Mr. Hardy to Mr.
Day.
Legation of the United States,
Teheran, Persia, August
8, 1898.
No. 38.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that in the
case of Mihran Bagdasarian, who, as explained in Mr. Tyler’s dispatch
No. 21 of April 21, 1898, was arrested at Salmas and taken to Tabriz, in
violation of treaty rights, on the unfounded charge of being an Armenian
revolutionist, I have to-day received a note from the foreign office
that the governor of Azabaidjan has been ordered by the minister for
foreign affairs to pay over to the said Bagdasarian the sum of 200
tomans, this being the amount of the indemnity claimed by the legation
in his behalf for illegal arrest and detention.
[Page 525]
I beg to add that Mr. Bagdasarian has been in constant trouble since his
arrival in Salmas, both with his colleague in the management of the
orphanage, and with its founder, Dr. Lepsins, of Berlin. Having been
dismissed by the latter and ordered to turn the institution over to his
associate, Mr. Bergmann, he has besieged the legation with letters and
telegrams containing unsupported charges against the American
missionaries in the vicinity, Mr. Bergmann, and the British
consul-general, Mr. Wood, at Tabriz, to whom his interests had been
confided by me. As it was impossible at this distance and from his wild
statements to determine the merits of the controversy, and as he held
the orphanage by force against Mr. Bergmann, who is a Russian subject,
by conference with the Russian minister at this place, I arranged to
refer the matter to the English and Russian consuls-generals at
Tabriz.
I inclose herewith a copy of Mr. Wood’s last report (1), together with
his letter of advice to Mr. Bagdasarian (2), and of my letter of
instruction to Mr. Wood (3). Mr. Bagdasarian is an example of a class of
Armenians who resort to the United States for naturalization papers, but
who have no apparent intention of residing there. Once nominally
citizens of the United States, they adopt a tone of arrogance which is
constantly bringing them into trouble, and in every petty personal
quarrel they appeal to the legation. The Persian Government is very
quick to recognize the difference between native American subjects
temporarily residents of Persia and those naturalized subjects who
change their nationality, but not their residence, especially as the
English Government has long since refused to recognize as English
subjects Persians who have complied with English naturalization laws by
a short residence in India. The Persian foreign office refuses to
recognize as citizens of any other nation Persians who have become
naturalized in other countries and return to live in Persia, and Mr.
Bagdasarian’s indemnity could not have been collected had he formerly
been a Persian instead of a Turkish subject. I would respectfully ask
for instructions in such cases, namely, those in which naturalization
has been secured solely for the purpose of evading local laws and there
is no definite intention to return to the land of adoption. It is not
generally possible to refer these cases specifically to the Department,
for they occur at a distance and under circumstances requiring prompt
action. It seems to me that some discretion should be given the
legation, and it would greatly simplify the duties of the minister, and,
in my judgment, better meet the demands of justice, if these pseudo
citizens, who can show no intention of returning to the United States,
were denied treaty rights and turned over to the local law. Precedent is
so important in this country that some general principle one way or the
other is indispensable.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 38.]
Mr. Wood to Mr.
Hardy.
Her
Majesty’s Consulate-General,
Tabriz, July 28,
1898.
Sir: I have the honor to forward for your
excellency’s knowledge the copy of a letter I have this day
addressed to Mr. Bagdasarian,
[Page 526]
with regard to his attitude in the matter of
the Kalasar Orphanage, and Dr. Lepsins’s acknowledged agent, Pastor
von Bergmann. As you will perceive from the tenor of a paragraph in
the first part of my letter, I have not yet taken advantage of your
authorization to give Mr. Bagdasarian the option of coming up to
Tabriz or of losing his protection, owing to Dr. Bergmann’s presence
at Kalasar, in the face of his promise not to go down there and to
complicate matters.
With regard to the claim put in by Yon Bergmann, which has been
transmitted to me by Mr. Petrow, the Russian consul-general, I shall
await a few days before replying to it in order to give Mr. Bergmann
and Mr. Bagdasarian time to come to some arrangement, but then I
shall request that Bergmann be called to Tabriz. When the two
litigants are here matters can be investigated and claims balanced
and satisfied.
I am afraid I have been rather hard on Mr. Bagdasarian in my letter,
but, as you will have perceived from his correspondence or
telegrams, he seems to be one of those men who claim all rights and
privileges for themselves and have no idea that others can be
entitled to any consideration.
From the complaint put in by Von Bergmann there seems to be no doubt
that he really represents Dr. Lepsins, as far as the orphanage at
Kalasar is concerned, whilst, on the other hand, Mr. Bagdasarian
having only been requested to take temporary charge of it, pending
Von Bergmann’s arrival or the finding of some other competent
person, he should have given up the affair without raising the
difficulties he has done, whereby the orphans’ interest as well as
his own, and about which he is so pugnacious and headstrong, are
likely to suffer. However this may be, I am only interested in
bringing the matters to an honorable close between the two
gentlemen, and of this I feel certain you are perfectly persuaded.
Thanking you for the support you have given me in this case,
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 38.]
Mr. Wood to Mr.
Bagdasarian.
Her
Majesty’s Consulate-General,
Tabriz, July 28,
1898.
Dear Sir: I forward herewith in original a
letter which has been addressed to you by the American minister at
Teheran, and which came inclosed, but open, in a communication Mr.
Hardy has sent me.
I can not do better than call your careful consideration of its
contents, and again advise you to endeavor to come to some terms
with Mr. Bergmann, who is undoubtedly the person desired to be at
the head of the orphanage by Dr. Lepsins, or to give up the said
orphanage against a written agreement that your just claim would be
hereafter admitted by Mr. Bergmann as Dr. Lepsins’s agent or
representative.
It seems to me that there is nothing else for you to do, as I have
only refrained from ordering you up to Tabriz owing to Dr.
Bergmann’s presence in Kalasar, and on account of the hopes I had of
some settlement being come to between you after your receipt of my
wired or written good and straightforward advice.
I see no way of helping you unless on your side you assist me by
[Page 527]
showing some good will,
instead of launching claims without any attempt at justifying them,
or recklessly charging such as only wish to see justice done, and to
avoid scandals around a charitable institution, of endeavoring to
harm you either on the ground of denominational differences or other
futile and specious reasons. I think it right to inform you that Mr.
Bergmann has addressed a formal demand for the restitution to him of
the orphanage, and has also put in a claim for certain sums against
you through the Russian consul-general. I shall endeavor to obtain
Mr. Bergmann’s presence at Tabriz, when I shall require you to come
up also, as the investigation into the pecuniary claims between you
can be made either by me or through an arbitration, and a most
disagreeable matter be put at rest, let us hope, forever.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 38.]
Mr. Hardy to Mr.
Wood.
Legation of the United States,
Teheran, August 2, 1898.
Sir: Yours of the 25th instant is at hand.
There must, of course, be some board of control or some person—some
authority, in short—from whom Mr. Bagdasarian holds his office,
whatever it is, in the orphanage. I infer that it is Dr. Lepsins;
and to him, therefore, Mr. Bagdasarian must make his appeal and
defense. The legation has nothing to do with this question; and as a
paid employee of Dr. Lepsins he can expect nothing from you beyond a
friendly representation to Dr. Lepsins, in case you think he has
been misrepresented by his rival and opponent. I do not understand
which is the superior, Mr. Bergmann or Mr. Bagdasarian. If the
former, the latter would seem to have no right to hold the orphanage
if he has been requested to leave, and much less so if he has been
so ordered by Dr. Lepsins. This question of his retention should be
referred to his employer, and is one we have nothing to do with
beyond friendly intervention. If, in your judgment, he has been
misrepresented, you might, at your pleasure, write to Dr. Lepsins to
that effect; but it seems to me, in view of the charges of
immorality which have been brought each against the other, their
differences are such as to preclude their working together in
harmony, and Dr. Lepsins had better make his choice between them,
unless they can agree to make peace and agree to live and work in
harmony in the orphanage’s interest. As to the many claims, that
would appear to be a proper subject of reference to yourself and the
Russian consul. If, however, either or both refuse your joint
arbitration or decision, they can present their case to Dr. Lepsins.
Being foreign subjects, we can do nothing more than to offer them a
settlement by the representation of their nationalities; and if they
refuse the only intervention provided by law and treaty, they must
settle their differences as best they can. There is, therefore, no
threat on our part, but simply a caution against any step which
might lead to violence and complications with local authorities in
such a way as would compromise the claim we have made here for
damages. Mr. Bagdasarian seemed to me to be endeavoring to secure
legation interference
[Page 528]
in a
matter placed in your hands. He has no ground to expect that.
Thanking you very much for your trouble and efforts on his
behalf,
I am, etc.,
