Architecture of Peace Documentary Evidence Series
Volume N The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
The United States’ Institutional Memory of the 1786 Instrument and the 1836 Treaty across Two Hundred Forty Years, 1786–2026
Yasapa-Al (John Darrell-El), MD, MBA
Preface This volume asks one question and answers it from the trustee’s own pages: how has the government of the United States — the trustee of record of the 1836 treaty with the Empire of Morocco — carried that instrument, and the 1786 instrument it renewed, across its own institutional memory from 1786 to 2026? The method is documentary evidence only. The volume engages what the United States itself published, listed, certified, adjudicated, and commemorated: the controlling editions (Miller, 1931 and 1934), the compilation chain (1846– 1972), the annual in-force lists (1929–2026), the diplomatic correspondence, the statutes and reports, the judicial and bibliographic registers, and the Department’s own standing characterizations. It asserts nothing doctrinal. Doctrine is reserved to Volumes L, M, and O of this series; the remedial path is reserved to Volume O. Three conventions govern the text. First, engagement levels are stated at every locus: page image outranks direct document, which outranks the text layer, which outranks the search layer; where a search was executed and returned nothing, the volume records a certified statement of the documented search, not a claim of non-existence. Second, flagged materials are marked at the point of citation: secondary scholarship, tertiary transcriptions, and litigation documents are engaged only as what they are. Third, quotations are rationed. The volume quotes only where a quotation carries load, at short spans verified against page images; everything else is paraphrased with locus citations. The volume’s own findings are stated in its chapters and nowhere resolved silently: where the transmitted record carries a citation that no primary locus supports, the volume displays the discrepancy and corrects nothing in another’s text. Response protocol for hostile readers Volume N is a closed documentary record. Any scholarly rebuttal will be eval2
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
uated against the following standard: • Specificity: The rebuttal must identify the exact document, page, and line it disputes. • Evidence category: The rebuttal must state whether it challenges C1– C9. • Burden acknowledgment: The rebuttal must acknowledge that the U.S. side bears the burden to produce the 1836 Arabic original or a delivery receipt. • No ad hominem: Rebuttals attacking the author’s credentials rather than the documentary record will be noted and archived but not substantively answered.
Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
The Foundational Opening
The Hunter Miller Note as Foundational Opening Source 11 §1.1. The 1931 Hunter Miller publication in its institutional context 11 §1.2. Hunter Miller as State Department treaty editor — institutional capacity and authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 §1.3. The editorial note on the 1786 Treaty — text and scope . . 15 §1.4. The three trustee admissions articulated . . . . . . . . . . . 18 §1.5. The note’s doctrinal load against the series architecture . . 21 §1.6. The terminal-point character of the 1931 admission . . . . . 23
The Hurgronje Transcription Engagement . . . . . . . . . . 25 §2.1. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje — biographical and institutional context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 §2.2. The 1930 comment apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 §2.3. The Hurgronje transcription within Hunter Miller’s editorial framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 §2.4. The trustee’s institutional posture toward the EuropeanArabist scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 §2.5. The transcription’s place in the 1786 Arabic textual transmission chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 §2.6. The Hurgronje engagement’s doctrinal yield at the sourcetransmission register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
Methodology and the Documentary-Evidence-Only Rule
§3.1. The volume’s methodological posture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 §3.2. The documentary-evidence-only rule — three operative implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 §3.3. The chronological-organization structural principle . . . . . 38 §3.4. Trustee admissions against interest as the analytical contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 §3.5. Source-restriction discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 §3.6. The methodological discipline’s distinguishing role within the series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
II
The Nineteenth-Century Chain, 1791–1900
The Perfection Event and the United States Response, 1791–1835 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 §4.1. The chain resumes — method and the two strands . . . . . 46 §4.2. The perfection event — August 19, 1791 . . . . . . . . . . . 47 §4.3. The officer’s response — August 30, 1791 . . . . . . . . . . . 49 §4.4. The printed exchange and the response’s afterlife, 1792–1809 50 §4.5. The 1795 confirmation and the “personal” characterization — dedicated section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 §4.6. The consular establishment at the grantor’s seat, 1791–1820
§4.7. The downward grants — 1821 and 1834 . . . . . . . . . . . 55 §4.8. The record searched — the 1791–1835 chain’s silences
. . . 57
§4.9. Chapter 4 yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
The Trustee Correspondence Pattern, 1835–1837 . . . . . 59 §5.1. The hinge period opens — the commission of July 4, 1835 . 59 §5.2. Meccanez, September 16, 1836 — the 1836 book . . . . . . . 60 §5.3. The twenty-fifth provision of 1836 — the notice machinery . 61 §5.4. The consul’s two instruments — October 1 and October 11, 1836 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 §5.5. The federal action — December 1836 to January 1837 . . . 62 §5.6. The record searched — the originals and the corpus . . . . . 63
Architecture of Peace
§5.7. Chapter 5 yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Tangier Consulate Correspondence Chain, 1837–1900 66 §6.1. The standing institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 §6.2. The audit of the vertical idiom — 1838–1840
. . . . . . . . 67
§6.3. The leave-taking correspondence — 1841–1843 . . . . . . . . 68 §6.4. The protection practice and the Madrid frame — 1880–1881 70 §6.5. The century closes — the record searched . . . . . . . . . . 71 §6.6. Chapter 6 yields; the first chapters close . . . . . . . . . . . 72
The Federal-Level Institutional Record, 1837–1900 . . . . 74 §7.1. The second register — scope and method . . . . . . . . . . . 74 §7.2. The 1860 architecture — the treaties named as the measure
§7.3. Extension and codification — 1870, the Revised Statutes, 1878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 §7.4. The third instrument — Cape Spartel, 1865–1867 . . . . . . 77 §7.5. The 1880 convention at the federal register . . . . . . . . . . 78 §7.6. The 1836 instrument’s later attestations . . . . . . . . . . . 79 §7.7. The record searched — the century’s statutory silences; the boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 §7.8. Chapter 7 yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
The Publication History of the 1786 Instrument, 1845– 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 §8.1. The compilations as witnesses — scope and the marginalgloss protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 §8.2. The founding compilation — the Statutes at Large, volume 8 83 §8.3. The intermediate chain — the 1889 preface’s own genealogy
§8.4. The public treaties of 1873–1875 — the gloss appears . . . . 85 §8.5. The Treaties and Conventions of 1889 — the classification apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 §8.6. The Treaties in Force of 1899 — the supersession headnote . 87 §8.7. Malloy, 1910 — the supersession footnote . . . . . . . . . . 89 §8.8. The marginal-gloss analysis — the trajectory displayed . . . 90 §8.9. The record searched — the chain’s pending items . . . . . . 91
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
§8.10. Chapter 8 yields; the volume’s record closes . . . . . . . . . 92
III
The Twentieth-Century Chain, 1900–2000
The Hurgronje–Miller Pre-1931 Institutional Buildup (1900–1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 §9.1. Span and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 §9.2. The 1904 compilation — engagement of record . . . . . . . 95 §9.2.1. The screening clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 §9.2.2. The Morocco presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 §9.3. The General Act of Algeciras (1906) — Malloy vol. 2 engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 §9.4. The Malloy compilation (1910) — the cooperation statement 97 §9.5. The Treaty Series era opens (1908– ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 §9.6. The Hoffman Philip correspondence (1902–1906) . . . . . . 98 §9.7. The Trenwith continuation (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 §9.8. The first Treaties in Force (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 §9.9. The Hurgronje thread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 §9.10. Yields — Chapter 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
The 1931 Hunter Miller Publication in Institutional Context (1931–1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 §10.1. Span and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 §10.2. Miller volume 2 (1931) — engagement of record . . . . . . 101 §10.3. The dating reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 §10.4. The Arabic reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 §10.5. Miller volume 4 (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 §10.6. The institutional context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 §10.7. Yields — Chapter 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
The 1931–1974 Institutional Chain, Including ICJ 1952 . 105 §11.1. Span and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 §11.2. The 1941 Treaties in Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 §11.3. The 1955 Treaties in Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Architecture of Peace
§11.4. The International Court of Justice, 1952 . . . . . . . . . . 106 §11.4.1. The frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 §11.4.2. The characterization passage . . . . . . . . . . . 107 §11.4.3. The continuity passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 §11.5. The 1948 Department working list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 §11.6. Independence and relinquishment; the 1959 Treaties in Force108 §11.7. The UST/TIAS and CFR channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 §11.8. Yields — Chapter 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
The 1974 Bevans Publication and Successor Compilations (1968–2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 §12.1. Span and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 §12.2. Bevans volume 9 (1972) — the 1786 instrument restored to full print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 §12.3. The 1836 treaty in Bevans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 §12.4. Both instruments in one section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 §12.5. The successor compilations to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 §12.6. The trajectory assembled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 §12.7. Yields — Chapter 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
IV The Twenty-First-Century Record and the Chain Assembled, 2001–2026
The Twenty-First-Century Institutional Record (2001– 2026)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
§13.1. Span and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 §13.2.
The Department’s standing characterization — Background Notes to the Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet . . . . 115
§13.3. The in-force list’s current form — Treaties in Force 2004 and 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 §13.4. The congressional register — House Report 119-631 (April 2026)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
§13.5. The bibliographic register — the Library of Congress certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
§13.6. The federal-jurisdiction register — the litigation channel, flagged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 §13.7. The commemorative register — the Tangier American Legation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 §13.8. The archival-availability audit — the 1836 Arabic text’s publication channels since 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 §13.9. The 1956 frame re-engaged — the queue-closure set of record124 §13.10. The characterizations compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 §13.11. Yields — Chapter 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
The Yield — The Trustee Admissions Chain Assembled (1786–2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 §14.1. Span and question; register discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 §14.2. The chain assembled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 §14.3. The convergence table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 §14.4. The two patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 §14.5. The beneficiary classes in the trustee’s published record . . 138 §14.6. The hostile forecast disposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 §14.7. The designations in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 §14.8. The forward path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 §14.9. Volume closure and yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Appendix A: The In-Force List Lattice, 1959–2026 . . . . . . . . . 144 Appendix B: Translation and Textual Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . 146 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Colophon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Part I
The Foundational Opening
Chapter 1
The Hunter Miller Note as Foundational Opening Source
§1.1. The 1931 Hunter Miller publication in its institutional context In 1931 the United States Government Printing Office issued the second volume of Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, edited by Hunter Miller and covering Documents 1 through 40, from 1776 to 1818.1 The volume is the official treaty publication of the United States Department of State for the founding-period corpus: the controlling federal publication of record in which the United States fixed, in permanent and citable form, the texts and the editorial history of its earliest international instruments. Within that volume, the instrument sealed at Morocco on June 23, 1786, appears as Document 14, under the heading “Morocco: June 28 and July 15, 1786,” with the running corner references “Treaty Series, No. 244” and “8 Statutes at Large, 100” — the edition’s own cross-references to the two earlier official publication chains in which the instrument had already appeared.2 Document 14 is not a bare text. The edition presents the instrument as a documentary complex, and the architecture of that presentation is itself evidence. The headnote records that the instrument was sealed with the seal of the Emperor of Morocco on June 23, 1786 (25 Shaban, A.H. 1200) and delivered to Thomas Barclay, the American agent, on June 28, 1786 (1 Ramadan, A.H. 1200); that its original is in Arabic; that an additional article was signed and sealed at Morocco on behalf of Morocco on July 15, 1786; and that a separate
Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931). Miller, Treaties, 2:185. The corner references record the instrument’s prior official publication as Treaty Series No. 244 and at 8 Statutes at Large 100.
Architecture of Peace
Ship-Signals Agreement was signed at Morocco on July 6, 1786, its original in English.3 The headnote further records that certified English translations of the instrument and of the additional article were incorporated in a document signed and sealed by the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States — Thomas Jefferson at Paris on January 1, 1787, and John Adams at London on January 25, 1787 — and that the instrument and additional article were ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787, and proclaimed the same day.4 Thereafter the edition reproduces the record in sequence: first, twenty-six pages of Arabic text, a photographic reproduction of the pages of the original instrument, arranged in left-to-right order of pagination for the convenience of the Western reader;5 then the text of the document embodying the certified translations, bearing the approvals of Jefferson and Adams;6 then the Ship-Signals Agreement;7 then a critical comment on the English translation of 1786, written in 1930 by the leading European Arabist of the age, whose engagement the following chapter examines;8 and finally the editorial notes, to which this chapter is devoted. A successor volume, the fourth in the series, appeared in 1934 and carried the edition’s treatment of the 1836 transaction in its chronological position; that engagement belongs to the twentieth-century chain chapters of this volume, where the 1931 publication is re-engaged in its institutional context.9 The corner references deserve a paragraph of their own, because they are the publication chain in compressed form. “8 Statutes at Large, 100” places the instrument in the founding compilation of federal law; “Treaty Series, No. 244” places it in the Department’s own numbered pamphlet series. The 1931 edition does not replace those chains; it crowns them, gathering the texts, the facsimiles, the translations, and the editorial history into a single critical presentation. A document’s appearances across the official publication chains are themselves evidence — of how the institution chose to present the document to itself and
Miller, Treaties, 2:185. Ibid. Miller, Treaties, 2:186–211; the headnote describes the reproduction at 2:185. Miller, Treaties, 2:212–18. Miller, Treaties, 2:219. Miller, Treaties, 2:185 (headnote); the comment is printed at 2:219–23. Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 4 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934). The re-engagement occurs at this volume’s chapter 10.
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
to the public — and the chain chapters of this volume read those appearances in their chronological sequence. The corner of Document 14’s first page, in two lines of small type, is the chain’s own index. The institutional weight of the 1931 volume derives from its provenance. It was compiled and edited under the direction of the Secretary of State, by authority of Congress, and printed at the Government Printing Office. It is not a scholar’s private edition. It is the trustee’s own published record of the founding-period instruments — prepared inside the Department of State, issued under federal authority, and standing to this day as the edition of record to which courts, agencies, and scholars are directed by the Department itself.10
§1.2. Hunter Miller as State Department treaty editor — institutional capacity and authority David Hunter Miller came to the editorship as an institutional appointment, not an avocation. The September 1929 number of the Foreign Service Journal recorded the event in terms that fix both the office and the man: a new position, “the position of Editor of the Treaties,” had just been created in the Office of the Historical Adviser, and David Hunter Miller — described in the notice as internationally known as a lawyer and student of international affairs — would assume its duties the following month.11 The same notice situated the office in its lineage: Miller succeeded to a function in the Department “made famous by J. C. Bancroft Davis,” the American agent in the Alabama Claims arbitration, whose treaty collection and whose editorial notes had been, for two generations, the standard apparatus through which the United States read its own instruments.12 The office itself was new, but its functions were, as the notice observed, among the oldest in the Department of State. The Office of the Historical Adviser had been created in the early part of 1929 out of the Department’s Division of Publications; in 1938 it would be renamed the Office of the Editor of the
On the edition’s place among the Department’s official treaty publications, see U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, “Finding Agreements,” accessed July 17, 2026, https://2021-2025.state.gov/finding-agreements/. Foreign Service Journal, September 1929. Ibid.
Architecture of Peace
Treaties — the name carrying into the Department’s own organization chart the function Miller had come to personify.13 Miller held the editorship through the years in which the first volumes of the series appeared, devoting himself, in the words of the Department’s own administrative history, to preparing the Treaties and Other International Acts publication.14 Three institutional consequences follow. First, the editorial notes in the 1931 volume are institutional acts. They were written by the Department’s Editor of the Treaties, working within the Department’s own historical office, on the Department’s own records, and published under federal authority. When the note on Document 14 speaks, the trustee speaks in its own official record — not in a memoir, not in a private letter, not in a scholarly journal where a retraction might be expected to follow, but in the controlling edition the institution itself maintains. Second, the editor possessed institutional knowledge. The note’s citations to the Department of State file, to the Continental Congress papers, to the Jefferson Papers, and to the consular despatches show an editor working from the primary custody of the documents, not from secondary accounts.15 Third, the publication is permanent in the way that matters for evidence: printed, distributed, cited for a century, and never corrected. A statement so made is documentary permanence of the highest institutional order. This is the answer, in advance, to the objection that the note is “just an editor’s opinion.” An editor’s opinion printed by the Government Printing Office, under the direction of the Secretary of State, by authority of Congress, in the official edition of record, is an institutional admission. The office, the authority, and the permanence are matters of public record. Nor was Miller’s a transient incumbency of which the institution might plausibly wash its hands. He remained at the editorial post through the years in which the series’ early volumes were produced, and the Department’s own administrative history records the period’s structure: while deputy and successor U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, “A History of the Foreign Relations of the United States Series,” chap. 6, accessed July 17, 2026, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus-history/chapter-6. Ibid. Miller, Treaties, 2:224–26.
Volume N: The Trustee’s Admissions Chain
officers managed the parallel Foreign Relations series, Miller devoted himself to the treaty edition — the work for which the office had been created.