it has been stated by american officials in 1895 and 1896 that the missionaries, having forced themselves into turkey against the will of the government, had no legal rights there and no claim to protection. the officials who made these statements must have been wilfully ignoring the facts of recent history. the missionaries were supported and encouraged by the three sultans, mahmud the strong, abd-ul-medjid the weak, and abd-ul-aziz the weaker. they stand on a firm basis of treaties, special enactments, and concessions,—a basis in which the present sultan, with all his acuteness and his hatred of mission work, could find no flaw. had it been possible to argue with a shadow of plausibility that the mission was against the law, or that it was not guaranteed by enactments inviolable even by a sultan protected by the six powers, the property would have been destroyed and the mission silenced. the attempt was made, but failed; and the action of officials who destroyed mission property at kharput, etc., was ostensibly disowned.
further, the action of strong, free american life in turkey must always tend to strengthen the movement there towards that freer and more elastic order which belongs to all the english speaking peoples. but, though the mission work has, undoubtedly, exerted a great influence on the political situation in turkey, the mission policy has studiously and consistently been non-political, and has zealously inculcated the doctrine of non-resistance and obedience to the existing government.
—prof. w. m. ramsay, d. c. l.
in preface of “impressions of turkey.”
[pg 241]
the right to exercise their functions as a class possessing special privileges had been granted to ecclesiastics of christian nations by the voluntary extension of the edict of toleration of 1453 given by the ottoman government after the fall of constantinople. turkish usage for nearly four hundred years was the warrant for the entrance of american missionaries into the country and their assurance of immunity from official molestation.
they entered without diplomatic negotiations between the united states and turkey. not, indeed, till ten years after american missionaries had begun work in turkey was the first treaty between the united states and that country concluded. previous to that time the missionaries were protected by england, which had treaties with the ottoman government conceding extra-territorial rights to all british subjects. the sublime porte did not seem to recognize any difference between an english subject and an american citizen for all were “frank christians” to him, hence the protection afforded was ample.
it cannot be predicted as in the case of most countries how many and what ordinary international rights will be conceded to foreigners by the ottoman government. rights in turkey are based not upon any principle of international law usually prevailing between christian nations but upon special treaties which bear the name of “capitulations” and “concessions.” intercourse of the christian world with mohammedan countries does not proceed according to the law of [pg 242] nations. international law as practised by the civilized nations of christendom is an outgrowth from the communion of ideas existing between them and rests upon a common conception of justice and right. between the mohammedans and the christian nations of europe and america there exists no such common idea or principle from which could result a true international law. relations one with the other have, therefore, to be regulated by special “capitulation” or “concession” granted by the ruler of the mohammedan country.
for this reason, even to the present time, the law of nations as known and practised throughout christendom has not been applied in the relations existing between turkey and the christian powers. but ever since the sublime porte, under stress of circumstances, began to abandon most reluctantly and by slow degrees its ancient usages towards other nations, and imperfectly to adopt those of christendom, its rule of international conduct has gradually approached that of europe.
a capitulation on the part of the turkish empire is regarded by the sultan and his associates as a concession to foreigners, which they have a right at any time to annul or destroy if, in their judgment, such annulment or destruction is for their advantage. the sultan does not wish to consider a capitulation as imposing a perpetual obligation upon him or his officials. it is a privilege rendered foreign powers which can be withdrawn without notice and without explanation. only in view of these facts can the treatment of missionaries and other foreigners by the officials of turkey be understood.
the porte has agreed at various times to exercise no preference towards any of the states with which it has treaties, but to make them all [pg 243] share alike in the benefits of the provisions contained in the treaties it has entered into with each. in all its treaties of commerce since 1861, the expressed statement is, “that all the rights, privileges, or immunities which the sublime porte now grants or may hereafter grant to the subjects, vessels, commerce, or navigation of any other foreign power, the enjoyment of which it shall tolerate, shall be likewise accorded and the exercise of the enjoyment of the same shall be allowed, to the subjects, ships, commerce, and navigation of the other powers.” it is evident from this quotation that every nation holding treaty with turkey has equal rights and privileges with those of any nation treating with the ottoman government.
without dwelling at length upon the various treaties and the steps which led to their formation, it will suffice to say that these include, among many other things, the following privileges:
permission to foreigners who come upon moslem territory freely to navigate the waters and enter the ports of the same, whether for devotion and pilgrimage to the holy places, or for trading in the exportation and importation of every kind of unprohibited goods. exception is made, however, with reference to the hejaz province in which the two holy cities of islam are located.
freedom to follow on moslem ground one’s own habits and customs, and perform the rites and fulfil the duties of one’s own religion.
right of foreigners to be judged by the ambassadors and consuls of their respective governments in suits both civil and criminal, between one another, and the obligation of the local authorities to render aid to the consul in enforcing his decision and judgment concerning the same. [pg 244]
inviolability of foreigners’ domiciles and, in event of urgent necessity for arresting a delinquent, obligation of government officials not to enter the dwelling-place of a foreigner without having previously notified the ambassador or consul, and unless accompanied by him or his deputy.
these statements are sufficient to show that merchant, traveler, and missionary in turkey are there as foreigners, and as such they and their domiciles are under foreign protection. they have the privilege of holding property and of buying and selling the same. mission boards and foreign companies, being foreign corporations, cannot hold property in the empire. all property real and personal is held in the name of an individual. exception is made in the case of the schools which have a firman (imperial irade) or which have obtained formal recognition from the sultan, in which case the institution itself holds the property in its own name, being a recognized chartered institution.
it is well that the missionary and merchant have been and still are independent of the turkish officials, for, with the ignorance of those in the interior and their readiness to play into the hands of every rival or persecuting agency, there would be constant liability to arrest, imprisonment, and even deportation. in spite of the extra-territorial laws, missionaries and merchants repeatedly have been put under arrest for imaginary charges, and otherwise officially annoyed. these difficulties have been met in quietness and overcome without loss of position or prestige. in no instance has a missionary been arrested for an actual crime or misdemeanor. the usual charge against them is that they are plotting against the government, and the officers make attempts to search their houses for documentary evidence [pg 245] and for arms. these various evidences of hostility have not seemed to strain the generally friendly relations existing between the missionaries and the local governments.
perhaps it should be stated here that all foreign capital invested in the country is held in the same way and has the same foreign protection. this is true of all catholic institutions, russian churches, monasteries, and schools, german orphanages, and mercantile warehouses, english residences, and stores,—everything that belongs to foreigners representing foreign capital is under foreign protection.
at the same time it is recognized that the school, hospital, or church which occupies one of these foreign buildings is a foreign institution and as such has, according to the turkish capitulations, special immunities and privileges. all dealings with the turkish government, even to the present time, are based upon this supposition. this does not seem strange or unnatural to the turkish government, which permits the english, german, french, austrian, and other governments to have their own post-offices at constantinople, smyrna, and other ports, in which they sell only their own postage-stamps and conduct all the postal business they can procure.
under treaty rights above quoted, every concession or privilege granted by the sultan to the schools, churches, hospitals, or institutions belonging to england, france, russia, or any other country, belongs by right to american institutions. the fact that america was discriminated against in this respect for many years, and that american institutions were thus deprived of privileges and concessions which had been conceded to similar institutions of several european powers, is well known, both at constantinople, and in the united states. happily these matters have now been adjusted. [pg 246]
after seven years of negotiations, in 1907 the sultan finally conceded in a formal manner the same rights and privileges to american institutions in his dominion which had already been granted to similar institutions of france, russia, germany and other countries; but as yet in most cases this concession exists largely in form, while the actual enjoyment of the privileges is withheld. at the same time insuperable obstacles are thrown in the way of the purchase of real estate by americans and they are even forbidden to improve property which they have already acquired. it is only by eternal vigilance that american interests in turkey can be safeguarded.
