FIRST TURKISH MISSION
Turkey's jealousy of foreigners--My protest against the closing of
American mission schools--Diplomacy prevents drastic regulations
proposed by Turkey--The schools are reopened--Defending the sale of
the Bible--A cargo of missionaries and rum--Robert College--A visit
to Cairo--"Bombe a la Lincoln"--Governmental reforms in Egypt--My
protest against persecution of Jews in flight from Russia and
Roumania--At Jerusalem--Huge delegation of Jews pleads with me for
release of imprisoned relatives--I make drastic demands, and
prisoners are promptly released--Their grateful memorial to
me--Rights of American citizens on Turkish soil--Disputes regarding
our Treaty of 1830--Uncle Sam gives $10,800 worth of presents to
Turkish officials, on conclusion of a treaty--Diplomatic tangles;
United States left without Treaty of Naturalization with
Turkey--Baron de Hirsch, international celebrity--I am invited to
arbitrate his dispute with the Sultan, and am offered an honorarium
of 1,000,000 francs--I decline honorarium, but offer to
mediate--Baroness de Hirsch's philanthropies--American capitalists
consider Turkish railway concessions--Sultan grants permission for
American excavation in Babylon--My resignation in 1888--The
Sultan's farewell.
For several years the Turks had been very jealous of foreigners,
especially in Asia Minor, and the result was many restrictions which
manifested themselves in a variety of relations. The growth of the
mission schools and their increase in number quite naturally enhanced
the suspicion of the authorities, with the help, as I have mentioned, of
those whose interests were served in helping the Turks to see danger in
this growth of our institutions.
At the legation the interests of the American missionaries with regard
to their schools and their printed matter formed the major portion of
the affairs requiring my immediate attention. About four hundred schools
had been established in Turkey by the Presbyterian and Congregational
missionary boards. Beginning with the winter of 1885, upon one pretext
or another, thirty of these schools in Syria were closed, many of the
teachers arrested and forbidden ever to teach in the country again,
while the parents were threatened with fine and imprisonment if they
continued to send their children to American schools. With few
exceptions all the teachers and parents were natives and Turkish
subjects. The official reason given for the closing of these schools was
that their boards had not complied with the Turkish law requiring that
textbooks, curriculums, and certificates of the teachers be submitted to
the authorities for examination; although the missionary representatives
gave assurance that these requirements had been met.
Soon after my audience with the Sultan I took up the subject of these
schools with the Grand Vizier, Kiamil Pasha, who was perhaps the most
enlightened statesman of the Turkish Empire. Mr. King, while acting
charge, had made an agreement with the Minister of Public Instruction
whereby the missionaries at these schools were to submit the textbooks
and other documentary equipment to the local authorities. I protested to
the Grand Vizier against the closing of the schools, and after some
weeks we reached an understanding: he was to telegraph the vali or
governor-general at Syria that the schools were to be allowed to reopen
upon their compliance with the law, according to an arrangement between
himself and myself. The outcome looked hopeful, though months dragged
along without further result.
Meanwhile, and quite by accident, I learned that the Porte had
formulated proposed additional regulations concerning all foreign
schools, and that these regulations were about to be submitted to the
Council of Ministers to be made law. I immediately requested a copy from
the Grand Vizier. I found, to my surprise, that the regulations were
calculated to place insuperable obstacles in the way of every foreign
school in the empire. Among other things, in addition to the requirement
that textbooks, curriculums, and teachers' certificates be submitted for
examination, all schools were to obtain an irade or express sanction of
the Sultan in order to function. Failing to receive that irade within
six months from the date of the law embodying the new regulations, the
authorities in the several provinces were commanded to close such
schools.
I communicated my discovery to those of my colleagues who were
interested with me in this dispute: Count de Montebello, French
ambassador; Baron Blanc, Italian ambassador; and Sir William White,
British ambassador. At the same time I submitted copies of the proposed
regulations to the Reverend Doctor Isaac Bliss and the Reverend Henry O.
Dwight, of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in
Western Turkey. They all viewed the matter as I did.
The following day I again called on the Grand Vizier, informing him that
I looked upon these regulations as seriously infringing upon the rights
of American citizens in Turkey, and pointing out my objections in
detail. The three colleagues just referred to did the same on behalf of
their respective subjects who had mission or other schools in the
empire. We succeeded in impressing the Grand Vizier with the force and
validity of our objections, for he requested us to put them in writing
and forward them to the Porte. With the aid of Drs. Bliss and Dwight I
prepared such a document, and I am glad to be able to say that our
protests came in time and were sufficiently forceful to prove effective
in preventing this new legislation.
As I had now been negotiating for several months with reference to the
Syrian schools, I decided that the most efficient way of translating
into concrete result the repeated promises in regard to them was to
visit some of our missionary schools throughout the empire. I obtained
the necessary permission from Washington and took a journey to Cairo,
Jaffa, Jerusalem, Beirut, Mersina, and Smyrna, where I conferred with
our missionaries, with our several consuls, as well as with the
respective governors and governor-generals. I found the relations
between the local authorities and our consuls, and between the
authorities and the missionary representatives, quite friendly, in some
places indifferent, but nowhere hostile.
I had instructed the missionaries to get ready for the opening of the
schools, and I planned the trip so as to be in Beirut about the time my
order for the reopening was to be put in force. My plan had the desired
effect. In anticipation of my arrival at Beirut, fifteen of the schools
were reopened; and while I was there five or six more. That was about as
many of the total thirty as the missionaries cared to or were in a
position to reopen then. For the time being I felt satisfied that I had
sufficiently reversed the Government policy to check the progressive
closing of the schools which, if continued, would seriously have
threatened the existence of all American schools in Turkey.
I must here express my appreciation of the assistance given me by Erhard
Bissinger, our consul at Beirut. He was an earnest, sincere man,
formerly a New York merchant. Although his health was frail he worked
with unremitting zeal and efficiency, discharging his official duties
with rare judgment and tact. I could always rely on the correctness of
his reports respecting the many difficulties as they arose, and I could
always feel assured that in each instance he would apply every effort to
bring about an adjustment with the local authorities, by whom he was as
highly esteemed as by the missionaries.
* * * * *
Another expression of the Government's enmity toward the activities of
our missionaries was the treatment being accorded the colporteurs, or
persons who went about selling Bible tracts. The agents of the American
as well as the British Bible Society were constantly and arbitrarily
being arrested. They were charged with plying their trade without
license, yet when they made application they were never able to get
license. From time to time I protested against these arrests and secured
the release of one after another of the agents; but the thing to be done
was to prevent arrests.
The fact was they were being made without real cause. Before these
tracts or any other material could be printed a permit had to be
obtained from the Ottoman Government. The material had to pass
censorship before it was allowed to be printed, so that the very fact of
its appearing in print was proof of the authorization of the censors. I
held that, once printed, to prohibit the sale of these tracts was in
restraint of commerce; that there was no reason why book hawkers should
be under different regulations from hawkers of any other wares.
I prepared an argument along these lines, which I presented to the Grand
Vizier, and he agreed with my conclusions. He forthwith gave orders for
the release of all colporteurs and that no further arrests were to be
made. The British Bible Society, of course, benefited equally with our
own by these orders, and I received their grateful appreciation through
my colleague, Sir William White.
All this hostility toward the missionaries and their work might be
construed to be founded upon an objection by the Government to having
its subjects converted to Christianity. But it was rather foreign
influence as a whole that was being fought, and religion was simply the
convenient peg. Conversions from Mohammedanism were few and far between,
and for the number of Mohammedans turned Christian in the course of a
year there were as many Christians turned Mohammedan. The Mohammedans
are intensely and sincerely devoted to their faith. On the whole they
are convinced that their religion is the only true one and that
Christianity is inferior and less rational. Such converts as the
missionaries do make come almost exclusively from among the Armenians,
Syrians, Greeks, Maronites, and other Christian sects whose form of
Christianity is of a mediaeval character. The chief missionary work in
Turkey is educational, carried forward in a religious spirit. At the
time of my visit to the various vilayets, the Presbyterian Board alone
had over one hundred schools throughout Syria, all located in places
where previously there had been no schools at all.
* * * * *
Many of the men who carried forward missionary work had consecrated
their whole lives to it. Chief among these were Rev. Henry H. Jessup,
venerable patriarch of the Presbyterian missionaries; Rev. Daniel Bliss,
president of the Syrian Protestant College; and Dr. George Washburn,
president of Robert College.
Dr. Jessup and Dr. Bliss had started for the field together in 1856,
when, in bleak December, they both left Boston in the sailing vessel
Sultana, which, according to Dr. Jessup's autobiography, "Fifty-Three
Years in Syria," carried in addition to nine or ten missionaries a cargo
of New England rum to Smyrna--a cargo spirited no less than spiritual.
Dr. Bliss was succeeded in 1902 by his distinguished son, Rev. Howard S.
Bliss, who conducted with renewed vigor the work of his father,
enlarging the scope and curriculum of the college so that through its
thousands of graduates in the arts, in science, and in medicine it
became a potent force throughout the whole Near East. During my
subsequent missions to Turkey I became very intimate with the younger
Bliss, and during the Peace Conference in 1919, when he was in Paris in
behalf of Syria, I was able to continue this intimacy. Unfortunately in
Paris he was already suffering from a serious malady which resulted in
his death in America the year following. He was honored, respected, and
beloved in both the old world and the new.
Dr. Washburn was a man of statesmanship as well as erudition. His book
of recollections, "Fifty Years in Constantinople," is valuable for the
light it throws on political issues in Turkey no less than on questions
educational and religious. He was recognized as an authority on Turkish
and Balkan affairs, and the influence of the college was by no means
limited to the Turkish Empire; it was felt quite as much throughout the
Balkan States. Bulgaria at one period was largely governed by officials
who had been graduated from Robert College, and they looked to Dr.
Washburn as their chief adviser. The British ambassador at
Constantinople frequently consulted him and was swayed by his advice,
for Dr. Washburn understood the Turks and spoke their language. He was
the second president of the college, having succeeded his father-in-law,
the Reverend Cyrus Hamlin, D.D.
On the faculty of Robert College were a number of other very able men:
Dr. Albert L. Long, Professor of Natural Science, distinguished as an
archaeologist as well, was a man of engaging personality. He had a large
acquaintance among the learned Turks, whose estimate of our country was
materially influenced for the good by their association with him. Then
there was Dr. Edwin A. Grosvenor, Professor of Latin and History, who
resigned shortly afterward to accept a professorship at Amherst. He was
then at work on his scholarly "History of Constantinople," which I
consider the best and most reliable work on that subject.
In 1888 I secured for Robert College, after arduous negotiation,
permission for the erection of two new buildings, one a house for the
president and the other an addition to the college itself. When the
permits came through there was no mention of the addition to the
college, and as work on it meanwhile had been begun, no little anxiety
ensued. It developed that some one on the staff of the Grand Vizier had
been bribed by an enemy of the college to tamper with the permits.
However, because of the good relationship between Kiamil Pasha and
myself, he acknowledged this bit of chicanery and duly rectified it.
I might add that in numerous instances I was able to arrange
unofficially with the Grand Vizier matters which threatened to become
more or less troublesome. This method of negotiating was peculiarly
advantageous at the Porte, where delays were proverbial and so
frequently defeated official action. Again, some of the difficulty
experienced by my colleagues in getting proper redress for violations,
even gross violations, was due to the fact that the Porte was not always
able to control the governor-generals of the provinces.
* * * * *
I have said that my trip among our missionary schools included a visit
to Cairo. At that time Egypt was still under Turkish sovereignty and
questions of larger importance had to be taken up with the Sublime
Porte. Thus American questions came under my jurisdiction as envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the empire. Our
representative at Cairo, John Cardwell, had the title of consul-general
and diplomatic agent, and had to receive his exequatur from the Sublime
Porte. He was a conscientious and capable official who had been there
since the beginning of the first Cleveland Administration.
On this trip also I saw much of Anthony M. Keiley and his charming wife;
I have spoken of him in a previous chapter as having been rejected for
the post of United States minister by Austria-Hungary. Keiley was
serving as one of the American judges of the Mixed or Reform Tribunal at
Cairo and was highly respected for his ability at this international
court.
Mohammed Tewfik, son of the extravagant Ismail of Suez Canal fame, whom
he succeeded, was Khedive of Egypt and entertained us during our visit.
He was only thirty-six years old, and without his fez might have been
taken for an Englishman. He spoke fluent English and his conversation
showed him to be well informed regarding the governments and peoples of
Europe. Within an hour after my first call upon him he called with his
aide-de-camp upon me at the Hotel Shepheard. He wanted to decorate me,
but I informed his aide that under our system we did not permit
diplomatic representatives to accept such distinctions; so the next day
he sent a lesser decoration to the manager of the hotel, which, it was
said, he did in my honor.
A few days later we were invited to lunch with him, and there were also
present a number of higher officials. The menu consisted of dishes with
such improvised names as "crevettes a l'Americaine," "bombe a la
Lincoln," etc. One dish that made a deep impression upon my
none-too-keen gastronomic memory was the delicious Egyptian quail, which
is larger and plumper than our own. In season the birds migrate from the
north and are trapped in great numbers. They could be bought in the
markets for a piaster, or less than five cents.
I had frequent conferences with Nubar Pasha, Egypt's foremost statesman.
He was an Armenian educated by Jesuits in France. His knowledge was
extensive, and he combined the enlightened viewpoint of a European
statesman of the first rank with all the subtlety of an Oriental. It was
he who conceived the plan of introducing a legal system and good
government in Egypt, and creating the mixed tribunals or international
law courts. In the reorganization of Egypt he acted in sympathy with
Lord Dufferin's programme and consequently was highly regarded by the
British.
With Sir Evelyn Baring, British agent and consul-general in Egypt,
afterwards Lord Cromer, I had a pleasant conversation. He was then at
the height of his power in the reconstruction of Egypt. Major-General
Sir Francis Grenfell, sirdar or commanding general of the Egyptian army,
is another memory in connection with that visit.
I regretted that time did not permit my going up the Nile; but like
every one with an historical imagination I was immensely impressed with
the grandeur and massive beauty of the pyramids and the classic ruins of
ancient Egypt, which with their five thousand or more years of existence
have outdistanced all other relics in bringing the handiwork of man down
through ages of devastating time.
* * * * *
There was a matter pending at Jerusalem regarding which our Secretary of
State had instructed me, and which I thought best to look into
personally while on this trip. Foreign Jews were being expelled simply
because of their race, and American Jews were being discriminated
against along with those of other nations. In the background of this
action by Turkey were Russia and Roumania, for since the days of the
Spanish Inquisition the Ottoman authorities, with rare exceptions, had
been not only tolerant but hospitable to Jewish immigrants. Roumania,
contrary to express provisions of the Treaty of Berlin guaranteeing
equal political and civil rights to all subjects in this newly created
principality, placed restrictions upon her Jewish subjects, causing a
large number to emigrate. And from Russia, following the enforcement of
the Ignatieff laws of 1882 (some of them laws that had been on the
statute books unenforced for years), there was also a wholesale exodus
of persecuted Jews. Most of these people went to America, but some to
other countries, including Palestine.
It was the irony of persecution that the Russians who came to Turkey
were claimed as subjects by Russia, which entered a protest at the Porte
against making them Ottoman subjects. On the other hand, the Russian
Patriarch in Turkey and the dignitaries of the Roman Church objected to
the settlement of foreign Jews in Palestine. This pressure from powers
that Turkey wished to please brought forth the promulgation of a law
interdicting all Jews from coming to Palestine for permanent residence.
Besides those from Russia and Roumania, there were a few Jews coming
from England and France. And there were a very few coming from
America--naturalized citizens.
At the Porte I had taken this matter up with the Grand Vizier. He told
me that a regulation was communicated to the Imperial authorities at
Jerusalem limiting the stay of foreign Jews there to one month. Later he
told me that the Council of Ministers was about to change this limit to
three months. He gave as reasons for the existence of any such
regulations, first, that at certain times of the year, Easter, for
example, religious fanaticism was at so high a pitch that Jews had to
remain in their houses to escape attack and perhaps murder at the hands
of the Christians. In the second place, it had been reported that the
Jews of all the world were planning to strengthen themselves in and
around Jerusalem with a view to re-establishing their ancient kingdom at
some future time.
I answered that of course the first reason could be done away with by a
strong force of police. As for the second, if the Porte would make
inquiry it could satisfy itself that there was no such plan among the
Jews of the world, that the immigration was caused by the persecution in
Russia and Roumania. (This was nine years before the publication of the
pamphlet, in 1896, by Dr. Hertzl, from which generated modern Zionism. I
shall speak of Dr. Hertzl later.) So far as the American Jews were
concerned, I informed the Grand Vizier that it was a fundamental
principle of our Government to make no distinction of race or creed
among our citizens, and that we had consistently denied to foreign
nations that right over our citizens, as the provisions in our treaties
with the Ottoman Empire showed. To all of this the Grand Vizier replied
simply that should any American be expelled he would carefully consider
my arguments and give instructions accordingly.
On communicating with our consul-general at Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, I
learned that he had taken the same position, and that to date no
American citizen had been expelled; also that the American consulate was
the only one which had refused aid to the authorities in the expulsion
of foreign Jews, and our representative was not being made very
comfortable for this non-cooperation with the local government. Here the
matter stood when I left Constantinople.
There were a number of other vexatious questions pending between the
vali at Jerusalem and Mr. Gillman, and I deemed it good policy to show
my resentment to the vali for his arbitrary methods. I declined the
courtesy of the official conveyance with which he sent one of his aides
to Jaffa to meet me and my family and take us to Jerusalem. We took a
Cook's conveyance, stopped overnight at Ramleh, and next day drove over
the hills of Judea to Jerusalem, where Mr. Gillman conducted us to
comfortable quarters at a hotel outside the walls.
* * * * *
Scarcely had I arrived at the hotel when a huge delegation of Jews, men
and women, some with infants in their arms, came to plead with me to
obtain the release of relatives and friends who had been put in prison
by the vali or governor because they had come to settle there. I had
known of the troubled conditions in Jerusalem because of the immigration
of the Jews; but until my arrival there I was not aware of the
imprisonment of these people. More than four hundred of them were being
held in prison awaiting deportation.
Instead of calling on the vali as ordinarily would have been proper, I
sent a note to him through the consul demanding the immediate release of
the immigrants who, I claimed, were being imprisoned contrary to our
treaty as well as the treaties of Great Britain, France, and other
powers; I said that I should decline to call upon him until this
injustice was righted by such release; and that, further, unless my
request was promptly complied with I should appeal to the Sublime Porte
for his removal.
I felt authorized to take so drastic a step by reason of the
negotiations I had had with the Grand Vizier and in view of our treaty
and the treaties of several of the powers I have referred to. I obtained
the desired result. The vali communicated my message to the Porte, and
the Grand Vizier instructed him to comply with my request. Within
twenty-four hours all the prisoners were released.
The following morning there was a delegation of several thousand people
outside my hotel, who had come to express their gratitude. They
presented me with a beautifully embossed memorial, the text of which,
translated, reads:
With delight of soul we bring to thee, O Sir, glory of our people,
the blessing of our community, the congregations of Israel dwelling
in Zion and in all the cities of the Holy Land,
THE BLESSING OF MAZZOL TOV
(good fortune)
because the Lord God of Israel has raised thee to fame and glory
and has given to thee a seat of honor among the mighty of the
earth. And we lift our hands to the Holy Sanctuary (praying) that
thy horn be exalted with honor and splendor, and that thou be given
the strength and the power to exalt the horn of Israel, thy people,
to speak in their favor before the throne of the Government--may
its glory increase!--and that thou continue in thy honored office
for many days, until he (the messiah) shall come unto Shiloh "and
unto him shall the obedience of the people be"--soon, in our days,
amen!
Such is the blessing of those who respect and honor thee in
accordance with thy high and exalted station.
The leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem--may it be built and
established in our days!
It is signed with the seals and signatures of Rafail Meir Panisel (Haham
Bashi), chief rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in Jerusalem, and
Samuel Salant, chief rabbi of the Ashkenazim, Perushim, and Hasidim in
Jerusalem.
Now I called upon the vali, who received me very graciously and with
great courtesy. I thanked him for his prompt compliance with my request,
and expressed the hope that, inasmuch as I had an understanding with the
Porte that no discrimination was to be made against Jewish immigrants to
Jerusalem, I should not in future have to complain of any infringement
upon this understanding, otherwise I should again be compelled to take
drastic action. I called his attention to the treaties referred to, of
which he had had no previous knowledge.
I stopped to make some official calls, accompanied by the consul and his
staff. As is customary when high officials go through the streets of the
Holy City, several halberdiers of the vali preceded, to give distinction
to the party as well as protection and a clear passage through the
crowds. I could remain in Jerusalem only three or four days, however,
for I had to catch the steamer that stopped at Alexandretta and Smyrna,
where I wanted to confer with our consuls.
Upon my return to Constantinople my French and British colleagues were
much pleased at my having secured the release of the Jewish immigrants
in Palestine. They had received, through their foreign offices,
expressions of appreciation and grateful acknowledgment from such
organizations as the Anglo-Jewish Association of London, and the
Alliance Israelite of Paris.
* * * * *
[Illustration: TESTIMONIAL GIVEN TO MR. STRAUS IN JERUSALEM IN
APPRECIATION OF THE RELEASE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED PRISONERS]
The next step in the development of this question was a communication
received by our State Department from Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish minister at
Washington, informing the Department of a change, indeed, of the time
limit from one month to three for the sojourn of Jews in Jerusalem, with
the proviso, however, "that they are going to Jerusalem in the
performance of a pilgrimage, and not for the purpose of engaging in
commerce or taking up their residence there."
This communication was received while I was on my trip, and Secretary
Bayard forwarded it to me with the instruction that I take up the
subject with the Ottoman Government as follows:
To require of applicants for passports, which under our laws are
issued to all citizens upon the sole evidence of their citizenship,
any announcement of their religious faith or declaration of their
personal motives in seeking such passports, would be utterly
repugnant to the spirit of our institutions and to the intent of
the solemn proscription forever by the Constitution of any
religious test as a qualification of the relations of the citizen
to the Government, and would, moreover, assume an inquisitorial
function in respect of the personal affairs of the individual,
which this Government can not exert for its own purposes, and could
still less assume to exercise with the object of aiding a foreign
Government in the enforcement of an objectionable and arbitrary
discrimination against certain of our citizens.
Our adherence to these principles has been unwavering since the
foundation of our Government, and you will be at no loss to cite
pertinent examples of our consistent defense of religious liberty,
which, as I said in my note to Baron Schaeffer of May 18, 1885, in
relation to the Keiley episode at Vienna, "is the chief
corner-stone of the American system of Government, and provisions
for its security are embedded in the written charter and interwoven
in the moral fabric of its laws."
I received this upon my return. Secretary Bayard asked me also to
ascertain the views of my colleagues respecting this irade, and I found
them willing and ready to take it up with the Porte in a manner similar
to the instructions I had received.
I called on Said Pasha and left with him a note in accordance with my
instructions, and I sent a copy of this note to the French and British
ambassadors. They in turn each advised the Ministry that they could not
admit of regulations prejudicial to the existing rights of their
subjects as secured by treaties. And here for a time the matter rested.
Several months later three American Jews were expelled from Jerusalem
because they had not left the city at the expiration of three months,
and again the question had to be taken up with the Porte. This time Said
Pasha replied that the restrictions with regard to the three Americans
had been ordered withdrawn, "the Sublime Porte having lately decided
that the measure concerning the Israelites going to Palestine shall not
be applied but to those who emigrate in number (_en nombre_), and that
no obstacle shall be opposed to the sojourn of those who are not in this
class."
This, like most other questions that arose between the Ottoman
Government and our own, could not be settled for any length of time by
principle, law, or treaty. Such documents might be used as reminders of
agreements once reached, but in Turkey they do not of themselves direct
policies or action. Drummond Wolff had advised being "patient, pleasant,
persistent," to which I would add: eternally vigilant.
* * * * *
On the whole, the interests of the United States throughout the Ottoman
Empire were peculiar, in that the majority of the complaints related to
personal, as distinct from commercial, rights. I have said in an earlier
chapter that some of the questions at issue, especially those involving
extraterritoriality, grew out of capitulations dating back over four
hundred years, to the conquest of Constantinople by the Moslems in 1453.
The terms of these capitulations or "privileges" were made originally
between the Greeks and the various Italian city republics--Pisa, Genoa,
Venice. The Moslems later embodied them in revised capitulations with
France in 1535, 1604, 1673, and 1740; with England in 1583 and 1675;
with Holland in 1680; with Austria in 1718; and with Russia in 1783. On
these later European capitulations was based our own first treaty with
the Sublime Porte in 1830. Practically speaking, therefore, consular
jurisdiction in Turkey was then not very different from what it was in
the fifteenth century.
When I took office one of the vexatious questions to be settled was the
interpretation of Clause IV of the Treaty of 1830. This treaty was
negotiated by Charles Rhind, as American commissioner, with Reis
Effendi, Turkish representative. Rhind had prepared it, with the help of
dragoman Navoni, in French and in Turkish, and when it was finally drawn
up, according to Rhind's own report, Reis Effendi "signed and sealed the
treaty in Turkish and I did the same with the French translation, and we
exchanged them." Thereupon the original Turkish version, together with a
copy of the French translation as signed by the American
commissioners--President Jackson had appointed Captain James Biddle and
David Offley together with Rhind--and several English translations were
transmitted to Washington. The treaty actually approved by the Senate
was one of the English versions.
Before the ratifications were exchanged the American charge d'affaires
at Constantinople, David Porter, received word that the French version
was not exactly in agreement with the Turkish. Porter's simple method of
correcting this discrepancy was to sign a document, also in the Turkish
language, accepting the Turkish version of the treaty without reserve;
and when the translation of this document reached Washington nothing
further was said.
Indeed, the treaty rested in peace until 1868, when the American
minister, acting according to the English version, clashed with the
Turkish authorities in the interpretation of Clause IV, regarding
jurisdiction over American citizens--in this case two who had been
arrested and imprisoned for alleged offenses against the Turkish
Government. The English version read:
Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their
commerce, and not being charged or convicted of any crime or
offence, shall not be molested; and even when they may have
committed some offence they shall not be arrested and put in
prison, by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their
Minister or Consul, and punished according to their offence,
following, in this respect, the usage observed towards other
Franks.
When our Government proceeded to obtain exact translations of this
clause, it was found that the Turkish version did not contain the words
"arrested" or "tried," although the phraseology made clear that American
citizens were not to be imprisoned in Turkish prisons, but punished
through their minister or consul. Consequently, the Turkish authorities
could arrest but not imprison, could try but not inflict punishment.
The Turkish Government would not recognize as accurate any of the
translations the United States presented. When asked to present a
translation of its own, however, the matter was gradually put in
abeyance.
* * * * *
In 1862 our minister, E. J. Morris, concluded another treaty with the
Porte, entitled, as was the first one, "A Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation," which, by its Article XX, was to remain in force
twenty-eight years unless either party saw fit to abrogate at the end of
fourteen or twenty-one years. In January, 1874, the Turkish Government
gave notice to our Department of State of its desire to terminate the
treaty, following this notice up with another communication to the same
effect in September, 1875. Although by the terms of the treaty such
notice was to be permissible not earlier than June, 1876, nothing was
said in Washington regarding the untimeliness of these communications,
and in his Annual Message of December, 1876, President Grant announced:
"Under this notice the treaty terminated upon the fifth day of June
1876." President Cleveland, on the other hand, in his first Annual
Message nine years later, questioned the official termination, but
added: "As the commercial rights of our citizens in Turkey come under
the favored-nation guarantee of the prior treaty of 1830 ... no
inconvenience can result" from our agreeing to the abrogation. Thus
questions of jurisdiction and commercial rights were thrown back for
settlement under the Treaty of 1830, the translation of which was and
has remained in dispute.
Much of this confusion was due, again, to the slight actual regard, on
the part of the Ottoman Empire, for the terms of treaties. In this
attitude they had been encouraged by some of the European nations--most
of all Russia in its more powerful days--who, in return for other
advantages, were not insistent upon their claims under the
capitulations, especially the claims of jurisdiction over nationals. So
far as concerned the United States, this loose effectiveness of treaties
caused constant misunderstanding with regard to the handling of cases
arising under them.
With every question that came up under the disputed Clause IV, for
instance, the Turks would controvert the right of our consuls to try,
and we would insist on that right. The battle then would be won after a
fashion by the side with the most persistence. During my administration
I happened to be the winner much of the time, although my winning merely
released a possibly innocent person; for while we argued about a trial
for the suspect he lingered in jail, and after I got his release the
Turks would refuse to acknowledge our jurisdiction and not prosecute.
Innocent and guilty alike were made to suffer in jail, and alike were
set scot-free upon release. Not only that, but whenever an American
citizen committed, or was alleged to have committed, a crime and was
arrested by the Turkish authorities, it created irritation and a strain
of our relationship.
* * * * *
The only other treaty then negotiated between the Ottoman Government and
our own--the Treaty of Naturalization and Extradition--had also been a
subject for discussion and dispute ever since it was signed by Minister
George H. Boker in 1874. When it was concluded, the Senate refused to
confirm it because under it American citizenship was forfeited _ipso
facto_ by the return of the naturalized citizen to his native land and
his remaining there two years; but the Senate amended this treaty by
changing the phraseology of the clause containing the two-year
reference. The Sublime Porte accepted the amendment by a declaration of
what it understood to be its intent and significance, which
interpretation our Government, in turn, would not accept.
And there that treaty was hung in 1875, although our Government that
year made an appropriation of ten thousand eight hundred dollars for
presents to Turkish officials, which was then customary on concluding a
treaty with the Porte.
As the conditions which had called forth the treaty continued to exist,
I was instructed to renew negotiations in the matter. A number of
Christian subjects of the Porte--some Greeks and some Syrians, but
principally Armenians--in order to free themselves from Turkish
jurisdiction had fled to the United States. Here they remained long
enough to become citizens, and from time to time they came back to
Turkey, where they were charged with being involved in alleged
conspiracies against the Turkish Government. Such cases arose
frequently, and it was felt that the Treaty of Naturalization and
Extradition with the two-year clause, similar to the one we have with
many other nations, would prevent citizens of the Porte from using
naturalization in America as a means of escaping liability as subjects
of Turkey upon their return there.
I addressed myself to bringing about an adjustment of these
difficulties, either by securing a new treaty or having the one of 1874
accepted as amended. A long and tedious exchange of notes on the subject
ensued. Finally the Porte agreed to accept the Treaty of 1874 as
amended.
Of course I was elated, and the State Department was pleased. That the
treaty was one very much desired by our Government was clear. I received
a long, flattering cable of congratulation from Mr. Bayard, and a letter
in similar vein from Mr. Adee, saying in part:
Whatever may be the outcome of these negotiations, you are to be
congratulated without stint on having achieved a decided diplomatic
success by causing the Government of the Porte to recede from the
position which it took in 1875, with respect to the Senate
amendments, and to which it has so pertinaciously adhered ever
since, until you wrought a change of heart and induced it to take a
more rational view of the subject. This makes it far easier for us
to deal with the question now as justice and equity and due respect
for the rights and privileges attaching to American nationality may
demand.
Then the bubble burst! Under my instructions I had assured the Turkish
authorities that with their acceptance of the amendments of our Senate
the negotiations in the matter would be concluded, and all that would be
necessary to give effect to the treaty was the proclamation of the
President. Instead, however, it was thought best again to submit the
terms to the Senate, as fourteen years had elapsed since the negotiation
of the original treaty. Thereupon some of our leading missionaries, at
the instigation of prominent Armenians who had been naturalized in
America and returned to Turkey, opposed ratification, and no further
action was taken. It was a very discouraging situation, for many
annoying cases constantly came up, some of a rather serious nature.
I might add that ten years later, when I was again minister to Turkey, I
was instructed to renew negotiations, but the Ottoman Government was now
unwilling to negotiate at all on this subject, and we were left without
any treaty of naturalization.
* * * * *
There were one or two interesting special matters that came up during
this mission. Toward the end of 1887 Baron Maurice de Hirsch came to
Constantinople to adjust some financial differences with the Turkish
Government. His railway, connecting Constantinople with European cities,
was about completed. The Turkish Government claimed that he owed it
132,000,000 francs, a claim growing out of kilometric guarantees and
other concessions.
One day while I was calling on the Grand Vizier, Kiamil Pasha, he asked
to introduce some one to me, and forthwith I met a tall and slender man
in his fifties, dark eyes sparkling with spirit and energy, clean-shaven
except for a full black mustache, dressed rather dudishly in a cutaway
coat, white vest and white spats--Baron de Hirsch. I was glad of this
opportunity, for I had often heard of him and his great philanthropic
activities. We had a pleasant conversation about things in general.
A few days later I took dinner with the Sultan. He spoke to me about
Baron de Hirsch and the claim of Turkey against him. The Turkish
Government was hard-pressed for funds--its chronic condition. The Sultan
explained that for some time efforts had been made to arrive at some
settlement, and that it was now proposed to arbitrate. The Baron had
suggested first the French and then the Austrian ambassador as
arbitrator, but neither was satisfactory to His Majesty; he, however,
had much confidence in my judgment and impartiality, so that he had
counter-suggested my name to the Baron, which was satisfactory to the
latter; and they had agreed to pay me an honorarium of one million
francs.
I assured the Sultan that I was much complimented by his request, but I
would have to consult the Secretary of State. He told me he had already
requested the Turkish minister at Washington to inquire the views of the
Department, and that Mr. Bayard had said there was no objection to my
acting as arbitrator. But I said I would have to communicate with Mr.
Bayard personally and would let His Majesty hear from me in the course
of a few days.
I cabled Mr. Bayard and learned, as the Sultan had said, that there was
no objection to my acceding to the latter's wishes and accepting the
honorarium if it appeared to me advisable. Upon giving the proposal
careful consideration, however, I felt it would not be wise for me to
comply with the Sultan's request, much as I should have liked to please
him. Any transaction with the Turkish Government involving money was
open to suspicion of improper methods and bribery. Had I as arbitrator
made a decision disappointing to the Turkish Government, I should
certainly have fallen under such suspicion, and I deemed it improper to
assume an obligation which might throw the American legation into a
false light.
I advised Secretary Bayard accordingly and frankly told the Sultan I
could not accept. I added, however, that while I would not accept an
honorarium, I should be glad to act as mediator to see whether a
satisfactory adjustment could not be brought about between the Baron and
the Grand Vizier, which offer the Sultan accepted.
As the negotiations went forward, the Baron and the Grand Vizier had
frequent disagreements and altercations. Each of them would come to me
with his grievance, and I would give my opinion and bring them together
again. Finally there arose a legal question, and this was submitted to
Professor Gneist, the famous German authority on international law. Upon
his decision the Baron finally paid the Turkish Government 22,000,000
francs.
* * * * *
During these negotiations, which lasted several months, an intimate
friendship developed between the Baron and his wife and Mrs. Straus and
myself. They often took family dinner with us. They were declining
official invitations because of the recent death of their only child,
Lucien. The Baroness was an exceptionally fine woman, learned and able,
whose principal aim in life seemed to be to find ways of being most
helpful to others. In the quarters of the poor, both Jew and Gentile,
her short, trim figure, dressed in deep mourning, was familiar. Her face
had an attractively benign expression. A story regarding her activities
in connection with the construction of her husband's railroad was
characteristic of her.
In a village near Constantinople a number of houses belonging to the
poor had to be torn down to make way for the railway station. The work
was to be done with the understanding that the Turkish Government would
compensate these people, but evidently no such consideration was
forthcoming. A number of those thus dispossessed came to the Baron to
complain, but he answered that it was the Government's responsibility,
not his. On hearing of this the Baroness informed her husband that she
did not propose to let the railroad cause unhappiness to people, that it
would probably be a long time before the Government paid the
compensation, if ever, and that she insisted on paying these people out
of her own private fortune so they could at once build new houses and be
happy. Then and there she carried out that programme.
* * * * *
The Baron spoke to me of his own benefactions and said he purposed
during his lifetime to devote his fortune to benevolent causes. His
philanthropy up to that time had been bestowed mainly in Russia, but he
was desirous of doing something for the Russians who, because of the
oppression resultant from the Ignatieff laws, were emigrating to
America. They had been persecuted and were poor, and he wanted to enable
them to reestablish themselves.
I was familiar with the conditions of these Russian immigrants, because
prior to my coming to Turkey I had been in close relationship for
several years with Michael Heilprin, author of a number of scholarly
works and one of the chief editors of Appleton's Encyclopaedia. He worked
untiringly on behalf of these new arrivals, collecting money for them
and aiding them personally in numerous ways. I think his untimely death
was due primarily to his generous expenditure of energy in this way. I
mentioned Heilprin to the Baron and said I would write him for
suggestions how best the immigrants might be helped.
When I heard from Heilprin I forwarded the letter to the Baron, together
with a list of men who had done most in the way of benevolent work for
the Jews of New York. Prominent on that list were Meyer S. Isaacs,
president of the United Hebrew Congregations; Jesse Seligman, president
of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum; Jacob H. Schiff, who was connected with a
number of our charitable enterprises; and my brother Isidor. The Baron
subsequently communicated with Mr. Isaacs and some others, and out of
their arrangements grew the Baron de Hirsch Fund and the Baron de Hirsch
Trade School. Later the Baroness, upon conferring with Mrs. Straus,
endowed the Clara de Hirsch Home for Working Girls.
Neither my wife nor I wish to claim any credit for the founding of the
de Hirsch benevolent institutions. We were simply the medium through
which these came into being. We never even suggested the nature of them.
We only gave the requested information regarding the need for such
institutions.
* * * * *
[Illustration: OSCAR S. STRAUS
Constantinople, 1888]
But to come back to Constantinople and its railroads. During 1888 the
question of a railroad from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf was much
agitated, especially by the Germans. The Grand Vizier several times
brought up the subject in conversation with me, asking me to help him
get in communication with some reliable American railroad builders. He
assured me that the Turkish Government would give more favorable terms
to a group of Americans because the project would then be free from the
political complications that might ensue if a road through the heart
of the empire were controlled by Germany or any other European power.
William K. Vanderbilt was in Constantinople at the time. He had arrived
in his yacht, which was larger than most yachts that came through the
Dardanelles, so it was stopped until I could procure for him a special
permit from the Sultan to proceed. At the Sultan's request, I spoke to
Vanderbilt about the railroad and introduced him to the Grand Vizier.
But he was on pleasure bent and not inclined to take up the cares and
burdens involved in such an undertaking.
Of course it was apparent that if American capitalists and railroad
builders with their vast experience would take up the construction of
this road it would put tremendous power and prestige into American
hands. I suggested that Carl Schurz and Henry Villard might be the
proper persons to undertake this gigantic work. Villard's name had
figured prominently in the completion of the Northern Pacific; he was
close to Schurz, and they each enjoyed a high reputation. Soon
thereafter the Porte submitted the matter to a syndicate of German,
British, and French bankers, and the famous Bagdad Railroad was not
built by Americans.
Early in 1888 I received a letter from an old friend, the Reverend
William Hayes Ward, eminent Assyriologist and scholarly editor of the
"Independent," respecting an expedition for excavating in Babylonia
which the Reverend John P. Peters, of the University of Pennsylvania,
contemplated. Under Dr. William Pepper, provost of the university, Dr.
Peters was organizing the Babylon Exploration Fund, which would base its
work on the recommendations made in 1884-85 by the Wolfe expedition
headed by Dr. Ward himself. The Wolfe expedition, financed by Miss
Catherine L. Wolfe, of New York City, had been limited to
reconnoissance and exploration. Shortly thereafter the subject was
brought to my attention officially by Mr. Adee, of the Department of
State, who wrote me:
We find ourselves between two fires,--on one hand is the
Philadelphia organization under the lead of Dr. Peters, which has
the money, and on the other is the Johns Hopkins enterprise, which
has the most solid ballasting of Assyriological talent, but,
unfortunately, its dollars are limited. As the Johns Hopkins people
deposit all their collections in the National Museum, Professor
Langley feels kindly disposed towards them.... We shall probably
have to look to you as the _deus ex machina_ to prescribe a
solution.
I conferred unofficially with Hamdy Bey, director of the Imperial Museum
at Stamboul, himself a very competent scientist and in charge of all
excavations in Turkey, who informed me fully regarding the Turkish law
governing excavations, among other things that a permit for making them
had to be obtained from the Ministry of Public Instruction (and these
permits were not easily obtained); and that all objects discovered were
the property of the Turkish Government, the excavator being permitted
only moulds or drawings thereof, except possibly in the case of certain
duplicates.
To save time in the matter, I brought it before the Grand Vizier, who
promised support in laying the project before His Majesty the Sultan,
with the view possibly of getting an irade to export at least a portion,
if not half, of the objects discovered. I suggested to our State
Department that the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins work
together and operate as one body, so that an irade, should it be
obtainable, might serve for the benefit of all concerned.
While _en route_ to the United States on a short leave of absence I met
Dr. Peters in London. He handed me a letter of introduction from
President Cleveland asking my good offices. The proposed excavations
interested me very much, and I promised Dr. Peters I would give the
subject immediate attention upon returning to my post. Meanwhile I
instructed the charge, Mr. King, how to proceed in my absence.
Early in November when I got back to Constantinople I asked for an
audience with the Sultan to explain the purposes of the exploration
fund, the interest of the various universities and scientific societies
in it, adding that I had received a personal letter from the President
in regard to it, and that if he would give the permit to excavate it
would meet with high appreciation in my country.
It was the custom for ministers, as distinct from ambassadors, to
dismount at the Palace gate and proceed to the Palace on foot. For this
occasion, however, orders had been given for our coming in at the Palace
door. Here I was met by His Highness, the Grand Vizier; the Minister of
Foreign Affairs; and the Grand Master of Ceremonies. After some fifteen
minutes the Grand Vizier and the Grand Master of Ceremonies ushered me
into the presence of His Majesty. A private audience took place, wherein
the Sultan seemed very affable indeed. He said he was happy to welcome
me back to my post and hoped that Mrs. Straus and I had had a pleasant
trip.
His Majesty then led the way to the brilliantly illuminated dining-hall,
where a military orchestra of about thirty members was playing. I was
seated at His Majesty's right, with the dragoman next to me, and the
Grand Vizier was at the left; down both sides sat the pashas, their
breasts sparkling with diamond orders. The dinner was served on gold and
silver plates, and the menu was excellent and not overburdened. The
Sultan conversed freely, cheerfully, and apparently without reserve.
After dinner we went with him to a play in the little theater on the
Palace grounds. At an opportune moment between the acts, while His
Majesty questioned me regarding some matters in the United States, I
referred to the excavations, and to the fact that several
representatives of the universities were awaiting his decision. He
graciously stated that permission would be granted, and it was given a
very few days thereafter.
Though we were all somewhat disappointed because the permit was more
restricted than we had been led to expect, it enabled Dr. Peters and his
party to go ahead with their work. Dr. Peters has left a full account of
the explorations and the objects discovered, some of them dating back
earlier than 4000 B.C., in his two volumes entitled "Nippur," which form
a lasting memorial to his services in the cause of archaeology.
Unfavorable as we thought the permit was, I was accused by Theodore
Bent, British archaeologist, writing in the "Contemporary Review," of
bribing Hamdy Bey to obtain a favorable firman. He himself had dug at
Thasos the previous year and had run into difficulties with the Turkish
authorities, resulting in the seizure of his findings. He still felt
revengeful toward Hamdy Bey, and the knowledge of our negotiations for a
permit afforded him ground for a scurrilous attack on the director of
the museum, who was, nevertheless, a man of fine character and high
repute.
The fact really was that the Sultan felt somewhat under obligations to
me because of my services in another matter. There were in the Ottoman
Empire a million or more Persians, mainly rug dealers. Many of them had
married Turkish women. The Sultan claimed that when a Persian in Turkey
married a Turkish subject his nationality followed that of his wife. The
controversy had gone so far that the Shah of Persia was about to recall
his ambassador, and they finally agreed to submit the matter to me for
decision.
I took the subject under advisement and wrote an opinion in accordance
with the universally accepted doctrine of nationality under such
conditions, namely, that upon marriage nationality followed that of the
husband. But instead of rendering my decision, I advised the Sultan what
it would be and suggested that it would probably make for better
relationship if he would anticipate my decision by agreeing with the
Shah's contention. This he appreciated. At the same time it relieved me
from the necessity of deciding against the sovereign to whom I was
accredited.
Of course the Shah's ambassador, Mohsin Khan, who was practically
viceroy in the Ottoman Empire, desired to confer upon me Persia's
decoration, the Lion and the Sun, set in costly brilliants, and once
more I had to explain our custom in regard to such things. It is indeed
a wise provision of our Constitution which prohibits American officials
from accepting "any present, emolument, office or title of any kind
whatever" without the consent of Congress.
* * * * *
The election of 1888 having resulted in a Republican victory, I tendered
my resignation to the new President upon his taking office, as is
customary for heads of missions when there has been a change in the
administration. I was unofficially informed that numerous letters and
memorials had been received in Washington from individuals and
missionary and church bodies, asking that I be retained at my post; Dr.
Pepper, of the University of Pennsylvania, and several other university
heads also joined in urging my retention. But I wrote Dr. Pepper not to
push the request, as I could no longer absent myself from my private
affairs. The main matters of difference between the two Governments had
been settled, and I felt justified in resigning, even had Cleveland been
reelected, for I could not afford to stay on except under pressure of
patriotic necessity.
The salary at the Porte barely covered my house rent. I had secured the
best available house with facilities for entertaining and the returning
of hospitalities, and, as I have mentioned before, such functions are
essential for the proper relations with one's colleagues and the
government to which one is accredited. Besides, it is important to be
able to show to one's nationals the hospitality they expect from their
diplomatic representatives, especially in the case of prominent visitors
who bring letters from high officials at home.
Again, "noblesse oblige" has its widest and most emphatic application in
diplomacy. Americans are supposed to be rich, and if an American
diplomat does not show the usual hospitalities he is charged with
penuriousness, for it is understood that a man who is not able to live
according to his station would not be chosen to head a mission. That his
pay may be inadequate for the discharge of his social duties is not
generally known. When I was in Washington during my leave of absence Mr.
Cleveland asked me how I got along on my salary, and I told him then
that I could have got along fairly well on four times the amount, for I
had spent between thirty-five and forty thousand dollars a year.
A few days prior to leaving my post in June, 1889, I again dined with
the Sultan. I had often done so during my stay, but this time he was
especially gracious and unreserved. He expressed great regret at my
going, saying that at no time during his reign had the relations of our
countries been more agreeable, and that he and his minister had had
every confidence in my candor and fairness. What seemed to have
impressed him most was my handling of a large claim by an American which
was being urged through the legation. I carefully examined this claim
and found it to be justified neither in morals nor in law, and I
informed the Turkish Government accordingly that I had withdrawn it. The
Porte was not accustomed to such fair treatment! Of course, ever
afterward when I presented a matter it was believed to be justified.
* * * * *
The Sultan held the government pretty firmly in his own hands--too much
so in fact--and kept himself very well informed regarding all manner of
things. On this evening he said he had heard of the great disaster and
loss of lives caused by the Johnstown flood and he desired to transmit
through me two hundred pounds to be used for relief work. I cabled the
amount to the Secretary of State on the following day and communicated
to His Majesty our Government's acknowledgment:
Express grateful appreciation of the President and the Government
of the United States for the Sultan's generous relief for flood
sufferers.
When it became known that I was about to leave my post I received many
communications expressing regret. These were a great satisfaction,
especially one beautiful letter from the missionaries of Constantinople,
signed by Edwin E. Bliss, I. F. Pettibone, Joseph K. Greene, H. S.
Barnum, Charles A. S. Dwight, Henry O. Dwight, and William G. Bliss.
After we had boarded the steamer to Varna, homeward bound, a royal
caique--a rowboat of the graceful lines of a Venetian gondola and manned
by six oarsmen--came alongside our ship and one of the Sultan's aides
came aboard to present to Mrs. Straus the highest order of the Shefekat
decoration, a star set in brilliants, with the special request of His
Majesty that she accept it as a token of his esteem and regard. As the
regulations prohibiting me from accepting such honors did not apply to
my wife, she graciously accepted this parting gift from Abdul Hamid.
And so farewell to Pera and the beautiful Bosphorus!