In 1886 the American legation at Constantinople complained that the Rev. Dr. Herrick, an American missionary, who had gone to Kastamouni to administer sacrament to Protestants residing there, has been prevented from holding services in a house rented by the American mission. The legation represented this as "a serious violation of the privileges enjoyed by Americans for the last sixty years of holding religious service in their own houses and in having the freedom to receive visitors." The house in question was, it appears, in charge of a Rev. Mr. Filian, who, though partly supported by the mission, was an Ottoman subject. The Turkish government declared that the prevention of Mr. Herrick from holding service merely resulted from the circumstance that Filian had, because of proselyting, been ordered to close his establishment, which had originally been opened without permission, and that the "sojourn of foreigners and the religious services of the various creeds" had "never been hindered in the empire." There appeared to be no dispute as to this general rule, but only a difference of opinion as to whether it had been infringed in the particular case.

Mr. King, chargé ad int., to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. 257, Oct. 19, 1886, For. Rel. 1887, 1079; Mr. King to Sublime Porte, Oct. 18, 1886, id. 1082; Mr. Bayard to Mr. King, No. 171, Nov. 11, 1886, id. 1082 ; Said Pasha to Mr. King, Jan. 26, 1887, id. 1091. See, also, id. 1091, 1114, 1115.

"In the latter part of 1886 and the early part of 1887, the subject of the rights of foreigners to teach and worship in the dominions of Turkey without interference or molestation was distinctly asserted and as distinctly recognized. Mr. Bayard's instruction, No. 7, to Mr. Straus, under date of April 20, 1887, ably presents the unimpeachable grounds upon which this government successfully rested its claim that the right of American citizens to receive into their hospitals and schools persons of Turkish nationality rests not alone on the specific stipulations of treaty and the capitulations, but on long usage, amounting, from duration and from the incidents assigned to it by law, to a charter. That correspondence further shows the arrangement affected by Mr. King with the Turkish authorities, by which the natives of the empire were to benefit by the beneficent and educational opportunities afforded by the missionaries of the United States in Turkey. The rights of foreigners in the matter of worship rest on even more unassailable grounds; so much so that, in the course of centuries of constant exercise, they had never been seriously questioned. It is not to be supposed that they can now be called in question; they certainly can not be impaired by introducing a distinction

between public and private worship, or by raising question whether the place of worship is to be regarded as a dwelling or a temple. Its only relation to the subject now under consideration is as regards the circumstances under which those rights may be exercised.

"Any conditions affecting such exercise must necessarily be legitimate, usual, precise, and readily fulfilled. It would be impossible to admit any arbitrary criterion by which the rights and teaching and worship of and by foreigners in Turkey may be circumscribed and rendered null at the whim of the authorities by the imposition of unusual or difficult conditions.

"Neither should the merits of the question be clouded by such hairsplitting issues as that now raised by the contention that the exercise of an assured right in the dwelling house of a foreigner'converts' the dwelling to some different but equally legitimate use."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, min. to Turkey, Dec. 14, 1891,
For. Rel. 1892, 527.

For the instruction of Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, No. 7, April 20, 1887,
above cited, see supra, § 870.

A private dwelling is no more to be regarded as "converted" into a church or school merely by worship or teaching therein than into a public ball-room or hotel by a private entertainment given to friends and acquaintances. On the other hand, a meeting gathered together in a private residence by a general though oral invitation to the neighborhood might under certain circumstances be considered as a public meeting, and the continued repetition of such meetings might justify the description of the house as a place of public worship. (Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. MacNutt, No. 249, Oct. 1, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, 757.)

For the complaint of the Porte, August 17, 1891, that missionaries converted their dwellings into churches and schools without proper authorization, see For. Rel. 1891, 755.

See, further, as to this question, For. Rel. 1892, 527, 530, 534.

For an extended and interesting report upon American schools in Turkey and the difficulties that had arisen concerning them, see Mr. King, chargé, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. 276, Jan. 11, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1083-1089.

While Great Britain, under the treaty of Berlin, has a conventional right to intercede in behalf of larger religious toleration as regards non-Mohammedan sects in the Ottoman dominions, the treaty rights of the United States are limited to the interests and immunities of American citizens. The right of the United States to press its views in regard to civil and religious liberty upon other governments is necessarily limited not only by treaties but also by its established rule of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations. The interests of native Christians in Turkey are, however, in one sense associated with the legitimate enterprises of American citizens in the direction of education and worship, and the United States expects

for American teachers and pastors no less latitude in their intercourse with native Christians than is enjoyed by like teachers and pastors of the most-favored nation.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, No. 254, Oct. 26, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 781.

This instruction related to a request of the British ambassador at Constantinople for the cooperation of the American minister to secure greater freedom of worship for native Protestants in Turkey. It was observed in the instruction that the claim of most-favored-nation treatment in all things might indirectly advance the purposes of the British ambassador, but the extent to which this could be "hopefully done was left to the "wise discretion of the American minister. (Ibid.)

་་

9. ARMENIAN DIFFICULTIES.

§ 874.

"I have received a copy of the following resolution of the Senate, passed on the 3d instant:

"Resolved, That the President be requested, if in his judgment it be not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate any information he may have received in regard to alleged cruelties committed upon Armenians in Turkey, and especially whether any such cruelties have been committed upon citizens who have declared their intention to become naturalized in this country, or upon persons because of being Christians.

"And, further, to inform the Senate whether any expostulations have been addressed by this government to the government of Turkey in regard to such matters, or any proposals made by or to this government to act in concert with other Christian powers regarding the same.'

"In response to said resolution, I beg leave to inform the Senate that I have no information concerning cruelties committed upon Armenians in Turkey or upon persons because of their being Christians, except such information as has been derived from newspaper reports and statements emanating from the Turkish government. denying such cruelties and two telegraphic reports from our minister at Constantinople.

"One of these reports, dated November 28, 1894, is in answer to an inquiry by the State Department touching reports in the press alleging the killing of Armenians, and is as follows:

Reports in American papers of Turkish atrocities at Sassoun are sensational and exaggerated. The killing was in a conflict between armed Armenians and Turkish soldiers. The grand vizier says it was necessary to suppress insurrection and that about fifty

H. Doc. 551-vol 5-53

Turks were killed. Between three and four hundred Armenian guns were picked up after the fight, and reports that about that number of Armenians were killed. I give credit to his statement.'

"The other dispatch referred to is dated December 2, 1894, and is as follows:

"Information from British ambassador indicates far more loss of lives in Armenia, attended with atrocities, than stated in my telegram of 28th.'

"I have received absolutely no information concerning any cruelties committed upon citizens who have declared their intention to become naturalized in this country' or upon any persons who had a right to claim or have claimed for any reason the protection of the United States government.

"In the absence of such authentic detailed knowledge on the subject as would justify our interference, no expostulations have been addressed by this government to the government of Turkey in regard to such matters.'

"The last inquiry contained in the resolution of the Senate touching these alleged cruelties seeks information concerning any proposals made by or to this Government to act in concert with other Christian powers regarding the same.'

"The first proposal of the kind referred to was made by the Turkish government, through our minister, on the 30th day of November, when the Sultan expressed a desire that a consul of the United States be sent with a Turkish commission to investigate these alleged atrocities on Armenians. This was construed as an invitation on the part of the Turkish government to actually take part with a Turkish commission in an investigation of these affairs and any report to be made thereon, and the proposition came before our minister's second dispatch was received, and at a time when the best information in the possession of our government was derived from its first report, indicating that the statements made in the press were sensational and exaggerated, and that the atrocities alleged really did not exist. This condition very much weakened any motive for an interference based on considerations of humanity, and permitted us, without embarrassment, to pursue a course plainly marked out by other controlling incidents.

"By a treaty entered into at Berlin in the year 1878, between Turkey and various other governments, Turkey undertook to guarantee protection to the Armenians, and agreed that it would 'periodically make known the steps taken to this effect to the powers, who will superintend their application.'

"Our government was not a party to this treaty, and it is entirely obvious that, in the face of the provisions of such treaty above recited, our interference in the proposed investigation, especially without the

invitation of any of the powers which had assumed by treaty obligations to secure the protection of these Armenians, might have been exceedingly embarrassing, if not entirely beyond the limits of justification or propriety.

"The Turkish invitation to join the investigation set on foot by that government was, therefore, on the 2d day of December, declined. On the same day, and after this declination had been sent, our minister at Constantinople forwarded his second dispatch, tending to modify his former report as to the extent and character of Armenian slaughter. At the same time the request of the Sultan for our participation in the investigation was repeated, and Great Britain, oneof the powers which joined in the treaty of Berlin, made a like request.

"In view of changed conditions, and upon reconsideration of the subject, it was determined to send Mr. Jewett, our consul at Sivas, to the scene of the alleged outrages, not for the purpose of joining with any other government in an investigation and report, but to the end that he might be able to inform this government as to the exact truth.

"Instructions to this effect were sent to Mr. Jewett, and it is supposed he has already entered upon the duty assigned him."

President Cleveland, message to the Senate, Dec. 11, 1894, S. Ex. Doc. 11, 53 Cong. 3 sess.; For. Rel. 1894, 714.

66

Art. LXI. of the Treaty of Berlin, referred to in the message, provides:
'The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the
improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the
provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security
against the Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically make known
the steps taken to this effect to the powers, who will superintend
their application." (Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, IV. 2796.)

The Turkish government, when advised of the intention of the United States to send Mr. Jewett as an independent investigator, and not as a member of the Turkish commission, objected on the ground. that if this privilege should be granted to the United States it would be claimed by the parties to the treaty of Berlin, and the investigation would thus assume a European character. Permission to Mr. Jewett to go in an independent capacity having been refused, it was decided not to press the matter further.

For. Rel. 1894, 723, 725.

December 19, 1895, President Cleveland communicated to the Senate, with a special message, a report of Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, on the condition of affairs in Asiatic Turkey. He referred to the failure, mentioned in his annual message of December 3, 1895, of the proposal of the United States for an independent investigation on its part of the occurrences at Sassoun in August, 1894. The facts