The atrocities on the cost of Morocco., October 11, 1863

The atrocities on the cost of Morocco.

To the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle:

My Dear Sir: I have further details to hand on the tragedy and outrages at Saffi, Tangier, and Tetuan. I enclose translation of the copy of letter I read to you addressed by Messrs. S. Benhayon and Haim Labos from Tangier to Mr. Judah de Azar Serfaty, Gibraltar, whose hearts bleed at seeing our brethren of Morocco so much exposed to the repetition of scenes so awful and disgraceful. Poor Morocco Jews! their lot is most distressing, inasmuch as they are living in a country where the local government is quite a nullity. The Tetuan congregational committee are cautious how they complain; this, of course, arising from that timidity which is so natural to a people who have no rights to protect them and no laws to apply to for redress whenever they are so very roughly handled. They are now afraid of exciting the resentment of the Spanish representative at Tangier, or that of his subalterns along the coast, as these have always opportunities to avenge themselves upon individuals. They are invariably acting most arbitrarily in that country, actually trampling upon sovereign rights. It is to be wondered that the representatives of Great Britain and France should show themselves so indifferent, and tolerate gross injustices so revolting to every feeling person. The general opinion, however, is, that if Sir John Drummond Hay, her Britannic Majesty’s minister, had been at Tangier perhaps these awful occurrences might not have taken place; but he was absent.

The Sultan is said to be a good and most affable person, and that he loves the Jews; but he is so weak-minded, and dreads war so much, that he cannot evince his sense of justice to the Jews when a foreign consul demands, with or without a cause, their punishment. He is in a most critical position, as it is said, “between the sword and the wall,” especially as he has made it a rule to avoid the least imbroglios with foreign nations, thinking that by this policy he will obviate every possibility of aggressions upon his dominions by European powers. Some of the representatives, as well as their countrymen, whose mischievous propensities blind them, take advantage of this known weakness, and the former and the latter have become so many petty despots, and the evil-disposed never lack opportunities in which they make sad use of the uncontrolled power of their unscrupulous consuls to gratify their resentment by basely avenging the least pretended personal offences, forcing the local government, which is only their tool, to be the executive of their malicious machinations and artful devices. The Moors know nothing of the European machinery of justice, and literature and journalism are quite sealed books to them. This fact led the European powers to stipulate by clauses in their treaties with that empire, investing thereby their consuls with judicial authority in questions wherein their respective subjects might be concerned. But at present the native Jews have no appeal whatever for wrongs endured, nor any claims to fair play. Consequently they are openly trodden down with barefaced impunity by all parties, and their lives, liberty, and possessions are totally disregarded; naturally they live in constant dread. Even those Jews who are protected by consuls are likewise haunted by that fear, lest they should lose that protection by incurring the least displeasure of their protectors.

Hence they must adopt every mean artifice, if necessary, in order to ingratiate themselves, and thus obtain protection for their persons, families, and possessions. This frightful state of things, some believe, might be easily removed if proper measures were taken by the board of deputies for the establishment of a competent tribunal, composed of three or more of the consuls, for instance the English, French, and Italian, to take cognizance of important matters affecting the Jews, who would thus be relieved from that timidity which degrades them; and it would be the most efficacious check upon that tyranny and despotism created by the uncontrolled actions of some of the consuls along the coast, when Jews or even Moors are concerned, inasmuch as they are now perfectly irresponsible for the awful consequences arising from that unnatural assumed power so recently displayed, as we see it, in the tragedy of Saffi and Tangier, in which two lives have been sacrificed after enduring torments too harrowing to be detailed; and though dying innocently as they did, what redress can their bereaved and afflicted families obtain? Public opinion, no doubt, will be telling in this case, but it is necessary that the European press should take up the matter, and this will promote the endeavor to place the native Jews under the control of a properly constituted tribunal in cases, at least, where corporal or capital punishments are involved.

Yours, truly,

[Translation of letter.]

Dear Sir and Esteemed Friend:By your letter to our friend, Mr. S. Benhayon, we are informed of the great zeal and warmth with which our countrymen have taken up the disastrous catastrophe which occurred on the 10th instant. [It was on the 13th.] Mr. S. Benhayon and myself have written to M. Cremieux, president of the Universal Israelitish Alliance, communicating to him all that has taken place. At the same time we acquaint you with the deeds of the minister of her Catholic Majesty, Sir Don Francisco Merry y Colon, who, knowing the weak points of the Moroqueen government, which has latterly succumbed to the force of arms, and which is smarting painfully from the payment of the indemnity, bends to everything that is asked for; and the consul, prompted by his pride, imposes capricious laws without justice, (and there are facts to prove it.) I shall speak out without reserve—these are the deeds of the people in charge of her Catholic Majesty’s legation in this country; hence he demanded the immolation of those two victims against all law. The confession of these has been extorted by the rack, calling to mind the latter part of the 15th century, and resuscitating Fray Tomas de Torquemada, who has been dead 365 years. There are rumors to-day in Saffi and here that it is not certain that the collector died from the effects of poison, but from illness. There was no post-mortem examination, although two governments’ surgeons were taken there for that purpose; but Señor Merry would not allow it, alleging that the prisoners had already confessed. The young man of fourteen years, Jacob Benyudah, confessed under palos, (lashes or cudgelling,) and, as he lacked experience, he caught at the offers of liberty that were made to him. He made six declarations, each different from the other. They did not take his tender age into consideration, but subjected him to a horrible death, mutilating his body.

The other atrocity is their having brought the second supposed criminal to be executed here, among a population which had not any complicity in the supposed crime. He confessed under the following tortures: 1. He suffered with fortitude and patience a great number of lashes, and without confessing. 2. He was hung with his head downwards, yet remained firm. 3. He was put into a box, with the points of nails inside, piercing his body. Under this infamous and fatal torture he shrieked in desperation, “I have killed ten, not one.” This was taken as a confession, and he was sentenced to death. Horror! there must have been thirst for Hebrew blood.

Immediately, and without the loss of a second, after the unfortunate Elias Beneluz was executed, we took possession, almost a viva fuerza, of the body, head, and blood of our brother, having during the execution administered the religious consolation of the Shemang. As soon as Señor Merry knew this he sent a message to the governor, asking why he allowed the Jews to possess themselves of the executed so soon, when he ought to have left him cast on the ground, exposed to the public gaze, for at least two hours. This is, dear brethren, the clemency and grace to be obtained from the petrified heart of Señor Merry.

To corroborate the deeds of these employés, I shall tell you that at Tetuan, on the eve of Rosh Hashana, a robbery was committed in a shop belonging to a Spaniard, in which an old shoe was found. Señor Fantom, the Spanish vice-consul, repaired to the governor, demanding the punishment of the thieves. The governor sent for all Jewish shoemakers. On presenting themselves, he asked who made the shoe that was found. One replied, “Sir, it is mine.” The governor dismissed the others and sent this one to prison. Then the vice-consul accused a young man, a Jew, who was formerly a servant to the Spaniard. He was produced and sent to prison. On Wednesday after Rosh Hashana they were taken to the meshuar, in the presence of the governor, who ordered the man to say to whom he had sold the shoe, since he knew it was his own making. “Sir,” he answered, “it is impossible for me to bring to recollection to whom I sold it, as I am an old man, and as I make many every day and sell them. It is impossible for me.” The governor, not satisfied with this, nor the vice-consul either, and seeing that the young man made no confession, shut them up in the meshuar, and they were punished with the lash. On the report going abroad, the young man’s father came to implore mercy in behalf of his son, but the soldiers at the gates opposed his entrance; and on his insisting, a soldier came up to him with a cudgel, and with one blow inflicted a severe wound on his head. The unfortunate man fell senseless to the ground, was thence taken to the hospital, and is said to be in danger.

Hasten, dear brethren, to use without delay, and with ardor, all the means that your intelligence may suggest. Do not depend on the gentlemen of this Junta. They do not possess the energy or unanimity so much required. They are full of dread lest they should come into collision with one or the other government. There being no unanimity for any purpose, the spirit evaporates, the energy. is lost, and the affair dies out.

In us the Jewish blood boils, more so when we think of the blood of our brethren shed. God will help you, dear brethren, and we trust that the Lord of the universe will help you on in your good deeds, and from our home we shall pray for your prosperity.

We are your humble servants,

Cruelties by Spanish officials.

The first impression produced on our mind by the report of the proceedings of the board of deputies, and the perusal of the letter on the same subject, inserted in another column, is no doubt that which they will make on every one of our readers. We saw Spain as of old revived—cruel, fanatic, and panting after the blood of unbelievers. The spirit of the sanguinary visigoths, with its fierce war of extermination against the Jews, strode once more over the blood-stained soil of the peninsula, and, finding no longer victims at home, sought them on the coast beyond the Straits of Gades. It seemed as though Spain’s darling institution— the inquisition—unable to gratify again the eyes of the faithful with the pleasing sight of racked and burnt heretics either in Europe or America, had transferred its seat to the country of the Moors, and there commissioned Torquemada Redivivus to renew his atrocities. It seemed all but impossible to believe that the representative of a power within a few hours’ sail from his government should have dared, on his own authority, to torture and butcher persons accused of a crime for which there is not a tittle of evidence, save the admission extorted by the rack from the prisoners, and for the commission of which no reasonable motive could have existed. Yet, on the other hand, how is it conceivable to suppose that these crimes against helpless individuals should have been sanctioned by a goverment which only four short years ago evinced so much humanity toward Jewish fugitives from the same coast, who sought, and found, temporary safety on Spanish ground, and which so efficiently protected the Jewish inhabitants of Tetuan while the city was occupied by its troops? By what process of reasoning can be reconciled the line of conduct pursued by the same government in releasing from their confinement Spanish subjects guilty of the crime of having propagated heresy at home, with that prescribing the extermination of unbelievers abroad, who never owed allegiance to the Spanish crown? Would it not be sheer madness, in a great nation just emerging from an unparalleled state of prostration and barbarism, the consequence of the terrible crimes of the past of which it is now conscious, striving hard for its rehabilitation, and taking again its stand by the side of Europe’s mightiest states, to rouse the indignation of the civilized world by misdeeds that might throw doubts on its resolution to break forever with the ignominious past, and represent all its modern enlightened institutions as a mere sham, as a slight varnish intended to conceal the dark ground-color, and thus to alienate from it that public opinion which within the last few years began to veer round, and to believe in the extinction of the race of those delighting in the shrieks of men and women—ay, of youths and maidens—expiring in the flames?

In this perplexity of deciding whether the Spanish representative at Tangier, in enacting the tragedy described elsewhere, proceeded on his own sole personal responsibility, without communicating previously with his government, or turned torturer and murderer by direct orders of his superiors—there being no tertium medium—we prefer the former explanation, presenting as it does less insuperable difficulties than the second alternative. Individual fanatics, even in authority, have unfortunately existed under liberal governments even in modern times. Some twenty-three years ago the chief agent in the atrocities then perpetrated on innocent Jews in another Mahometan city, through the instrumentality of a Mahometan court of justice, was the representative of enlightened France. If Damascus had its Ratti-Menton, who, armed with the power of the mighty nation represented by him, lashed, racked, and tortured to his heart’s desire, until he extorted the confession of the murder of a man of whom it has never been proved that he was murdered, why should not Tangier be afflicted with a Merry, following in the same bloody track in order to avenge the death of a man of whom it has not even been shown that he died by any other means save the visitation of God? There is a circumstance inclining us still more to the alternative adopted. The Spanish government, at the intercession of Baron James de Rothschild, through its ambassador at Paris, we learn, at once interposed, ordering the lives of the two prisoners, still in the power of Señor Merry’s Moroqueen hangman, to be spared. It is not likely that the Spanish government would have so quickly complied with the request of the Baron had the execution of the two murdered prisoners taken place by the direct order of his superior authorities, as stated by Señor Merry to his colleagues of Italy, France, and England, when they urged him to defer the carrying out of the iniquitous sentence pronounced by him until the ministry could be communicated with.

But this explanation proposed by us, however plausible, must remain a conjecture as long as the Spanish government does not express by an overt act its disapprobation of the proceedings taken by its representative, washing its hands publicly of the innocent blood shed by him, and which cries up for vengeance from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive it. If the Spanish government wishes to clear itself from the very suspicion of having in any way participated in this terrible crime—if it wishes convincingly to prove that the order to spare the lives of the two survivors, still in prison, is not the consequence of second thought, of a vague dread of Europe’s public opinion horrified at such deeds, reminding of the darkest century of the dark middle ages—it cannot allow matters to rest where they are; it cannot, for its own credit, but institute a rigid inquiry into the proceedings taken by its representative, and cannot but preliminarily remove him from a post which he has so sadly disgraced, for which he has proved himself so wofully incompetent, and which, if he be permitted to retain, would unfortunately offer to him such a vast field for other outbursts of his fierce fanaticism. These are matters of the utmost gravity, deserving the earnest consideration of the Spanish government. But the families of the victims of its representative have also a duty to perform. They are most concerned by the crime committed; they are the chief sufferers. They are, therefore, primarily called upon to vindicate the cause of justice, to protect their community from similar atrocities, and to obtain for themselves compensation, in as far as pecuniary compensation can atone for the terrible wrong inflicted.

Señor Merry is a Spaniard, and as such amenable to the law of his country. We are not acquainted with this law. But as the country of a civilized nation, claiming kindred with the civilized nations of the earth, it must be governed by a code which offers the innocently persecuted legal means to call the wrong-doer to an account, and to obtain redress for just grievances. Surely the Spanish law cannot permit a man to be charged with poisoning when there is no proof that anybody has been poisoned. Surely the Spanish law does not permit a prisoner to be tortured, in order to extort a confession; nor can it receive such a confession as evidence, and still less inflict capital punishment on such evidence. All this, however, Señor Merry has done. His own will has been a law to him, for he has set aside both the procedure of the country in which he is, and of that which he represents. Surely the circumstance that these atrocities were not enacted on Spanish soil cannot insure to him impunity, and still less so the fact that he commissioned Moroqueens, and not Spaniards, with the perpetration of the crime. Spain has a law, and by this he must be judged. Our earnest advice, therefore, to the families of the victims is to appeal to the law. This may be expensive; but the congregation of Tangier offered to pay to the Spanish consul any sum he might ask as a ransom for the lives of the two murdered persons. Let the sum which the congregation was ready to pay as a ransom be employed in the legal proceedings which we advise. And if an appeal by the families of the victims were made to Europe, we have no doubt but it would be responded to. The necessary funds for defraying the cost of the trial would be forthcoming, and contributions might even be expected from liberal-minded Spaniards. We should not be afraid of the issue of such a trial. We have full confidence in the sense of justice of the Spanish tribunals, which would thus have an opportunity afforded for vindicating the national character, and wiping out the blot with which the lawless proceedings of the representative of the country has stained it.

But even if, contrary to all expectations, the course of justice should be obstructed, the criminal protected, and the innocent condemned, the attempt at seeking redress would not be without advantage; for there is a tribunal higher than any court of justice, which can neither be blinded by corruption, intimidated by dictates of tyranny, nor misled by the sophisms of special pleadings. This tribunal is the supreme court of public opinion, which, heedless of any other sentence, would decide that a man who in the second half of the nineteenth century accuses before it has been proved that a crime was committed, tortures in order to extort a confession of guilt, condemns on such evidence, and at last kills in virtue thereof, is, in the eyes of God and the laws of all civilized nations, worse than he that should waylay his victim, pounce upon and assassinate him. No amount of evidence brought forward after the deed could justify the deed itself, since every man must be held as innocent until he has been proved guilty by the laws of the country which judge him; and no amount of evidence brought forward after the deed would be free from the grave and well-founded suspicion of having been moulded, twisted, and perverted, if not devised for the very purpose of justifying the crime. The verdict of public opinion, therefore, could not be doubted. Such a trial, whatever its issue, would further serve as a check upon the lawless proceedings of unprincipled Europeans, in authority or not, who we are assured, as matters now stand on the coast of Morocco, but too often work on the fears of the Moors, using them as tools, in order to lord it, for purposes of their own, over the unfortunate Jews. These Europeans would find that, although not amenable to the laws of Morocco, they can yet be reached by those of their own country, and the wholesome dread that it might not always be to the interest of their country to throw over lawless men the mantle of her protection would not lose its effect.

In whichever aspect, therefore, we regard the counsel which we tender our Moroqueen brethren, we cannot but earnestly urge it on their attention. Their own government would have no reason to prevent them from pursuing a course which their own safety requires, which liberal Europe would applaud, and in which they might look forward to the energetic support of all friends of justice, and of all enemies of fanaticism, be they Jews or Gentiles.—Jewish Chronicle and Hebrew Observer, October 16, 1863.