Mr. Terrell to Mr. Olney.

No. 1091.]

Sir: Referring to your telegram of the 2d instant, I inclose herewith a copy of the same received this morning and which relates to spoliations.

A memorandum of my conversation had with the minister of foreign affairs on the 1st instant was prepared before your telegram was received and is inclosed. You will see that your instructions had been so completely anticipated that it was not deemed prudent for reasons stated in the memorandum to renew at present at the Porte the subject of indemnity.

I also send inclosed a copy of my telegram regarding indemnity wired on the day of my interview with the minister of foreign affairs.

I have, etc.,

A. W. Terrell.
[Inclosure in 1091.]

Memorandum of Mr. Terrell’s conversation until Turkish minister of foreign affairs.

On December 1 the Turkish, minister of foreign affairs was requested to state verbally whether he was prepared to make any response to my note of the 16th ultimo (a copy of which has been sent to the Department of State) regarding the payment of indemnity for burning and spoliation at Harpoot and Marash. He answered that my note was being considered, but that one of my former notes to which it referred had been mislaid. A copy was promised him.

He was then informed that I would telegraph that night by 12 o’clock unless I received his answer; that no prospect of satisfaction from the Turkish Government was expected by me; that the Congress would assemble Monday next, and I wished the President to know the situation. I declined to accede to his request to delay my telegram.

He was also informed that my demand was based on conclusive evidence furnished not only by Americans who witnessed the pillage and destruction of their property, but fortified by the opinion of the British consul that artillery and guns, such as Turkish soldiers use, had been used against our houses, and that my Government demanded redress; that my repeated demands and Turkish assurances of protection had been disregarded, and that the United States, on account of the domestic difficulties of Turkey, had shown a spirit of forbearance which I found was not appreciated. Much effort was used by him to show that in this I was mistaken.

I had been informed that morning by the French ambassador, M. Cambon, that though the Porte had not recognized any French claims for spoliation, he had been informed from Paris that Munir Bey, the Turkish ambassador there, had recognized their validity in so far as they related to the burning of churches and schoolhouses. This the minister denied to me when questioned, but his reluctant manner did not inspire faith in his denial.

The minister was further informed that while the immediate payment of the money was desirable and expected, it was not so important as the immediate recognition of [Page 900] the justice of the claim; that the American Congress would soon convene, and when the delay of Turkey in correcting such flagrant outrages was known to it the natural effect would be to excite resentment. For this and for other reasons mentioned he was informed that if the Turkish Government had anything further to say to the demand of the United States for indemnity it would be proper to communicate it at once through the Turkish minister at Washington direct to Mr. Olney, the Secretary of State.

Turkey is being pressed, and for months has been, with demands for the payment of large sums for spoliation to France for other property burned than churches, and also by Italy for churches burned, and for the murder of Father Salvatore, a Roman priest; while England claims an immense amount for spoliations in Constantinople during the massacres of the 26th and 27th of August last. Compared with these claims ours is small, but the latter differ from theirs from the fact that their ambassadors apprehended no trouble over the scheme of reforms and did not demand, as I did, protection in advance.

The claim of the United States, therefore, compared with any other, has prominent merit, for it is based on spoliation after warning, demand for protection, promise of protection, and the failure to afford it.

* * * * * * *