operations of the institution by harassing its employees might very properly give rise to remonstrance. Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, min. to Turkey, May 25, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 576. Certain native Armenian teachers in the American college at Aintab having been arrested by the Ottoman authorities on a charge of sedition, the minister of the United States at Constantinople, on being advised of the facts, informed the grand vizier that, as the presence of the native teachers was necessary to the success of the colleges in which they were employed, their arrest could be justified only on prima facie proof of guilt, and asked that, before they were imprisoned without bail, the evidence should be submitted to him, in order that he might judge whether a prima facie case against them existed. The Department of State replied: "While you will protest against capricious or unreasonable arrest of such persons, as occasion requires, you will not insist [that] the Government . . . shall agree in advance that it will not arrest its own subjects for violating its own laws without your consent." The minister afterwards reported that, in such cases, by order of the Porte, an official representative of the United States would be allowed to be present at each step of the proceedings in order to satisfy himself of their fairness; and that, by this concession, the possibility seemed to be precluded of capricious and groundless arrests of native teachers with a view to hamper or break up the work in the colleges. “Your dispatch, No. 757, of the 6th of January last, has had due consideration. "You therein report that a large proportion of the claims filed by the injured missionaries at Marash consists of claims for injury to native students, preachers, and teachers whose nationality is not stated. "On general principles of international law a government can not be held accountable to a foreign government for injuries suffered by its own citizens or subjects. The relation of native teachers to the administration of the American schools in Turkey has led this Department, on previous occasions, to instruct you that the operations of the schools are not to be wantonly interferred with by molestation of the native instruments they may legitimately employ in their teachings; and that interference with such native teachers on frivolous and vexatious grounds should call for remonstrance and prevention. a For. Rel. 1894, 742. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min, to Turkey, tel., Oct. 29, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 745. c For. Rel. 1894, 745, 746–749. 66 Should the destroyed property of native teachers not have been merely personal belongings, but actual and necessary adjuncts to the operation of the American schools in which they were employed, indemnity of that character and to that extent only might be properly asked. It is not, however, thought that any appreciable amount of claims can be due on this limited account, inasmuch as the usual appliances for the educational work conducted by our citizens would necessarily be the property of the missions which direct them. "As to the native scholars attending the school, the foregoing principle does not seem applicable." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, March 6, 1896, (3) MOROCCO. "All Christian nations refuse to the Government of Morocco any right, power, or control whatever, in any circumstances, over the persons or property of Christians, or Franks, as they are called, visiting or residing in that Empire. . Every citizen of the United States is required, when in Morocco, to seek from the consul and have a certificate showing that he is under the consul's protection. Failing to obtain this he has no right by law to remain there." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. McMath, April 28, 1862, MS. Inst. With reference to Hebrews in Morocco who were not citizens of the 66 For a request for an explanation of the protection of persons who were With regard to Moorish subjects naturalized in the United States, who With reference to the suggestion that an exception should be made in With reference to the case of Mr. Benzacar, a Moorish subject, who was duly appointed and recognized as United States consular agent at Saffi, Morocco, Mr. Fish said that the protection of the United States, so far as it might be requisite to enable him to " discharge his official duties," would be given, but that the Department of State could not authorize "any further official interference for the redress of grievances which he may have suffered with reference to his private business or property in Morocco.” Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, consul at Tangier, Oct. 2, 1872, The fact that a fugitive slave in Tangier takes refuge in the house of an American citizen in that place does not entitle him as a right to make any claim on the Government of the United States for protection. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, Mar. 15, 1877, MS. Inst. Barb. March 10, 1877, a meeting of the foreign representatives at Tangier took place at the house of the Moorish minister for foreign affairs with reference to the question of protection. The British minister at Tangier, in a report on the meeting, stated that the practice of giving protection to Moorish subjects, particularly by exempting them from the payment of taxes, had given rise to grave abuses, and that the evil was a growing one, more especially on the part of foreign officers representing countries which had no trade and few residents in Morocco. The foreign representatives at Tangier seemed generally to concur in this view. Further meetings were held, and the greater part of the demands put forward by the Moorish Government for the reformation of the system were agreed to, but some important questions were left undecided on account of the objections made by France, Italy, Portugal, and Brazil. The Spanish Government subsequently took the initiative in bringing about a conference on the subject at Madrid. The minister of the United States to Spain was authorized to take part in the conference. He was instructed that the United States was cordially in favor of the adopttion, by common consent, of an equitable rule which should do away with the excessive and injurious exercise of protection of natives which had grown up under the shadow of treaty stipulations and native usage, and which was represented as burdensome to the Moorish exchequer and unjust to the Government, but that due regard must be paid to the proper maintenance and security of consular establishments and to the necessary employment of natives as guards, interpreters, and servants, and in such capacity as might be essential to the proper representation and protection of foreign commercial interests. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, min. to Spain, March 12, 1880, MS. Inst. Spain, XVIII. 441; extracts, For. Rel. 1880, 893. The conference at Madrid resulted in the conclusion, July 3, 1880, of a convention between the United States, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden and Norway for the establishment of the right of protection in Morocco on a fixed and uniform basis. By this convention the protected persons, or protégés, are divided into three clases: 1. Native employees of legations and consulates. VII.) (Arts. I. 2. Native factors, brokers, or agents (semsars, in Arabic) employed by foreign merchants carrying on the import or export trade on a large scale, for their business affairs. (Art. X.) 3. Natives, not exceeding 12 in number, protected for exceptional services to the protecting power. (Art. XVI.) Unless for exceptional reasons, there is no necessity for issuing certificates of protection to persons falling within the first class, since the names of all official employees of the consulate-general and of the agencies thereunder are required by Art. VII. to be certified to the minister of foreign affairs and to the local authorities, so that their official status is well known and understood. Art. XIV. provides: "The mediation of interpreters, native secretaries or soldiers of the different legations or consulates, when per sons who are not under the protection of the legation or consulate are concerned, shall be admitted only when they are the bearers of a document signed by the head of a mission or by the consular authority." In the version of this article given in 22 Stat. S23; Consular Regulations, 1888, p. 339; Consular Regulations, 1896, p. 617, and elsewhere, the word "not" is omitted, thus making the article erroneously read "persons who are under the protection," instead of " persons who are not under the protection." Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, consul-general at Tangier, June 7, 1898, 162 MS. Inst. Consuls, 222, acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Partridge's No. 50, of May 19, 1898, and citing the following papers: Mr. Mathews, consul at Tangier, to the Department of State, No. 407, March 24, 1883, and the Department's reply, No. 235, April 30, 1883, and Mr. Mathews' No. 502, May 28, 1883. For regulations framed by the Department of State for the guidance of American consular officers in Morocco in the exercise of protection under the convention of 1880, see Mr. Porter, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, consul at Tangier, Dec. 9, 1886, 119 MS. Inst. Censuls, 688. As to a conference at Madrid, in 1888, to consider alleged abuses of protection under the existing treaties, see For. Rel. 1888, II. 1049; and as to the conference of 1880, 71 Br. & For. State Papers, 764, 814. For the agreement between Morocco and France of August 19, 1863, concerning the protection of native brokers, see 66 Br. & For. State Papers, 734. The mere fact that a person at one time served as a clerk to a United States consulate or consular agency is not held to constitute a signal or exceptional service under Art. XVI. of the convention of 1880. (Mr. Uhl, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Benzaquen, Feb. 11, 1896, 207 MS. Dom. Let. 635.) Mr. Barclay, consul-general at Tangier, in his No. 94, June 22, 1895, furnished a detailed list of United States protégés and semsars in Morocco, as well as certain information concerning them requested by instruction No. 46, May 21, 1895. (20 Consular Letters from Tangier.) For a review of this list, with important directions as to the conduct of See, further, as to the persons protected by the consulate, Mr. Uhl, Assist. |