"The papers relating to the only remaining treaty with Algiers (that of 1816) will be found in 5 F. R. F. 133 et seq. "[Algiers through conquest became in 1830 a colonial province of France.] "On the 4th of November, 1796, Barlow concluded a treaty with the Bashaw of Tripoli. The price of the peace Tripoli. 6 was advanced' to the United States by the Dey of Algiers. But the Bashaw did not long rest contented. In April, 1800, he told Cathcart, the American consul, to say to the President that he was pleased with the proffers of friendship,' but that had his protestations been accompanied with a frigate or brig of war, he would be still more inclined to believe them genuine. On the 12th of May he said to him, Why do not the United States send me a voluntary present? I am an independent prince as well as the Bashaw of Tunis, and I can hurt the commerce of any nation as much as the Tunisians.' The same month he wrote to the President, Our sincere friend, we could wish that these your expressions were followed by deeds, and not by empty words. If only flattering words are meant, without performance, every one will act as he finds convenient. We beg a speedy answer, without neglect of time, as a delay on your part can not but be prejudicial to your interests.' "The answer made was a naval squadron and a war against Tripoli on land and sea, which was terminated on the 4th of June, 1805, by a treaty signed on board of an American man-of-war in the harbor of Tripoli. Nothing was paid for the peace. Prisoners were exchanged man for man, and $60,000 were paid by the United States for the release of the number of American prisoners in the hands of the Tripolines over and above the number of Tripolines in the hands of the Americans. They were about two hundred. "The treaty with Tunis was negotiated under the directions of Barlow in 1797. It cost one hundred and seven Tanis. thousand dollars, viz: $35,000, regalia; $50,000, peace; $12,000, peace presents; $4,000, consul's presents; and $6,000, secret service. The Senate advised its ratification, on condition that the 14th article should be modified. This modification appears to have been assented to in 1799. See 2 F. R. F. 799, and 3 F. R. F. 394, for correspondence, &c., respecting other questions arising between the two powers. "In 1824 the modified articles were agreed to in the form in which they now stand. "In the interesting report of Jefferson to the House of Representatives concerning the Mediterranean trade, which has been already referred to, three modes of dealing with the Barbary pirates are indicated: (1) To insure vessels and cargoes and to agree upon a fixed rate of ransom for prisoners. (2) To purchase peace. (3) To conquer a peace; and he concludes: It rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute, and ransom as the means of reestablishing our Mediterranean commerce.' "Under the policy adopted by Congress the total amount of real expenditures' 'exclusive of sundry expenses incurred but not yet paid' were stated by the Secretary of the Treasury, on the 30th July, 1802, at $2,046,137.22. This was before the war with Tripoli. "The statutes under which payments were made are the following: 1791, ch. 16, 1 Stat. L. 214; 1792, ch. 24, id. 256; 1796, ch. 19, id. 460; 1797, ch. 12, id. 505; 1797, ch. 12, id. 553; 1798, ch. 18, id. 544; 1799, ch. 28, id. 723; 1800, ch. 47, 2 Stat. L. 66; 1803, ch. 19, id. 215; 1804, ch. 21, id. 269; 1805, ch. 21, id. 321; 1806, ch. 33, id. 388; 1807, ch. 29, id. 436; and from this time forward there was an annual appropriation until the tribute was terminated." Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887 1242. For an account of negotiations with the Barbary Powers, see 3 Life of For the details of the negotiations with Algiers in 1795-'96, see Todd's By the act of Congress of 1791 the President was authorized to take As to treaty relations with Algiers and the redemption of captives, see 2. ALGIERS. § 784. "These citations appear to show (1) that separate tariffs have been established for France and Algeria; (2) that France is regarded as the mother country and Algeria is a French colony for customs purposes, and (3) that duties are imposed on importations from Algeria into France, and from France into Algeria." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thiébaut, French chargé, No. 274, January 27, 1900, MS. Notes to French Leg. XI. 7, 14. 3. MOROCCO. § 785. April 7, 1888, an agreement was entered into between Mr. Lewis, United States consul at Tangier, and the Moorish authorities, for the arbitration of claims against the government of Morocco, growing out of the neglect or refusal of that government to observe and enforce treaty rights of American citizens and protégés. The Sultan having refused to approve the agreement, Mr. Strobel, secretary of the United States legation at Madrid, was directed, April 28, 1888, to proceed to Tangier to assist in the negotiations. He arrived at Tangier on the 2d of May, and on the 8th of the same month, with the assistance of Commander Folger, of the U. S. S. Quinnebaug, a new arrangement was completed satisfactory to all parties. By this agreement a tribunal was to be constituted, to be composed of Mr. Lewis and of two persons designated by the Sultan, who were, however, to have but one vote. The agreement contained an enumeration of four matters which were to be disposed of, but stipulated that other claims of American citizens in regard to debts, commercial intercourse, and robberies, might be presented. The tribunal was to endeavor to make its report by June 1, 1888, and its decisions were to be binding. In the event of a disagreement, one of the foreign representatives at Tangier was to be named as umpire. The tribunal met and agreed upon an award, which was signed by Mr. Lewis and the two representatives of the Sultan. This award embraced the matters specifically enumerated in the agreement, and stipulated that the other claims should be left to the examination and decision of certain other persons. Complaint was afterwards made of the nonobservance by the Moorish Government of the provisions of the award in respect of two of the four enumerated matters. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lewis, consul at Tangier, March 1, 1889, 129 MS. Inst. Consuls, 112. "The Department is well aware of the importance attached in the Turkish dominions to formal observances. It is apprehended, however, that in accrediting you, as had been done with your predecessors, to the head of the government at Tripoli, thereby apparently disregarding those changes in the relations between that country and the Porte, which in previous dispatches you have so clearly and fully explained, the force of the precedent had more influence than anything else. It is not known that the Tripolitan government ever objected to receiving such a credence or the government at Constantinople to its being bestowed. Had this been the the case, it certainly would have been discontinued." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Vidal, consul to Tripoli, "There can be no doubt that the treaty of 1805, between the United "Our relations with Tunis and Tripoli are defined by treaties. The treaty with Tunis was concluded in 1797 and altered in 1824; that with Tripoli was concluded in 1805. During the long term of years that has elapsed since the conclusion of these treaties they have been referred to and have controlled the settlement of all differences and all questions that have arisen between the high contracting parties to them. They have been acquiesced in without dissent, and if the Porte has at any time complained, either of the continued obligation of those treaties or of their provisions, the fact of such complaint does not at present, occur to me. "I am not aware that the United States have ever been asked to renounce either of the treaties, or that they have either in terms or by implication renounced either their obligations or their rights under them. Nor am I aware that any facts or change of condition or of the organization of either of those governments have been brought to the notice of this government which would direct its attention to the consideration of the effect which such change might produce upon the further observance or requirement by this government of the terms of the treaties. "In August last an outrage was committed and the terms of our treaty with Tripoli violated by an insult to our consul stationed at the port of Tripoli. As is the custom and right and duty of this government, prompt measures were taken for the protection of the conand the maintenance of the honor and dignity of this government, and also to secure reparation and satisfaction for this insult. These measures were effectual, and it is a source of satisfaction that an ample apology, with the assurances against a recurrence of a similar indignity which was demanded by the United States was accorded by the Tripolitan authorities. It is with much satisfaction that the President learns that the Porte promptly interposed the authority which it may exercise in Tripoli to the effect that reparation should be made; but this fact does not appear in the correspondence between the United States consul and the governor of Tripoli." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Oct. 8, 1875, "I have carefully considered the question presented by you in your notes of the 9th and 30th of December, in regard to the recognition of the sovereignty of the Porte over Tripoli. The United States has never formally acknowledged such sovereignty nor has it ever formally denied it. The question was never officially presented to this government until it was referred to in your conversation with. me in May last. The affair at Tripoli has emphasized the request made by you at that time for formal recognition of the fact that Tripoli is a province under the government of the Porte, and the request that a decision may be arrived at in the matter seems to be reasonable and proper. The decision of this question, however, in the manner desired by your government, involves the virtual abrogation of a treaty which has been in force and has governed the relations of the United States with Tripoli for nearly three quarters of a century. The subject is an important one in itself and on account of the principle involved, and it is believed can only be properly disposed of by a convention between the two powers. Consequently, as the Porte has proposed that there shall be a convention for the revision of the treaty between the United States and Turkey, I have the honor to suggest for the consideration of the Ottoman government the propriety of deferring all matters bearing upon the treaty with Tripoli, so far as they may affect the relations between the United States and the Porte, until that convention shall be considered." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., May 3, 1876, MS. At the close of the eighteenth, and for some time after the beginning of the nineteenth, century Tripoli was one of the four countries in Africa bordering on the Mediterranean which did not scruple to send forth armed vessels under their respective flags to capture, without any declaration or ostensible cause of war, peaceable merchantmen and to imprison and enslave their crews. The United States for a time obtained protection from such captures under the treaty with Tripoli of November 4, 1796. What the relations between the Porte and Tripoli then were does not distinctly appear. But it is certain that the United States did not hold the Ottoman government accountable for the acts of the Bey of Tripoli. In spite, however, of the treaty of 1796, the flag of the United States was still disregarded by the Tripolitan cruisers, and at length Congress passed the act of February 2, 1802, for the protection of the commerce and seamen of the United States against those cruisers. This was virtually a declaration of war against Tripoli. No trace of objection to it on the part of the Ottoman government, either as a sovereign or ally of Tripoli, is found in the archives of the United States. The manner |