Mr. Hirsch to Mr.
Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Constantinople
,
March 2, 1892
.
(Received March 22.)
No. 399.]
Sir: My note of January 21 to the Sublime Porte on
the subject of American schools in Turkey (of which a copy was sent to you
in my No. 379 of January 22) has been followed up by various personal
interviews with both his highness the grand vizier, and his excellency the
minister of foreign affairs. As in the note, I seized every opportunity to
impress upon the minds of the ministers that our schools, having in every
particular complied with the law, have an undisputable right to continue
their work unmolested, while new schools may be established by American
missionaries after having complied with the provisions of Article 129 of the
school law of 1869, to which law this legation [Page 538] had given its consent. I refused assent to any new
regulation or compliance with any new requirement, such as the recent order
contemplates, otherwise the very existence of the schools would be
jeopardized. The grand vizier, evidently recognizing our rights under the
capitulations and treaties, suggested that he would prefer not to discuss
“the principle” of the question, but to otherwise arrive at a satisfactory
solution. I assured his highness of my earnest desire to cooperate in so
laudable and necessary an effort.
I made a written memorandum of my views as follows:
- (1)
- The presentation as required by Article 129 of the school law, of
the books to be used, the programmes of studies to be followed, and
the diplomas of the teachers entitles the interested party to open
the school within ten days after such presentation, provided the
books are found unobjectionable.
- (2)
- Books which have been approved by the ministry of public
instruction must be admitted as unobjectionable for all the schools
without exception.
- (3)
- Inspectors shall not visit the schools without being accompanied
by a notable of the religious community to which the school
belongs.
I was asked to strike out at the end of Article 1 the words: “Provided the
books are found unobjectionable,” and in their place accept the following:
“Provided there is no objection to their being opened.”
This proposition I rejected unconditionally, otherwise objections to opening
schools would always be forthcoming.
I was asked to assent to the following provision: “That no Moslem children be
admitted into these schools unless they have certificates to show that their
religious education has been completed.” This, if consented to, would impose
an amount of detective work on the missionaries which should not be required
of them; any error in ascertaining the religion of an applicant, however
innocently committed, might, and no doubt would, subject the school to being
closed; for which (if for no other) reason, I rejected this further
proposition. I kept the missionaries informed of my interviews and
discussions with the ministers. Rev. Henry O. Dwight, under date of February
24, addressed me a letter, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, in which
his views and those of his colleagues on the subject of schools under this
recent order are set forth, as also his reasons for objecting to the new
attempted requirements on the part of the Ottoman Government. In their
personal interviews with me the missionaries have not hesitated to say
frankly that in the light of their experience of over sixty years in this
Empire, they look upon this attempt on the part, of the Turkish Government
as marking the most critical period in the existence of their educational
institutions.
Nearly or quite four weeks ago Mr. Fane, the British chargé d’affaires,
inquired of me as to our action in this matter. I showed him my note to the
Porte, and by request gave him a copy of it for transmission to the foreign
office in London (having previously furnished him with a copy of my note of
January 9 on the subject of the conversion of dwelling houses into schools
and places of worship). In response he received telegraphic instructions to
address a note to the Porte of the same tenor as the American note. Mr. Fane
was good enough to send me a copy of his note, of which I inclose a
duplicate herewith. Although instructed (as he told me) to “follow” the
American note, it will be noticed that he possibly surrendered a most vital
point, when he said on page 3 “unless a reasonable and acceptable
justification is given for the refusal of the required authorization.” I [Page 539] should state, however, that in the
letter accompanying the note I was informed that it had not yet been
approved by the foreign office.
The French ambassador, as the protector of the Catholic schools here, has
also for some time been discussing this subject with the Porte. He is quite
reticent, but I have it from a very reliable source that he has refused to
yield any point to the Turkish demand.
The present action on the part of the Turkish Government in this matter is
generally believed here to be an effort to destroy the usefulness of the
foreign schools in this Empire (of which the American schools form by far
the greatest part). It is in keeping with the reactionary spirit in vogue
here now. Unless properly met this question will be a troublous one for
years to come, while a firm stand now will in my judgment have favorable
results. I do not think that any vital concession should be made.
I will keep the Department advised of any further developments.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 399.]
Mr. Dwight to Mr.
Hirsch.
Constantinople
,
February 24,
1892
.
Dear Sir: Referring to our conversation of
Friday last, on the rights claimed by American missionaries in Turkey, I
desire to thank you for myself and for my associates for your patient
interest in our opinions on this subject.
At the same time I beg leave to offer in writing the objections which I
then orally expressed to the recent proposals of his highness the grand
vizier. As I remember them, these proposals are in brief, first, that
after the American schools have submitted to official inspection and
control their books and course of study the Ottoman Government shall
authorize them, unless it sees reasons which will justify a refusal to
do so, and, second, that these schools shall accept as a condition of
their existence the obligation to refuse admission to pupils of the
Mohammedan religion who have not provided themselves with a special form
of permit.
Upon the first of these proposals I would say: The essential point of the
complaints relating to American schools, with which it has been my
unpleasant duty during the last six or seven years to beset the United
States legation, is that officials of the Turkish Government have
claimed the right, when they think they see sufficient reason to justify
the action, to close American schools or to refuse to allow them to be
established. The proposal now referred to aims at the perpetuation, by
formal agreement, of the state of affairs which has already given rise
to so just complaints.
I would consider the acceptance of this proposal as against public
policy, because it tends in an incidental and inconsequent manner to the
abrogation of important clauses of the capitulations. The capitulations
carefully reserve to the United States Government the right of revising
and, in case of need, of staying the execution of orders of Turkish
officials, or even of Turkish courts, which touch the persons or the
personal property of Americans established in Turkey.
But this proposal, by giving to the Turkish Government the right to deal
directly and finally with the educational system established in this
country by Americans and by American capital, contemplates the surrender
of that reservation so far as concerns those Americans who are engaged
in teaching in Turkey. Again, the capitulations having fixed the general
duties and obligations of Americans residing in Turkey, it is an
admitted principle that new regulations prescribing new obligations can
be applied to them by mutual agreement only.
But this proposal is in effect a proposal that in respect to the
enterprises of American teachers residing in Turkey the Sublime Porte
shall henceforth be free to make new regulations or otherwise modify the
status quo without the previous consent of
the United States Government. The wide results possible to be derived
from the establishment of precedents of this nature need not be dwelt
upon in detail.
A wide experience justifies distrust of the qualifications of Turkish
provincial authorities for the exercise of judicial functions like those
proposed to be intrusted to them by this proposal. The Turkish
Government itself shows similar distrust, by [Page 540] giving them power to close, but none at all to
open, a school. In 1884, when the demand was first made that Americans
should, as a matter of form, apply for permits for their existing
schools, some such applications were made. In several of these cases the
application led to the immediate closing of the school, showing that the
request for a permit was regarded as conferring the right to refuse the
request. Observation of the character of the reasons found sufficient in
the past to justify the closing of American schools leads to the same
distrust. American schools have been closed on the avowed ground that
the people have enough schools, that some notable does not wish the
school to continue, that the founders of the school are Protestants,
that the number of pupils who wish to attend does not warrant the
school, that the owners of the school permit the schoolhouse to be used
for religious worship on Sunday, that American ideas are dangerous, etc.
The mental state which allows such reasons to appear sufficient to
justify the suppression of an educational enterprise carried on in
conformity to the laws of the Empire is not comprehensible to the
western mind. Especially is this difficulty felt on looking at the
simple and liberal principle which, as the immutable law of the Empire,
authorizes in the hatti humayoun of 1856 the free
opening of schools, only reserving to the Government the right of
inspection and control over the method of instruction and the choice of
teachers.
The school law of 1869, based upon this charter, fixes the only condition
which can legally justify refusal of the authorities to allow the
school, when it says that schools shall be authorized which submit to,
and schools shall be closed which refuse to submit to, the official
inspection and control of the books in use, the course of study
followed, and the choice of teachers to be employed. For the sole reason
that the law and the hatti humayoun are thus
precise, it is my opinion that the proposal which contemplates other
possible justifications of the closing of a school should be firmly
rejected.
It is true that the school law of 1869 has never been observed in the
practice of the provincial officials save as a means to close schools. I
have never known a case where a permit for a school was granted on the
fulfillment of those conditions alone which are laid down in the law,
and I have never known a case where a permit for a school was granted on
any conditions, in the manner prescribed by the law, namely, by the
provincial authorities, without reference of the question to the
overburdened departments at the capital. But this is a reason the more
for insisting that if Americans are to suffer the disadvantage of having
books forbidden to them under this law which are deemed essential in any
other country which has schools, they should also have the advantage of
enjoying, under this law, freedom from other interference with their
educational work.
It is difficult to appreciate the grounds on which the proposed
modification of the privileges now enjoyed by American teachers is
deemed necessary. In 1885 and 1886 the declaration was repeatedly made
by the ministry of public instruction that the only change sought to be
introduced in the then existing usages of the American schools was to
secure, in view of the fact that they instruct Ottoman subjects, the
inspection and control required by the law of 1869. The promise was
made, if I mistake not, to the United States legation that if these
schools submitted to the desired control there would be no further
molestation of them. The schools submitted to the control, and,
notwithstanding the loss inefficiency produced by stringent censorship
and rejection of essential books, the wishes of the Government
inspectors have been loyally followed ever since. The Turkish Government
is, therefore, secured against the giving of instruction in these
schools which it deems morally or politically dangerous.
Concerning the second of the proposals of his highness the grand vizier,
I believe I have already shown why it may not be legally made a
condition of the existence of the American schools. The American
missionaries would not be willing to accept the proposal that they be
under obligations to exclude Mohammedan pupils from their schools, for
the following reasons:
Leaving out of sight the interest of the schools in continuing to enjoy
the patronage of a class of the population commonly eager to pay for an
education, and the fatal objection to the proposal found in the fact
that it would make the school teachers become inquisitors and detectives
of the Government to ferret out the real religious views of the
applicants for admission, there are yet other insurmountable
objections.
- (1)
- Appreciable numbers of pagans yet exist in the empire. They
neither accept Mohammedanism nor affiliate with Mohammedans. They do
not receive acceptance and fellowship from their Mohammedan
neighbors. Yet the Government officially declares them to be
Mohammedans and is making strenuous efforts to force them to become
so. The schools of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United
States which are located in northern Syria have numbers of these
pagans in their classes. Should the proposal to reject Mohammedan
pupils from American schools be adopted it would lead to instant
contest over the religious belongings of these pupils and [Page 541] might result in the
closing of an educational work among these people which has
prospered during thirty years.
- (2)
- The acceptance of a religious test as a standard for the rejection
of pupils, implies assent to the setting aside of the Ottoman law
that all religious communions are of equal rights and that no man
may be molested on account of his religious belief.
- (3)
- The admission of the privilege of American missionaries to
instruct Ottoman subjects in their schools is the ground on which
these schools have been multiplied in all parts of Turkey. To admit
now that the Turkish Government may enjoin these schools from
receiving one class of Ottoman subjects is the same thing as
admitting that it may forbid their receiving any class of the very
people for whose education they have been founded and who show such
readiness to enter upon their advantage.
I can not refrain from adding that the impression is growing in my mind
concerning this whole question, that certain officials show a tendency
to regard the repression of education among the Christian subjects of
Turkey as a political necessity. If this impression is correct it fully
justifies protest against intrusting to such officials the decision of
the reasons which may validly warrant the closing of American
schools.
I can only hint, in closing, at far greater than American interests which
may be compromised by the acceptance of innovations that propose to
limit by the will of the Ottoman officials the freedom of education
among the non-Moslem people of Turkey, now guaranteed by treaty. It does
not belong to the United States Government to concern itself with the
state of any class of Turkish subjects; yet my sympathy with the desire
for intellectual and moral progress visible among all classes of the
people of Turkey leads me to remark that even with the most liberal
intentions Mohammedan officials can hardly avoid being influenced by
prejudice in deciding the amount of culture essential to the well being
of non-Moslem communities. Where any bias of narrow bigotry exists
officials intrusted with such far-reaching powers, might do much to
destroy higher education among those classes of the population which
dissent from the established faith of the Empire.
Trusting that I have said enough to justify the opinion that the two
proposals here considered should be rejected, I remain, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 399.]
Note verbale of Her Brittanic
Majesty’s embassy at Constantinople to the Sublime Porte
(No. 16,
February 13, 1892).
Her Majesty’s embassy has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the
Sublime Porte’s note verbale No. 64, of the 17th August last, in which
it is stated that it sometimes happens that missionaries have converted
their private houses without authorization into churches or schools;
that it has been decided that in future such a transformation shall be
prevented and that instructions in this sense have been sent to the
local authorities.
In reply Her Majesty’s embassy, acting upon instructions received from
Her Majesty’s Government, begs to point out to the Sublime Porte that it
maintains as a fundamental principle inherent in and protected by the
capitulations and treaties that missionaries possess the right to
worship according to the rites of their several denominations in their
houses and upon their premises so long as the rights of others and the
public order be not thereby trenched upon or disturbed, and it is
therefore presumed that the note verbale of August 17th was not animated
by an intention to curtail or infringe upon this the most necessary
right of British missionaries.
As regards the provisions of the order recently issued by the ministry of
public instruction, relating to the building, founding, and opening of
schools in the Ottoman Empire, which has come under the notice of Her
Majesty’s embassy, it appears expedient, in order to avoid any future
misapprehension, that the views of Her Majesty’s Government should be
clearly stated upon the position of schools founded by British
missionaries and the restrictions under which they are legally
controlled.
Her Majesty’s Government have always fully recognized the conditions
imposed by the one hundred and twenty-ninth article of the law of public
instruction based upon the hatti humayoun of
1856, according to which article authorization for the founding of a
school will, on application being made, be given in the provinces by the
governor-general and the academic council, and at Constantinople by the
ministry of public instruction, on condition of the diplomas of the
teachers, the course of study, and the class books being submitted for
approval of the ministry of public instruction or of the academic
council of the district, unless a reasonable and acceptable
justification is given for the refusal of the required authorization.
[Page 542] Under these conditions,
therefore, Her Majesty’s Government claim for British subjects the right
hitherto exercised of opening schools throughout the Ottoman Empire
which are and ever have been under the protection of Her Majesty’s
Government.
The attention of the Sublime Porte is also called to the circular letter
of the minister of public instruction of December 28, 1886, and to his
highness Kiamil Pacha’s vizieriat circular of later date, by which the
provincial authorities are distinctly instructed to permit the schools
to continue their work unmolested, and that schools already established
which have complied with the necessary conditions are not to be closed
for lack of official permits, while any complaints made by the
provincial authorities against delinquent schools must be referred to
the ministry of public instruction before any action is taken against
them.
In offering the above observations to the Sublime Porte, Her Majesty’s
Government trust that the recent circular of the minister of public
instruction may not be misinterpreted so as to infringe upon the rights
of British subjects secured to them by treaties, and that instructions
may at once be sent to the local authorities to prevent any illegal
molestation of British missionaries in their religious and educational
pursuits.
