Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 5, 1892

Mr. Hirsch to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Constantinople, March 2, 1892. (Received March 22.)

No. 399.]

Sir: My note of January 21 to the Sublime Porte on the subject of American schools in Turkey (of which a copy was sent to you in my No. 379 of January 22) has been followed up by various personal interviews with both his highness the grand vizier, and his excellency the minister of foreign affairs. As in the note, I seized every opportunity to impress upon the minds of the ministers that our schools, having in every particular complied with the law, have an undisputable right to continue their work unmolested, while new schools may be established by American missionaries after having complied with the provisions of Article 129 of the school law of 1869, to which law this legation had given its consent. I refused assent to any new regulation or compliance with any new requirement, such as the recent order contemplates, otherwise the very existence of the schools would be jeopardized. The grand vizier, evidently recognizing our rights under the capitulations and treaties, suggested that he would prefer not to discuss “the principle” of the question, but to otherwise arrive at a satisfactory solution. I assured his highness of my earnest desire to cooperate in so laudable and necessary an effort.

I made a written memorandum of my views as follows:

(1) The presentation as required by Article 129 of the school law, of the books to be used, the programmes of studies to be followed, and the diplomas of the teachers entitles the interested party to open the school within ten days after such presentation, provided the books are found unobjectionable.

(2) Books which have been approved by the ministry of public instruction must be admitted as unobjectionable for all the schools without exception.

(3) Inspectors shall not visit the schools without being accompanied by a notable of the religious community to which the school belongs.

I was asked to strike out at the end of Article 1 the words: “Provided the books are found unobjectionable,” and in their place accept the following: “Provided there is no objection to their being opened.”

This proposition I rejected unconditionally, otherwise objections to opening schools would always be forthcoming.

I was asked to assent to the following provision: “That no Moslem children be admitted into these schools unless they have certificates to show that their religious education has been completed.” This, if consented to, would impose an amount of detective work on the missionaries which should not be required of them; any error in ascertaining the religion of an applicant, however innocently committed, might, and no doubt would, subject the school to being closed; for which (if for no other) reason, I rejected this further proposition. I kept the missionaries informed of my interviews and discussions with the ministers. Rev. Henry O. Dwight, under date of February 24, addressed me a letter, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, in which his views and those of his colleagues on the subject of schools under this recent order are set forth, as also his reasons for objecting to the new attempted requirements on the part of the Ottoman Government. In their personal interviews with me the missionaries have not hesitated to say frankly that in the light of their experience of over sixty years in this Empire, they look upon this attempt on the part, of the Turkish Government as marking the most critical period in the existence of their educational institutions.

Nearly or quite four weeks ago Mr. Fane, the British chargé d’affaires, inquired of me as to our action in this matter. I showed him my note to the Porte, and by request gave him a copy of it for transmission to the foreign office in London (having previously furnished him with a copy of my note of January 9 on the subject of the conversion of dwelling houses into schools and places of worship). In response he received telegraphic instructions to address a note to the Porte of the same tenor as the American note. Mr. Fane was good enough to send me a copy of his note, of which I inclose a duplicate herewith. Although instructed (as he told me) to “follow” the American note, it will be noticed that he possibly surrendered a most vital point, when he said on page 3 “unless a reasonable and acceptable justification is given for the refusal of the required authorization.” I should state, however, that in the letter accompanying the note I was informed that it had not yet been approved by the foreign office.

The French ambassador, as the protector of the Catholic schools here, has also for some time been discussing this subject with the Porte. He is quite reticent, but I have it from a very reliable source that he has refused to yield any point to the Turkish demand.

The present action on the part of the Turkish Government in this matter is generally believed here to be an effort to destroy the usefulness of the foreign schools in this Empire (of which the American schools form by far the greatest part). It is in keeping with the reactionary spirit in vogue here now. Unless properly met this question will be a troublous one for years to come, while a firm stand now will in my judgment have favorable results. I do not think that any vital concession should be made.

I will keep the Department advised of any further developments.

I have, etc.,

Solomon Hirsch.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 399.]

Mr. Dwight to Mr. Hirsch.

Constantinople, February 24, 1892.

Dear Sir: Referring to our conversation of Friday last, on the rights claimed by American missionaries in Turkey, I desire to thank you for myself and for my associates for your patient interest in our opinions on this subject.

At the same time I beg leave to offer in writing the objections which I then orally expressed to the recent proposals of his highness the grand vizier. As I remember them, these proposals are in brief, first, that after the American schools have submitted to official inspection and control their books and course of study the Ottoman Government shall authorize them, unless it sees reasons which will justify a refusal to do so, and, second, that these schools shall accept as a condition of their existence the obligation to refuse admission to pupils of the Mohammedan religion who have not provided themselves with a special form of permit.

Upon the first of these proposals I would say: The essential point of the complaints relating to American schools, with which it has been my unpleasant duty during the last six or seven years to beset the United States legation, is that officials of the Turkish Government have claimed the right, when they think they see sufficient reason to justify the action, to close American schools or to refuse to allow them to be established. The proposal now referred to aims at the perpetuation, by formal agreement, of the state of affairs which has already given rise to so just complaints.

I would consider the acceptance of this proposal as against public policy, because it tends in an incidental and inconsequent manner to the abrogation of important clauses of the capitulations. The capitulations carefully reserve to the United States Government the right of revising and, in case of need, of staying the execution of orders of Turkish officials, or even of Turkish courts, which touch the persons or the personal property of Americans established in Turkey.

But this proposal, by giving to the Turkish Government the right to deal directly and finally with the educational system established in this country by Americans and by American capital, contemplates the surrender of that reservation so far as concerns those Americans who are engaged in teaching in Turkey. Again, the capitulations having fixed the general duties and obligations of Americans residing in Turkey, it is an admitted principle that new regulations prescribing new obligations can be applied to them by mutual agreement only.

But this proposal is in effect a proposal that in respect to the enterprises of American teachers residing in Turkey the Sublime Porte shall henceforth be free to make new regulations or otherwise modify the status quo without the previous consent of the United States Government. The wide results possible to be derived from the establishment of precedents of this nature need not be dwelt upon in detail.

A wide experience justifies distrust of the qualifications of Turkish provincial authorities for the exercise of judicial functions like those proposed to be intrusted to them by this proposal. The Turkish Government itself shows similar distrust, by giving them power to close, but none at all to open, a school. In 1884, when the demand was first made that Americans should, as a matter of form, apply for permits for their existing schools, some such applications were made. In several of these cases the application led to the immediate closing of the school, showing that the request for a permit was regarded as conferring the right to refuse the request. Observation of the character of the reasons found sufficient in the past to justify the closing of American schools leads to the same distrust. American schools have been closed on the avowed ground that the people have enough schools, that some notable does not wish the school to continue, that the founders of the school are Protestants, that the number of pupils who wish to attend does not warrant the school, that the owners of the school permit the schoolhouse to be used for religious worship on Sunday, that American ideas are dangerous, etc. The mental state which allows such reasons to appear sufficient to justify the suppression of an educational enterprise carried on in conformity to the laws of the Empire is not comprehensible to the western mind. Especially is this difficulty felt on looking at the simple and liberal principle which, as the immutable law of the Empire, authorizes in the hatti humayoun of 1856 the free opening of schools, only reserving to the Government the right of inspection and control over the method of instruction and the choice of teachers.

The school law of 1869, based upon this charter, fixes the only condition which can legally justify refusal of the authorities to allow the school, when it says that schools shall be authorized which submit to, and schools shall be closed which refuse to submit to, the official inspection and control of the books in use, the course of study followed, and the choice of teachers to be employed. For the sole reason that the law and the hatti humayoun are thus precise, it is my opinion that the proposal which contemplates other possible justifications of the closing of a school should be firmly rejected.

It is true that the school law of 1869 has never been observed in the practice of the provincial officials save as a means to close schools. I have never known a case where a permit for a school was granted on the fulfillment of those conditions alone which are laid down in the law, and I have never known a case where a permit for a school was granted on any conditions, in the manner prescribed by the law, namely, by the provincial authorities, without reference of the question to the overburdened departments at the capital. But this is a reason the more for insisting that if Americans are to suffer the disadvantage of having books forbidden to them under this law which are deemed essential in any other country which has schools, they should also have the advantage of enjoying, under this law, freedom from other interference with their educational work.

It is difficult to appreciate the grounds on which the proposed modification of the privileges now enjoyed by American teachers is deemed necessary. In 1885 and 1886 the declaration was repeatedly made by the ministry of public instruction that the only change sought to be introduced in the then existing usages of the American schools was to secure, in view of the fact that they instruct Ottoman subjects, the inspection and control required by the law of 1869. The promise was made, if I mistake not, to the United States legation that if these schools submitted to the desired control there would be no further molestation of them. The schools submitted to the control, and, notwithstanding the loss inefficiency produced by stringent censorship and rejection of essential books, the wishes of the Government inspectors have been loyally followed ever since. The Turkish Government is, therefore, secured against the giving of instruction in these schools which it deems morally or politically dangerous.

Concerning the second of the proposals of his highness the grand vizier, I believe I have already shown why it may not be legally made a condition of the existence of the American schools. The American missionaries would not be willing to accept the proposal that they be under obligations to exclude Mohammedan pupils from their schools, for the following reasons:

Leaving out of sight the interest of the schools in continuing to enjoy the patronage of a class of the population commonly eager to pay for an education, and the fatal objection to the proposal found in the fact that it would make the school teachers become inquisitors and detectives of the Government to ferret out the real religious views of the applicants for admission, there are yet other insurmountable objections.

(1) Appreciable numbers of pagans yet exist in the empire. They neither accept Mohammedanism nor affiliate with Mohammedans. They do not receive acceptance and fellowship from their Mohammedan neighbors. Yet the Government officially declares them to be Mohammedans and is making strenuous efforts to force them to become so. The schools of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States which are located in northern Syria have numbers of these pagans in their classes. Should the proposal to reject Mohammedan pupils from American schools be adopted it would lead to instant contest over the religious belongings of these pupils and might result in the closing of an educational work among these people which has prospered during thirty years.

(2) The acceptance of a religious test as a standard for the rejection of pupils, implies assent to the setting aside of the Ottoman law that all religious communions are of equal rights and that no man may be molested on account of his religious belief.

(3) The admission of the privilege of American missionaries to instruct Ottoman subjects in their schools is the ground on which these schools have been multiplied in all parts of Turkey. To admit now that the Turkish Government may enjoin these schools from receiving one class of Ottoman subjects is the same thing as admitting that it may forbid their receiving any class of the very people for whose education they have been founded and who show such readiness to enter upon their advantage.

I can not refrain from adding that the impression is growing in my mind concerning this whole question, that certain officials show a tendency to regard the repression of education among the Christian subjects of Turkey as a political necessity. If this impression is correct it fully justifies protest against intrusting to such officials the decision of the reasons which may validly warrant the closing of American schools.

I can only hint, in closing, at far greater than American interests which may be compromised by the acceptance of innovations that propose to limit by the will of the Ottoman officials the freedom of education among the non-Moslem people of Turkey, now guaranteed by treaty. It does not belong to the United States Government to concern itself with the state of any class of Turkish subjects; yet my sympathy with the desire for intellectual and moral progress visible among all classes of the people of Turkey leads me to remark that even with the most liberal intentions Mohammedan officials can hardly avoid being influenced by prejudice in deciding the amount of culture essential to the well being of non-Moslem communities. Where any bias of narrow bigotry exists officials intrusted with such far-reaching powers, might do much to destroy higher education among those classes of the population which dissent from the established faith of the Empire.

Trusting that I have said enough to justify the opinion that the two proposals here considered should be rejected, I remain, etc.,

Henry O. Dwight.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 399.]

Note verbale of Her Brittanic Majesty’s embassy at Constantinople to the Sublime Porte (No. 16, February 13, 1892).

Her Majesty’s embassy has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Sublime Porte’s note verbale No. 64, of the 17th August last, in which it is stated that it sometimes happens that missionaries have converted their private houses without authorization into churches or schools; that it has been decided that in future such a transformation shall be prevented and that instructions in this sense have been sent to the local authorities.

In reply Her Majesty’s embassy, acting upon instructions received from Her Majesty’s Government, begs to point out to the Sublime Porte that it maintains as a fundamental principle inherent in and protected by the capitulations and treaties that missionaries possess the right to worship according to the rites of their several denominations in their houses and upon their premises so long as the rights of others and the public order be not thereby trenched upon or disturbed, and it is therefore presumed that the note verbale of August 17th was not animated by an intention to curtail or infringe upon this the most necessary right of British missionaries.

As regards the provisions of the order recently issued by the ministry of public instruction, relating to the building, founding, and opening of schools in the Ottoman Empire, which has come under the notice of Her Majesty’s embassy, it appears expedient, in order to avoid any future misapprehension, that the views of Her Majesty’s Government should be clearly stated upon the position of schools founded by British missionaries and the restrictions under which they are legally controlled.

Her Majesty’s Government have always fully recognized the conditions imposed by the one hundred and twenty-ninth article of the law of public instruction based upon the hatti humayoun of 1856, according to which article authorization for the founding of a school will, on application being made, be given in the provinces by the governor-general and the academic council, and at Constantinople by the ministry of public instruction, on condition of the diplomas of the teachers, the course of study, and the class books being submitted for approval of the ministry of public instruction or of the academic council of the district, unless a reasonable and acceptable justification is given for the refusal of the required authorization. Under these conditions, therefore, Her Majesty’s Government claim for British subjects the right hitherto exercised of opening schools throughout the Ottoman Empire which are and ever have been under the protection of Her Majesty’s Government.

The attention of the Sublime Porte is also called to the circular letter of the minister of public instruction of December 28, 1886, and to his highness Kiamil Pacha’s vizieriat circular of later date, by which the provincial authorities are distinctly instructed to permit the schools to continue their work unmolested, and that schools already established which have complied with the necessary conditions are not to be closed for lack of official permits, while any complaints made by the provincial authorities against delinquent schools must be referred to the ministry of public instruction before any action is taken against them.

In offering the above observations to the Sublime Porte, Her Majesty’s Government trust that the recent circular of the minister of public instruction may not be misinterpreted so as to infringe upon the rights of British subjects secured to them by treaties, and that instructions may at once be sent to the local authorities to prevent any illegal molestation of British missionaries in their religious and educational pursuits.