Chargé d’Affaires of the United States at Tangier, hereinafter discussed, having explained that the difficulties under consideration had occurred at Safi and not at Casablanca, General Lautey referred the question to the office of the Comptroller of the Debt of Tangier which will furnish all the data with which the settlement of this customs difficulty may be taken up at the earliest possible date.
[Page 920]7. As regards the American claims against the Maghzen, the Government of the United States may be assured that they will be examined in the same light as all the claims of persons under foreign jurisdiction. Those already passed upon by the Commission of 1910 will be paid in toto to the beneficiaries out of the funds of the loan that has just been voted.
8. As for the Benatuil case, our agency at Tangier gives me the following information confirmed by Mr. Filipp, our Consul at Tangier. It agrees with the information, supplied by the Washington Government.
Jacob Benatuil, an American semsar, having obtained a judgment from the Shraa, about eight years ago, in a real estate suit against several foreigners, of whom one Mr. Fries was French, did not choose to apply to our Consular Court for an exequatur of the Cadi’s judgment. The Legations of France and America tried but failed to bring about a friendly settlement of the Cadi’s award by a payment by Mr. Fries, the loser, of an indemnity to be determined by umpires, but our fellow citizen, arguing that the judgment against him had been obtained by fraud, would not listen to any settlement.
Inasmuch, however, as the land in dispute lies within the Tangier zone, the American Government can not condition the relinquishment of its extraterritorial rights upon a settlement of this case which by reason of its situs, does not lie under the jurisdiction of the Protectorate authorities.
In order to arrive at a more precise knowledge, if possible, of what is asked of us, our agency at Tangier has been instructed to apply to the Chargé d’Affaires of the United States for such information as he possesses about the American claims the Government of the United States wished to have settled before recognizing our courts in Morocco.
Mr. Blake’s memorandum under date of May 7, sent in reply to our Chargé d’Affaires comprises 14 claims. But seven of these may be even now stricken out; the first five (including the Benatuil case) belong in Tangier and the other two in El Ksar and Larach. They therefore do not come, by reason of their situs, under the jurisdiction of the Protectorate and can not be brought into a discussion of the relinquishing of extraterritorial rights in the French zone.
As to the other seven claims, they are all routine cases and most of them of a judicial nature, they do not offer, either in their character or their importance, a class of litigation which may afford ground to the United States for further postponing the relinquishment of its extraterritorial jurisdiction and privileges.
The Resident General is, at any rate, even now making it his duty to set on foot an examination of those cases and investigations by the Protectorate local authorities respectively concerned therein. But these cases apparently are not such as to warrant opposition, as a matter of principle, to relinquishing the American extraterritorial rights since the Resident General is even now ready to examine and settle those cases in the most conciliatory manner.
I deemed it expedient to relate hereinabove the explanations furnished by the Commissioner of the Republic which answer every point in Mr. Bassett Moore’s memorandum. These explanations meet every claim and objection of the Federal Government, both in satisfying inquiries bearing on specific points and in carrying promises as to minor points that could not yet but will be settled. Finally [Page 921] the report throws as full a light as may be desired on some other topics that do not seem to have been correctly understood or interpreted.
The willingness of the Federal Government to recognize the Protectorate’s regulation powers cannot be doubted by the Embassy or by the French Government. I am convinced that your excellency will find in the foregoing explanations all the palliations you may wish for, and I have no doubt that you will, as has already been done by most of the other Powers, agree to forego the benefits of extraterritoriality in the French Zone of the Shereefian Empire and accept to place persons subject to American jurisdiction under that of our Courts.
Aware of the friendly and reciprocal good will which always presides over the settlement of such questions between our two countries, I cannot but remind once more, in conclusion, your excellency (as Mr. Jusserand did before this in his notes of May [April] 22 and June 10 last) of the high value my Government would attach to the Federal Government’s early accession to our request laid before it on August 29, 1913.
Be pleased [etc.]