III Interventions by Right
(a) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Not all the diplomatic interventions on behalf of Jews have proceeded on humanitarian grounds. Through the political assimilation of the Jews with the populations among whom they dwell, and more particularly through their emancipation in the various countries of Western Europe and America, they have acquired the same rights in foreign countries under International Law and treaties as their Christian fellow-citizens. Unfortunately this has not been universally recognised, and it has frequently happened that, when they travelled into countries where Jewish disabilities still lingered, they were held liable as Jews to ill-treatment from which their Christian fellow-countrymen were free. The question of the legality of this ill-treatment arose at an early date.
In 1556, the Jews in the Papal States suffered a terrible persecution at the hands of the fanatical Pope Paul IV. This culminated in the imprisonment of all the Marranos or Crypto Jews of Ancona, and their sentence to the stake. At that time the most influential Jews in Europe were the Mendes or Nasi Family of Portugal and the Low Countries, the head of which was the famous Donna Gracia Nasi. Her son-in-law, who afterwards became Duke of Naxos in the service of the Porte, for whom he conquered Cyprus, was the Rothschild as well as the Disraeli of his day.62 The Italian Jews sent piteous appeals to Donna Gracia, who was then settled in Constantinople. She at once addressed herself to the reigning Sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, and entreated his intervention, on the ground that the Marrano Jews in Ancona were for the most part Turkish subjects. The appeal was well conceived, for the Sultan was outraged by the idea that subjects of his could be maltreated by a foreign potentate. He promptly responded (March 9, 1556) by sending an ultimatum to the Pope, demanding the immediate release of his unjustly accused lieges, under pain of reprisals on the foreign Christians within his own dominions.63 The Turk in those days was not in the habit of treating Christian States with an excess of ceremony, and the Pope realised the wisdom of complying with the ultimatum. He revenged himself, however, by burning those of the prisoners who could not be shown to be Turkish subjects.64
This incident is of peculiar interest for its bearing on the still much debated question of the political status of Jews in the lands of their “Dispersion.” The Turkish Jews in 1556 seem to have had no doubt that they were full nationals of the Ottoman Porte and as such entitled to the protection of the Turkish Sultan. The precedent, however, was far from decisive. In other circumstances other views have prevailed. Thus in 1655, when the Commonwealth declared war on Spain, and an order was issued for the confiscation of the property of Spaniards in England, some of the Spanish Crypto Jews, then resident in London, appealed against the order on the ground that their national status was that of Jews and not that of Spaniards. This plea was allowed by the Admiralty Commissioners, to whom it was referred, and they discharged the orders made against the appellants.65
The question slumbered for a century and a half, and when it reappeared the Turk was again on the side of the light. In 1815, there was a dispute on this subject between Austria and Turkey. At that time the Jews of Turkey were treated better than the Jews of Austria. Austria applied to Turkish Jews visiting her territories the disabilities imposed upon her own Jews. Turkey protested on the ground that, according to the treaties—mainly the Treaty of Carlowitz—in force between the two powers, Austria had no right to make any distinction between Turkish Jews and other subjects of the Ottoman Porte. This contention was held to be valid by the Austrian Government, and the incident was terminated by the issue of an instruction to the police of Lower Austria, where the disabilities complained of were in force, ordering them to treat all Turkish subjects alike without distinction of race or creed.
The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left very little option to the Austrian Government,66 inasmuch as the reciprocity for which it stipulated was not based, as in other treaties, on what is known as “National treatment,” that is to say that the nationals of each contracting party visiting the territories of the other shall be treated on the same footing as the nationals of the territories they visit. The reason, no doubt, was that the racial and religious heterogeneity of both Empires, and the differential treatment to which it gave rise in their respective internal administrations, could not be recognised internationally without grave risk of friction and controversy. The lesson was not lost on other States, especially those which desired to maintain their differential treatment of Jews as against the doctrine of undenominational Nationality which was chiefly championed by France. The result was a strengthening of the “National treatment” clause of commercial treaties, and this, with the progress of religious liberty, led to a succession of fresh international disputes.
For many years, curiously enough, the chief offender was the democratic Swiss Confederation, the Federal constitution of which was exclusively Christian, while the Cantonal legislation was in many cases frankly and even aggressively anti-Semitic. Until 1827 the Swiss Commercial Treaties contained no hint of religious differentiation, but in that year, availing themselves of the reactionary and clerical sympathies of the government of Charles X, the Federal Authorities negotiated a Treaty with France containing a “National treatment” clause, under which the powers of the separate Cantons to deal as they pleased with Jews were, in effect, reserved. But this was not all. Lest the clause should be misinterpreted, the French Minister at Berne was authorised to address a secret Note to the President of the Swiss Diet acknowledging that it implied the desired restriction, on “the Jewish subjects of the King.”67 The transaction was obviously one which could not stand the light of the Revolution of 1830, and when three years later the Government of the Canton of Basle applied the Treaty in all its rigour to French Jews, the Duc de Broglie, then French Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued an Ordinance suspending the operation of the Treaty in regard to the offending Canton, and followed this up by severing diplomatic relations and by placing a military cordon on the frontier.68 The King himself approved the action of his Minister in an energetic speech to a deputation of the Consistoire Israélite. However, in 1835 the Ordinance was withdrawn, and until 1850 the peace was more or less preserved by a tacit modus vivendi.
The resistance of France was rendered difficult, partly by perplexities of general politics, but more immediately by the fact that the question was a larger one than it had at first appeared. In February 1840 a French Jew had been refused a permis de séjour by the police of Dresden on the ground that Jews were not permitted to reside in the city. The case was precisely similar to that of Switzerland, and M. Guizot, who was then Foreign Minister, hesitated to take up a strong attitude as he was afraid that the precedent might involve him in complications with other countries.69 Nevertheless, French public opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively debate, called upon the Government to make suitable representations to Saxony.70 In 1850 a Commercial Treaty between the United States and Switzerland was signed at Berne, but the American Senate, on the advice of the President, refused to ratify it because it discriminated against non-Christians.71 This was followed almost immediately by a revival of the anti-Semitic activity of the Basle police, chiefly at the expense of French Jews resident in the Canton. The French Government again protested energetically and insisted on the withdrawal of the police measures. The demand was sulkily complied with, the Cantonal Government reserving what they called “the principle.”72
In 1855 a new phase of the conflict was opened by the negotiation of two further Commercial Treaties with Switzerland—one by Great Britain and the other by the United States—in both of which the invidious reservations, substantially as in the French Treaty of 1827, were retained.73 Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in which these treaties were signed and ratified,74 but the probable explanation is that the Swiss negotiators promised in effect that there should be no discrimination. This conjecture is confirmed by the action of the Federal Assembly in the following year, in proposing a modification of the Constitution by which equal rights should be accorded to the Jews in all the Cantons. Unfortunately not all the Cantons agreed,75 and in 1857 American public opinion became much excited at the discovery that in the Canton of Neufchatel American citizens of the Jewish faith could not be protected by American passports.76 From this time until 1861 the United States took the place of France as the champion of Religious Liberty in Switzerland, and was strongly supported by Great Britain.77 Her efforts, however, were not successful, and it was still reserved for France to settle the question.
The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under the influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her Commercial Treaties. In negotiating the new Treaty with Switzerland she resolutely set her face against all discriminations, or possibilities of discrimination, between French citizens on the score of religion. The result was that she obtained in her new Treaty (June 30, 1864) a form of article without precedent in instruments of the kind.78 In place of “National treatment,” French citizens in Switzerland “without distinction of creed” were assured the same treatment as was accorded to “Christians.”79 This striking victory was speedily followed by the abolition of all Jewish disabilities throughout the Confederation.80
A series of more formidable cases of the same kind arose at a later period out of the disabilities imposed on Jews in Russia. The Powers mainly affected were the United States and Great Britain. Both had Treaties of Commerce with Russia, the American Treaty having been concluded in 1832 and the British in 1859. Both Treaties contained, in substantially the same form, articles guaranteeing reciprocal “National treatment” to the subjects of the High Contracting parties. There is, however, an extraordinary contrast in the interpretation of these Treaties by the British and American Governments respectively.
The question first came up for consideration in 1862. Certain British Jews resident in Warsaw complained that the disabilities imposed upon native Jews were also imposed upon them, and they appealed to Her Majesty’s Government for protection. Lord John Russell held that the articles of the Treaty of 1859, by which British subjects in Russia and Russian subjects in England were to be treated on an equal footing with the nationals of those countries, did not mean that British Jews in Russia should be treated as British subjects, but that they should only have equal treatment with their oppressed co-religionists. He accordingly declined to seek any relief for the petitioners.81 The case gave rise to no controversy, not only because the British and Russian Governments were at one in their interpretation of the Treaty, but because the facts were not made public at the time. It proved, however, a fatal and humiliating precedent. In 1880 a terrible era of persecution was inaugurated for the Jews of Russia, and it soon reacted on their foreign brethren visiting the country. Towards the end of the year a naturalised British Jew named Lewisohn was expelled from St. Petersburg because he was a Jew, and he invoked the protection of his Government. Lord Granville, who was then Foreign Secretary, was at first disposed to regard the expulsion as a violation of the Treaty,82 but later on he became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he declined to depart from it.83 In 1890, at the instance of the Jewish Conjoint Committee, Lord Salisbury submitted the question to the Law Officers of the Crown, with the result that the precedent set by Lord John Russell was confirmed on its merits and not—as in the case of Lord Granville—quâ precedent only.84 The last occasion on which an effort was made to obtain a reversal of this decision was in 1912. The Conjoint Committee addressed to the Secretary of State, Sir Edward Grey, an elaborate Memorandum reviewing the history and legal aspects of the question.85 The reply was in effect a reaffirmation of the previous decisions, but the grounds on which it was rested were different. Sir Edward Grey did not discuss the reasonableness of the established interpretation, but he pleaded that any departure from it would only lead to the termination of the Treaty, and that this would serve neither British nor Jewish interests.86
The dispute with the United States pursued a very different course. In its earliest stages it was dealt with by minor diplomatic and consular officials very much in the spirit of Lord John Russell,87 but when in 1880 the Russian Government began to expel American Jews from St. Petersburg, the question was taken in hand by the Secretary of State as one of gravity. It was at once recognised that a religious discrimination between American citizens could not be tolerated in any American Treaty. This was quite apart from the question of the legal interpretation of the Treaty of 1832.88 That question, however, was dealt with vigorously by Mr. Blaine in July 1881. He took the broad view that the intention of the United States in 1832 was not, and could not have been, that which the Russian Government read into the Treaty, that the Russian interpretation was indefensible on moral grounds, and that on such questions local law cannot be permitted to override the express terms of a Treaty.89 On this basis the United States patiently sought a reversal of the Russian view, but without success. The fight lasted thirty years. Eventually American public opinion became agitated, an organised movement for the termination of the obnoxious treaty was set on foot, and in December 1911 the House of Representatives at Washington sent a strongly worded joint resolution to the Senate declaring that Russia had violated the Treaty and calling upon the President to denounce it. The Russian Ambassador in Washington expressed official disapproval of the resolution, but President Taft acted upon it without waiting for the Senate, and denounced the Treaty on December 15. Thereupon the Senate contented itself with a joint resolution approving the action of the President.90
The question of the status of Jews in foreign lands has also arisen in Palestine and Morocco. In 1882 the Turkish Government, fearing a Zionist propaganda, prohibited the settlement of foreign Jews in the Holy Land. The United States protested, and in 1887 and 1888 similar action was taken by Great Britain and France. In the following year the restriction was removed.91 In the case of Morocco, Great Britain solved the question in advance by stipulating in her Treaty with that country, negotiated in 1855, that her Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish subjects visiting and residing in Morocco should be treated on an equal footing.92
DOCUMENTS.
Art. XIV.—Treaty of Carlowitz between the Emperor and the Grand Sultan, Jan. 26, 1699.93
XIV. Trade shall be free for the Subjects of both Partys, in all the Kingdoms and Dominions of both Empires, according to the antient sacred Capitulations. And that it may be carry’d on by both Partys with Profit and without Fraud and Deceit, the same shall be settled by Stipulations between Commissarys deputed on both sides, well vers’d in Merchandize, at the time of solemn Embassys on both sides, and as has been observ’d with other Nations in Friendship with the Sublime Empire, so his Imperial Majesty’s subjects of what Nation soever, shall enjoy the Security and Advantage of Trade in the Kingdoms of the Sublime Empire, as well as the usual Privileges in a fitting manner.
(“Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce,” London, 1732, vol. iv. p. 298.)
Interpretation by Austrian Government. Instructions to Police of Lower Austria, Dec. 28, 1815.
“All differences established between Turkish Jews and other subjects of the Ottoman Porte appear contrary to the spirit of the Treaties. These speak of ‘Turkish subjects’ without making any exception. It is consequently to this quality only that one must have regard, and not in any case to the religion or profession of individuals.”
(Quoted by M. Carnot in Debate in French Chamber. Moniteur, May 29, 1841.)
Arts. I, III and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, May 30, 1827.
Article premier.—Les Français seront reçus et traités, dans chaque canton de la Confédération, relativement à leurs personnes et à leurs propriétés, sur le même pied et de la même manière que le sont ou pourront l’être à l’avenir les ressortissants suisses des autres cantons. Tout genre d’industrie et de commerce permis aux ressortissants suisses des divers cantons le sera également aux Français et sans qu’on puisse exiger d’eux aucune condition pécuniaire ou autre plus onéreuse. Lorsqu’ils prendront domicile ou formeront un établissement dans les cantons qui admettent les ressortissants de leurs co-états, ils ne seront également astreints à aucune autre condition que ces derniers.
Art. 3.—Les Suisses jouiront en France des mêmes droits et avantages que l’article premier assure aux Français en Suisse, de telle sorte qu’à l’égard des cantons qui, sous les rapports spécifiés audit article premier, traiteront les Français comme leurs propres ressortissants, ceux-ci seront, sous les mêmes rapports, traités en France comme les nationaux. Sa Majesté Très Chrétienne garantit aux autres cantons les mêmes droits et avantages dont ils feront jouir ses sujets.
Art. 6.—Les Français établis en Suisse, de même que les Suisses établis en France en vertu du traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits qui leur étaient acquis. Toutes les dispositions de la présente convention leur seront d’ailleurs applicables.
(Brisac: “Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France,” pp. 10-11.)
Interpretation by French Negotiator. Secret Note to the Swiss Diet, August 7, 1826.
Le premier point qui a paru avoir besoin de quelques éclaircissements est relatif aux israélites sujets du roi, lesquels, en cette dernière qualité, pourraient se croire autorisés à réclamer, dans tous les cantons suisses, le bénéfice de l’article 5 du projet de traité arrêté entre la commission de la Diète et moi. Je ferai observer à cet égard que, cet article premier n’accordant aux Français que les droits qui sont accordés par chaque canton suisse aux ressortissants des autres cantons, il s’ensuit nécessairement que, dans ceux des cantons où le domicile et tout nouvel établissement serait interdit, par les lois du canton souverain, aux individus de la religion de Moïse, les sujets du roi qui professent cette religion ne sauraient se prévaloir de l’article en question pour réclamer une exception à la règle générale du canton suisse. Il est toutefois bien entendu que c’est une conséquence directe de l’article 6 du projet de traité, que ceux d’entre les israélites d’origine française qui se seraient établis sur le territoire de la Confédération sous le régime de l’acte de médiation et en vertu du traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits qui leur étaient acquis.
(Brisac: op. cit., pp. 12-13.)
Interpretation by France (1835). Speech by King Louis Philippe to a Deputation from the Consistoire Israélite, November 5, 1835.
Le roi a répondu:
“Oui, dans tous les temps j’ai regardé comme injustes et impolitiques les mesures qui établissaient entre les citoyens d’une même nation des différences de qualifications sociales fondées sur la diversité des croyances religieuses. Comme roi j’ai soutenu ce principe, et je vous ai déjà témoigné plusieurs fois combien j’avais joui qu’il m’eût été réservé de vous en faire l’application. J’espère qu’elle deviendra générale, je le désire beaucoup. Je crois que c’est dans l’intérêt bien entendu de tous les peuples, et la raison doit finir par l’emporter sur les préjugés, comme l’eau qui tombe goutte à goutte finit par percer le plus dur rocher. Tels sont au moins mes désirs et mes espérances; mais je ne puis me mêler de ce qui se passe dans les autres États, à moins que les intérêts français n’en soient lésés, ainsi que cela est arrivé dans le canton de Bâle campagne. J’avoue que j’ai été bien aise d’avoir cette occasion de bien établir que sous mon règne tous les Français jouissent des mêmes droits et que tous obtiennent la même protection de la part de mon gouvernement. J’espère que mes efforts ne seront pas infructueux et que, dans l’affaire même dont vous m’entretenez, le canton reviendra sur une détermination aussi contraire à nos traités avec la Suisse qu’à l’esprit du siècle où nous vivons. Pour moi, je suis heureux d’avoir donné l’exemple de votre complète émancipation, et je vous remercie de la justice que vous rendez à mes actes et à mes intentions; je suis bien touché de ce que vous venez de m’exprimer.”
(Moniteur, Nov. 12, 1835.)
Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty of Establishment,
June 30, 1864.
“Tous les Français sans distinction de culte seront reçus et traités à l’avenir dans chacun des Cantons suisses sur le même pied que les ressortissants chrétiens des autres Cantons.”
(Brisac: op. cit., p. 53.)
Art. I. Anglo-Swiss Treaty, September 6, 1855.
Article I. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted to reside in each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions, and on the same footing, as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same manner, Swiss citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the same conditions, and on the same footing as British subjects.
Consequently, the subjects and citizens of either of the two Contracting Parties shall, provided they conform to the laws of the country, be at liberty, with their families, to enter, establish themselves, reside, and remain in any part of the territories of the other. They may hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of residence and commerce, and may exercise, conformably to the laws of the country, any profession or business, or carry on trade in articles of lawful commerce by wholesale or retail, and may conduct such trade either in person or by any brokers or agents whom they may think fit to employ, provided such brokers or agents shall themselves also fulfil the conditions necessary for being admitted to reside in the country. They shall not be subject to any taxes, charges or conditions in respect of residence, establishment, passports, licences to reside, establish themselves, or to trade, in respect of permission to exercise their profession, business, trade, or occupation, greater or more onerous than those which are or may be imposed upon the subjects or citizens of the country in which they reside; and they shall, in all these respects, enjoy every right, privilege, and exemption which is or may be accorded to subjects or citizens of the country, or to subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation.
(Bernhardt, “Handbook of Treaties, &c., relating to Commerce,” Lond. 1908, pp. 915-916.)
Art. I. American-Swiss Treaty, November 6, 1855.
Art. I. “The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal equality in the two countries, where such admission and treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal, of the contracting parties.
(Pub. Amer. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. xi. p. 15.)
Interpretation by the United States, 1857. Letter from the Assistant Secretary of State to the Jews of Baltimore.
August 13, 1857.
In compliance with your request, I enclose herewith a copy of the treaty between the United States and Switzerland which was proclaimed in 1855. It was originally concluded in 1850, but was amended with a view to avoid some objections which were made on the very subject to which you refer. In its present form, although it may not remove some difficulties with reference to those who profess the Israelitish faith, yet I do not see that it discriminates against this class of our citizens in any mode whatever. Undoubtedly in some portions of the Confederation the local laws are less liberal to Israelites than to others, and this is deeply to be regretted; but the Government of the United States has no control over the legislation of a foreign State and can only employ its influence and good offices to relieve the difficulties which such legislation may impose in any given case.
John Appleton.
(Ibid., p. 23.)
Action by the United States, 1861. Instruction to Mr. Fogg, Minister to Switzerland.
September 14, 1861.
Sir,—Among the important instructions addressed to your predecessor are those concerning the restrictions of certain of the Swiss Cantons against citizens of the United States professing Judaism—a subject which received at Mr. Fay’s hands a large share of earnest attention and upon which he addressed the department repeatedly and at much length. It is very desirable that his efforts to procure the removal of the restrictions referred to, which, though not completely successful, have no doubt had much effect in smoothing the way to such a result, should be followed up by you. You will therefore, after having fully acquainted yourself with what Mr. Fay has done in the premises and with the views of the department as expressed to him in the despatches on file in the Legation, take such steps as you may deem judicious and legal to advance the benevolent object in question. It is not doubted that further proper appeals to the justice and liberality of the authorities of the several Cantons whose laws discriminate against Israelitish citizens of the United States, will result in a removal of the odious restrictions and a recognition of the just rights of those citizens.
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
(Ibid., pp. 47-48.)
Art. I. Russo-American Treaty, December 18, 1832.
Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation.
The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places and rivers of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce.
(“Brit. and For. State Papers,” vol. xx. p. 267.)
Interpretation by United States, 1881. Dispatch of Secretary of State to the American Minister in St. Petersburg.
Department of State, Washington,
July 29, 1881.
Sir,—...The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of a treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it cannot be limited by the operations of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional engagement in favor of the citizens in another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable.
I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal protection of all classes of American citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination between them, whatever be their origin or creed. So that they abide by the laws at home or abroad it must give them due protection and expect like protection for them. Any unfriendly or discriminatory act against them on the part of a foreign power with which we are at peace would call for our earnest remonstrance, whether a treaty existed or not. The friendliness of our relations with foreign nations is emphasized by the treaties we have concluded with them. We have been moved to enter into such international compacts by considerations of mutual benefit and reciprocity, by the same considerations, in short, which have animated the Russian Government from the time of the noble and tolerant declarations of the Empress Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believed that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; and it is therefore a source of unfeigned regret to us when a Government, to which we are allied by so many historical ties as to that of Russia, shows a disposition in its dealings with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its international engagements in justification of the expulsion from its territories of peaceable American citizens resorting thither under the good faith of treaties and accused of no wrong-doing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple adherence to the faith of their fathers....
I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties remain unrepealed in the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other nations. Even we ourselves have our obsolete “blue laws,” and their literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, might to-day subject a Russian of freethinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, to the penalty of having his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for blasphemy. Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than the letter of outworn laws, and statutory enactments are not so inelastic but that they relax and change with the general advancement of peoples in the path of tolerance.
The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pursue their callings unmolested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient proscriptive laws, is in itself an eloquent testimony to the principle of progress. And so, too, in Spain, where the persecution and expulsion of the Jews is one of the most notable and deplorable facts in history, and where the edicts of the earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see to-day an offer of protection and assured right of domicile made to Israelites of every race....
I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholomey to acquaint him with the general views of the President in relation to this matter.
I cannot better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating and amplifying those views which the President so firmly holds, and which he so anxiously desires to have recognized and responded to by the Russian Government.
He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating the treaty of December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal engagements then entered into with the Government of Russia, give us moral ground to expect careful attention to our opinions as to its rational interpretation in the broadest and most impartial sense; that he would deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of the relations of the two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to find that this large national sentiment fails to control the present issue, or that a narrow and rigid limitation of the construction possible to the treaty stipulation between the two countries is likely to be adhered to; that if, after a frank comparison of the views of the two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest desire to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations between the United States and Russia are found insufficient to determine questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient in these regards; and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which Russia professes toward us than a frank declaration of her readiness to come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and generous spirit.
I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore with the minister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you have on some occasions given discreet expression to the feelings of sympathy and gratification with which this Government and people regard any steps taken in foreign countries in the direction of a liberal tolerance analogous to that which forms the fundamental principle of our national existence. Such expressions were natural on your part and reflected a sentiment which we all feel. But in making the President’s views known to the minister I desire that you will carefully subordinate such sentiments to the simple consideration of what is conscientiously believed to be due to our citizens in foreign lands. You will distinctly impress upon him that, regardful of the sovereignty of Russia, we do not submit any suggestions touching the laws and customs of the Empire except where those laws and customs conflict with and destroy the rights of American citizens as assured by treaty obligations.
You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their religious faith.
I cannot but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views of this Government will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that of Russia and that the questions at issue will soon find their natural solution in harmony with the noble spirit of tolerance which pervaded the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the statesmanlike declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the late decree of the Czar Alexander II in 1860.
You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and should he desire a copy you will give it to him.
James G. Blaine.
(“For. Relat. of the U.S.,” 1881, pp. 1030 et seq.)
Denunciation by United States, 1911.
Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911.
Resolved, etc., That the people of the United States assert as a fundamental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of race or religion; that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or religion; that the Government of the United States will not be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of race or religion; that the Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States and Russia, concluded at St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832, refusing to honor American passports duly issued to American citizens, on account of race and religion; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; that for the aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to be terminated and of no further force and effect from the expiration of one year after the date of notification to the Government of Russia of the terms of this resolution, and that to this end the President is hereby charged with the duty of communicating such notice to the Government of Russia.
(“Congressional Record,” xlviii. 280, 304-305.)
Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911.
Whereas the treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Russia concluded on the 18th day of December, 1832, provides in Article XII thereof that it “shall continue in force until the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting parties shall not have announced to the other by an official notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof this treaty shall remain obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the expiration of the year which shall commence after the date of a similar notification”; and
Whereas on the 17th day of December, 1911, the President caused to be delivered to the Imperial Russian Government by the American Ambassador at St. Petersburg an official notification on behalf of the Government of the United States announcing intention to terminate the operation of this treaty upon the expiration of the year commencing on the 1st day of January 1912; and
Whereas said treaty is no longer responsive in various respects to the political principles and commercial needs of the two countries; and
Whereas the constructions placed thereon by the respective contracting parties differ upon matters of fundamental importance and interest to each; Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the notice thus given by the President of the United States to the Government of the Empire of Russia to terminate said treaty in accordance with the terms of the Treaty is hereby adopted and ratified.
(Ibid., pp. 493-522.)
Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, January 12, 1859.
Article I. There shall be between all the dominions and possessions of the two High Contracting Parties, reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation. The subjects of each of the two Contracting Parties, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come, with their ships and cargoes, to all places, ports and rivers in the dominions and possessions of the other, to which other foreigners are or may be permitted to come; and shall, throughout the whole extent of the dominions and possessions of the other, enjoy the same rights, privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and exemptions in matters of commerce and navigation, which are or may be enjoyed by native subjects generally.
It is understood, however, that the preceding stipulations in no wise affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry, and police, in vigour in each of the two countries, and generally applicable to all foreigners.
Article XI. The subjects of either of the two High Contracting Parties, conforming themselves to the laws of the country, shall have:—
1. Full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party.
2. They shall be permitted, in the towns and ports, to hire or possess the houses, warehouses, shops and premises, which may be necessary for them.
3. They may carry on their commerce, either in person or by any agents whom they may think fit to employ.
4. They shall not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of passports, licences for residence or establishment, nor in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, nor to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever, other or greater than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects.
(Bernhardt: op. cit., pp. 721, 724-725.)
Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881. Despatch from Lord Granville to H.B.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.
Foreign Office,
December 28th, 1881.
Sir,—In my preceding despatch of to-day I have discussed the question whether Mr. Lewisohn, in the arbitrary expulsion from Russia to which he was subjected in September of last year, was treated in accordance with the Russian law as applied to foreign Jews. It now remains to be considered whether Her Majesty’s Government are entitled to claim for a British subject of the Jewish faith immunity from the operation of these laws, under the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1859.
It will be seen that Article I of that Treaty secures to foreigners the same rights as are enjoyed by native subjects generally, but the stipulations of that Article are not to affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry and police in vigour in each of the two countries, and applicable to foreigners generally; and again, by Article XI, they are not to be subjected to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever other and greater than those which are or may be imposed on native subjects.
The Treaty is no doubt open to two possible constructions: the one, that it only assures to British subjects of any particular creed the same privileges as are enjoyed by Russian subjects of the same creed; the other that the privileges accorded to British subjects are accorded to all alike, without regard to the religious body to which they belong.
If the latter construction be adopted, British Jews in Russia would be entitled to be relieved from the disabilities to which native Jews are liable, but such a construction would also involve the supposition that Russia had agreed to create a state of things inconsistent with the traditions of her Government, which could not fail to be a source of embarrassment to her.
Upon an examination of the archives of this Department, it has been found that the position of the Jews in Russia formed the subject of a complaint from certain British subjects of that religion at Warsaw in 1862, and that Her Majesty’s Government then came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in claiming exemption for British Jews in Russia from disabilities to which their Russian co-religionists were liable by law.
On that occasion Earl Russell informed Lord Napier, then Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, that the effect of the 1st and 11th Articles of the Treaty was to place British subjects on the footing of Russian subjects before the law, each class being alike, and one not more than the other amenable to all general laws applicable in like cases; that as Russian subjects, being Jews, incurred certain disabilities, the equality intended and provided for by the Treaty was not infringed by British subjects who were Jews and resident in Russia sharing the same disabilities. The despatch went on to say that it would seem to be beyond the scope and general intent of a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation if it were to be held to repeal in the persons of foreigners the legal disabilities to which, for reasons of general State policy, particular classes of individual natives of the country had been subjected, and it was hardly to be supposed that such an interpretation would be accepted or adopted by an independent Government as against itself.
Her Majesty’s Government feel that they cannot now insist upon a construction of the Treaty at variance with that which was placed upon it in 1862.
I am, &c.,
Granville.
(“Parl. Paper, Russia,” No. 4 (1881), p. 21.)
Interpretation by Great Britain, 1891. Letter from the Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid.
Foreign Office,
January 29th, 1891.
Sir,—With reference to the letter from this office of the 16th ultimo and to previous correspondence respecting the position of British Jews in Russia, I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to inform you that the question has been fully considered in communication with the Law Officers of the Crown.
Her Majesty’s Government are advised that, so long as the disabilities to which British and Russian Jews are subjected are substantially the same, it is not open to Her Majesty’s Government to depart from the interpretation of Treaties laid down in Lord Granville’s despatch of December 28, 1881.
You will find a copy of this despatch on page 21 of the Parliamentary Paper “Russia No. 4, 1881.”
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble Servant,
T. H. Sanderson.
Sir J. Goldsmid, Bart., M.P.
Interpretation by Great Britain, 1912. Letter from Sir Edward Grey to the Conjoint Committee.
Foreign Office,
October 1st, 1912.
Gentlemen,—Secretary Sir E. Grey has had under his careful consideration your Memorial of August 2nd last on the subject of the grievances caused by the restrictions imposed in Russia on British subjects of the Jewish faith in regard to the interpretation of Articles I and XI of the Treaty of Commerce between this country and Russia of January 12th, 1859.
I am to inform you that, inasmuch as the construction which should be placed on the Articles of the Treaty was carefully considered by His Majesty’s Government in 1862, and again in 1881, His Majesty’s Government would not now be able to reverse the decision then arrived at, and that an attempt to do so, or to interpret and utilise the Treaty in a sense contrary to the spirit of that decision, would only lead to its termination by formal notice as provided for by the Treaty at the end of twelve months. Such result would in no way advance the interests of those whom you represent, and would in other respects be disadvantageous to British interests. Sir E. Grey, therefore, regrets that he is unable to approach the Russian Government in the sense desired.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
Eyre A. Crowe.
The Conjoint Jewish Committee,
19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.
(“Annual Report, Board of Deputies, 1912,” pp. 81-82.)
Art. XIII. Anglo-Moorish Treaty, December 9, 1856.
Article XIII. All British subjects, whether Mahometans, Jews, or Christians, shall alike enjoy all the rights and privileges granted by the present Treaty and the Convention of Commerce and Navigation which has also been concluded this day, or which shall at any time be granted to the most favoured nation.
(Bernhardt: op. cit., p. 561.)
(b) CONSULAR PROTECTION.
Besides natural born and naturalised Jewish subjects of intervening States, there is another class of Jews on whose behalf protective interventions have been exercised on grounds of right. These are native Jews who for one reason or another have acquired Consular Protection under the Capitulations and other exterritorial privileges enjoyed by foreign States in Oriental and semi-barbarous countries. The origin of this protection has already been briefly described.94
The exact national status of the persons on whom it is conferred is not easy to define, but in the Foreign Jurisdiction Orders in Council they are assimilated with “British subjects” so far as British exterritorial jurisdiction is concerned,95 and this roughly has been the practice of all States exercising Consular Protection.
The system lent itself easily to abuse and fraud, chiefly because exterritoriality in the countries in which it was exercised generally carried with it immunity not only from arbitrary exactions but also from ordinary taxation. Moreover, in the case of native Jews who often suffered from Moslem fanaticism—chiefly in Morocco and Persia—Consular Protection was exercised from motives of humanity, and for that purpose more or less fictitious qualifications were found for them. We get a curious glimpse of the loose way in which Consular Protection was granted from the Anglo-Turkish Treaty of 1809. Under the Capitulations (Arts. LIX and LX) native interpreters and servants of the Embassy were free of taxes and indeed of Turkish jurisdiction generally. By the Treaty of 1809 (Art. IX) it was agreed that in future the berats of interpreters should not issue to “artizans, shopkeepers, bankers and other persons not acting as interpreters.”96 Owing to this stipulation and the sensitiveness of the Porte in regard to its jurisdiction over its own subjects, irregular Protections were discontinued in Turkey. This, however, was not a source of serious grievance to Jews, as on the whole they have been extremely well treated in the Ottoman Empire.
It is not generally known—and the fact may prove of peculiar importance at the present moment—that all Russian Jews settled in Palestine are, on certain conditions, entitled to claim British protection and so much of the status of British subjects as this privilege implies. In 1849, when there was a considerable influx of Russian Jews into Jerusalem, the Russian Government, having no Consul in the city and for other reasons, desired to get rid of the responsibility of protecting them. Accordingly an arrangement was arrived at between the British and Russian authorities permitting such Jews, on receiving papers of dismissal from their Russian allegiance from the Vice-Consul at Jaffa, to register at the British Consulate as British protégés. A large number availed themselves of the privilege. There is nothing to show that the Agreement of 1849 was ever cancelled.97
In Morocco the Consular Protection System affected Jews more closely than in Turkey. It was for many years their sole protection against the oppressions of the Bashaws and the cruel fanaticism of the people, and on this ground there was much to be said for its so-called abuses and irregularities. The right of protection seems to have been derived from a very loosely worded article of the Anglo-Moorish Treaty of 1728, granting immunity from taxation to all the native servants of British subjects, whether Moors or Jews.98 This Treaty was abrogated by the general Treaty of 1856 (Article XXXVIII) and a more definite scope was given to British Consular jurisdiction (Article III), but in a Treaty of Commerce signed on the same day, it was expressly stipulated (Article IV) that native agents employed by British subjects “shall be treated and regarded as other subjects of the Moorish dominions.”99 Nevertheless, the old abuses continued in virtue of the “Most favoured nation” clause,100 and a very large number of native Jews received protection at the hands of the Consuls of all the Powers, partly on account of their usefulness and partly on account of the insecurity of their lives and property under the Moorish authorities.
It was, however, difficult to restrain Moorish fanaticism, and the Consuls were frequently called upon to protect their Jewish protégés or to avenge outrages of which they became victims.101
DOCUMENTS.
Protection of Russian Jews in Palestine.—the Agreement of 1849.
Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies.
Foreign Office,
February 1st, 1864.
Sir,—I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your two letters of the 29th of December and 22nd inst., in the former of which you enclose a Memorial to His Lordship from the Jews of Safed and Tiberias, praying that they may again be placed under British protection, of which they assert that they were deprived by Mr. Consul Finn under the circumstances stated by them.
I am now to state to you in reply for the information of the Memorialists that Her Majesty’s Government have every disposition to give effect to the arrangements which were made with the Russian Consul General in 1849, namely to afford British protection to those Jews who, having declined to return to Russia, have divested themselves of their Russian Nationality, and so forfeited the protection to which primâ facie they were entitled to look. But I am to add that it must be distinctly understood that this can only be done by the production on the part of the individual seeking British protection of the formal letter of Dismissal from the Russian Consulate, shewing that he has been cast off from Russian protection, and would thus be left otherwise unprotected. If he can produce no such letter, Her Majesty’s Consular Officers will not be entitled to grant to such individual British protection.
Mr. Finn acted erroneously in originally supposing that British protection could be granted to Russian Jews without the production of formal letters of dismissal, and it was in consequence of instructions from Her Majesty’s Government that he withdrew British Consular protection from those persons who could not produce such letters. Lord Russell, however, is of opinion that Mr. Finn has shewn satisfactorily that his good offices have nevertheless not unfrequently been extended to the Jewish Communities at Safed and Tiberias, and that they have no just reason to complain of him.
A delay has been occasioned in answering your first letter by the necessity of communicating with Mr. Finn and of making other inquiries with regard to the statements contained in the Memorial.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
I. Hammond.
J. M. Montefiore, Esq.,
4 Gt. Stanhope St., Mayfair.
(Minute Books of Board of Deputies, 1864.)
Art. III. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of January 14, 1727-8.
III. That the Menial Servants of his Britannic Majesty’s Subjects, the Natives of the Country, either Moors or Jews, be exempt from Taxes of all kinds.
(“A General Collection of Treaties” (1732), iv. 458.)
Art. III. Anglo-Moorish General Treaty of December 9, 1856.
Extract.
Article III....The British Chargé d’Affaires shall be at liberty to choose his own interpreters and servants, either from the Mussulmans or others, and neither his interpreters nor servants shall be compelled to pay any capitation tax, forced contribution, or other similar or corresponding charge. With respect to the Consuls or Vice-Consuls who shall reside at the ports under the orders of the said Chargé d’Affaires, they shall be at liberty to choose one interpreter, one guard, and two servants, either from the Mussulmans or others; and neither the interpreter, nor the guard, nor their servants, shall be compelled to pay any capitation tax, forced contribution, or other similar or corresponding charge. If the said Chargé d’Affaires should appoint a subject of the Sultan of Morocco as Vice-Consul at a Moorish port, the said Vice-Consul, and those members of his family who may dwell within his house, shall be respected, and exempted from the payment of any capitation tax, or other similar or corresponding charge; but the said Vice-Consul shall not take under his protection any subject of the Sultan of Morocco except the members of his family dwelling under his roof.
(Bernhardt: op. cit., p. 556.)
Art. IV. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of Commerce of December 9, 1856.
Extract.
Article IV. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty within the dominions of His Majesty the Sultan shall be free to manage their own affairs themselves, or to commit those affairs to the management of any persons whom they may appoint as their broker, factor or agent; nor shall such British subjects be restrained in their choice of persons to act in such capacities; nor shall they be called upon to pay any salary or remuneration to any person whom they shall not choose to employ; but those persons who shall be thus employed, and who are subjects of the Sultan of Morocco, shall be treated and regarded as other subjects of the Moorish dominions.
(Ibid. p. 573.)
Franco-Moorish “Règlement” regarding Protection, August 19, 1863.
Extracts.
La protection est individuelle et temporaire.
Elle ne s’applique pas en général aux parents de l’individu protégé.
Elle ne peut s’appliquer à sa famille, c’est-à-dire à la femme et aux enfants demeurant sous le même toit.
Elle est tout au plus viagère, jamais héréditaire, sauf la seule exception admise en faveur de la famille Benchimol, qui, de père en fils, a fourni et fournit des censaux interprètes au port de Tanger.
Les protégés se divisent en deux catégories:
La première catégorie comprend les indigènes employés par la Légation et par les différentes Autorités consulaires.
La seconde catégorie se compose des facteurs, courtiers ou agents indigènes employés par les négociants français pour leurs affaires de commerce....
Le nombre des courtiers indigènes jouissant de la protection française est limité à deux par maison de commerce. Par exception, les maisons de commerce qui ont des comptoirs dans différents ports pourront avoir des courtiers attachés à chacun de ces comptoirs et jouissant à ce titre de la protection française....
Il est entendu, que les cultivateurs, gardiens de troupeaux ou autres paysans indigènes au service des Français ne pourront être l’objet de poursuites judiciaires sans que l’Autorité consulaire compétente en soit immédiatement informée, afin que celle-ci puisse sauvegarder l’intérêt de ses nationaux....
(De Card: “Les Traités entre la France et le Maroc” (Paris, 1898), pp. 221-22.)
(c) THE CONFERENCES OF MADRID (1800) AND ALGECIRAS (1906).
Through the efforts of the British Minister at Tangier, Sir John Drummond Hay, who had negotiated the Treaties of 1856 and who was strongly opposed to the abuses of the Protection system, a Conference of the Powers and other interested States was held at Madrid in 1880 with the object of introducing reforms.102 A new Convention, containing a few fresh restrictions, was agreed upon, but, as a matter of fact, the Conference was a failure, owing to the reluctance of France to abandon a system which gave her an advantage against Great Britain in promoting her influence in Morocco.103 For obvious reasons, Jewish influence was also largely used to the same end. The Jewish factor of the problem came out very prominently in the debates of the Conference. All the protégés referred to by name were Jews, such as the families of Benchimol, Moses Nahon, David Buzaglo, and Isaac Toledano.104 One of the few reforms carried out by the Conference was the abolition of hereditary protection. An exception was, however, made in the case of the Jewish family of Benchimol, whose rights in this respect had been guaranteed in the Convention of 1863 with France, and a special reservation to this effect was inserted in the new Treaty.105
The Conference also dealt with the general questions of Religious Liberty in Morocco and of the treatment of native Jews. In 1864 Sir Moses Montefiore, as President of the Jewish Board of Deputies and with the support of the British Government, had undertaken a mission to Morocco in order to secure an improvement in the treatment of the non-Mohammedan population, and more particularly the Jews. He succeeded in obtaining from the Sultan a remarkable Edict assuring to the Jews a perfect equality of treatment with all the other subjects of the Sultan.106 This Edict had not been observed, and, at the instance of the Pope, the Madrid Conference adopted a Declaration calling upon the Shereefian Government to give effect to it and at the same time to assure Religious Liberty to all its subjects. The result was to extract from the Sultan a formal reaffirmation of the Montefiore Edict.107
A similar course was pursued by the Conference which met at Algeciras in 1906 to consider the Moorish question in its wider political aspects. The intervening quarter of a century had been as barren of reforms as the period which elapsed between the granting of the Edict of 1864 and the meeting of the Madrid Conference. The maltreatment of the Jews had continued, and had been the subject of frequent complaints by the Alliance Israélite, the Anglo-Jewish Association, and the American Jewish Committee, and of remonstrances by their respective Governments. Accordingly at the instance of the United States Government, the question was brought before the Algeciras Conference, and, at the sitting of that body on April 2, 1906, a resolution was adopted, again calling upon the Sultan of Morocco to see “that the Jews of his Empire and all his subjects, without distinction of faith, were treated with justice and equality.”108
No steps, however, were taken to enforce this resolution, and it was not even made a treaty obligation. That, however, was of little consequence, for, very shortly after, the Moorish Empire virtually disappeared, and a French Protectorate was proclaimed. The Jews of Morocco are now in the same situation as their brethren in Algiers and Tunis, which, however, is not to say that it is entirely satisfactory.
DOCUMENTS.
Extracts from Protocols of the Madrid Conference (1880).
Protocole No. 3.—Séance du 20 Mai, 1880.
Sur la question de la protection héréditaire, le Plénipotentiaire de France rappelle que la Convention de 1863 accorde formellement cette protection à la famille Benchimol. Les raisons qui ont motivé cette exception ont été dûment appreciées à cette époque par le Gouvernement Marocain; elles ont conservé toute leur force, et il est impossible au Gouvernement Français d’abandonner une famille qui jouit depuis 17 ans de la plus juste considération. Il demande le maintien de cette exception si légitime.
Le Plénipotentiaire du Portugal, tout en maintenant dans toute son étendue le droit au traitement de la nation la plus favorisée, reconnu toujours au Portugal et récemment encore lors des Ambassades spéciales envoyées par sa Majesté Chérifienne en 1875 et 1877, admet que la France puisse alléguer des motifs spéciaux en faveur d’une exception qui, selon lui, n’invalide pas le principe. Il accepte donc sans reserve que la protection ne soit pas héréditaire, avec l’exception unique établi nominativement dans la Convention de 1863. Seulement pour le cas où le Gouvernement Marocain accorderait par la suite d’autres exceptions de cette nature, il réserverait le droit du Gouvernement Portugais de réclamer une exception analogue.
Pareille réserve est faite par les autres Plénipotentiaires.
“La protection n’est point héréditaire. Une seule exception est maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol, comme étant établie dans la Convention de 1863; mais elle ne saurait créer un précédent. Cependant si le Souverain du Maroc accordait une autre exception, toutes les Puissances représentées à la Conférence auraient le droit de réclamer une exception pareille.”
Protocole No. 11.—Séance du 24 Juin, 1880.
Le Plénipotentiaire d’Italie demande la parole, et s’exprime en ces termes:—
“...L’Italie a toujours maintenu inaltérable son droit consuétudinaire sans jamais en abuser. En effet, en examinant le chiffre de 108, auquel montent ses protégés, on trouvera que 11 seulement sont protégés en vertu du droit consuétudinaire.
“Six sont d’anciens Vice-Consuls et interprètes des États Italiens composant actuellement le Royaume d’Italie. Le nombre de ceux qui ont rendu ainsi des services à l’Italie est de six et non d’un seul (M. Moses Nahon), comme M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères du Maroc avait cru pouvoir l’affirmer dans la séance du 19 Juillet, 1879, des Conférences de Tanger.
“La veuve David Buzaglo et ses deux fils composent la famille d’un Agent Diplomatique Italien, et jouisse à ce titre de la protection.
“La veuve Isaac Toldano et 8 autres personnes appartiennent à la famille de Joseph Toldano, Interprète de la Légation d’Italie, famille qui jusqu’à présent a joui de la protection héréditaire comme la famille Benchimol, protégée par la France.”
(“Brit. and For. State Papers,” lxxi. 825-826, 872, 873-874.)
Art. VI. Treaty of Madrid, July 6, 1880.109
VI. La protection s’étend sur la famille du protégé. Sa demeure est respectée.
Il est entendu que la famille ne se compose que de la femme, des enfants, et des parents mineurs qui habitent sous le même toit.
La protection n’est pas héréditaire. Une seule exception, déjà établie par la Convention de 1863, et qui ne saurait créer un précédent, est maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol.
Cependant, si le Sultan du Maroc accordait une autre exception, chacune des Puissances Contractantes aurait le droit de réclamer une concession semblable.
(Ibid., pp. 641-642.)
The Montefiore Edict, 1864.
In the Name of God, the Merciful and Gracious. There is no power but
in God, the High and Mighty.
Be it known by this our Royal Edict—may God exalt and bless its purport and elevate the same to the high heavens, as he does the sun and moon!—that it is our command, that all Jews residing within our dominions, be the condition in which the Almighty God has placed them whatever it may, shall be treated by our Governors, Administrators, and all other subjects, in manner conformable with the evenly balanced scales of Justice, and that in the administration of the Courts of Law they (the Jews) shall occupy a position of perfect equality with all other people; so that not even a fractional portion of the smallest imaginable particle of injustice shall reach any of them, nor shall they be subjected to anything of an objectionable nature. Neither they (the Authorities) nor any one else shall do them (the Jews) wrong, whether to their persons or to their property. Nor shall any tradesman among them, or artizan, be compelled to work against his will. The work of everyone shall be duly recompensed, for injustice here is injustice in Heaven, and we cannot countenance it in any matter affecting either their (the Jews’) rights or the rights of others, our own dignity being itself opposed to such a course. All persons in our regard have an equal claim to justice; and if any person should wrong or injure one of them (the Jews), we will, with the help of God, punish him.
The commands hereinbefore set forth had been given and made known before now; but we repeat them, and add force to them, in order that they may be more clearly understood, and more strictly carried into effect, as well as serve for a warning to such as may be evilly disposed towards them (the Jews), and that the Jews shall thus enjoy for the future more security than heretofore, whilst the fear to injure them shall be greatly increased.
This Decree, blessed by God, is promulgated on the 26th of Shaban, 1280 (15 February 1864). Peace!
(Loewe, “Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore,” vol. ii. p. 153.)
Further Extract from Protocols of the Madrid Conference (1880).
Protocole No. 12.—Séance du 26 Juin, 1880.
Le Président observe que la Conférence, ayant accompli, et au delà, la tâche qu’elle s’était proposée, est à la veille de se dissoudre. Mais il doit porter à la connaissance de ses membres, avant qu’ils ne se séparent, une communication importante qui a été adressée par le Saint-Siège au Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Catholique.
M. Canovas del Castillo donne lecture de la production suivante d’une lettre, en date du 4 Mai, 1880, qu’il a reçue de son Eminence le Cardinal Nina:
“Excellence,—Le Saint-Père, obéissant au devoirs de sa mission apostolique, ne peut que mettre à profit toutes les occasions qui se présentent de veiller aux intérêts du Catholicisme, sur n’importe quel point du globe. Ayant appris que dans le courant de ce mois un Congrès Diplomatique doit se réunir sous votre présidence pour s’occuper des affaires du Maroc, Sa Sainteté, tout en reconnaissant que parmi les questions qui seront soumises à la délibération de la Conférence, celle qui se rapporte à la liberté religieuse dans l’Empire Marocain n’a pas été particulièrement désignée, croit cependant que rien n’interdirait aux Plénipotentiaires réunis à Madrid de porter leur attention sur un sujet si important pour le bienêtre des habitants du Maroc, quand même il ne serait considéré qu’au point de vue matériel.
“Il n’est point douteux que, de même qu’au dernier Congrès de Berlin les appels faits par mon illustre prédécesseur, le Cardinal Franchi, aux Représentants de la France et de l’Autriche, MM. Waddington et Andrássy, eurent pour résultat de faire accueillir et voter, avec l’approbation générale, les demandes de Sa Sainteté relatives à la liberté de la religion Catholique pour les sujets de la Sublime Porte et des États qui l’avoisinent, de même la proposition que je fais en ce moment trouvera un accueil non moins favorable de la part des dignes Représentants à la veille de se réunir dans la capitale d’une nation si dévouée au Saint-Siège, et liée par tant d’intérêts à l’Empire du Maroc. D’autre part, il n’est pas permis de présumer que le Gouvernement Marocain, uni par un lien si étroit au Représentant suprême de l’Islamisme, puisse se réfuser à suivre l’exemple qui lui a été offert par l’adhésion de l’Empereur des Ottomans aux Articles stipulés dans le Congrès de Berlin, lorsque la Conférence qui va se réunir lui proposera d’adopter une résolution analogue.
“Obéissant à ces considérations, le Saint-Père m’a chargé de m’adresser à votre Excellence, digne Président de l’Assemblée, et de faire appel, en son nom Pontifical, à ses sentiments comme Catholique et comme Espagnol, afin quelle veuille bien se charger de proposer et de défendre au sein du Congrès la proposition sus-indiquée, qui porte que les sujets du Sultan, ainsi que les étrangers, jouiront au Maroc du libre exercice du culte Catholique, sans que par ce motif ils aient à souffrir tort ou préjudice dans leurs droits civils ou politiques.
“Le Saint-Père ne méconnait point les obstacles qu’oppose l’état actuel du Maroc à la réalisation de cette liberté; mais ces obstacles, loin de décourager, doivent stimuler les cœurs généreux qui n’envisagent que la grandeur du but à atteindre.
“Du reste, une fois que le Gouvernement Marocain aura accepté le principe en question, et pris vis-à-vis des Puissances étrangères l’engagement de s’y conformer, si ces Puissances, d’accord avec l’Espagne, dont les relations avec le Maroc présentent un caractère tout spécial, voulaient prendre une attitude semblable à celle qu’elles ont adoptée en Orient, on pourrait avec raison espérer que le progrès de la civilisation améneraient bientôt, par des voies pacifiques, le libre exercice du culte Catholique dans ces régions Africaines.
“En me conformant aux ordres de l’auguste Pontife, je dois en même temps vous faire savoir que le Saint-Père est animé d’une conviction intime que vous répondrez à son appel paternel et que les Représentants des autres Puissances seconderont vos efforts, en accueillant avec faveur une demande conforme aux principes aujourd’hui admis du droit public international.
“Le Saint-Père croit également qu’en agissant ainsi, votre Excellence répondra aux sentiments bien connus de Sa Majesté le Roi, son auguste Souverain, en faveur de notre sainte religion.
Je saisis, &c.,
“L. Card. Nina.
“A son Excellence M. Canovas del Castillo.”
M. Cánovas del Castillo a eu l’honneur de répondre à Mgr. le Nonce Apostolique à Madrid, avec lequel il s’est entretenu à ce sujet, que le Plénipotentiaire d’Espagne était prêt à présenter, et à appuyer au sein de la Conférence, la proposition du Saint-Siège, aussitôt qu’il serait avéré que les Représentants des autres Puissances pourraient consentir à traiter des questions en dehors de celles qui avaient motivé leur réunion; il devrait, en particulier, consulter son collègue le Représentant de la Grande-Bretagne, dont le Gouvernement a pris l’initiative de la convocation des Plénipotentiaires, sur l’opportunité qu’il y aurait à saisir la Conférence de cette proposition. M. Cánovas a ajouté que, si la Conférence admettait en principe la possibilité de traiter des questions étrangères au but déterminé qu’elle s’était proposé, le Plénipotentiaire d’Espagne tiendrait à honneur de remplir la mission que le Saint-Siège daignait lui confier, et qu’il était persuadé que la communication du Saint-Père serait accueillie, en ce cas, avec toute la déférence due à sa haute origine.
Il a rappelé en même temps que le Traité de 1861 assure la liberté religieuse aux Catholiques Espagnols au Maroc, et que d’autre part le Traité Anglais de 1856 stipulait également, pour les sujets Britanniques, le libre exercice de leur culte.
Ayant acquis postérieurement la conviction que les Plénipotentiaires sont disposés à examiner cette question, le Président estime que la Conférence devra faire une déclaration érigeant en règle générale le principe que le Maroc a déjà admis par des Traités.
Le Plénipotentiaire d’Autriche-Hongrie prend alors la parole, et dit que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Impériale et Royale Apostolique, à la suite d’une démarche analogue du Saint-Siège, a pu s’assurer, de son côté que les autres Cabinets seraient, en effet, disposés à se joindre à un vœu comme celui dont vient de prendre l’initiative le Président de la Conférence, pourvu que ce vœu fut exprimé en faveur de tous les habitants non-Musulmans du Maroc, et que la Conférence recommandât en même temps à la sagesse du Sultan du Maroc l’abolition des incapacités qui pèsent encore sur certaines classes de ses sujets en raison de leurs croyances.
C’est dans ce sens, et pour donner une forme plus précise à ce vœu, que M. le Comte Ludolf a été chargé de préparer le projet d’Adresse au Souverain du Maroc qu’il a l’honneur de soumettre à la Conférence.
Le Plénipotentiaire d’Autriche-Hongrie donne lecture du document en ces termes:—
“La Conférence, au moment de se dissoudre, informée par son Président de la demande exprimée en faveur de l’Église Catholique par Sa Sainteté le Souverain Pontife, dans le lettre dont lecture vient d’être fait, demande de son côté que le libre exercice de tous les cultes soit reconnu au Maroc.
“La Conférence, d’autant plus convaincu que ce vœu trouvera un accueil favorable auprès de Sa Majesté Chérifienne que l’illustre Souverain du Maroc a déjà donné une preuve manifeste de sa tolérance et de sa sollicitude pour le bien-être de ses sujets non-Musulmans, en confirmant en 1874 le Décret accordé par Sa Majesté le Sultan Sidi Mohammed, sous le 26 Chaban de 1280 (Février 1864) à Sir Moses Montefiore, Décret qui proclame que tous les sujets de l’Empire du Maroc doivent avoir le même rang devant la loi: que par conséquent les Juifs du Maroc doivent être traités conformément à la justice et à l’équité, et qu’aucune violence ne doit être exercée à l’égard de leurs personnes ni de leurs biens.
“A la suite de ce Décret, bien des lois humiliantes, édictées contre les non-Musulmans dans des temps antérieurs, ont été mises hors de pratique, et le sort des races non-Musulmans au Maroc est devenu plus supportable.
“Toutefois, ces lois ne sont pas encore toutes formellement révoquées, et quelques-unes même continuent à être en vigueur dans plus d’un endroit de l’intérieur de l’Empire. De même, le libre exercice de leurs cultes n’est pas encore accordé d’une manière légale aux sujets non-Musulmans de Sa Majesté Chérifienne, et beaucoup de restrictions existent encore pour ces derniers qui sont contraires à l’esprit du Décret du 26 Chaban, 1280, et à cette règle si élémentaire et si universellement respectée, que les sujets d’un même pays, de quelque race ou de quelque religion qu’ils soient, des qu’ils accomplissent fidèlement leurs devoirs envers le Souverain, doivent jouir d’une parfaite identité de droits et d’une complète égalité devant la loi.
“Le Sultan Abdul Medjid, Empéreur des Ottomans, à déjà, en 1839, par le Hatti-Chérif de Gulhané, reconnu spontanément et inscrit dans la législation de son pays ce même principe, qui a été développé et consacré depuis par ses successeurs, en 1856 et dernièrement encore en 1878, de façon qu’on ne saurait douter qu’il ne se laisse parfaitement concilier avec la loi Mahométane.
“Quoique persuadée que l’illustre Souverain du Maroc est animé, non moins que le Sultan de la Turquie, d’intentions bienveillantes envers ses sujets non-Musulmans, la Conférence croirait manquer à un devoir si elle ne témoignait le vif et profond intérêt qu’elle prend à la prompte amélioration de leur sort. A cet effet, la Conférence, au nom des Hautes Puissances représentées dans son sein, fait appel à Sa Majesté Chérifienne afin que, fidèle à ses sentiments de justice et de générosité, elle manifeste sa ferme volonté—
“1. De faire respecter dans ses États le principe que tous ceux qui y habitent et qui y habiteront à l’avenir pourront professer et exercer sans entraves leurs cultes;
“2. De préscrire à son Gouvernement, comme base immuable de la législation du Maroc, la maxime, déjà adoptée dans le Décret du 26 Chaban, 1280, et d’après laquelle ni la religion ni la race ne pourront jamais être un motif pour établir une différence dans le traitement par et devant la loi entre ses sujets Musulmans et non-Musulmans, ni servir de prétexte pour imposer à ces derniers des humiliations, pour les priver d’un droit civil quelconque, ou pour les empêcher d’exercer librement toutes les professions et industries qui sont permises aux sujets Musulmans de l’Empire.
“Une pareille manifestation non seulement honorerait le règne de Sa Majesté Chérifienne, mais inaugurerait aussi pour ses États une ère nouvelle de prospérité.
“Les Soussignés, en deposant le présent acte entre les mains de son Excellence Cid Mohammed Vargas, prient M. le Plénipotentiaire du Maroc de le soumettre à Sa Majesté Chérifienne, qui ne lui réfusera certes pas la sérieuse attention que mérite un vœu exprimé au nom des Puissances que les Soussignés ont l’honneur de représenter.
“Madrid, le 26 Juin, 1880.”
Ce texte est approuvé par les Plénipotentiaires, à l’exception du Représentant de Sa Majesté Chérifienne, qui ne peut que s’engager à porter à la connaissance de son Souverain les vœux que les Plénipotentiaires viennent d’exprimer au nom de leurs Gouvernements respectifs.
Cid Mohammed Vargas croit cependant devoir rappeler qu’au Maroc les Musulmans, les Chrétiens, et les Juifs suivent leur religion, sans qu’il y soit mis d’empêchement ni d’obstacle.
Le Plénipotentiaire du Maroc n’a pas d’instructions de son Souverain qui lui permettent de traiter cette question ou toute autre qui, comme elle, ne se rattacherait pas directement à l’objet de sa mission à Madrid. Néanmoins, en vue de l’Adresse que vient d’adopter la Conférence, il croit devoir lui communiquer une lettre qu’il a reçu de Sa Majesté le Sultan Muley-el-Hassan, et qui a trait aux Juifs ses sujets. Il en donne lecture en ces termes:—
“Louange à Dieu unique! Que la bénédiction de Dieu soit sur Mahomet, notre Seigneur et Maître, sur sa famille, et ses compagnons!
“A notre estimé serviteur, le Taleb Mohammed Vargas. Que Dieu te soit propice, et que la paix soit sur toi, ainsi que la bénédiction de Dieu Très Haut et sa miséricorde.
“Et puis:—
“Il est parvenu à notre connaissance que certains Juifs de nos sujets se sont plaints à plusieurs reprises à leurs frères résidant en Europe et aux Représentants étrangers à Tanger, de ce qu’ils ne parviennent pas à obtenir justice dans leurs réclamations relatives à meurtres, vols, &c. Ils prétendent que les Gouverneurs montrent de l’indifférence à leur faire avoir satisfaction des personnes qui les attaquent, et que leurs demandes n’arrivent jamais à notre Majesté Chérifienne, si ce n’est par l’entremise de personnes (les Juifs résidant en Europe et les Représentants étrangers).
“Notre volonté Chérifienne est qu’ils obtiennent justice sans l’intervention des Puissances ni des Représentants, parce qu’ils sont nos sujets et nos tributaires, ayant par là les mêmes droits que les Musulmans devant nous, et tous abus contre eux étant défendu par notre religion.
“C’est pourquoi nous t’ordonnons d’accepter la réclamation de tout Juif qui se plaindra de ne pas obtenir justice d’un Gouverneur, et de nous en donner connaissance lorsque tu ne trouveras pas le moyen d’y faire droit.
“Nous avons envoyé des ordres en ce sens aux Gouverneurs des villes, des ports, et de la campagne, afin qu’ils en donnent connaissance aux Juifs, et en même temps nous les avons prévenus que si quelqu’un d’eux s’oppose ou met des difficultés à ce que la plainte d’un Juif parvienne à toi, nous le punirons très sévèrement.
“Nous t’ordonnons de traiter leurs affaires avec toute justice et de ne rien nous cacher sur l’arbitraire des Gouverneurs à leur égard, car tous les hommes sont égaux pour nous en matière de justice.
“Le 22 Joumadi premier, an 1297.”
Le Président donnant acte au Représentant du Maroc de cette communication, constate, au nom de tous les Plénipotentiaires, la vive satisfaction avec laquelle la Conférence accueille les déclarations qui viennent de lui être faites. Les Plénipotentiaires voient dans le principe, qu’elles établissent, d’un appel au Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, à la fois une preuve des sentiments de justice qui animent Sa Majesté Chérifienne à l’égard de ses sujets Israélites, et l’annonce du prompt accomplissement des vœux exprimés par la Conférence.
(“British and Foreign State Papers,” vol. lxxi. pp. 881-887.)
Extracts from Protocols of the Algeciras Conference, 1906.
No. 33. 2 Avril, 1906. Dix-septième Séance.
S. Exc. M. White (États-Unis) prononce ensuite les paroles suivantes: “Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d’Amérique a toujours considéré comme un devoir de s’associer à tout ce qui pourrait contribuer au progrès des idées d’humanité et assurer le respect dû à toutes les croyances religieuses. Animé par ces sentiments et par l’amitié qui a si longtemps subsisté entre lui et l’Empire marocain dont il suit le développement avec un profond intérêt, mon Gouvernement m’a chargé d’invoquer le concours de la Conférence, au moment où elle est sur le point de terminer ses travaux, en vue de l’émission d’un vœu pour le bien-être des israélites au Maroc. Je suis heureux de constater que la condition des sujets israélites de S.M. Chérifienne a été de beaucoup améliorée pendant le règne de feu le Sultan Mouley-el-Hassan et que le Sultan actuel paraît, autant qu’il lui a été possible, les avoir traités avec équité et bienveillance. Mais les agents du Makhzen, dans les parties du pays éloignées du pouvoir central ne s’inspirent pas toujours suffisamment des sentiments de tolérance et de justice qui animent leur souverain. La Délégation americaine vient donc prier la Conférence de vouloir bien émettre le vœu que S.M. Chérifienne continue dans la bonne voie inaugurée par son père et maintenue par Sa Majesté elle-même par rapport à ses sujets israélites et qu’elle vise à ce que son Gouvernement ne néglige aucune occasion de faire savoir à ses fonctionnaires que le Sultan tient à ce que les israélites de son Empire et tous ses sujets, sans distinction de croyance, soient traités avec justice et équité.”
S. Exc. Sir Arthur Nicolson (Grande-Bretagne) déclare que, conformément aux instructions de son Gouvernement, il est heureux de se rallier à la proposition du premier Délégué des États-Unis.
S. Exc. M. le Duc de Almodovar del Rio (Espagne) s’exprime en ces termes: “Je m’associe, au nom de S.M. Catholique, aux hauts sentiments de tolérance religieuse qui viennent d’être exprimés par S. Exc. le premier Délégué des États-Unis; et je tiens d’autant plus à me rallier à sa proposition que le sort des populations israélites au Maroc, rattachées à l’Espagne par des liens de descendance et dont la langue habituelle continue à être la langue castillane, qui fut naguère celle de leurs ancêtres, est particulièrement intéressant aux yeux du peuple espagnol d’aujourd’hui.”
LL. EE. MM. de Radowitz (Allemagne) et Revoil (France) se rallient également au vœu de M. le premier Délégué des États-Unis.
S. Exc. M. le Marquis Visconti Venosta (Italie) déclare qu’il adhère au vœu dont S. Exc. le premier Délégué des États-Unis a pris l’initiative. Il reconnaît que, dans ces derniers temps, les Souverains du Maroc ont donné de preuves de tolérance vis-à-vis de leurs sujets non-musulmans; mais il ne reste pas moins à désirer que les conditions des juifs dans l’intérieur de l’Empire soient mises au même niveau et entourées des mêmes garanties que dans les villes et ports de la côte. La Conférence, dans le cours de ses travaux, s’est toujours préoccupée du progrès et de la prospérité du Maroc; elle restera fidèle au même esprit en exprimant à S.M. le Sultan le vœu que tous ses sujets, quelle que soit leur religion, soient appelés à jouir des mêmes droits, ainsi que du même traitement devant la loi et que les ordres que S.M. Chérifienne a donnés ou donnera à cet effet soient fidèlement exécutés. L’assentiment de l’Italie est toujours acquis à l’affirmation des principes de liberté religieuse qui sont une des bases de ses institutions politiques et sociales.
S. Exc. le Baron Joostens (Belgique) déclare que la Délégation belge s’associe entièrement à la déclaration que vient de faire S. Exc. M. le Marquis Visconti-Venosta.
LL. EE. le Jonkheer Testa (Pays-Bas), M. le Comte Cassini (Russie) et M. Sager (Suède) adhèrent aussi aux sentiments exprimés par MM. les premiers Délégués des États-Unis et d’Italie.
Le vœu proposé par S. Exc. M. White est adopté par l’unanimité des Délégués des Puissances.
LL. EE. MM. les Délégués marocains expliquent qu’ils ne manqueront pas de faire connaître cette décision à S.M. le Sultan, qui certainement aura à cœur de procéder dans l’espèce de la même façon que feu son père.
S. Exc. M. White (États-Unis) remercie MM. les Délégués des Puissances d’une adhésion qui répond si entièrement aux vues du Gouvernement des États-Unis et aux sentiments personnels du Président Roosevelt.
(“Protocoles et Comptes Rendus de la Conférence d’Algésiras” (Paris, 1906), pp. 246-248.)
← Back to Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question