IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

cooperate with foreigners’ requests. 64 In others, the ‘udūl seem to have refused their services on
their own initiative. 65 Although the majority of complaints along these lines came from
Christians and Jews, there were some instances in which Muslim protégés were similarly
prevented from using the services of ‘udūl. 66 At some point before 1891, Mawlāy Ḥasan issued
an order that ‘udūl and qāḍīs were only permitted to notarize the documents of foreign subjects
and protégés with the permission of the local pasha or qā’id. 67 Although consular officials
protested this policy, claiming that it went against the treaties governing relations among
Morocco and foreign nations, their objections seem to have fallen on deaf ears. 68 Of course,
qāḍīs and ‘udūl at times refused to serve foreigners despite permission from local Makhzan
representatives. 69 The reticence of ‘udūl and qāḍīs to notarize the documents of foreign subjects
and protégés was undoubtedly related to the increasing sentiment among Moroccans that these
françaises dites “de Casablanca,” Eliyahu b. Dahan contre le Makhzan, 1892, in which the qāḍī of Casablanca
refused to send the ‘udūl from his city to rural tribes (which was necessary because documents legalized by the ‘udūl
from tribes themselves did not constitute acceptable legal proof).
64 BH, K 551, p. 30, 10 Rabī‘ I 1307 (in this case the qāḍī of Rabat explained that he had refused to legalize a
document belonging to an Italian subject because it had the seal of a Christian consulate on it, to which he objected
in principle); FO, 631/7, p. 146a-b, 30 July 1891.
65 USNA, Reg. 84, Box # 1, John Cobb to J. Judson Barclay, 28 December 1894. In this instance, a Makhzan
official agreed to send Cobb ‘udūl to record testimony about the theft of his property. However, Cobb reported to
Barclay, the American consul in Tangier, that the Makhzan official “brought in twenty four men whose declarations
the Adools listened to and on hearing the names of the invaders called out, they remarked we will not take down
names save those who are under Foreign protection. That ended their usefulness.”
66 BH, K 551, p. 96, 4 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1307 and DNA, 2.05.15.15.49, Baron Mentzigen to Muḥammad al-Ṭūris, 14
November 1899. In the second case, a Muslim working as a soldier for Alfred Redman, the Dutch vice-consul in
Larache, was on his death bed and wanted to make a will granting some of his inheritance to his employer.
However, when the ‘udūl discovered that the testament was in favor of a Christian, they refused to draw up the legal
document. It is possible that in this case, the ‘udūl were adhering to the rule in Islamic law that dhimmīs are not
allowed to inherit from Muslims (see Fattal, Statut légal, 137). However, it could also be the case that the ‘udūl
were simply reluctant to draw up any legal documents for a foreigner.
67 I have not been able to find a date when these instructions were sent to Makhzan officials. For the first reference
to this policy, see FO, 631/7, p. 64a-b, 26 March 1881; here, the British consul of Mogador noted that a Jew named
Hadan Bitton (who, presumably, was a Moroccan subject) wanted to record his accounts with the British subject W.
Grace. However, the qāḍī refused to allow this without an express order from the local qā’id. For a more explicit
reference to this order, see DAR, Ḥimāyāt, 23317, Mawlāy Ḥasan to ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Bargāsh, 17 Dhū al-Qa‘da
1309/ 13 June 1892, which concerns the sultan’s order that qāḍīs should not allow the recording of testimony about
bills of debt for foreigners except with the permission of the governor of the region.
68 DAR, Ḥimāyāt, 23317, Mawlāy Ḥasan to ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Bargāsh, 17 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309/ 13 June 1892.
69 USNA, Reg. 84, Box # 1, Affair of Miguel Benshaya, 1897.
309