[Inclosure in No. 123.]
Mr. Hirsch to
Said Pasha.
Legation of the United States,
Constantinople
,
May 1,
1890.
No. 33.]
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of Your Excellency’s note of the 7th ultimo, in reply to the
note of this legation, No. 17, of December 18, 1889, in the matter of
Moussa Bey, whose punishment for outrages against American citizens has
at various times during the last 7 years been demanded by the United
States Government.
The reply of Your Excellency is based upon the report of the minister of
justice, to whom the note of this legation had been referred, and who,
after “once more” examining the documents on the subject, has reported
his conclusions to Your Excellency, and as the result of such report I
am now informed that an “ordonnance de non lieu” has been entered in the
case by the examining magistrate and the chamber of accusation.
It is with no small degree of surprise that this legation for the first
time now receives the information of the entry of the “ordonnance de non
lieu.”
The action, as reported by the minister of justice, seems to be based on
the following:
I. On the 18th and 19th of May, 1883, Messrs. Knapp and Raynolds were
confronted with four Kurds who had been arrested in consequence of the
complaint made, and failed to indentify these four men as their
assailants.
It would seem from this that His Excellency the minister of justice
treated this confrontation in a serious manner, but the slightest
examination would have shown the facts to be that the four Kurds in
question were furnished for the occasion by Mirza Bey, the father of
Moussa Bey; that they were not the assailants, and, of course, could not
be identified by Knapp and Raynolds.
II. In October, 1883, Mr. Knapp was confronted with Moussa at Bitlis and
is reported to have stated that he resembled the Kurd who had wounded
Dr. Raynolds with his sword.
This statement of the case is the same as made by the local officers in
1883, and was immediately declared false by the United States
legation.
The Sublime Porte promised an investigation, and afterwards informed the
legation that the officials in question had been found guilty of grave
irregularities in the case.
His Excellency Assim Pasha to Mr. Wallace, January 12, 1885:
“I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that the inquest made by the
ministry of justice having revealed certain irregularities committed by
the examining magistrate and the deputy imperial prosecutor, these two
magistrates have been put under judgment.”
Nevertheless, the falsified statement is still treated as correct by the
minister of justice.
When Mr. Knapp was summoned by the authorities of Bitlis to identify his
assailant he was confronted with a number of men and unhesitatingly
pointed out one as the assailant of Dr. Raynolds; he did not even know
the name of the man he had identified until he was afterwards told who
the man was. It was Moussa Bey, who wore for that occasion a dress of a
different style from his ordinary village dress.
An impartial examination would have brought out very clearly the positive
nature of Mr. Knapp’s testimony and the deliberate purpose of the local
officials to suppress it.
III. It is claimed that Mr. Knapp was with Moussa at Polo Kéhio’s for 2
hours on May 3, 1883, and should have recognized him at once at the time
of the assault on the following day; and inasmuch as he did not
recognize him then as it appears from his first evidence his declaration
several months subsequent loses all its value.
This is an attempt to undermine the unimpeachable testimony of Mr. Knapp,
and is now for the first time offered to this legation. The facts are
that Moussa Bey was at the house in which Messrs. Knapp and Raynolds
were staying that evening; that he was not with Mr. Knapp, but that he
stood in a group of Kurds in a dark room; that the Americans had no
communication with him.
[Page 763]
IV. And in further attempt to impeach the testimony of Mr. Knapp, the
minister of justice says:
“It has been proven by the sworn depositions of several persons that
Moussa Bey had not left his house on the day of the assault.”
In systems of judicial investigations with which we are acquainted such
statements of alibi are without value, unless proven at a regular trial
when the character of the testimony has been sharply cross-examined in
open court. Since no such trial or testing of evidence has been held,
this statement possesses not the slightest weight.
It appears that the Ottoman Government has accepted without sufficient
serious investigation the statement of local officials, who, for reasons
best known to themselves, have rather screened than sought the culprits
whose irregular proceedings have been admitted by the Sublime Porte and
whose erroneous statements have been the subjects of repeated protests
from this legation.
We are now told by the minister of justice that the way is open for a
suit to be brought against the judges, and, furthermore, that the
interested parties are always free to sue Moussa Bey once more before
the competent tribunal in case they are furnished with new evidence
against him.
The minister of justice would have it appear by the above as if Messrs,
Knapp and Raynolds had once before brought a suit against Moussa Bey
which they lost. This, however, is not the fact. They never brought any
suit. The Turkish Government relieved them of the necessity of opening a
suit; it assured them that it would bring the criminals to justice, an
assurance volunteered by the governor of Bitlis on the day when Messrs.
Knapp and Raynolds were brought, bruised and wounded, into that city,
and which has since then been repeated by the Sublime Porte at various
times. The United States Government has nothing to do with any private
suit, but only with the unfulfilled promise of the Turkish Government
that Moussa Bey would be brought to punishment. We now ask that those
promises be fulfilled.
I beg here, in the name of my Government, to renew the protest which I
made verbally to Your Excellency against the conclusions arrived at in
your note, and most earnestly demand that for the present Moussa Bey be
kept hereof the capital and within reach of the authorities, just as
others are kept who are accused of like heinous offenses against the
law, and that such punishment be inflicted on him as is commensurate
with the gravity of the crime committed by him on my countrymen.
Accept, etc.,
