Mr. Foster to Mr. Thompson.
Washington, November 29, 1892.
Sir: The question of paramount importance in the relations of the United States with the Ottoman Empire is, succinctly, the status of Americans in Turkey, with all which that implies in the various phases and conditions of life.
In order that you may obtain a general knowledge of the subject and of the position assumed and maintained by the Government of the United States, I beg to refer you to the diplomatic correspondence between the State Department and the representatives of the United States at the Ottoman Porte.
The difficulties which have arisen are, as you will observe, connected for the most part with missionaries, teachers, and professional men, rather than with merchants and casual travelers; and it has been the policy of the United States at all times to exercise especial care for the interests of a class of men whose labors are devoted to the well-being of their fellow men, and whose lives are characterized by a spirit of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. The status of Americans in Turkey necessarily differs widely from that established in other European countries, whose religion, laws, and civilization are analogous to our own. It is rather the outcome of immemorial usage which has grown out of the policy of the Byzantine Empire and its successor, the Ottoman Empire, towards foreigners within its dominions. The number of these has always been considerable, and their usefulness to the Empire even in greater ratio than their numbers. The Turks have ever been a warlike people, while the husbandmen of their vast Empire, the artisans, merchants, and traders, have for the most part been foreigners belonging to organized non-Mussulman communities following their own laws and customs from the time of their former independence. The Government has therefore been confronted with two alternatives. Either in strict obedience to the tenets of the Mussulman religion, which classes all of the persons not of the faith of Islam as enemies and as unclean, to expel or exterminate all foreigners, or, as the welfare of the Empire required, to exercise a policy of tolerance towards [Page 610] the foreigners whose skill and industry were such essential factors of its prosperity. There have thus grown up in Turkey imperia in imperio—distinct races governed by their own laws and following their own religion.
This tolerance, born of necessity, has in the main been consistently observed; but, as was inevitable, the exclusive tendencies of an established faith and the intolerance of the laws, so intimately allied in Mussulman countries with religion, have frequently found vent in isolated instances, violating the principles of tolerance generally prevailing. The utmost vigilence is consequently necessary on the part of the representatives of foreign nations in order to maintain the rights and privileges of their subjects resident in Turkey intact, and in cases of necessity to secure redress for their infringement.
The status of foreigners in Turkey depending, as I have observed, on ancient usage, while not clearly defined, is to a certain extent determined by the capitulations or treaties between the Porte and various nations. The earliest of these, with the Italian republics, Genoa and Venice, was concluded in 1453. The most important are those concluded by France in 1740 and by England at various times from 1075 to 1809, which are in force at the present day and which have served as a model for the succeeding treaties with other nations. As these various capitulations acted rather to recognize and confirm existing rights than to create especial privileges, it was inevitable that in the course of centuries the policy of autonomous extraterritoriality should be expanded, and that rights and privileges, born of the inherent prerogatives of non-Mussulmans and acquiesced in by long and continuous usage, should become vested rights, sanctioned by the Ottoman power and indefeasible by any act of the Turkish sovereign. It may, thus, not always be practicable to point to the origin of any particular privilege in a solemn covenant, or in a special grant or recognition thereof at any particular time. They have become massed into a concrete assemblage of rights, not readily admitting of classification or definition but constituting a body of laws and customs resting on usage and having for their fundamental principle the incontrovertible inheritance of non-Mussulmans under Mussulman rule to the fullest autonomy in all that separates them from the Moslem faith and code.
In 1856 the important firmen known as the Hattie Hunayoun sought to generalize the concessions of extraterritoriality in the various capitulations and the privileges and rights of aliens which had grown inseparably upon the ancient conventions. Even this broad generalization proving insufficient to cover the whole ground of alien right, a still ampler declaration was embodied in the treaty of Berlin, July 13, 1878, as follows:
Article LXXII. The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty and give it the widest scope, the contracting parties take notice of this spontaneous declaration.
In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity as regards the discharge of civil and political rights, admission to the public employments, functions and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries.
All persons shall be admitted, without distinction of religion, to give evidence before the tribunals.
The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship are assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organizations of the various communions or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.
Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities traveling in Turkey in Europe, or in Turkey in Asia, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges.
[Page 611]The right of official protection by the diplomatic and consular agents of the powers in Turkey is recognized both as regards the above-mentioned persons and their religious, charitable and other establishments in the holy places and elsewhere.
The tendency is thus seen to have been toward generalization from the details of the capitulations to a wider recognition of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of non-Mussulmans and aliens in Turkey, as developed by a slow but steady process of accretion and consolidation, continuing to the present day, and not, in the nature of things, admitting of arrest or reversal.
Your careful examination of the history and details of the several capitulations, and of the diplomatic correspondence between the State Department and the legation at Constantinople, and especially of the instructions sent by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, April 20, 1887, and by Mr. Blaine to your immediate predecessor, December 14, 1891, will afford you a comprehensive view of the nature and extent of the questions which most frequently arise.
Perhaps the most important is the alleged conversion of private dwellings into churches or schools. This has not only been the subject of complaint by the Turkish Government, but in the remoter parts of the Empire has led to violations of domicile and personal aggressions against missionaries, teachers, and pupils. Freedom of worship for Americans in Turkey is one of the most definitely established rights, not only under the capitulations and treaties—the provisions of which extend to Americans by virtue of the most-favored-nation treatment—but by constant usage and the continued protection of American missions in Turkey, with their hospitals and schools, in which Turkish patients are received and Turkish children instructed.
The only difficulty which can possibly arise, therefore, is the alleged conversion of private dwellings into churches and schools, and this scarcely seems a tangible one. The right of Americans in Turkey to hold religious services or classes of instruction in their private dwellings, to which their family and friends may be invited and to which such subjects of Turkey as desire may come, is undeniable; and the right of public worship, or teaching, in churches or schoolhouses, for which licenses or permits have been obtained from the Turkish authorities, is equally so. These rights are so distinct, that in the exercise of them the line of demarcation ought readily to be drawn. Any attempt on the part of the Porte to establish an arbitrary criterion, such as that the exercise of the indefeasible right of worship in a private dwelling converts it into a church or temple, can not be admitted by this Government. Nor can the prohibition to use property, legitimately purchased by an American, for school purposes be acquiesced in.
It appears to be a characteristic of Turkish policy to seek to limit foreign rights and privileges in detail, and to wear away, by the slow process of erosion, what it may not overcome by power. The opposition to the domiciliary rights of aliens oftenest takes this course. Overlooking the initial fact that the temples, the schools, the shops, and the private dwellings of foreigners are alike lawful, petty requirements are injected, and licenses to build and repair are refused or indefinitely delayed on mere pretexts which it is hard to regard seriously. Thus, in a recent instance, the local authorities at Alexandretta stopped for a time the building of storage sheds for exported products demanding a bond with Turkish sureties that the premises should never be used for a church or school—a demand which was promptly contested and did not prevail. To yield the point of right, even in so extreme a case as this where the nature and use of the proposed structure afforded a self-evident [Page 612] assurance which could hardly have been fortified by any contractual pledge, would have established a precedent to be widened in its application as the disposition of the authorities might prompt fresh encroachments. We can not be a consenting party to any insidious curtailment of our laboriously acquired rights.
Another question which has recently occasioned controversy arises from the action of Turkish officials in arbitrarily examining the baggage, personal effects, and correspondence of Americans without any adequate reason or even excuse further than that some sort of conspiracy was supposed to exist among Armenians against the Ottoman rule. The pursuance of such a course under the alleged conditions is clearly unjustifiable. Such a system of investigation could only rationally be carried on when the country or district has by public decree been placed under martial law. Mere suspicions of a conspiracy among native subjects can in no sense form sufficient ground for violating personal privileges and property of foreigners during a time of peace.
In several recent instances, our citizens peaceably traveling from one point to another, under regular and formal teskereh (travel permit), have suffered the indignity of arrest and search, their books and papers being taken from them for so-called “examination.” It would be a mere quibble, a trifling with the rights of the alien, to pretend, as the local authorities seem in some cases to have attempted, that this is not such a domiciliary search as the capitulations contemplate and permit only on lawful process and after notification to the consul charged with the resident’s protection. The rights of domicile spring from and are but a material manifestation of the rights of the individual—the one can not be respected and the other assailed.
While various other questions and difficulties have arisen and are likely to arise in the future, it is impossible to do more in this instruction than to indicate the general principles which may guide you in your intercourse with the Ottoman Empire.
A very important and useful feature of the status of foreigners in Turkey is the solidarity among them. Foreigners have for centuries been classed under the generic name of Franks. Their rights and privileges are analogous, and the protection of the representatives of one great power has been not infrequently extended to the citizens resident in Turkey of another. The files of your legation will afford many instances of recourse to the good offices of British consuls in Turkish dominions for the protection of our citizens in quarters where no consular representation of the United States has been established. This friendly aid is cheerfully given whenever sought. The exercise of such protection is an inherent Frankish right, and resort to Frankish protection is in like manner the prerogative of every Frank. Indeed, the rule in Turkey recognizes the right of any Frank to be enrolled in the protected list of any Frankish consulate, whether of his own nationality or not.
In conclusion, it is proper to observe that the relations between the Ottoman Empire and the United States have uniformly been marked by a spirit of courtesy and friendship. The isolated acts of injustice which occur are in the remoter parts of the empire, and are usually due to the ignorance or intolerance of subordinate and local functionaries.
This Government is not unmindful, in the light of the occurrences of the past ten years, that the good disposition exhibited at Constantinople, where the high officers of the Ottoman Porte are in immediate touch with foreign representation and more fully cognizant of the scope [Page 613] of alien rights in Turkey, has too often been antagonized by the narrow action of the local officials in some remote province. The desire of the Sultan’s ministers to recognize our rights and the rights of our citizens has been too often shown to admit of doubt; but on the other hand the obstructive opposition of some provincial vali or municipal authority has only too often withstood the peremptory orders of the central power. Recognizing this, it is for the Ottoman Government to make its supreme will respected by its servants. Failure to assure promised redress through domestic channels can but cast disrepute upon the efficiency of His Majesty’s power, and even, in extreme cases, might warrant impugnment of the good faith of the Turkish Government, besides giving to an aggrieved state the right to enforce reparation by fitting means as fully as though the refusal of justice were the act of the sovereign power. The recent Bourdour incident is, however, a happy augury of a better future in this regard, and is in most agreeable contrast with the frequent cases of nonfulfillment of promised amends which are recorded in the legation’s correspondence. It is proper that I should here express the gratification with which the President has learned of the proceedings taken against the assailants of Dr. Bartlett and the replacement of the incompetent vali by a man of well-known enlightenment and national reputation.
A courteous and firm attitude toward the central Government will secure redress for any infringement of the rights of Americans in Turkey and the maintenance of cordial personal relations with the foreign office will conduce directly and indirectly to the advantage and welfare of your fellow-citizens.
I am, etc.,