« PrejšnjaNaprej »
since it forces the printer to relinquish completely the prerogatives and immunities above referred to.
It even requires that such relinquishment shall be confirmed by the respectivo embassies and logations to which tho printers are amenable.
This legation, while recognizing that the printing oftices may be the subject of a special regulation, regrets to have to declare that it can by no meaus admit, without a previous understanding, the application of the new law to the persons under its jurisdiction, and still less to those who already possess printing offices established according to pre-existing international agreements.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 28, 18ss. SIR: I bave received and read with much interest your dispatch No. 87, of the 8th instant, reporting the new law for the regulation of printing offices in the Ottoman Empire, which has been promulgated. withont consultation with the foreign missions at Constantinople, and the action taken by the diplomatic body in respect of such law in so far as it assumes to regulate and limit the rigbts of foreign printers and to invoke the co-operation of the foreign legations towards the enforcement of said law.
The note verbale addressed by you to the imperial ministry for foreign affairs under date of the 6th instant has my approval.
You do not advise me whether there are now any printing offices in Turkey owned or managed by citizens of the United States which would come within the prescriptions of the law in question ; but in view of the extended educational and missionary interests under American direction in the Empire, I assume it to be desirable that no privilege of our
I citizens in this regard should be foregone, and that in printing, as in any other commercial or mechanical pursuit, it shall ever be open to our countrymen-in the words of Aarifi Pasha's note of September 27, 1883, which you quote
To choose and exercise in Turkey the professional or industrial occupations, a liberty which will continue in the future as in the past.
The objectionable provision of the new law regulating printing offices, in so far as concerns foreign citizens or subjects engaged in printing, is found in the second paragraph of article 5, and reads as follows:
Nevertheless, a foreigner shall not be permitted to set up a printing office, except be shall furnish a declaration, legalized by the embassy or legation of his country, whereby he shall never be able to take advantago, in his profession as a printer, of the privileges and immunities belonging to foreigners; that is to say, that he shall accept, the case arising, such proceedings in regard to himself and his printing oftices as are followed in regard to Ottoman subjects.
This proposition is not new. The legislation of various countries of Spanish America, such as Mexico, Venezuela, and Peru, has sought to establish that a foreigner, while continuing to be a subject or citizen of the country of his allegiance, may by his own act waive or forego the right to invoke the diplomatic protection of that Government in case of alleged injury. This position whenever taken up has been consistently opposed by the United States. When the Mexican law assumed to prescribe that the omission of a foreigner to register as an alien de. prived him ipso facto of the right to invoke the treaties and conventions
existing between his country and Mexico, and of the right to seek the protection of his own Government, this Department announced that such a law can not disturb or affect the relationship existing at all times between this Government and one of its citizens. The duty is always incumbent upon a Government to exercise a just and proper guardianship over its citizens whether at home or abroad. A municipal act of another state can not abridge this duty, nor is such an act countenanced by the law or usage of nations." (Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 576.) When the railway laws of Mexico and the laws of contracts of several other American states prescribe that renunciation of all claim to protection as a foreigner under international law or treaties is to be the condition precedent to taking service or entering into contract with the foreign Government, and in so far as such service or contract is concerned this Government has promptly maintained that the condition is necessarily void, and that it is not competent to a citizen to divest himself of any part of his inherent right to protection or to impair the duty of his Government to protect him. He may conclude his rights in such regard by ceasing to be a citizen, for that is the ac cepted doctrine of expatriation, but he may not remain a citizen and withdraw bimself or be withdrawn under the operations of the muni cipal law of another country from the rights and duties of citizenship.
The above quoted provision of the Turkish printing law of January 10, 1888, appears to be even more objectionable and contrary to tbe unassailable principle for which we contend than any of the Spanish American legislation to which I refer, for it assumes to invest the ind: vidual renunciation of bis personal rights with the sanction of his lega tion, and to make the foreign Government, through its instructioua. representative, in some sense a consenting party to the supposed te nunciation. Holding, as we do, that the individual act is necessarils invalid per se, this Government could certainly not intervene in any way to invest suci an act with a show of validity.
It is confidently trusted that the dignified and timely remonstrance of the foreign representatives at Constantinople against this very objectionable law will have borne good fruit, and that no further action on your part may be necessary, but if the position assumed in the more verbale is controverted, or if the international rights of any citizen of the United States should be invaded, this instruction will serve to sa: gest the further lines of argument you may pursue in conference with your colleagues of the diplomatic body or in discussion with the Turki ish foreign office.
T. F. BAYARD.
Mr. King to Mr. Bayard. No. 105.1
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Constantinople, September 1, 1888. (Received September 19.) Sir: I inclose for your information a copy of a collective note sui to the Sublime Porte in July, 1837 (signed by all the heads of fore! missions), concerning the execution of consular judgments; a cops the reply made by the Porte with sub-inclosure.
This note (from the Porte) is to be considered by the different eru bassies and legations, and should any reply be sent to the Porte a cops will be forwarded to you.
I think the disposition is to accept as satisfactory this regulation of the Porte, judging from conversations with a few others more interested in the matter than this legation. I have, etc.,
Chargé d'Affaires ad interim.
(Inclosure 1 in No. 105.- Translation.)
Collective note to Sublime Porte.
JULY, 1887. In conformity with the circular of the minister of foreign affairs of the 20th of March, 1880, the office of execution at the first tribunal of commerce is in charge, as heretofore, with the judiciary executions of the former kitabet.
This condition was to continue until an understanding was arrived at between the Sublime Porte and the foreign missions on the regulation relative to the execution of odgments.
Without taking into consideration the assurances contained in the before-mentioned note the minister of justice wants to constrain foreigners who are bearers of judgments issued from the consular tribunals and to be executed upon real estate, to seek the execution exclusively before the civil tribunals.
No understanding baving as yet been arrived at, the undersigned hope that the dnblime Porte, informed of this modification of the previous convention, will kindly intervene with the ministry of justice in order to prescribe to the office of execution of the tidjaret to carry out thò requests presented under the shape of takrirs by the foreigo missions for the execution of the judgments of the consular tribunals to be executed by way of attachment on real property.
(Inclosure 2 in No. 105.- Translation.
Said Pasha to Mr. King.
SUBLIME PORTE, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
July 16, 1888. MONSIEUR LE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES : I have had the honor duly to receive the collective note that the heads of the foreign missions kindly addressed to me on the 14th of July, 1837, relating to the mode of executing the judgments issued by the consular tribunals.
On receipt of this note I placed myself in correspondence with my colleague of the department of justice, and to-day I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy of the instructions that department has just forwarded to the provincial judiciary authorities, in which the formalities to be fulfilled, when the execution of a judgment is demanded, are set forth, Accept, etc.,
(Inclosure 3 in No. 105. - Translation.]
Regulation of Sublime Porte as to execution of consular judgments. In the case of the demand for sale of real property belonging to a foreign subject for the satisfaction of a debt due by snch foreign subject to another foreigner, in accordance with a sentence pronounced in a consular court, it is the custom to refer to the Ottoman courts according to the third article of the law relating to the acquisition of real property for the execution of the necessary measures, but it is found necessary that some instructions should be given with a view to the general observance of the necessary course of action.
First. The sale of the real property of the party against whom sentence has been given rests with the president of the civil court who has the right to execute [decrees in such matters) in the place which is the consulate pronouncing the sentence.
Second. The sale of the property will be asked for by the creditor in a petition addressed by him to the president [of the civil conrt).
As it will not be understood from the petition alone whether the decree of the conlate grdering the sale of the aforesaid property is definitive or not, in order that no
U. Ex, 1, pt, 1-101
mistake may arise in the steps taken, the decree whose execution is requested will be inclosed in a takrir from the consulate containing a note to the effect that eseention is necessary and will be sent with the petition to the president [of the court). Thus, as it will be necessary hereafter in the mode of execution of such consular decrees to conform to these principles, the present note has been drawn up and forwarled in a printed copy to the presidents of the various courts in order that the requisite steps may be taken in such cases.
Mr. King to Mr. Bayard.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Constantinople, September 11, 1888. (Received October 1.) SIR: In regard to the eviction from his house of the consular cavass, at Jerusalem, about which your instructions No.84, of 17th March last, No. 85, of 20th March last, and No. 104, of 31st May last, had been received, I sent a dispatch to Mr. Pringle, the consul general, of which I inclose a copy. I likewise inclose a copy of Mr. Pringle's reply, which
a I have just received.
The Turkish authorities in making this ejection doubtless acted in an unwarranted manner, for which some redress could have been obtained. but Mr. Straus, as he informed me, gathered from Mr. Gillman, consu at Jerusalem, that it was, perhaps, better to drop the matter, and this is probably the reason why Mr. Straus did nothing further at the Porte about it.
Considering the lapse of time and the present uncertainty about any satisfactory redress, I shall follow the suggestion of Mr. Pringle and take no further action unless otherwise instructed by you. I have, etc.,
PENDLETON KING, Chargé d'Afaires ad interim.
(Inclosure 1 in So. 109.]
Mr. King to Mr. Pringle.
UNITED STATES LEGATION,
Constantinople, August 11, 12 Sir: I gathered from Mr. Straus, before his departure, that Mr. Gillman, consul 3 Jerusalem, desired nothing further done in reference to the eviction of h:s cat from his honse.
I should like to know whether this is the case; if not, what is the present states ar the affair? I have, etc.,
PENDLETON KING, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim
(Inclosure 2 in No. 109.)
Mr. Pringle to Mr. King.
Constantinople, September 14', 1* Sir: I beg leave to inclose a copy of Mr. Gillman's No. 64, of August 24, is!: is my opinion that no further actiou should be taken with reference to tbr matirt referred to therein, owing to the lapso of the time since the cavass was eje ted the
his house. The delay in taking action was caused doubtless by a verbal conversation had between Mr. Strans and Mr. Gillman, in which I understand Mr. Straus was under the impression Mr. Gillman wished no further action taken. I am, etc.,
D. LYNCH PRINGLE,
(Inclosure 3 in No. 109.)
Mr. Gillman to Mr. Pringle.
CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Jerusalem, August 24, 1888. Sir: Referring to your No. 51, of the 13th instant, I have the honor to state that Mr. Straus, requesting me to write him unofficially respecting further facts in the case of the consular cavass, I duly complied, under date of May 31 last, informing him that the wife of the cavass was greatly injured in her health by being put out of the house under the circumstances (she was enceinte at the time), and had since suffered from the shock; and that I considered the local Ottoman authorities had exceeded their powers in carrying out the decree without the intervention of the consulate, or its official notification of the decision of the Turkish court and the execution of the decree.
As our legation has now the entire facts of the case in its possession, I leave to Mr.
Mr. King to Mr. Bayard.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Constantinople, September 18, 1888. (Received October 6.)
) SIR: On the arrival of Proios (referred to in dispatches No. 68, of April 5 last, and No. 71, of April 30 last), I received from the consulgeneral a request for the evidence against him. I at once sent a note to the Porte, to which I received no reply. A second request from the consul-general was followed by a second note to the Porte, to which also no reply was made. Having received a third dispatch from the consul-general, in order to give the Porte no cause of complaint I went in person on August 13 to see the minister of foreign affairs.
In this interview it was clear to me that there was no intention of presenting the evidence against Proios.
I made to the minister, in a clear manner, the explanation stated in my No. 80 to the consul-general, who, on receipt of this information, released Proios, as stated in his No. 140 to me.
Before the above interview with the minister of foreign affairs certain members of the sanitary office had requested from the consul-general permission to talk with Proios. To this the consul-general assented, provided that he (the consul.general) should be present at the examination; but Proios refused absolutely to answer any such questions, but stated repeatedly that he was ready to be tried by the consul.general.
Shortly afterwards I received a note from the Porte, wherein the min. ister of foreign affairs requests an examination of Proios by the sani