October 18, 1900, he also approved a bill forbidding priests or monks to teach anything but religion in any school under government control, and also a bill forbidding any school under the control of priests or monks from conferring any but an ecclesiastical degree. October 5, 1900, he approved a law enabling the government to expropriate the cemeteries of the country in order that anyone might be buried there. For. Rel. 1901, 144. As to United States citizens in Ecuador, see For. Rel. 1897, 127. XVI. EGYPT. § 820. "Your dispatch No. 69, of the 5th of August last, in relation to Egyptian finances, and particularly to the question of the adhesion. of the powers, other than the signatories, to the decree of the Khedive of Egypt of the 27th of July, 1885, has been received. "The attitude of this government with reference to the settlement of the Egyptian debt question has been one of friendly neutrality. At the time of the organization of the commission of liquidation in 1880, the United States maintained for a time an attitude of reserve, owing to the fact that acquiescence in the scheme pledged, or appeared to pledge, the government to accept as binding upon any of the citizens of the United States whose interests might be involved. the action to be thereafter taken by a commission in the composition or control of which the United States had no part. It appearing, however, that no interests of American citizens were then in fact to be submitted to the decisions of the commission, and animated simply by the desire that no action on our part should embarrass the Egyp tian government in making with the actual creditors such arrangements as might be acceptable to them, this government, at the urgent wish of the Khedive's government, instructed its representative at Cairo, on the 17th of July, 1880, to adhere to the plan of liquidation, if the Egyptian government regarded such action as material to the success of the scheme. The government of the United States thus concurred in the plan, without being positively interested therein. and simply to avoid embarrassing the friendly government of the Khedive. "So, with regard to the subject of your dispatch, this government is disposed to preserve the same attitude that it has heretofore maintained towards the management of the Egyptian finances, and would not embarrass the government of the Khedive by withholding its adherence to the decree of the 27th of July, should it appear that such a course would be in opposition to the Khedive's wishes and an obstacle to the accomplishment of his plans for the liquidation of the Egyptian debt.” Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to England, No. 113, As to the adhesion of the United States in 1880, see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of For the Khedival decree of March 31, 1880, establishing the commission to liquidate the Egyptian debt, see 71 Br. & For. State Papers, 549, 551. For the Khedival decree of July 27, 1885, see 76 id. 352, 358. "On November 2, 1883, the British minister here addressed to my predecessor a note, accompanied by a memorandum, in regard to the levying of a house tax on foreigners in Egypt by the Khedive's government under the Turkish law of 1867, and expressed the hope that the United States would find no objection thereto. "Mr. Frelinghuysen replied to Mr. West, November 10, 1883, that as the proposed tax had not yet been formerly presented to the United States by the Khedive's government, we could not, in advance of the presentation of the measure and without a full knowledge of its terms, commit ourselves to its acceptance. "A copy of this correspondence is herewith transmitted for your information.. "However, by a despatch from your predecessor of February 28, 1884, No. 84, Mr. Pomeroy advised the Department of the proposed action of the Egyptian government, and enclosed a copy of a note. from the minister for foreign affairs upon the subject. “Mr. Frelinghuysen in his reply, No. 53, of March 28, 1884, stated that this government had no objection to such taxes being charged to United States citizens if they shall also be impartially levied upon foreigners in Egypt as well as upon the inhabitants who owe it allegiance. "With this explanation I now enclose to you a copy of a further note from Mr. West of the 19th ultimo, stating that the decree of the Egyptian government for the house tax on foreigners has been modified in accordance with the financial declaration signed at London, March 17 last, and been submitted to the several powers represented at Cairo. The assent of this government is therefore invoked. "You will accordingly examine the decree in question and if it should appear to be the wish of the Khedive's government that we should assent, and if on such examination the proposed measure should be found unobjectionable and involve no discrimination against American citizens, you may notify the minister for foreign affairs that, to avoid embarrassing his government, the United States will not withhold their consent. This qualified assent being given in writing will doubtless serve every purpose." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cardwell, agent and cons. gen. at "I have received your No. 15 of the 29th of January, 1886, accepting, A similar adhesion was given to a proposed Khedival decree for the partial suppression of the corvée. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cardwell, No. 127, Feb. 4, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1630–1631.) The agreement between the United States and Egypt, signed by Nubar Pasha, Egyptian minister of foreign affairs, and Mr. Comanos, United States vice-consul at Cairo, November 16, 1884, is divisible into two distinct parts. By the first, the United States consented to the application of the provisions of the Helleno-Egyptian convention of March 3, 1884, to the citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of the United States; by the second, it was stipulated that "every right, privilege, or immunity that the Egyptian Government now grants, or that it may grant in future, to the subjects or citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of whatsoever other foreign power, shall be granted to citizens of the United States, vessels, commerce, and navigation, who shall have the right to enjoy the same." The Helleno-Egyptian convention came to an end on March 20, 1891; but there was nothing in that circumstance that could imply the cessation of the stipulation for most-favored-nation treatment. The agreement of 1884 contains no provision for termination on notice, and is indeterminate as to duration. It is in reality in the nature of a modus vivendi, which was designed to be operative pending the negotiation and conclusion of a commercial convention. Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, No. 20, Jan. 9, 1892, 138 MS. Inst. Consuls, 308. XVII. FRANCE. 1. TREATY RELATIONS. § 821. A treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between France and the United States February 6, 1778. Immediately afterwards, on the same day, a treaty of alliance was signed. The stipulations of these treaties will be more fully examined hereafter. January 25, 1782, the Continental Congress passed an act approving a plan for a consular convention with France. This plan was sent to Franklin, with instructions to make it the basis of a formal treaty. He signed a convention July 29, 1784, but it departed in important particulars, especially in relation to jurisdiction, from the Congressional plan, and proved to be unacceptable. The objections to it were fully set forth in a report made by Mr. Jay, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs." Mr. Jefferson, who succeeded Franklin at the Court of Versailles, signed a new convention November 14, 1788. It was laid before the Senate by President Washington June 11, 1789, and on the 21st of the following month Mr. Jay was ordered to attend the Senate and bring with him such papers as were requested and to give full information on the subject. He appeared and gave the necessary explanations, and although he expressed the apprehension that the convention would prove more inconvenient than beneficial to the United States, he advised that it be ratified, since it adhered to the plan to which the Government was already committed." The Senate unanimously gave its consent, and a statute to carry the convention into effect was passed April 14, 1792. Before the close of the year 1790 a controversy arose between the United States and France in regard to matters of commerce. In spite of the favors granted in France by royal decrees of December 29, 1787, and December 7, 1788, the commerce of the United States tended to revert to its former channels, so that the trade with France languished and failed, while that with England increased. The development of this tendency produced in France a feeling of dissatisfaction, which was intensified by the disposition of Congress to subject commerce with France to the same regulations as that with Great Britain. France maintained, besides, that certain legislation of Congress in regard to duties constituted an infraction of Article V. of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778. Mr. Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, denied that this was so, but advised that the claim of the French Government should be allowed. The legislation of the United States, however, was not modified, and the National Assembly of France proceeded to the adoption of measures of retaliation. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson endeavored to bring about a new commercial convention, and to that end gave instructions to Gouverneur Morris, who had been appointed by Washington as minister pleni a March 9, 1786, Dip. Cor. 1783-1789, I. 218. Dip. Cor. 1783-1789, I. 232; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 89. 1 Stat. 254. dAm. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 116, 120. eAs to the particulars of this controversy, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4400-4401. potentiary to France on the 12th of January in that year. July 9, 1792, Morris proposed to the French Government the conclusion of such a convention; and he was soon afterwards advised that his proposal would be communicated to the King and to the National Assembly. On the 10th of August, however, the King was deposed. He was beheaded in the following February. The revolution radically changed the course of negotiations.o Treaties of 1778; question of prizes. In consequence of the wars in which France became involved with England, as well as with the powers of the Continent, the United States and France, instead of making new treaties, became involved in violent controversies as to the construction and enforcement of the old ones. The following stipulations were particularly involved: By Article XVII. of the treaty of amity and commerce of February 6, 1778, it was provided that the ships of war and privateers of either party might in time of war freely carry their prizes into the ports of the other party; that such prizes should not, when so brought in, "be arrested or seized;" that they should not be subject to "search," or to "examination " as to their "lawfulness;" but that they might be taken away at any time to the places expressed in the commissions of their captors, which commissions the captors should be obliged to show. On the other hand, it was provided that "no shelter or refuge " should be given by either party to vessels which had "made prize of the subjects, people, or property" of the other party; but that such vessels, if forced in by "stress of weather, or the danger of the sea," should be required to depart "as soon as possible.' By Article XXII. of the same treaty it was provided that neither party should permit privateers having commissions Foreign privateers. from any prince or state in enmity with the other party to fit out in its ports, or to sell their prizes, or even to purchase victuals, except such as should be necessary for a voyage to the next home port. Free ships, free goods. The alliance. By Article XXIII. it was provided that free ships should make free goods. By Article XI. of the treaty of alliance, which was described (Article II.) as a "defensive alliance," the "essential and direct end" of which was "to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence" of the United States. "as well in matters of government as in commerce," the United States, in return for the guaranty of "their liberty, sovereignty, and independence and also their possessions," guaranteed "to His Most Christian Majesty the present possessions of the Crown of As to Morris's proposal of a new commercial treaty, see Jefferson's Works, ed. by Washington, III. 338, 356, 449; Am. State Papers For. Rel. I. 332, 333, 334; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4402-4403. |