No. 680.
Mr. King
to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Constantinople, October 19, 1886.
(Received Nov. 8.)
No. 257.]
Sir: I have the tenor to inclose the correspondence
in reference to the case -of Bev. Dr. Herrick:
(1) A copy of a letter from Bev. Mr. Dwight; (2) a copy of my letter to Mr.
Dwight; (3) a copy of Mr. Dwight’s reply; (4) a copy of my dispatch to the
Sublime Porte on the subject.
Finding from Mr. Dwight’s second letter that Rev. Mr. Filian is a Turkish
subject, and moreover being informed that he himself has come to
Constantinople to attend to his own ease with the Turkish Government, I have
limited my dispatch to the Sublime Porte to the interference with Rev. Dr.
Herrick.
In Rev. Mr. Dwight’s first letter he bases his complaint on the 82d article
of the “Capitulations ou traités anciens et nouveaux entre la Cour de France
et la Porte Ottomane renouvellés et augmenés à Constantinople le 28 mai
1740.”
The following is the extract of the Capitulations to which he refers, the
original text of which I inclose:
The bishops and religious persons under the Jurisdiction of the
Emperor of France who are in my Empire will be protected as long as
they keep within the limits of their profession, and no one can
prevent them from the exercise of their religious rites according to
their usage in the churches which are within their possession, as
well as in the other places where they dwell; and when our tributary
subjects and French subjects go and come to one another for sale and
purchase or other business they shall not be molested, against the
sacred laws on account of such intercourse.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 257.]
Rev. Mr. Dwight to
Mr. King.
Bible
House,
Constantinople, October 9,
1888.
Dear Sir: On the 7th of August of the present
year the Rev. Dr. Herrick, an American missionary residing at Marsovan,
went to Kastamouni to administer the sacraments to. Protestants residing
at that place. On his arrival at Kastamouni he found that the preacher
at whose house he was to stay had been ordered by the local governor to
desist from holding divine service in his house. Dr. Herrick then sent
his passport and other papers to the local authorities, pointing out
that he was an American missionary, for twenty-eight years resident in
the Turkish Empire, and during all that time in the habit of performing
such services as the one now proposed, and explaining that he had come
to Kastamouni in order to administer the sacrament of the
[Page 1080]
Lord’s Supper to Protestants
in that place, and that therefore he begged the authorities to permit
the holding of the service in a quiet way in the house rented by the
American mission, and occupied for more than a year by the Protestant
preacher. Mr. Filian. He added that of course there would be no
objection to the presence of a functionary charged with seeing that at
the service nothing was done contrary to good order, but that the
prohibition of the service without reason did not accord with the laws
of the Empire in reference to the freedom of worship.
Upon the receipt of Dr. Herrick’s request the local authorities sent
police to the house, with orders to prevent any person from outside the
house from access to it either during the service or after it was
over.
The police formed a cordon about the house, and thus held it in a state
of blockade during the whole time that Dr. Herrick remained within it,
that is to say, until the afternoon of the 9th of August, when Dr.
Herrick left the city. Even one of our booksellers, who chanced to be in
the city over the Sabbath, and who needed to see Dr. Herrick on matters
connected with his business, was prevented by the police from having
access to the house.
I pass over the insult offered to an American citizen whose papers are in
regular order, in blockading his house and thus advertising to the
people of the city that the governor chooses to regard him as a
dangerous character. The serious part of the incident is the violation
of the privileges enjoyed by American missionaries under the
capitulations (and tinder the usages of sixty years, of holding
religious service in their own houses, and in having free access to
native houses, and freedom to receive the calls of native visitors. This
privilege has never once been called in question until this occasion
since American missionaries came to this country in 1829.
The ground of the enjoyment of this privilege by American missionaries is
the French capitulations of 1740, in their stipulations as to the rights
and privileges of the members of religious bodies. The status under the
treaties of American missionaries has always been regarded as the same
as that of the French missionaries and “religieux.”
Even in the matter of receiving goods free of duty through the
custom-house the American missionaries, as invested with the same
religious and benevolent character, have been recognized as having the
rights conferred on the French “religieux” by the capitulations.
In regard to the particular case in hand, the treaty provides for the
emergency, permitting foreign ecclesiastics to exercise the rites of
religious worship in the places which they inhabit, and to receive
native visitors without hinderance.
The eighty-second clause of the French capitulations of 1740 contains the
following stipulations on this point:
“The bishops and “religieux” dependent on the Emperor of France, who are
in my Empire, will be protected while they keep within the limits of
their condition, and. no one can prevent them from exercising their
rites of worship according to their customs, in the churches which are
in their hands, as well as in the other places which they inhabit. And
where our tributary (non-Muslim) subjects and the French go and come,
the one to the abode of the other, for purchases, sales, and other
affairs, no one can molest them in contravention of the sacred laws on
account of this frequentation.” Furthermore, there is no law of the
Empire which authorizes the interference of the authorities to prevent
the holding of religious worship; on the contrary the laws and the
treaties alike declare the exercise of religious worship to be the
privilege of all:
It is not necessary to urge the calling to account of the governor of
Kastamouni because of his wanton outrage upon a precious right in this
case. He may have been ignorant of the gravity of his offense. But I
would respectfully beg that you would kindly request the Sublime Porte
to take such measures as it may seem necessary for the instruction of
the governor of Kastamouni, so that Dr. Herrick or others of our number
on going to the city again may not be subjected to restrictions and
indignities such as are put upon foreign missionaries in no other part
of the Empire.
Very respectfully, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 257.]
Mr. King to Mr.
Dwight.
Legation of the United States,
Constantinople, October 13,
1886.
Dear Sir: Your communication of 9th instant has
been received, and in connection with it I should like some additional
information, in order that I may examine the ground for action as
definitely as may be. * * *
- (1)
- Is Rev. Mr. Filian an American citizen?
- (2)
- Has he in the past held public worship in
Kastamouni? If so in what place, i. e.,in a
church or in a private house?
- (3)
- Have the Protestants in Kastamouni a church?
- (4)
- If not, have they asked permission to build one? When was such
permission asked (if asked)? On what grounds refused (if
refused)?
- (5)
- Have your ministers been (as a rule) hitherto allowed to hold public worship in private houses of natives, i.e.,
Turkish subjects, and in private houses of
American citizens resident in Turkey?
In addition to your written reply I shall be glad to talk the matter over
with you, referring to the law bearing on the case, provided you should
be in Peru soon.
Yours, etc.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 257.]
Mr. Dwight to Mr.
King.
Constantinople, October 13,
1886.
Dear Sir: Your favor of this day’s date is
received, and I answer the questions in reference to the Kastamouni case
as below:
(1) Is Rev. Mr. Filian an American citizen?
He is an Ottoman subject.
(2) Has he in the past held public worship in Kastamouni, and if so, in
what place?
He has held worship in a dwelling-house rented by the American mission)
and to this worship any who have wished to come have been admitted.
(3) Have the Protestants in Kastamouni a church?
(4) If not, have they asked permission to build one?
The Protestants in Kastamouni are few in number, and are mostly, if not
all, temporary residents in the place, since the city is a central
location, where business men are frequently led from other places in the
line of their trade.
A number of sojourners, wishing to have religious privileges, ask for a
preacher, and Mr. Filian was sent there by the American mission, the
Protestants who attend his service paying half of his salary; the state
of the case being this”: The Protestants of Kastamouni have never asked
for permission to build a church, and have none. In fact there could
hardly be under the circumstances any other arrangement than the one in
existence there. Those who wish to attend service on the Sabbath go to
the house of the preacher and quietly hold service, as is customary in
other parts of the Empire in similar cases.
In this connection allow me to call your attention to the fact that we do
not and can not ask the intervention of the United States legation in
behalf of the Rev. Mr. Filian, and the Protestants of Kastamouni.
My only request to you was that if you saw fit you would ask the Porte to
instruct the governor of Kastamouni concerning the rights of the
American citizen, Dr. Herrick, or other American citizens who maybe
temporarily staying in Kastamouni, and who exercise their functions as
religious and ordained men in the quiet way contemplated by the
treaties.
Your fifth question applies to the case of Dr. Herrick.
(5) Have your ministers been, as a rule, hitherto allowed to hold public
worship in private houses of natives (Turkish subjects) as in private
houses of American citizens resident in Turkey?
They have been for more than fifty years, and are now, allowed to receive
any persons, from outside the house who wish to attend the services
which they hold where-ever they are. Presume that if our ministers were
to make any disturbance in the way of calling people together by a
public method, there might be objections on the part of the authorities
to such procedure, but this is never done. No case has ever come to my
knowledge of an interference on the part of the authorities to prevent
people from attending our services, whether held in private houses of
natives or of American citizens.
In fact the local authorities have in times past interfered to protect
such services from disturbance from ill-disposed persons. My own
acquaintance with this subject extends over a period of about
thirty-five years, and I find no record of any trouble in this line
before my personal knowledge of the facts commences.
In the case in hand the authorities at Kastamouni did not deny the right
of Dr. Herrick to hold service in the house in question. The only point
of our complaint to the legation is the placing of a police guard about
the house to prevent any from outside the house from holding
communication with Dr. Herrick, not only on the
[Page 1082]
Sabbath, but on the nest day also. Such an act is
utterly without precedent, and seeing that Dr. Herriek’s passport and
teskere were in regular order, and were in the hands of the authorities,
the act was from our point of view entirely unjustifiable.
* * * * * * *
Yours, etc.,
[Tnclosnre 4 in No. 257.]
Mr. King to the
Sublime Porte.
Legation of the United States,
Constantinople, October 18,
1886.
Excellency: I beg to call your attention to a
case of recent interference with the rights and privileges of an
American citizen, Key. Dr. Herrick.
On the 7th August, 1886, Rev. Dr. Herrick, an American missionary, went
to the city of Kastamouni to administer the sacrament to the Protestants
residing there. On his arrival fee found that the preacher, at whose
house he was to stop, had been ordered by the local governor to desist
from holding divine service in his house. Dr. Herrick then sent his
passport and other papers to the local authorities, and pointed out that
he had been for twenty-eight years an American missionary resident in
the Turkish Empire, and during all that time in the habit of performing
such service as the one now proposed. Therefore he begged the
authorities to permit the holding of the service in a quiet way, in the
house rented by the American mission, and occupied for more than a year
by the Protestant preacher, Rev. Mr. Filian. Dr. Herrick added that of
course there would be no objection to the presence of a functionary
charged with seeing that at the service nothing was done contrary to
good order; but that the prohibition of the service without assigning
any reason did not accord with the laws of the Empire in reference to
the freedom of worship.
Upon the receipt of Dr. Herriek’s request, the local authorities sent
police to the house, with orders to prevent any person from outside the
house having -access to it, either during the service or after it was
over. The police formed a cordon about the house, and thus held it in a
state of blockade during the whole time that Dr. Herrick remained within
it—that is to say, until the afternoon of August 9, when he left the
city.
This is a serious violation of the privileges enjoyed by Americans for
the last sixty years of holding religious service in their own houses
and in having the freedom to receive visitors. I am happy to state to
your excellency that I am informed that these privileges have never
before been called in question.
I respectfully request you to give such orders to the governor of that
province as will prevent the recurrence of such an incident, should Dr.
Herrick or any other American missionary visit Castamouni again.
I avail, etc.,
