Page images
PDF
EPUB

is generally observed by the government of the United States and the States of the Union with regard to foreign petitions praying for clemency, the Department of State can not run counter to such usage and must decline to present the petition officially.

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Newlin, July 20, 1895, 203 MS. Dom.
Let. 471.

8. PROTECTION OF MISSIONARIES.

§ 922.

Missionaries sent out by religious communions in the United States to Mohammedan or Pagan land "are entitled to all the protection which the law of nations allows this government to extend to citizens who reside in foreign countries in the pursuit of their lawful avocations, but it would be a source of endless embarrassment to attempt to reverse the decisions of regular tribunals as to the questions connected with the peculiarities of doctrinal belief."

Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Turkey, No. 24, Feb. 5, 1853, S. Ex. Doc. 9, 33 Cong. 2 sess. 5.

This instruction related to the trial and sentence of banishment of the Reverend Jonas King, of Massachusetts, in Greece, for alleged offences against the established religion of the state. For the reason above stated, Mr. Everett held that it would not be expedient to require any pecuniary indemnity to be made to Dr. King. But, as he thought that Dr. King had not had a fair trial, he directed Mr. Marsh to say to the Greek government that the President expected a formal remission of the sentence of banishment should be granted. The Greek government declined directly to accede to this request, but in fact the judgment against Dr. King remained unexecuted. (S. Ex. Doc. 9, 33 Cong. 2 sess. 186.) For further particulars of this case, see supra, § 913.

The government of the United States, while protecting citizens of the United States in Turkey, so far as concerns their international rights, can not in any way assume a protectorship of Christian communions in Turkey, as is done by some European powers, nor in any way undertake to determine their dissensions.

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Williams, Oct. 22, 1860, MS. Inst. Turkey,
II. 27.

"It is a matter of regret that the Christian missionaries of the United States and of Hawaii to the Micronesian group should have experienced any obstacle in the prosecution of their calling, and especially that they should have been wronged in their person and property by the savage aborigines. It is hoped that the vessel of war which, it is understood, has been ordered thither, will have the effect of preventing any further outrages upon our citizens. Our

right, however, to demand redress for injuries to subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, independent, though a friendly state, may be regarded as questionable. We should, consequently, prefer not to direct an application to be made in their behalf, notwithstanding the connection between missionaries of this country and those of Hawaii, adverted to by Mr. Harris in his note to you of the 26th February. Still, as the native inhabitants of Micronesia are not understood to acknowledge the obligations of the law of nations, it will be competent for, and there would be no objection to, a United States naval commander interposing in behalf of any subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom to protect them against any further injuries with which they might be threatened during his abode in Micronesia.”

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peirce, min. to Hawaii, No. 13, April 6, 1870, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 196.

The minister of the United States at Constantinople may employ his good offices with the Turkish authorities to obtain for the Syrian Protestant College authority to grant medical degrees. This privilege, however, is not to be claimed as a matter of right, either under public law or treaty, but merely as a mark of good will.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, min. to Turkey, No. 7, July 31, 1871, MS. Inst. Turkey, II. 346.

November 4, 1871, Mr. Brown, American minister at Constantinople, answered an inquiry of Mr. Hay, American vice-consul-general at Beirut, as to the amount of protection, if any, which consuls of the United States might give to teachers, pupils, and natives, who had been converted through the ministry of American missionaries, from persecution on account of their religious belief. Mr. Brown stated that he was without instructions on the subject, and that, much as the government of the United States might be interested in the principle of religious liberty, the question was one of so much delicacy as to prevent direct official interference to sustain it. Mr. Brown stated that by Article V. of the treaty between the United States and Turkey it was established that the legation and consulates of the United States should not protect Ottoman subjects either openly or secretly, and the same principle was repeated in the berat or exequatur issued to the consul-general. With these facts before him, Mr. Brown said that he could not instruct Mr. Hay to claim a right to give his official protection to the persons mentioned, and he believed that the local authorities would not allow it. Mr. Brown said that he did not advise Mr. Hay to refrain from offering unofficial solicitations in behalf of any clearly established case of religious persecution, no matter who the sufferer or what his faith might be, or from invoking the well-known liberal principles of the Ottoman government in

such matters; but this should be done with much discretion; and it "would be certainly an error to interfere in the affairs of the individuals you allude to disconnected with religion." Mr. Hay had stated that, if a Mohammedan subject of Turkey embraced Christianity, his evidence was by the laws of Mohammedanism worthless and he could be put to death, but that a recent decree of the Sultan proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire. This decree, said Mr. Hay, was not practically enforced in Syria, and American missionaries often desired and expected consular interposition to succor persecuted native teachers and native converts, though such a course was offensive to the local authorities, who were upheld by their superiors in Constantinople. On this point Mr. Brown replied that Mr. Hay was incorrect in his statement that any Mussulman who had embraced Christianity might be put to death, since the Sultan had officially declared that this principle of Islam holy law should never be practiced; and there were in fact a few Christians, formerly Moslems, who resided at Constantinople and were in frequent intercourse with the higher functionaries of the government. Continuing, Mr. Brown said: "I would therefore not encourage you to do what, though very creditable to your feelings as a Protestant, I should not be able to sustain you in. As to the American missionaries, I of course need not add that every possible means should be adopted for their protection. Their dwellings and establishments are inviolate, and will never, I presume, be molested." With reference to this correspondence, Mr. Fish said: "I have received your dispatch No. 28, of the 6th ultimo, enclosing correspondence between yourself and the vice-consul-general at Beirut, in regard to the ‘amount of protection, if any, consuls can give to the teachers, pupils, and natives, who have been converted through the ministry of American missionaries, from persecution on account of their religious belief.' In reply, I have to state that the general position and principles advanced by you on the subject are correct, and are within the provision of the treaty between the United States. and Turkey, and your communication to the vice-consul-general is approved."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, min. to Turkey, No. 24, Dec. 5, 1871, For. Rel. 1872, 669, acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Brown's No. 28, of Nov. 6, 1871, id. 663.

May 27, 1882, Mr. Frelinghuysen enclosed to the American legation at St. Petersburg a letter from the American Bible Society in relation to the introduction and sale in parts of Russia of copies of the Bible printed by that society. It was stated that the colporteurs of the society were forbidden to sell the Scriptures from house to house in Esthonia by the clergy of the Lutheran Church, and that the

Scriptures published by the society in Armenian and Syriac, imported by way of Tabreez or Constantinople, were excluded from the region of the Caucasus on the strength of a decree of the Russian minister of the interior. Mr. Frelinghuysen stated that the American Bible Society was an incorporated company under the laws of New York, and that, apart from its claims in common with other lawful American corporations to the kindly offices of the government, there was in its case the unselfish aim of doing good which commended it to the support of enlightened people. The legation was directed to read the instruction to the Russian minister of foreign affairs, and to express the hope that the Russian government would examine into the allegations submitted, and if they were found to be well grounded, issue such orders as might be deemed right and best fitted to afford the desired relief. ·

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoffman, chargé, No. 128, May 27, 1882, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 279.

In a subsequent instruction, Mr. Frelinghuysen stated that it was repre-
sented to him that Bibles of the British Bible Society were every-
where admitted and allowed to be sold by the Russian authorities,
and that the refusal to promote the sale of American Bibles in like
manner was a discrimination against American citizens. Mr. Fre-
linghuysen considered this a contravention of Articles VI. and IX.
of the treaty of commerce and navigation of December 6-18, 1832.
(Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunt, min. to Russia, No.
28, Feb. 10, 1883, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 324.)

See, also, Mr. J. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Wurts, chargé, No. 45,
May 25, 1883, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 346.

"Mr. Heap's despatch No. 300, of the 1st ultimo, reports the correspondence had with the Turkish government concerning the alleged conversion, by the missionaries in certain parts of Armenia, of their dwellings to ecclesiastical purposes, and their use of bells as a part of their worship.

"The explanatory memorandum, which, after causing investigations to be made, Mr. Heap communicated to the minister for foreign affairs is approved as temperate and courteous in tone.

"The right of private worship in a dwelling house must be maintained. If that is infringed, the remonstrances of your legation will not fail to be immediate and energetic.

"To ensure that the intervention of this government in such a case is obtained in good faith and due as a right, it is very desirable that such discretion should be observed by American citizens of nonMohammedan faith who take up their abode in the Mohammedan regions of Turkey, as not to overstep the bounds which separate private from public worship, or to give grounds for any plausible complaint by the Turkish authorities that the sensibilities of their

people are wounded by any, to them, offensive demonstrations of a character usually connected with public ecclesiastical worship.

66

The point may be best illustrated by the question of the bells said to have been hung by the missionaries in certain localities. It is presumed, from the nature of the complaint, that these bells have been hung in or upon private dwellings, that their purpose is to summon worshippers to the private services held within those dwellings, and that (in connection with the internal arangement of those dwellings, which it is supposed are such as to facilitate the assemblage of persons outside of the household), this use of bells is held by the Turks to indicate the use of a private dwelling for the usual purposes of a church.

"If the question were frankly presented by the Turkish government, as to whether a bell so hung, and so rung, openly and audibly over an extended neighborhood, is a needful or usual adjunct of a private dwelling, the answer would be as frankly made that it is not so regarded by this government. It is not unlikely that an equivalent or similarly conspicuous Mohammedan demonstration upon a private dwelling in any populous locality here, or in any Christian country, would be suppressed as a nuisance, and this without any idea of interfering with liberty of worship or individual conscience. “It may be well for you to advise those missionaries who may seek your advice or intervention in this matter that this government would not be willing to make the right to use church bells on private dwellings a diplomatic question with Turkey. The part of discretion for them to pursue would appear to be the avoidance of opportunities of giving offense to the people among whom their lot is cast."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, min. to Turkey, Jan. 9, 1884, MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 77.

"The question of the personal protection of parties whose sojourn in Mexico may be under such conditions or associations as to bring them into conflict with Mexican law and, probably, worse still, with native prejudices, is a grave matter which, from its complexity, requires the most discreet handling. In the two cases mentioned in your present dispatch, the element of discretion in the proceeding of the American citizens concerned is not, I regret to say, evident. In the one, it is proposed to erect a Protestant house of worship in immediate proximity to a Catholic Church. In the other, the ruins of a consecrated edifice are proposed to be utilized for the worship of another faith. The legal right to do these things may be perfect in all respects, but the moral aggressiveness of the proceeding may tend to arouse local sensibilities and divert them into undesirable channels. It is one thing to be drawn unintentionally into a controversy; it is quite another to provoke it.

H. Doc. 551-vol 6-22

« PreviousContinue »