Mr. Leishman to Mr.
Hay.
Legation of the United States,
Constantinople, July 5,
1901.
No. 53.]Sir: I beg to inclose herewith copy of
correspondence in regard to Rev. R. M. Cole, at present located at
Bitlis, who according to his
[Page 524]
own statements has been restrained from moving about freely for nearly a
year past on account of the local governor refusing for some unknown
reasons to grant him a teskéréh or traveling passport. This regulation
has been in force for many years, and as long as it is not abused is no
doubt a very sensible and proper police regulation, as few if any of the
Turkish agents can read either English or French; but as I knew of no
reason why Mr. Cole should be restrained in any way, and as I considered
that the guaranteed rights and privileges of American citizens generally
were being infringed upon, I decided to take a very decided and firm
stand, and if this does not result in correcting the matter it is my
intention to instruct Mr. Cole to travel freely upon his American
passport, and if necessary send a kavass to accompany him, notifying the
Porte at the same time that I will hold the Ottoman Government strictly
accountable not only for Mr. Cole’s safety, but also for any delay,
damage, or indignity which he may suffer.
* * * * * * *
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Bergholz to
Mr. Griscom.
Consulate of the United States,
Erzerum, Turkey, October 6, 1900.
No. 109.]Sir: I have the honor to confirm my
telegram of September 28, as follows:
“American
Minister, Constantinople:
“Governor of Bitlis refuses Cole permission to go to Moush.
States prohibition comes from Constantinople. Probably due
to Spahank massacre.
“Bergholz.”
The Rev. R. M. Cole, of the American mission at Bitlis, having
occasion to go to Moush applied to the governor-general for an
escort which was at once given, and on September 12 Mr. Cole left
Bitlis. On the outskirts of Moush he was met by two police
commissioners who demanded his teskéréh or, in lieu of which, a
bourouldi. Unfortunately, Mr. Cole had omitted the formality of
requesting either the one or the other and, in consequence, was not
permitted to enter the city. He protested that the fact of his
having an escort was sufficient evidence that he was traveling with
the full consent of the governor-general at Bitlis. It was of no
avail, and he was ordered back to Bitlis. The governor-general upon
receiving Mr. Cole’s complaint stated that the police of Moush had
been officious. He refused, however, to issue the necessary papers
and left the city the following day, and his assistant has since
declined to permit the reverend gentleman to enjoy his undoubted
treaty right of travel.
Having no recognition outside of his province, I addressed a note to
the governor-general in which I briefly stated Mr. Cole’s case, and,
without discussing either the action of the governor-general or that
of the police commissioners of Moush, I requested him, on my behalf,
to be good enough to telegraph to his colleague at Bitlis to grant
Mr. Cole the privilege secured by treaty to make his journey to
Moush. His excellency at once consenting to telegraph, I sent the
following telegram to Mr. Cole:
“Cole, Bitlis:
“Renew demand to go to Moush. If refused telegraph me.
“Bergholz.”
In reply Mr. Cole wired me: “Just asked again. Order impossible this
side of Constantinople. Cole.”
I then sent you the telegram confirmed above. Have heard nothing
further from Mr. Cole.
Had Mr. Cole taken the precaution to provide himself with a bourouldi
when first leaving Bitlis his detention and return to Bitlis by the
commissioners of police at
[Page 525]
Moush would probably not have happened, and I have written him
suggesting that in future whenever he has occasion to travel he
request the usual teskéréh, or bourouldi, so that the minor
authorities may have no possible grounds for interfering with him.
The action of the police commissioners’ was irregular, as it was
their duty to conduct Mr. Cole, under the circumstances, to the
governor of Moush and not compel his return to Bitlis.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Peet to Mr.
Leishman.
Constantinople, June 8, 1901.
Dear Sir: The Rev. Royal M. Cole, of Bitlis
(Kourdistan) sends me word that the vali at that place is refusing
to issue to him the usual papers for traveling in his district.
This prohibition has lasted for some months, during which time Mr.
Cole has been, in reality, a prisoner in the city of Bitlis.
His work has often required his presence in the outlying towns of the
district, but repeated requests for the local passport (teskéréh
usually given for traveling) have been met with a firm refusal.
The vali claims to be acting under the most positive orders from
Constantinople that forbid his using any discretion in the matter
whatever. He usually professes that but for these orders he would
readily grant the passports as heretofore.
The vali has never given any satisfactory reason for the attitude on
the part of his superiors, but has in apparent friendship urged Mr.
Cole to seek by appeal to his legation at Constantinople a
withdrawal of the orders under which he is now compelled to refuse
what otherwise he would grant him.
Mr. Cole is a missionary, and as such has under his care and
direction a number of congregations and schools in the district in
which Bitlis is situated. In the usual discharge of his duties he is
obliged to visit these congregations and schools from time to time.
The prohibition upon his movements has deprived him from discharging
his duties in this regard for now more than six months.
This attitude on the part of the Government is utterly different from
the usage of the past seventy years, and is so plainly a violation
of the rights we have hitherto enjoyed and those that others do now
enjoy as to call, it seems to me, for a demand that the embargo on
Mr. Cole’s activities be withdrawn or that the Government justify
themselves in the position they are now holding toward Mr. Cole.
Very respectfully,
