are assimilated to their principals in privileges of immunity. Article XV of the Spanish Treaty provides that Spanish subjects, or persons under Spanish Protection whether Christians, Mohammedans or Hebrews, shall likewise enjoy all rights and privileges conceded by this treaty, that is to say, including the right of appeal to the Spanish jurisdiction, which is the subject of the immediately preceding Articles of the treaty.

I do not know whether any reply was made by the British Government to Mr. Fish's Note, but so far as I am aware the claim of the British Government to exercise jurisdiction over Scott, was not further pursued subsequently to the submission of that Note, and I am therefore inclined to infer that the British Government acquiesced in the position taken on that occasion by the Department of State.

There is not, however, entire analogy in the circumstances attending the question referred to by Mr. Fish in 1872 and that which is being raised by the Tangier Judicial Authorities to-day.

In the present instance it is no longer a question under given circumstances of the validity of the jurisdictional rights of one or other of two extraterritorial Powers in Morocco, but what is sought is the surrender by the United States of its jurisdiction over its employees to the "Mixed Courts," that is to a form of Shereefian jurisdiction in the Tangier Zone, instituted under a Convention to which the United States is neither a party, nor to which it has given its adhesion. Such surrender would, incidentally expose the employees of this Diplomatic Agency or of this Consulate-General to interference by the local authorities, even while they might be actually engaged in the performance of services for the United States Government.

The mere signalization of these contingencies appears to me to afford sufficient indication of the impossibility to contemplate acquiescence in such a situation.

I take this opportunity to recall, as I mentioned to you, that there is no desire on the part of the American Diplomatic Agency to render nugatory any reasonable municipal regulations, and if these are submitted to me through the proper channels, there is every likelihood that my Government will approve their application to persons under American jurisdiction.

In conclusion, I cannot forbear reiterating my apprehension that the nature of the action taken, in the premises, by the local authorities, on the occasion of what may be described as petty incidents, points to the fact that the Administration is actuated by a disposition to call into question the principles of American extraterritorial rights, rather than by a desire to bring about the co-operation of the American Diplomatic Agency in the maintenance of public order in the Tangier Zone. Very sincerely yours, MAXWELL BLAKE

591381-46-VOL. II-56

781.003/8

The Secretary of State to the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at Tangier (Blake)

No. 641

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1931. SIR: The Department refers to your despatch No. 551 of October 8, 1930, and subsequent communication concerning the attempt of the Tangier Mixed Tribunal to assume jurisdiction over Messrs. Joseph G. Abrines, Dragoman, and Gregory T. Abrines, Interpreter, of the American Diplomatic Agency at Tangier, both of whom you state are British subjects.

The Department approves your refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over these men and should any further attempt be made by it to assume jurisdiction over them or over other personnel of the Diplomatic Agency you should refuse to submit them to such jurisdiction and report to the Department.

The Department also approves of the position taken by you in your communication of October 2 [3], 1930, to the British Consul General at Tangier, in regard to their immunity from such jurisdiction. In addition to the provisions of the British and Spanish treaties of 1856 and 1861, respectively, with Morocco, to which you refer, your attention is called to Article 2 of the Madrid Convention of 1880, to which both the United States and Great Britain are parties, which recognizes that foreign representatives at the head of a Legation in Morocco may select their interpreters and employees from among subjects of Morocco, "or others", and that these persons are included among the protected persons of the Legation.

The position of the Department in regard to the immunity from other jurisdiction of interpreters or other employees of the Consulate General at Tangier, even when of foreign nationality, is set forth in its note of April 5, 1872, in the Peter W. Scott case, addressed to Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington, to which you refer." The Department's files do not disclose that any response to this note was ever received from the British Government. A copy of the note was transmitted to Consul General Mathews at Tangier with the Department's instruction No. 43 of October 1 and was acknowledged by him in despatch No. 84 in November of that year." However, for your convenience a copy of this note as well as other pertinent communications are enclosed.47

As indicative of the practice in Tangier your attention is called to the statement in Mr. Mathews' despatch No. 50 of December 7, 1871,1o that he was "informed by the representatives of France, Italy, and Portugal, (the latter [having] been almost all his life in Tangier), that provided one of their subjects takes official employment without the consent of his Government of a position such as Vice Consul or Dragoman in Tangier, under a foreign flag, he loses the protection of his nation and enjoys the immunities and protection of the country he is serving."

Aside from any special situation that may exist at Tangier by reason of the capitulatory regime or otherwise, these men as well as other duly registered personnel of the American Diplomatic Agency at Tangier would be immune from local jurisdiction under generally recognized principles of international law.

48

The Department notes from your despatch No. 567 of December 4, 1930, that while your British colleague has disclosed no definite information you gather from remarks made by him that he has received communications in the matter from his Government and that while that Government does not perhaps entirely acquiesce in the technical legality of the American Government's contention in the premises, it deprecates any conflict between the two Governments and is desirous of reaching a satisfactory understanding in the matter. No communication has been received by the Department regarding the matter from the British Government and it is probable that that Government does not intend to raise the question formally.

The Department, while it must maintain the immunity from local jurisdiction of the personnel employed in the Diplomatic Agency at Tangier, is also desirous of avoiding any unnecessary discussion in the matter. Accordingly, it deems it advisable for you, should the subject again be opened by your British colleague, merely to inform him orally of the Department's approval of the position taken by you in the matter in your communications to him.

It is improbable that any further attempt will be made to assert jurisdiction over these men in this case but should such an attempt be made you will, of course, as indicated earlier in this instruction, refuse to permit them to submit to such jurisdiction.

The Department desires you to inform it promptly of any developments in the matter.

Very truly yours,

18 Not printed.

For the Secretary of State:
W. R. CASTLE, JR.

[Enclosure]

The Secretary of State to the British Minister (Thornton)

WASHINGTON, 5 April, 1872.

SIR: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 3d instant, expressing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the opinion that, pursuant to the treaty between Great Britain and Morocco of the 9th of December, 1856, British Consular officers in that country are entitled to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over Mr. Scott, the Interpreter to the Consulate of the United States at Tangier, who is acknowledged to be a British subject. In reply I have the honor to state that the treaty adverted to has here been carefully examined, but no foundation for the claim of a right of jurisdiction by British Consular officers over the Interpreter to the Consulate of the United States, can there be discovered. The treaty, it is true, gives to Consular officers ample jurisdiction over British subjects in Morocco generally, but certainly no treaty to which the United States are not a party can rightfully extend such jurisdiction over any foreigner whom they may think proper to employ in their Consulate. Furthermore, Mr. Scott cannot properly be said to be within British jurisdiction, because he is in the service of an officer of the United States accredited to the Emperor of Morocco, and who, as such according to the usage of that country is entitled to privileges of exterritoriality, one of which is the exemption of his servants, including his interpreter from any other jurisdiction than his own.

The difference of opinion upon this subject between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States, is much to be regretted, but inasmuch as if the case were reversed, it is not likely that this Government would ever have put forward upon similar grounds, a claim to jurisdiction over a citizen of the United States in British service, it is hoped that Her Majesty's Government may, upon further consideration acknowledge the reasonableness of our objections to their claim to jurisdiction over Mr. Scott.

I have [etc.]

781.003/11

HAMILTON FISH

The Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at Tangier (Blake) to the Secretary of State

No. 652

TANGIER, October 2, 1931. [Received October 21.]

SIR: I have the honor to inform the Department that, as a result of conversations with my British Colleague, in the sense indicated by Instruction No. 641 of June 6th, 1931, (File No. 781.003/8), on the subject of the jurisdiction applicable to alien employees of the American Foreign Service in the Shereefian Empire, I have received the

following communication from Mr. A. J. Gardener, the British Consul in Charge of the British Consulate-General at Tangier :

"British Consulate-General, Tangier, September 3, 1931.

Dear Mr. Blake: With reference to the discussions that have taken place between you and Gurney regarding the exercise of jurisdiction over foreign nationals employed on the staff of the United States Diplomatic Agency in Tangier, I write unofficially to tell you that His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the view held by the United States Government on this point, i. e. as regards a claim to exercise jurisdiction over the persons in question, as distinct from the claim to exemption from the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunal, the latter being a question with which His Majesty's Government are not directly concerned.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) A. J. Gardener"

To this communication I have replied in the following terms:

"Tangier, September 11, 1931.

My Dear Gardener: I have received your unofficial communication of September 3rd, 1931, from which I regret to note that the British Government does not appear inclined to admit our claim to exercise jurisdiction over British subjects who are in the employ of the American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate General at Tangier, as distinct from the question of the exemption of these persons from the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunal.

In acknowledging the receipt of this communication, I may say that while any conflict over this issue is to be greatly deprecated, I must, in a similar informal manner, inform you that my Government considers that it must maintain the immunity from local jurisdiction of the personnel employed in the Diplomatic Agency at Tangier or elsewhere in the American Foreign Service in Morocco, and I am instructed to refuse to permit such employees to submit to any local jurisdiction in the event of an attempt being renewed to claim such jurisdiction over them.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Maxwell Blake"

The tacit admission, on the part of the British Government, as to the exemption from the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunal of British employees in the service of the American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate General at Tangier, certainly ought to render extremely remote, if not altogether rule out, any renewal of the pretentions of that Court which originated the present discussions.

While apprehensions in this regard may perhaps therefore be negligible so far as concerns the Tangier Zone, the potential position elsewhere in Morocco would not appear to be so secure.

It is consequently distinctly disappointing to find that the British Government is disinclined to accept, to its full extent, the position taken by the Government of the United States, which justly and reasonably claims full jurisdiction over its alien employees in Morocco.