390D.1163/4
The Consul General at Beirut (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 8.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose copies of correspondence of this office53 in connection with the request of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, an evangelical mission operating in the Djebel Druze and the Hauran, for permission to construct a church and school building at Tesia, Hauran. It will be noted that the French High Commission, in its note of April 1, 1938, has refused this permission on the ground that an extension of the work of the Christian and Missionary Alliance might tend to create troubles among the various elements of the population of that region.
During the past several years, it may be added, the French authorities have apparently regarded with disfavor this particular mission, and have previously refused permission for the erection of a building in Soueida, capital city of the Djebel Druze. The reason given in that instance was the same as that mentioned above.
It is somewhat difficult to express a definite opinion as to the validity of the reason given for refusal of permission to extend the work of this American mission. The Reverend George W. Breaden, who is in charge of the work, reports that both Greek Orthodox and French Catholic organizations have been permitted to establish churches and schools during the period over which his requests have been consistently refused. While I know of no reason to doubt his statement, I have not been able to confirm it.
[Page 1044]It is of course known to the Department that the Mandatory authorities have, especially since 1926, regarded the situation in the Djebel Druze as delicate, and have been desirous of avoiding any action which might offend the susceptibilities of the Druzes, or give rise to disorder. The Reverend George Breaden appears to be a rather aggressive type of evangelizer, and it is not at all impossible that the fears of the High Commission in regard to his work may be well founded. On one occasion at least, he recounted to an officer of the Consulate General the story of one of his converts, formerly a Moslem, who did not dare return to his native village lest he be killed for having abandoned his original faith. French officials of the High Commission have hinted verbally at the possibility that the resentment of the native elements might take the form of physical aggression against the missionary himself, which would create an extremely embarrassing situation.
Under these circumstances the Consulate General has not felt justified in pressing its request, and the representatives of the Christian and Missionary Alliance have refrained from further insistence. In the present instance, however, the Reverend W. Orville Brooks, in charge of the work during Mr. Breaden’s absence, has, in his letter of May 25, 1938, asked that the High Commission be again approached in the matter.
It is therefore considered advisable, before reaching a decision regarding the course to be pursued, to request an expression of the Department’s opinion as to whether the Consulate General should accept the decision of the French High Commission, or should make further representations in behalf of the American organization.
At the same time it would be appreciated if the Department would indicate to the Consulate General, for its future guidance, the interpretation which it places on Article 10 of the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon,54 the first paragraph of which reads as follows:
“The supervision exercised by the Mandatory over the religious missions in Syria and the Lebanon shall be limited to the maintenance of public order and good government; the activities of these religious missions shall in no way be restricted, nor shall their members be subjected to any restrictive measures on the ground of nationality, provided their activities are confined to the domain of religion.”
In general, the Mandatory authorities appear to interpret this paragraph as applying to religious missions already existing or operating in the mandated territory at the time the Mandate came into effect. In other words, they consider that the Mandatory is bound to permit the continued operation, without restriction, of existing missions, but may exercise its discretion with regard to extension of the work of [Page 1045] such missions, or the establishment of new missions. This attitude is indicated by the fact that the authorization of the French High Commission must be obtained in each case when an existing mission desires to acquire property or establish new churches or schools, or when a new mission desires to begin work in this territory.
It should be noted that only in very infrequent instances has the High Commission refused requests of American missions for extensions of their work, and that there has been no indication of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Nevertheless, it would be of interest to know whether the Department is in agreement with the French interpretation of the article above quoted, or whether it desires in all cases to insist upon the right of any established religious community to found and operate missions in the States under French Mandate.
Respectfully yours,
- None printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 743.↩