Page images
PDF
EPUB

If, however, pecuniary claims exceeding £100,000 in amount are involved, the decision of this court must be unanimous in order to be final. In case it is not unanimous, either party may demand within six months a review of the award. In such a case a new tribunal is to be selected consisting of five members. Two of them shall be selected by each government; and the fifth, who is to be president of the tribunal, shall be chosen in the manner prescribed for the selection of an umpire of the smaller tribunal. A majority vote of this tribunal shall be final.

When a controversy involving territorial claims arises, the question shall be submitted to a tribunal of six members. Three of them shall be judges of the supreme court or the circuit courts of the United States, and they shall be selected by the president of the United States. Three of them shall be members of the supreme court of justice, or of the judicial committee of the privy council of Great Britain, and shall be selected by the queen. Their award by a majority of not less than five to one, shall be final. If there is less than the prescribed majority, the award shall also be final unless protested within three months. In such case, or when the vote is evenly divided, no recourse shall be had to hostile measures until the mediation of one or more friendly powers shall have been invited by one or the other party.

If the question involved concerns a state or territory of the United States, the president may appoint a judicial officer of that state or territory as one of the arbitrators. Similarly, Her Majesty may appoint a colonial judicial officer when the question involves one of her colonies.

Territorial claims shall include all claims to territory, and all other claims involving questions of servitude, rights of navigation, access to fisheries, and all rights and interests necessary to control the enjoyment of either's territory.

A decision shall be rendered if possible within three months of the close of the arguments.

The treaty shall remain in force for five years from the date it becomes operative, and for one year from the date when either party shall have notified the other of its wish to terminate it.

The treaty shall be ratified by the president and the queen.

One who compares the provisions of the treaty with the various ones suggested in the course of the correspondence regarding it, will observe that those suggestions were adopted which gave arbitration its most inclusive scope. The result is received with almost universal satisfaction. All the principal papers of both countries speak in the highest terms of the patience, the zeal, and the ability of the statesmanship that made the treaty. Anong members of congress and jurists, the purpose of the treaty is generally commended. It is believed that, although the senate may delay ratification, it will ultimately pass favorably upon it.

THE OTTOMAN CRISIS.

Armenia. During the massacre at the village of Hasskeuy the American mission station there was pillaged in the absence of the missionaries. A demand for $2,000 indemnity has been made on the Turkish government through the American legation at the Porte.

In January, 1896, the United States senate called on the department of state for information regarding the status of naturalized citizens of the United States, of Armenian birth, in Turkey: whether they were allowed to visit their families in that country, and whether pass-ports held by them were recognized by the Turkish government; also whether such naturalized Armenians resident in Turkey were permitted to leave the country to visit the United States; in short, whether American citizens of Armenian birth enjoyed the same rights as subjects of European powers. Secretary Olney's answer was that "on several occasions" the Porte had permitted the emigration of the families of such expatriated Armenians, but that the Turkish government reserved to itself a "discretionary power" to prevent the emigration of such families "under certain conditions." But a dispatch from Minister Terrell, received at Washington October 16, announced the abandonment of this "discretionary power" by the Porte. The department of state announced this change of policy in the following public notice:

[graphic]

MGR. ORMANIAN, NEW ARMENIAN PATRIARCH.

"Secretary Olney is in receipt of a telegraphic dispatch from the United States minister at Constantinople to the effect that he has at last obtained telegraphic orders from the Turkish government to permit the departure for the United States, with safe conduct to the seaports, of all native Armenian women and children whose husbands and fathers are in the United States of America."

Peace reigned in Armenia during the quarter. The sultan, at the request of the American minister, toward the end of December, ordered the release from imprisonment, of nine men, naturalized American citizens, who had been found guilty of bearing arms against the Turkish government. About the same time the sultan granted amnesty to 2,000 Armenians who had been convicted of crimes either against persons or property, or who were awaiting trial on such charges. The sentence of death

passed upon ninety Armenians was commuted to imprisonment in a fortress: further, the prisoners were to be liberated after three months if by good behavior they proved themselves worthy of such clemency.

The Armenian Church. The Armenian Assembly, November 18, chose as patriarch of their national (Armenian Gregorian) church, Maghaki Ormanian, giving him forty-eight votes, and only ten votes

to his competitor, the acting patriarch Bartholomeos, who was the choice of the government. Since August, 1896, when the patriarch Izmirlian was compelled by his coreligionists to abdicate (p. 561), Bartholomeos, on the nomination of the Porte had filled the patriarchal chair, having previously been bishop of Brusa. The sultan held Bartholomeos in high regard, and favored his election.

The new patriarch, Ormanian, on being advised of his election, an

[graphic]

con

MARSHAL SHAKIR PASHA,

NIAN REFUGEE COMMISSION IN CONSTANTINOPLE.

nounced his policy as head of the PRESIDENT OF THE ARMEGregorian Church to be one of ciliation with honor. His efforts will be devoted toward healing the terrible breach separating the Turks from the Armenians. The Turks, he said, are the stones of which the grand edifice of the empire is built, and the Armenians are the cement. Of his personal character and ability the correspondent of the New York Herald writes:

"In Mgr. Ormanian the Armenians have found a singularly efficient religious leader. No one can charge him with being influenced by the court. He scarcely knows a member of the court. He is a diplomatist-that is to say, an adaptable man. He is for conciliation, but with honor-that is to say, without sacrificing too much. He has around him a council of men of such position and strength as no patriarch has ever had before. He comes into power at a time when he can exercise more good influence, and, unless promises be broken, meet with more support in high quarters, than any of his predecessors; and he enters office with the distinct understanding that one of his first requests will be an amendment of the Sahmanatrou, or Organic law, so much called for, and that his request will be granted. Although, he says, 'the task of conciliation is difficult,' there is good reason for believing that he can accomplish it in the ab sence of intrigues against him."

Lord Rosebery on Intervention.-A speech by Lord Rosebery at Edinburgh early in October seems to have had a strong effect on the trend of public sentiment in Great Britain toward the Armenian cause.

While he rejoiced to see the country stirred by the events taking place in Turkey, he felt that public feeling required rather guidance than stimulus. Isolated intervention by Great Britain would precipitate a European war: concerted action by the powers, or, if not that, then action by such of the powers as were "immediately concerned," was the only course that could be approved by political prudence. The action of the commonwealth of England in the case of the persecuted dissenting inhabitants of Piedmont, has often been cited as a glorious precedent which British statesmen of the present day might well follow. To the loud popular demand for something "manly and downright," for "an hour of Cromwell and his action," Lord Rosebery makes this answer:

66

But how did Oliver Cromwell protect these people? How did he save these people? Did he bombard anybody? Did he declare war against anybody? Did he take isolated action against anybody? He did nothing of these things. He took diplomatic action. He knew, as we know, that he could not with a fleet reach the scene of the outrages. He knew that there was another sovereign who could; and by diplomatic pressure he induced that sovereign to take action, which in the end preserved the lives and the liberties of these unhappy people. Well, we are apparently each of us worth a dozen Cromwells now. We all know something 'manlier' or 'finer' than to trust to the concerted action of the powers of Europe. There may be things manlier, and there may be things finer; but nothing else, I venture to say, for dealing with the future of the Ottoman empire, is either safe or efficacious."

His opposition to the project of intervention by England was very emphatically expressed. It would be impossible to state more effectively the fragility of the basis on which the peace of Europe precariously rests:

"I advocate concerted action as the only solid, safe, and effectual method of dealing with this question. I deprecate any other method as both futile and dangerous. Against any other which may imply the solitary intervention of England, I will raise my voice and my strength as long as I have voice and strength to exert. I am not less haunted than you are by the horrors of Armenia, by the horrors that have transformed an earthly paradise into an organized hell. For all that, I would not attempt to do away with those horrors by adding to them a horror a hundred-fold greater. We are a great nation and a just nation; but, to employ the fine phrase of Mr. Gladstone, 'we do not wield the sword of the Almighty. It is not ours to dispense in this world universally the punishment of wrong and the reward of right. We have to balance, as it were, between two evils; and of the two I cannot balance between the evil of Armenian massacre alone and the evil of Armenian massacre plus European war. There is no doubt a certain concord that reigns over the aspect of Europe at this But that concord is chiefly directed, not in your favor, but against you. Remember, however you may be appeased by the aspect of Europe, that for years and years past there has hung like a sullen cloud over the continent the murderous spectre of that conflict of the nations for which the peoples of Europe have been standing in battle array. A little thing might fall out and call down that storm; and I venture to warn you that your diplomacy in this Eastern question must be cautious as well as straightforward if you do not mean to call down the storm. I know I shall be told to-morrow, as I have been told before, 'Nobody wants war.' What are you arguing

moment.

against in arguing against war?' It is not so much what you want that I dread. It is not so much what you say that I dread. It is not so much what you mean that I dread. But it is where your language, if it has any logical meaning at all, will irresistibly land you. It is then against a solitary and feverish intervention in the East that I enter my deliberate protest. Some persons, some guides to public opinion, are trying to work up in this country the sort of ecstasy which precedes war, even if it does not intend war. Against that I protest, and against that I will fight. It is therefore that I implore you to walk warily in this matter and to weigh well in the interests of yourselves, your children, your future, on behalf of the welfare, the prosperity, nay, and the safety, of the empire of which you are so proud, to pause before you adopt any of these perilous policies of which you can see the eloquent commencement, and to which no one living can see the catastrophe or the end."

The day before the delivery of the speech, Lord Rosebery had resigned his leadership of the liberal party.

Mr. Gladstone Still for Intervention.-On October 19 a meeting was held in St. James's Hall, London, to give expression to English sympathy with the Armenians. The bishop of Rochester, Dr. Edward Stuart Talbot, presided.

A letter from Mr. Gladstone was read in which he declared it to

be " a wild paradox" to say that the enforcement of British treaty

rights in stopping the systematic massacres in Turkey would provoke hostility from the powers. It would be abandoning duty and prudence to advertise beforehand, for the ears of "the great assassin." that British action was limited to what the most backward of the six powers deemed sufficient. If the fundamental distrust of Great Britain and the belief that she is pursuing a selfish policy in the eastern Mediterranean caused some of the powers to be backward, that was a matter that deserved to be gravely considered.

The "Bancroft's" Errand.-When last summer the small cruiser Bancroft of the United States navy was sent to join the American squadron in the Mediterranean, it was widely published and generally believed that the vessel's mission was to force an entrance into the Bosphorus, should the Porte refuse peaceful admission. But the Bancroft's immediate destination was Smyrna, and, having reached that port, there she remained. At the end of the year she was still at Smyrna. The American minister at Constantinople, Mr. Terrell, October 21, gave official contradiction to the report that the little vessel was to "force the Dardanelles :

"The report is too ridiculous for serious notice. I have made no application for the entry of a dispatch boat since February last. The statement that I withdrew the application is equally unfounded. The relations between Turkey and the United States are perfectly cordial. Not a single one of our citizens was sacrificed during the massacres; and it is not possible that the United States will depart

« PreviousContinue »