Under Four Administrations Part 6

I might add that in numerous instances I was able to arrange unofficially with the Grand Vizier matters which threatened to become more or less troublesome. This method of negotiating was peculiarly advantageous at the Porte, where delays were proverbial and so frequently defeated official action. Again, some of the difficulty experienced by my colleagues in getting proper redress for violations, even gross violations, was due to the fact that the Porte was not always able to control the governor-generals of the provinces.

I have said that my trip among our missionary schools included a visit to Cairo. At that time Egypt was still under Turkish sovereignty and questions of larger importance had to be taken up with the Sublime Porte. Thus American questions came under my jurisdiction as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the empire. Our representative at Cairo, John Cardwell, had the t.i.tle of consul-general and diplomatic agent, and had to receive his exequatur from the Sublime Porte. He was a conscientious and capable official who had been there since the beginning of the first Cleveland Administration.

On this trip also I saw much of Anthony M. Keiley and his charming wife; I have spoken of him in a previous chapter as having been rejected for the post of United States minister by Austria-Hungary. Keiley was serving as one of the American judges of the Mixed or Reform Tribunal at Cairo and was highly respected for his ability at this international court.

Mohammed Tewfik, son of the extravagant Ismail of Suez Ca.n.a.l fame, whom he succeeded, was Khedive of Egypt and entertained us during our visit.

He was only thirty-six years old, and without his fez might have been taken for an Englishman. He spoke fluent English and his conversation showed him to be well informed regarding the governments and peoples of Europe. Within an hour after my first call upon him he called with his aide-de-camp upon me at the Hotel Shepheard. He wanted to decorate me, but I informed his aide that under our system we did not permit diplomatic representatives to accept such distinctions; so the next day he sent a lesser decoration to the manager of the hotel, which, it was said, he did in my honor.

A few days later we were invited to lunch with him, and there were also present a number of higher officials. The menu consisted of dishes with such improvised names as "crevettes a l'Americaine," "bombe a la Lincoln," etc. One dish that made a deep impression upon my none-too-keen gastronomic memory was the delicious Egyptian quail, which is larger and plumper than our own. In season the birds migrate from the north and are trapped in great numbers. They could be bought in the markets for a piaster, or less than five cents.

I had frequent conferences with Nubar Pasha, Egypt's foremost statesman.

He was an Armenian educated by Jesuits in France. His knowledge was extensive, and he combined the enlightened viewpoint of a European statesman of the first rank with all the subtlety of an Oriental. It was he who conceived the plan of introducing a legal system and good government in Egypt, and creating the mixed tribunals or international law courts. In the reorganization of Egypt he acted in sympathy with Lord Dufferin's programme and consequently was highly regarded by the British.

With Sir Evelyn Baring, British agent and consul-general in Egypt, afterwards Lord Cromer, I had a pleasant conversation. He was then at the height of his power in the reconstruction of Egypt. Major-General Sir Francis Grenfell, sirdar or commanding general of the Egyptian army, is another memory in connection with that visit.

I regretted that time did not permit my going up the Nile; but like every one with an historical imagination I was immensely impressed with the grandeur and ma.s.sive beauty of the pyramids and the cla.s.sic ruins of ancient Egypt, which with their five thousand or more years of existence have outdistanced all other relics in bringing the handiwork of man down through ages of devastating time.

There was a matter pending at Jerusalem regarding which our Secretary of State had instructed me, and which I thought best to look into personally while on this trip. Foreign Jews were being expelled simply because of their race, and American Jews were being discriminated against along with those of other nations. In the background of this action by Turkey were Russia and Roumania, for since the days of the Spanish Inquisition the Ottoman authorities, with rare exceptions, had been not only tolerant but hospitable to Jewish immigrants. Roumania, contrary to express provisions of the Treaty of Berlin guaranteeing equal political and civil rights to all subjects in this newly created princ.i.p.ality, placed restrictions upon her Jewish subjects, causing a large number to emigrate. And from Russia, following the enforcement of the Ignatieff laws of 1882 (some of them laws that had been on the statute books unenforced for years), there was also a wholesale exodus of persecuted Jews. Most of these people went to America, but some to other countries, including Palestine.

It was the irony of persecution that the Russians who came to Turkey were claimed as subjects by Russia, which entered a protest at the Porte against making them Ottoman subjects. On the other hand, the Russian Patriarch in Turkey and the dignitaries of the Roman Church objected to the settlement of foreign Jews in Palestine. This pressure from powers that Turkey wished to please brought forth the promulgation of a law interdicting all Jews from coming to Palestine for permanent residence.

Besides those from Russia and Roumania, there were a few Jews coming from England and France. And there were a very few coming from America--naturalized citizens.

At the Porte I had taken this matter up with the Grand Vizier. He told me that a regulation was communicated to the Imperial authorities at Jerusalem limiting the stay of foreign Jews there to one month. Later he told me that the Council of Ministers was about to change this limit to three months. He gave as reasons for the existence of any such regulations, first, that at certain times of the year, Easter, for example, religious fanaticism was at so high a pitch that Jews had to remain in their houses to escape attack and perhaps murder at the hands of the Christians. In the second place, it had been reported that the Jews of all the world were planning to strengthen themselves in and around Jerusalem with a view to re-establishing their ancient kingdom at some future time.

I answered that of course the first reason could be done away with by a strong force of police. As for the second, if the Porte would make inquiry it could satisfy itself that there was no such plan among the Jews of the world, that the immigration was caused by the persecution in Russia and Roumania. (This was nine years before the publication of the pamphlet, in 1896, by Dr. Hertzl, from which generated modern Zionism. I shall speak of Dr. Hertzl later.) So far as the American Jews were concerned, I informed the Grand Vizier that it was a fundamental principle of our Government to make no distinction of race or creed among our citizens, and that we had consistently denied to foreign nations that right over our citizens, as the provisions in our treaties with the Ottoman Empire showed. To all of this the Grand Vizier replied simply that should any American be expelled he would carefully consider my arguments and give instructions accordingly.

On communicating with our consul-general at Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, I learned that he had taken the same position, and that to date no American citizen had been expelled; also that the American consulate was the only one which had refused aid to the authorities in the expulsion of foreign Jews, and our representative was not being made very comfortable for this non-cooperation with the local government. Here the matter stood when I left Constantinople.

There were a number of other vexatious questions pending between the vali at Jerusalem and Mr. Gillman, and I deemed it good policy to show my resentment to the vali for his arbitrary methods. I declined the courtesy of the official conveyance with which he sent one of his aides to Jaffa to meet me and my family and take us to Jerusalem. We took a Cook's conveyance, stopped overnight at Ramleh, and next day drove over the hills of Judea to Jerusalem, where Mr. Gillman conducted us to comfortable quarters at a hotel outside the walls.

Scarcely had I arrived at the hotel when a huge delegation of Jews, men and women, some with infants in their arms, came to plead with me to obtain the release of relatives and friends who had been put in prison by the vali or governor because they had come to settle there. I had known of the troubled conditions in Jerusalem because of the immigration of the Jews; but until my arrival there I was not aware of the imprisonment of these people. More than four hundred of them were being held in prison awaiting deportation.

Instead of calling on the vali as ordinarily would have been proper, I sent a note to him through the consul demanding the immediate release of the immigrants who, I claimed, were being imprisoned contrary to our treaty as well as the treaties of Great Britain, France, and other powers; I said that I should decline to call upon him until this injustice was righted by such release; and that, further, unless my request was promptly complied with I should appeal to the Sublime Porte for his removal.

I felt authorized to take so drastic a step by reason of the negotiations I had had with the Grand Vizier and in view of our treaty and the treaties of several of the powers I have referred to. I obtained the desired result. The vali communicated my message to the Porte, and the Grand Vizier instructed him to comply with my request. Within twenty-four hours all the prisoners were released.

The following morning there was a delegation of several thousand people outside my hotel, who had come to express their grat.i.tude. They presented me with a beautifully embossed memorial, the text of which, translated, reads:

With delight of soul we bring to thee, O Sir, glory of our people, the blessing of our community, the congregations of Israel dwelling in Zion and in all the cities of the Holy Land,

THE BLESSING OF MAZZOL TOV (good fortune)

because the Lord G.o.d of Israel has raised thee to fame and glory and has given to thee a seat of honor among the mighty of the earth. And we lift our hands to the Holy Sanctuary (praying) that thy horn be exalted with honor and splendor, and that thou be given the strength and the power to exalt the horn of Israel, thy people, to speak in their favor before the throne of the Government--may its glory increase!--and that thou continue in thy honored office for many days, until he (the messiah) shall come unto Shiloh "and unto him shall the obedience of the people be"--soon, in our days, amen!

Such is the blessing of those who respect and honor thee in accordance with thy high and exalted station.

The leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem--may it be built and established in our days!

It is signed with the seals and signatures of Rafail Meir Panisel (Haham Bashi), chief rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in Jerusalem, and Samuel Salant, chief rabbi of the Ashken.a.z.im, Perushim, and Hasidim in Jerusalem.

Now I called upon the vali, who received me very graciously and with great courtesy. I thanked him for his prompt compliance with my request, and expressed the hope that, inasmuch as I had an understanding with the Porte that no discrimination was to be made against Jewish immigrants to Jerusalem, I should not in future have to complain of any infringement upon this understanding, otherwise I should again be compelled to take drastic action. I called his attention to the treaties referred to, of which he had had no previous knowledge.

I stopped to make some official calls, accompanied by the consul and his staff. As is customary when high officials go through the streets of the Holy City, several halberdiers of the vali preceded, to give distinction to the party as well as protection and a clear pa.s.sage through the crowds. I could remain in Jerusalem only three or four days, however, for I had to catch the steamer that stopped at Alexandretta and Smyrna, where I wanted to confer with our consuls.

Upon my return to Constantinople my French and British colleagues were much pleased at my having secured the release of the Jewish immigrants in Palestine. They had received, through their foreign offices, expressions of appreciation and grateful acknowledgment from such organizations as the Anglo-Jewish a.s.sociation of London, and the Alliance Israelite of Paris.

[Ill.u.s.tration: TESTIMONIAL GIVEN TO MR. STRAUS IN JERUSALEM IN APPRECIATION OF THE RELEASE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED PRISONERS]

The next step in the development of this question was a communication received by our State Department from Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish minister at Washington, informing the Department of a change, indeed, of the time limit from one month to three for the sojourn of Jews in Jerusalem, with the proviso, however, "that they are going to Jerusalem in the performance of a pilgrimage, and not for the purpose of engaging in commerce or taking up their residence there."

This communication was received while I was on my trip, and Secretary Bayard forwarded it to me with the instruction that I take up the subject with the Ottoman Government as follows:

To require of applicants for pa.s.sports, which under our laws are issued to all citizens upon the sole evidence of their citizenship, any announcement of their religious faith or declaration of their personal motives in seeking such pa.s.sports, would be utterly repugnant to the spirit of our inst.i.tutions and to the intent of the solemn proscription forever by the Const.i.tution of any religious test as a qualification of the relations of the citizen to the Government, and would, moreover, a.s.sume an inquisitorial function in respect of the personal affairs of the individual, which this Government can not exert for its own purposes, and could still less a.s.sume to exercise with the object of aiding a foreign Government in the enforcement of an objectionable and arbitrary discrimination against certain of our citizens.

Our adherence to these principles has been unwavering since the foundation of our Government, and you will be at no loss to cite pertinent examples of our consistent defense of religious liberty, which, as I said in my note to Baron Schaeffer of May 18, 1885, in relation to the Keiley episode at Vienna, "is the chief corner-stone of the American system of Government, and provisions for its security are embedded in the written charter and interwoven in the moral fabric of its laws."

I received this upon my return. Secretary Bayard asked me also to ascertain the views of my colleagues respecting this irade, and I found them willing and ready to take it up with the Porte in a manner similar to the instructions I had received.

I called on Sad Pasha and left with him a note in accordance with my instructions, and I sent a copy of this note to the French and British amba.s.sadors. They in turn each advised the Ministry that they could not admit of regulations prejudicial to the existing rights of their subjects as secured by treaties. And here for a time the matter rested.

Several months later three American Jews were expelled from Jerusalem because they had not left the city at the expiration of three months, and again the question had to be taken up with the Porte. This time Sad Pasha replied that the restrictions with regard to the three Americans had been ordered withdrawn, "the Sublime Porte having lately decided that the measure concerning the Israelites going to Palestine shall not be applied but to those who emigrate in number (_en nombre_), and that no obstacle shall be opposed to the sojourn of those who are not in this cla.s.s."

This, like most other questions that arose between the Ottoman Government and our own, could not be settled for any length of time by principle, law, or treaty. Such doc.u.ments might be used as reminders of agreements once reached, but in Turkey they do not of themselves direct policies or action. Drummond Wolff had advised being "patient, pleasant, persistent," to which I would add: eternally vigilant.

On the whole, the interests of the United States throughout the Ottoman Empire were peculiar, in that the majority of the complaints related to personal, as distinct from commercial, rights. I have said in an earlier chapter that some of the questions at issue, especially those involving extraterritoriality, grew out of capitulations dating back over four hundred years, to the conquest of Constantinople by the Moslems in 1453.

The terms of these capitulations or "privileges" were made originally between the Greeks and the various Italian city republics--Pisa, Genoa, Venice. The Moslems later embodied them in revised capitulations with France in 1535, 1604, 1673, and 1740; with England in 1583 and 1675; with Holland in 1680; with Austria in 1718; and with Russia in 1783. On these later European capitulations was based our own first treaty with the Sublime Porte in 1830. Practically speaking, therefore, consular jurisdiction in Turkey was then not very different from what it was in the fifteenth century.

When I took office one of the vexatious questions to be settled was the interpretation of Clause IV of the Treaty of 1830. This treaty was negotiated by Charles Rhind, as American commissioner, with Reis Effendi, Turkish representative. Rhind had prepared it, with the help of dragoman Navoni, in French and in Turkish, and when it was finally drawn up, according to Rhind's own report, Reis Effendi "signed and sealed the treaty in Turkish and I did the same with the French translation, and we exchanged them." Thereupon the original Turkish version, together with a copy of the French translation as signed by the American commissioners--President Jackson had appointed Captain James Biddle and David Offley together with Rhind--and several English translations were transmitted to Washington. The treaty actually approved by the Senate was one of the English versions.

Before the ratifications were exchanged the American charge d'affaires at Constantinople, David Porter, received word that the French version was not exactly in agreement with the Turkish. Porter's simple method of correcting this discrepancy was to sign a doc.u.ment, also in the Turkish language, accepting the Turkish version of the treaty without reserve; and when the translation of this doc.u.ment reached Washington nothing further was said.

Indeed, the treaty rested in peace until 1868, when the American minister, acting according to the English version, clashed with the Turkish authorities in the interpretation of Clause IV, regarding jurisdiction over American citizens--in this case two who had been arrested and imprisoned for alleged offenses against the Turkish Government. The English version read:

Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their commerce, and not being charged or convicted of any crime or offence, shall not be molested; and even when they may have committed some offence they shall not be arrested and put in prison, by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their Minister or Consul, and punished according to their offence, following, in this respect, the usage observed towards other Franks.

When our Government proceeded to obtain exact translations of this clause, it was found that the Turkish version did not contain the words "arrested" or "tried," although the phraseology made clear that American citizens were not to be imprisoned in Turkish prisons, but punished through their minister or consul. Consequently, the Turkish authorities could arrest but not imprison, could try but not inflict punishment.

The Turkish Government would not recognize as accurate any of the translations the United States presented. When asked to present a translation of its own, however, the matter was gradually put in abeyance.