No. 534.
Mr. Wallace to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Constantinople
,
February 13, 1883.
(Received March 5.)
No. 175.]
Sir: The answer of the minister of foreign affairs
to my note No. 126, concerning the right of American citizens to convey real
estate, has been received, and I have the honor to inclose a copy and
translation of it for your consideration. You will observe the Porte makes
concession of the rights of Mr. Sidi’s sons, but persists in denying
everything to the father himself.
As this affair is really of interest to other powers, as well as our own, I
have thought it best to put another protest on file applicable particularly
to the case of Sidi, father. A copy of this paper is also inclosed.
If an answer to the last communication is unreasonably delayed, I will submit
the question to my colleagues of the diplomatic corps generally, and
endeavor to secure their co-operation.
Very respectfully, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
175.—Translation.]
Aarifi Pasha to Mr.
Wallace.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Sublime Porte
,
January 21,
1883.
Sir: As I was about answering the note that
your excellency was good enough to write to my department on the 25th of
last September, No. 127, relative to the affair of Mr. Alexander Sidi,
an American merchant at Smyrna, I received your communication of the 2d
of this month, No. 140, on the same subject.
The governor-general of the vilayet of Aidin, questioned on this affair,
has just informed us that Mr. Sidi, Ottoman subject, born in Smyrna,
becoming afterwards a naturalized American citizen, could not possess
real estate in Turkey, as stated in paragraph 2 of the first article of
the law of the 7th Sopher, 1284, which accords to foreigners the right
to possess real property. This exclusion, however, does not extend to
his two children, whose birth in the United States has been established,
and who have consequently been admitted to the enjoyment of the faculty
of transferring real estate in their own name.
Concerning property entered in the name of Mr. Sidi, it comes under the
application of Article III of the code on real estate. This legal
provision is the one provided for in the second paragraph of the first
article of the law of the 7th Sépher, 1284.
I avail, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 175.]
Mr. Wallace to
Aarifi Pasha.
United
States Legation,
Constantinople
,
February 10,
1883.
No. 146.]
Highness: The note dated January 21, 1883,
relative to the affair of Mr. Alexander Sidi, of Smyrna, has been
received at this legation. If I presume to address you again upon the
subject, you will be good enough, I trust, to attribute it to the great
interest my Government naturally feels in the question presented, and my
own desire, not less great, that the two powers should happily dispose
of what may become a serious business before a case actually arises for
settlement. I beg in the first place to thank your highness for the
declaration, which I understand to be as authoritative as it is
explicit, that the exclusion from the right to hold real property in
Turkey, as maintained in your note, does not extend to the children of
Mr. Sidi born in the United States.
[Page 834]
The next proposition of your highness, that Article III of the code of
real estate is the special law provided for in the second paragraph of
the first article of the 7th Sépher, 1284 (June 10, 1867), cannot he
accepted by my Government. As a conclusion, it is held to be unwarranted
by the language used in President Grant’s proclamation. The code
referred to was in force in 1858, long prior to the protocol conferring
upon foreigners the privileges under consideration, and unless the
object had been to give rights to naturalized citizens of the United
States formerly Ottoman subjects in contravention of the code, mention
of them would not have been made at all. Most conclusively, however,
Article III of the code is a general law, while the paragraph of the
proclamation relative to the class of citizens described calls for a
special law. All these points, it is to be further remarked, are
consistent with the presumption that my Government, in accepting the
protocol, could not have intended to dishonor itself by an arrangement
so palpably prejudicial to any portion of its citizens as that which
would result if your highness’s argument were admitted.
Putting the general question aside, however, and viewing the matter as of
interest to Mr. Alexander Sidi alone, I may be allowed to say it is
hardly conceivable that the Sublime Porte will do itself the wrong of
disputing his rights, deriving as they do a peculiar coloring from
peculiar circumstances of the case. On the 4th January, 1853, he became
a citizen of the United States by naturalization. After twenty years’
residence in that country he returned to Smyrna to pursue the vocation
of merchant. In 1877 he was permitted to have two houses passed to him
as an American citizen: his title to them was duly perfected; nor was
there an objection made either to his acquisition of the property or the
holding it until last year, when he sought the authorities to give him
permission to dispose of it, a request which they refused on the ground
that he could not possess real property. Now, I pray your highness to
permit me to make yet more conspicuous some of the points in connection
with this brief history which a person evilly disposed toward the
imperial Ottoman Government could use against it with powerful effect:
- 1.
- The acquisition of the property by Mr. Sidi originally was
with permission of £he authorities, for without such permission
he could not have taken it.
- 2.
- He held it in open notorious enjoyment for nearly seven years
without objection from the authorities.
- 3.
- At length, wishing to sell it, he addressed himself to the
authorities, who refused to grant him the necessary permit to do
so.
- 4.
- And then the authorities informed him that the privileges of
the protocol did not extend to him, because he had been an
Ottoman subject before he became a naturalized American
citizen.
- 5.
- The authorities did more: they informed him that at his death
the property so acquired would inure to the Government for
religious behoofs.
Observe, I pray your highness, to what this last declaration commits your
Government. Is it not saying in fact that though Mr. Sidi acquired no
title to the property in the first instance, yet his death will cure all
defects, and give the state a perfected title; that whether he wished to
or not he shall carry the property inalienably to his grave, and then it
shall be diverted to religion for the glorification of God? Speaking
with becoming reverence, I do not believe God would be gratified by
enrichment in such a manner; but be that as it may, the world has a name
for such a transaction which courtesy forbids me to use. I have not the
slightest doubt that your highness will view the affair as I do;
wherefore; praying pardon for the length of this communication, I beg to
renew my former protests against the decision announced, and, as a
special matter, request that a permit may be ordered by which Mr.
Alexander Sidi can dispose of the property already acquired by him.
It may be of some influence to assure your highness that my Government
has approved the paper I had the honor to transmit to you, touching this
subject, dated September 25 last, and numbered 127.
I avail, &c.,
