Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1916, Supplement, The World War

File No. 367.116/509

The Chargé in Turkey (Philip) to the Secretary of State

No. 1502

Constantinople, July 4, 1916 .
[Received July 25.]

Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 1482 of the first instant, transmitting the reply of the Ottoman Foreign Office to this Embassy’s two notes relative to the treatment of American institutions and interests by the Ottoman authorities, I have the honor to submit the following remarks concerning the note of Halil Bey:

(1) I am not convinced that the occupation of the mission buildings was indispensable. At every place where such buildings have been taken over, the Turkish authorities could have found any number of unoccupied houses, belonging to “deported” Armenians.

(2) The Ministry appears to make a concession in allowing Misses Gage and Sbindon to return to Marsivan: but these ladies are not the American missionaries who were expelled. Miss Gage arrived in Constantinople more than seven months ago, having left Marsivan by her own free will; Miss Sbindon, although connected with the American Board, is a Swiss citizen, and she also left Marsivan of her own free will at the time of the expulsion; neither of these ladies having been expelled as were the American missionaries whose return has not yet been authorized. It would, however, be fair here to mention that as the initiative of their expulsion is stated to have come from the military authorities, the Sublime Porte is now corresponding with those authorities, so that they should allow these Americans to return and to remain at Marsivan unmolested.

(3) Concerning the violation of consular buildings and archives, even if it should be true that the Serbians and Russians were guilty of similar violations before the Turks, the fact remains that the Turks did not respect the inviolability of the French and British archives long before the Saloniki incident or the occurrences in Persia. Moreover, in this connection the Ottoman note totally ignores the main complaint of this Embassy, to wit, the violation by the Turkish authorities of the American consular seals.

(4) As regards restrictions concerning consular correspondence, the note states that this is a general measure. The Minister asserted the same thing some time ago, saying that neither the German nor the Austrian consulates were allowed to correspond in sealed envelopes. I have reason to believe, however, that this is not the case, and moreover know that the said consulates do send and receive cipher telegrams to and from their respective Embassies. It may, however, be stated that Austria and Germany are Turkey’s allies.

(5) As regards the consular interpreters at Jerusalem and Alexandretta, as the American Government has not acquiesced in the abrogation of the capitulations, these employees, regularly appointed and officially recognized, should, in conformity with the regulation ad hoc, be treated as American citizens. But even if for the sake of argument we should admit the abrogation of the capitulations, we will see that the action of the Sublime Porte has been, to say the least, incompatible with international courtesy. In the case of Ashdjian, the Sublime Porte more than once telegraphed to the provincial authorities to exempt him from deportation. These orders were disobeyed. After his deportation, the Minister of the Interior promised the Ambassador to have him returned on the ground that there were general instructions not to deport Protestants, and Ashdjian is a Protestant. This promise was never carried out. The note says that these two Ottomans are subject to the Ottoman laws and regulations, but it has not the courtesy to state in what they have acted against the laws or regulations and which Ottoman laws and regulations are applied in such a drastic manner against these two men who have for many years been in the American consular service.

(6) As regards the civil action brought against Mr. Brewster, according to information received by the Embassy the action is brought against him in his official capacity. The complaint is that the consular agent has not given up the keys to the house of the interpreter, keys which the latter at the time of his deportation had confided to the former. Moreover the authorities had forced the store where the goods were and had seized them. These goods, according to said information, belonged neither to Ashdjian nor to any other Armenian. In order to have the matter closed, I had mentioned to the Department the Foreign Minister’s suggestion of handing the keys to the Turkish authorities, but evidently this did not meet with the approval of the Department.

(7) Concerning the penal action against Mr. Brewster, the Turkish authorities claim that the offense is not of a nature in which according to Turkish law the action can be set aside upon the withdrawal by the plaintiff of his claim. The information of the Embassy is otherwise; but owing to the restriction upon consular correspondence the Embassy is not in a position to know all the facts of this case which was considered closed two years ago. But putting aside Mr. Brewster’s official status, the Embassy cannot, under Article 4 of the treaty of 1830, consent to any trial by the Turkish courts of Mr. Brewster even as a private citizen.

The note of the Sublime Porte, however, seeks to assert the abrogation of the capitulations by asking “reciprocity” of [for] Turkish consuls in America in the matter of misdemeanors, but does not wish to extend such exemption to Mr. Brewster on the ground of his not being in the regular career service of the American Government.

I have [etc.]

Hoffman Philip