Note 726 — Chapter XIII

Art. XVII read as follows: “Le droit au traitement de la nation la plus favorisée est reconnu par le Maroc à toutes les Puissances representées à la Conférence de Madrid” (Leon Deloncle [ed.], Statut international du Maroc [Paris, 1912], p. 51). The French refused to accept this interpretation of the Convention of Madrid and of Art. XVII. Tardieu replied to the German arguments as follows: “That convention aimed to limit at the demand of Morocco the right of protection of the legations to certain Moroccan subjects which some Powers tended to abuse. It had regulated the exercise of that right, determined the conditions of naturalization for the Moroccans, those for the acquisition of landed property by foreigners, and had established the basis of the agricultural tax. Concerning general policy or stipulations about the tariff, not a word. Article XVII, which Germany invoked as the charter of international equality in Morocco, applied in reality only to the right of protection. . . . . Article XVII is not a promise of the Powers among themselves never to touch the diplomatic or economic terrain. It is a promise by Morocco never to differentiate between them within the limits of 1880 and within those limits alone, that is (following the preamble of the convention) in the exercise of protection” (Tardieu, La Conf. d’Algés, p. 39). Lansdowne also challenged the German interpretation. “Any rights which other countries may have to most-favoured-nation treatment in Morocco would not . . . . preclude the possibility of a privileged position being in certain respects accorded to France in her dealings with the Moorish Government. Most-favoured-nation treatment is variously interpreted in different countries. But no Power has, I believe, ever contended that the obligation to give such treatment debars one country from invoking the assistance of another in improving its domestic administration, and it is obvious that such assistance can be most conveniently and effectually given when the Power which affords it is the immediate neighbour of that which receives it, nor was there any desire or intention on the part of France to deprive other Powers of the rights and privileges to which they were justly entitled under Treaty” (Lansdowne to Bertie, July 11, 1905, B.D., III, 117 f., No. 150; cf. Metternich to F. O., June 6, 1905, G.P., XX, 416 f., No. 6690).

The German interpretation was based upon a loose construction of that convention while the French interpretation was based upon a strict construction. Although from a legal standpoint the French view was correct, yet the precedent of an international conference over Moroccan affairs, no matter what they were, favored the German argument. Moreover, the fact remained that France had tried to change the existing status in Morocco without consulting Powers who had as much right to be considered as the three with whom she had come to terms.