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.
[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.
* * * * * * *