Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

3. MOROCCO.

§ 785.

April 7, 1888, an agreement was entered into between Mr. Lewis, United States consul at Tangier, and the Moorish authorities, for the arbitration of claims against the government of Morocco, growing out of the neglect or refusal of that government to observe and enforce treaty rights of American citizens and protégés. The Sultan having refused to approve the agreement, Mr. Strobel, secretary of the United States legation at Madrid, was directed, April 28, 1888, to proceed to Tangier to assist in the negotiations. He arrived at Tangier on the 2d of May, and on the 8th of the same month, with the assistance of Commander Folger, of the U. S. S. Quinnebang, a new arrangement was completed satisfactory to all parties. By this agreement a tribunal was to be constituted, to be composed of Mr. Lewis and of two persons designated by the Sultan, who were, however, to have but one vote. The agreement contained an enumeration of four matters which were to be disposed of, but stipulated that other claims of American citizens in regard to debts, commercial intercourse, and robberies, might be presented. The tribunal was to endeavor to make its report by June 1, 1888, and its decisions were to be binding. In the event of a disagreement, one of the foreign representatives at Tangier was to be named as umpire. The tribunal met and agreed upon an award, which was signed by Mr. Lewis and the two representatives of the Sultan. This award embraced the matters specifically enumerated in the agreement, and stipulated that the other claims should be left to the examination and decision of certain other persons. Complaint was afterwards made of the nonobservance by the Moorish Government of the provisions of the award in respect of two of the four enumerated matters.

Mr. Bayard. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lewis, consul at Tangier, March 1, 1889, 129 MS. Inst. Consuls, 112.

[blocks in formation]

"The Department is well aware of the importance attached in the Turkish dominions to formal observances. It is apprehended, however, that in accrediting you, as had been done with your predecessors, to the head of the government at Tripoli, thereby apparently disregarding those changes in the relations between that country and the Porte, which in previous dispatches you have so clearly and fully explained, the force of the precedent had more

influence than anything else. It is not known that the Tripolitan government ever objected to receiving such a credence or the government at Constantinople to its being bestowed. Had this been the the case, it certainly would have been discontinued."

Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Vidal, consul to Tripoli,
July 10, 1873, MS. Inst. Barbary Powers, XV. 558.

"There can be no doubt that the treaty of 1805, between the United
States and Tripoli, is still in force." (Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Acting Sec.
of State, to Mr. Vidal, July 25, 1871, MS. Inst. Barbary Powers, XV.
546.)

"Our relations with Tunis and Tripoli are defined by treaties. The treaty with Tunis was concluded in 1797 and altered in 1824; that with Tripoli was concluded in 1805. During the long term of years that has elapsed since the conclusion of these treaties they have been referred to and have controlled the settlement of all differences and all questions that have arisen between the high contracting parties to them. They have been acquiesced in without dissent, and if the Porte has at any time complained, either of the continued obligation of those treaties or of their provisions, the fact of such complaint does not at present, occur to me.

"I am not aware that the United States have ever been asked to renounce either of the treaties, or that they have either in terms or by implication renounced either their obligations or their rights under them. Nor am I aware that any facts or change of condition. or of the organization of either of those governments have been brought to the notice of this government which would direct its attention to the consideration of the effect which such change might produce upon the further observance or requirement by this government of the terms of the treaties.

"In August last an outrage was committed and the terms of our treaty with Tripoli violated by an insult to our consul stationed at the port of Tripoli. As is the custom and right and duty of this government, prompt measures were taken for the protection of the conand the maintenance of the honor and dignity of this government, and also to secure reparation and satisfaction for this insult. These measures were effectual, and it is a source of satisfaction that an ample apology, with the assurances against a recurrence of a similar indignity which was demanded by the United States was accorded by the Tripolitan authorities. It is with much satisfaction that the President learns that the Porte promptly interposed the authority which it may exercise in Tripoli to the effect that reparation should be made; but this fact does not appear in the correspondence between the United States consul and the governor of Tripoli."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Oct. 8, 1875,
MS. Inst. Turkey, III. 140.

"I have carefully considered the question presented by you in your notes of the 9th and 30th of December, in regard to the recognition of the sovereignty of the Porte over Tripoli. The United States has never formally acknowledged such sovereignty nor has it ever formally denied it. The question was never officially presented to this government until it was referred to in your conversation with me in May last. The affair at Tripoli has emphasized the request made by you at that time for formal recognition of the fact that Tripoli is a province under the government of the Porte, and the request that a decision may be arrived at in the matter seems to be reasonable and proper. The decision of this question, however, in the manner desired by your government, involves the virtual abrogation of a treaty which has been in force and has governed the relations of the United States with Tripoli for nearly three quarters of a century. The subject is an important one in itself and on account of the principle involved, and it is believed can only be properly disposed of by a convention between the two powers. Consequently, as the Porte has proposed that there shall be a convention for the revision of the treaty between the United States and Turkey, I have the honor to suggest for the consideration of the Ottoman government the propriety of deferring all matters bearing upon the treaty with Tripoli, so far as they may affect the relations between the United States and the Porte, until that convention shall be considered."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., May 3, 1876, MS.
Notes to Turkey, I. 151.

At the close of the eighteenth, and for some time after the beginning of the nineteenth, century Tripoli was one of the four countries in Africa bordering on the Mediterranean which did not scruple to send forth armed vessels under their respective flags to capture, without any declaration or ostensible cause of war, peaceable merchantmen and to imprison and enslave their crews. The United States for a time obtained protection from such captures under the treaty with Tripoli of November 4, 1796. What the relations between the Porte and Tripoli then were does not distinctly appear. But it is certain that the United States did not hold the Ottoman government accountable for the acts of the Bey of Tripoli. In spite, however, of the treaty of 1796, the flag of the United States was still disregarded by the Tripolitan cruisers, and at length Congress passed the act of February 2, 1802, for the protection of the commerce and seamen of the United States against those cruisers. This was virtually a declaration of war against Tripoli. No trace of objection to it on the part of the Ottoman government, either as a sovereign or ally of Tripoli, is found in the archives of the United States. The manner

in which the war was prosecuted by the United States is well known. Peace was restored by the treaty of June 4, 1805. The Ottoman government took no part either in the war or in its conclusion, so far as the United States is aware. In 1835 hostilities were waged by the Ottoman government against the authorities of Tripoli, and these hostilities are understood to have resulted in the success of the Turkish arms. A governor from Constantinople was appointed, but no new credentials were required of the American consul. Down to 1849 all the eight successive American consuls to Tripoli had been accredited to the Bashaw of that country. In that year Mr. Gaines, a new consul, who was accredited, as his predecessors had been, solely to the Bashaw, was notified by the governor that his letter of credence would be sent to Constantinople. It may be that as a matter of routine a similar course was followed in regard to consuls to Tripoli subsequently appointed by the United States; but neither Mr. Gaines nor his successors were authorized or instructed to apply at Constantinople for recognition, and such applications do not appear to have been either sanctioned or disapproved. They were, at any rate, never regarded by the United States as an acknowledgment that the treaty between that government and Tripoli of 1805 was thereby canceled. The salute said to have been given by the American menof-war Congress and Guerrière to the Ottoman flag at Tripoli on a certain occasion may be ascribed to inadvertance, and no undue significance should be attached to it. The treaty of 1862 between the United States and the Ottoman Porte made no express reference to Tripoli. It was indeed stipulated that its provisions should include all the possessions of the Sultan in Africa, but this left open the character of the dominion of the Porte over Tripoli.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., Sept. 8, 1876,
MS. Notes to Turkey, I. 170.

In appointing, in 1876, a new consul at Tripoli, the United States, while applying to the Porte for his recognition, objected to a berat, or firman, containing a clause which seemed to imply that the treaty with Tripoli, of 1805, was no longer in force, and declared that, unless a berat or firman should be granted in the usual form, the consul would be recalled and the consulate discontinued.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Nov. 25, 1876,
MS. Inst. Turkey, III. 204.

H. Doc. 551-vol 5-26

[blocks in formation]

By Article IV. of the treaty between France and Tunis of May 12, 1881, by which the former assumed a protectorate over the latter, the government of the French Republic "guarantees the execution of the treaties actually existing between the government of the Regency and the different European powers." In 1896 the French government proposed to the United States the abrogation of the treaties of the latter power of 1797 and 1824 with Tunis. The United States expressed a willingness to meet the views and wishes of the French government so far as it could be done without prejudice to the rights and interests of the United States and its citizens. To this end, the United States proposed the conclusion of a convention by which the obligations of the conventions of 1797 and 1824, so far as they were not obsolete, and all other international obligations of Tunis, should be regarded as the obligations of France so long as the existing protectorate of France over Tunis should continue, and by which the provisions of the consular conventions between the United States and France, so far as they were not inconsistent with the foregoing stipulation, were to be declared to extend to Tunis.

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to M. Patenôtre, French ambassador, Dec. 3,
1896, and Jan. 15, 1897, MS. Notes to France, X. 430, 433, referring to
notes of the French embassy of Oct. 22, Nov. 7, and Dec. 29, 1896, and
Jan. 6, 1897.

See, also, Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Gen. Porter, amb. to France,
July 27, 1897, MS. Inst. France, XXIII, 506.

"There has as yet been no change in the old treaties, but negotiations tending to extend French treaties to the protectorate of Tunis, in lieu of the old United States treaties with the Bey, have been proposed by the French government and are now under consideration."

Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Gorham, Nov. 16, 1897, 222 MS. Dom.
Let. 459.

See, also, Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hawley, Feb. 4, 1898, and
to Mr. Catchings, Feb. 18, 1898, 225 MS. Dom. Let. 217, 563; Mr. Hay,
Sec. of State, to Mr. Porter, amb. to France, Jan. 5, 1899, MS. Inst.
France, XXIV. 134.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »