CHAPTER XI.
AMERICANS IN TURKEY, THEIR WORK AND INFLUENCE.
The American missionaries in the Turkish Empire are brought into the discussion of almost every question that arises in that land. Especially is this true at present, in connection with the Armenian problem. So many wild and contradictory statements are made in regard to them, and the Protestant communities which are the direct results of their labors, that the mind of the public is more or less confused on the subject. The missionaries, and the many thousands who have gladly followed their leadership in intellectual, moral, and religious reform, _are_ an important, though not a noisy or conspicuous element. For this reason, as well as on account of popular ignorance and hostile misrepresentation, they cannot be overlooked in any fair and adequate survey of the situation. The writer has long been familiar with this phase of the subject, and has a large mass of evidence and statistics at his command. _But he is not connected with any of the various missionary societies involved, and is alone responsible for the statements made in this or any other part of the volume._
It is very important to note that charges against the missionaries, of disloyalty to the Sultan, have never been sustained for a moment, and that investigation has shown them to be obedient to the laws, and opposed to revolutionary sentiments upon the part of any of the subjects of the Empire. The highest officials have repeatedly borne public testimony to the valuable services of the Americans in educational, literary, medical and philanthropic lines. Even H. I. M. Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid has graciously given expression to his confidence in Americans as being free from any political designs, such as all Europeans are supposed to entertain.
Many are not aware of the great work already accomplished by American missionaries during the past seventy years in the Ottoman Empire, nor of the vast influence they have exerted, both directly and indirectly. They have been in many departments the pioneers of civilization. They have stuck to their posts, obscure or prominent, in peace or in war, in famine, plague and persecution. Pashas and diplomats and generals have sought their aid without fear of being misled or betrayed. But the messengers of the Cross have never been swerved from what they consider a “higher calling”—to instruct the ignorant, young and old, to counsel and reclaim the erring, to attend the sick and imprisoned, and to comfort the broken-hearted. To support these general statements, the reader must pardon a few statistics compiled from the latest official tables, showing the _direct results_ of American missionary effort in Turkey.
STATISTICS OF AMERICAN MISSIONS IN TURKEY.[70]
The following figures, with the exception of the Press statistics, represent the work of the American Board (Congregational) and of the Presbyterian Board taken together.
The Congregational proportion constitutes about three fourths and the Presbyterian one fourth in all these figures, the work of the latter society being confined to Syria and Mosul.
THE FORCE.
_Laborers._ Foreign missionaries 223 Native pastors, preachers, teachers, etc. 1,094 ——————————— Total force of laborers 1,317 American missionaries to Turkey since 1821 550
_Plant._ Value of property held by Americans, exclusive of churches, schools, etc., erected in the names of native subjects, with foreign aid, for which statistics are not available $2,500,000
_Annual Expenditure._ Appropriations from America $225,000 From native sources 60,000 ——————————— Total expenditure annually $285,000 Total American expenditure from the first, at least $10,000,000
THE RESULTS.
_Religious._ Churches organized 155 Other stated preaching places 281 —————— Total number of preaching places 436 Communicants (received on confession of faith) 13,528 Members of Protestant civil communities (adherents) 60,000 Average Sunday congregations 40,000 Sunday-school membership 35,000
_Educational._ Colleges well equipped, for both sexes 5 students Theological seminaries 6 „ 4,085 High-schools for boys 80 „ Boarding-schools for girls „ „ Common schools for both sexes 530 „ 23,315 ——— —————— Total schools of all grades 621 Students 27,400
There are six American institutions in Turkey incorporated under the laws of the United States, and controlled by trustees in that land.
_Medical._
There is a well equipped American Medical College and Hospital at Beirut, and American missionary physicians treat, yearly, many thousands of patients of all classes and races throughout the land, both in their dispensaries and in private practice, at a nominal sum and very often gratuitously.
_Publishing._
Both weekly and monthly newspapers are published by the American missionaries at Constantinople, in the Armenian, Turkish, Greek, and Bulgarian languages, and an Arabic weekly is published at Beirut.
The catalogue of editions of the Scriptures and of religious, educational, and miscellaneous books and tracts in various languages, which may be obtained at the American Bible House, Constantinople, contains separate titles to the number of about 1000. The publications in the catalogue of the Presbyterian Press at Beirut, mostly in Arabic, number 507. The number of copies of the Scriptures (entire or in part) put in circulation by the Levant Agency of the American Bible Society alone, 1847 to 1893, is 1,378,715. The number of copies of the Scriptures (entire or in part) _in languages and type available for Mohammedans_, put in circulation by the same Agency in 1893, was Osmanli-Turkish (Arabic type), 5,392; Arabic language (Arabic type), 34,077; total, 39,469.
The number of copies of Scriptures (entire or in part) circulated in Turkey since 1820 amounts to about 3,000,000. The number of copies of other books and tracts for the same period is about 4,000,000. The total number of copies of the Scriptures and of miscellaneous literature circulated is therefore about 7,000,000.
Even these large figures by no means measure the extent and significance of Protestant influence in Turkey. The idea and spirit of Protestantism has a breadth which cannot be measured or portrayed by figures. As a matter of convenience and political necessity, and also to destroy unity of feeling and action among the subject peoples, all non-Moslem races were classified by Mohammed II., after the capture of Constantinople in 1453, according to their religious belief. These lines of division have always been strictly observed by the government in all its dealings with non-Moslems. Even many of the taxes are collected through ecclesiastical organizations. This policy of the government, together with the bitter persecution of Protestants by the older churches, led to the formation of a Protestant civil community in 1850, contrary to the original desire and instruction of the missionaries, and in spite of the protests of many evangelicals who preferred to retain connection with their ancestral church, but who were thrust out with violence and anathema.
The Protestant communities which then sprang up all over the Empire, were not ruled, as are the other Oriental churches, by hierarchical bodies. The missionaries, who are mostly Congregational or Presbyterian, while ready to advise and guide, have never exercised ecclesiastical control over their converts. The Protestants, in accordance with their inherent spirit and beliefs, have naturally organized their religious and civil communities on a simple representative basis, which has gradually developed independence of thought and character, and desire for progress.
We come now to the _indirect results_ of missionary effort, namely, the stimulus of evangelical example and success upon the Gregorian and other communities including even the Mohammedans. The homes, schools, and churches of the missionaries have been open to all comers; their varied literature has gone everywhere; their aid in sickness, distress, and famine has always ignored race or creed. Many thousands of Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, Jacobites and others—Moslems being prevented by their rulers except in rare instances—have received education in Protestant schools, without changing their church relations. But, nevertheless, a deep impression has been made on these pupils by contact no less than by teaching, and this, together with a natural and worthy loyalty to their own institutions, has stirred up all the other races to higher ideals and efforts.[71]
The existence of a marked desire for progress by all classes is now clear, and that this is largely due to foreign missionaries is admitted by all[72]—gratefully by the Armenians and Christians generally, but often with chagrin by the Turks, who find themselves being rapidly left behind in the forward march which they have been too stupid or too proud to fall in with. It is, however, very gratifying to see that the Mohammedan leaders in both Church and State are at length becoming aware of the marked intellectual awakening and substantial progress that education has quietly brought about among the Christian races. Robert College on the Bosphorus stands at the head of the many well equipped American institutions in Turkey which have largely contributed to these results.
We gladly recognize the wisdom and energy of His Majesty the present Sultan, in trying to establish Moslem schools throughout his empire, some of which are already quite large, creditable, and popular with the Turks. It cannot be doubted that these schools will lead ultimately to an awakening and a desire for reform and progress among Moslems which will make them no less restive under present conditions than are the non-Moslems to-day, and thus hasten the necessary reforms. While most hearty praise is due His Majesty for fostering and even forcing education among his Moslem subjects, it is greatly to be regretted that there is another side to this policy as carried out by his agents, namely, an equal zeal in curtailing and even closing, as far as possible, Christian schools.
The hostility of the Sublime Porte has been growing, just in proportion as the excellent results of American institutions, already enumerated, have appeared. Does the Turkish Government desire that its hostility be considered the most convincing proof of the success of disinterested efforts to benefit its subjects of all classes? And does it propose to continue to cripple and suppress such efforts? If so, it is not the two hundred and fifty American missionaries in her borders who will suffer, but the many schools and churches which they have planted and the many thousands of peaceable and hitherto loyal subjects, who have been taught in them to serve God as well as honor the king.
APPENDIX A. A BIT OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN TURKEY.
THE CASE.
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1884, pp. 538–539.[73])
(Inclosure in No. 317.)
_Mr. Wallace to Aarifi Pasha._
Note Verbale.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, _Constantinople, January 24, 1884_.
The legation of the United States of America has the honor to invite the attention of his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, to the matters following:
By note No. 167, June 13, 1883, the legation informed his highness that two American citizens, traveling in the vilayet of Bitlis, had been set upon by Kurds, robbed, and left to die, and that the governor-general of the vilayet had manifested the most singular indifference about the affair, and might be fairly charged with responsibility for the escape of the malefactors. The suggestion was then made that his highness would serve the cause of humanity and justice by ordering the most energetic measures to be taken for the apprehension of the robbers.
By a communication, No. 71235, June 13, 1883, his highness was good enough to answer the note of the legation, and give the pleasing intelligence that the governor-general had succeeded in discovering the goods taken from the two gentlemen, and that the robbers had been arrested and delivered up to justice. This information his highness reported as derived from the governor-general.
This report the legation found it necessary to correct; and for that purpose it addressed a second note to his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, No. 179, dated September 10, 1883, declaring that the robbers had not been arrested, and that the goods and money taken from Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds had been returned to them, but in small parts. Under impression that it was yet possible to obtain the powerful assistance of the Sublime Porte in bringing the thieves and assassins to justice, the legation in the same note proceeded to give the full particulars of the affair, both those connected with the assault and those descriptive of the action of the governor-general. Of the assault, it remarked that Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, accepting the assurance of the governor-general that the roads were perfectly safe, set out on their journey without a guard of zaptiehs. They put up for a night at a house where there was present Moussa Bey, son of Meza Bey, an influential Kurdish chief. When they took their coffee they failed to send a cup of it to the said Moussa, who feeling himself insulted by the inattention, took four assistants and next day waylaid the gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Knapp, they beat with clubs until they supposed him dead. Moussa Bey, with his own hand, cut down Dr. Reynolds, giving him ten cuts with a sword. The two were then bound and dragged into the bushes and there left to die. That there might be no excuse, such as that the murderers were unknown, the legation gave his highness the names of the subordinate assassins and their places of abode, Sherif Oglon Osman and Iskan Oglon Hassan, both of the village of Movnok. A third one was pointed out as the servant of Moussa Bey, living in the village of Kabiaa. Of the action of the governor-general the legation said further that when the affair was reported to him he made a show of action by sending zaptiehs to arrest the robbers, but, singular to remark, he selected Meza Bey, the father of Moussa, to take charge of the party. Going to the village of Auzont, Meza Bey pointed out four Kurds of another tribe as the guilty men, took them into custody and carried them for identification to Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, who said they were not the assailants.
During the night, in Aozou, a bundle was thrown through a window into a room occupied by the police, which on examination proved to contain a portion of the stolen goods. With this the governor-general rested from his efforts and dispatched to his highness the minister of foreign affairs, that the stolen goods were recovered and returned, and the felons captured and punished. This report, the legation took the liberty of informing his highness, was not true, also that the chief of the assassins, Moussa Bey, was still at large; and to emphasize its statement, the legation further said to his highness, that the details it communicated were current through all the region of Bitlis, having been first given out by Moussa himself. The legation then, in the same note, exposed the maladministration of the governor-general in language plain as respect for his highness, the minister, and for the Sublime Porte would permit, and suggested as the only means of accomplishing anything like redress that a brave impartial officer be sent to Bitlis to investigate the conduct of the governor and take the affair in his own hands. “Such a step,” it was added, “might serve to save the lives of many Christians,” and it was further represented that “could the assassins be brought to just sentence it would unquestionably lessen the demand for indemnity which otherwise it would be the duty of the legation to present against the Imperial Government in this connection.”
On November 7, 1883, the legation of the United States, by a third note, No. 184, communicated to his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, that the governor-general of Bitlis had confronted four persons with Mr. Knapp for identification, and that that gentleman had recognized Moussa Bey as one of those who had robbed and wounded him. The legation of the United States then expressed a hope that the minister of foreign affairs would give proper orders for bringing Moussa Bey and his companions in crime before the tribunals for trial.
Still later, on November 12, 1883, the legation of the United States addressed a fourth note, No. 185, to his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, detailing again the circumstances of the attempted murder of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, and representing the untrustworthiness of the governor-general by charging that Moussa Bey had already obtained from him assurances of immunity in the event of a trial and conviction.
His highness, the minister, was then requested that, if it was decided to maintain the governor-general at his post, orders be given for the transfer of the criminals to Constantinople for trial.
The three notes last named of the legation of the United States have not been answered by his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, except in a note, dated December 8, 1883, in which he is pleased to renew assurances based upon telegrams from the governor-general, which are utterly unreliable.
Wherefore, abandoning hope of justice through the governor-general of Bitlis, and the judicial tribunals of the empire, the legation of the United States finds itself compelled to change its form of application for redress, and demand of the Sublime Porte indemnity in behalf of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, for the former £1,500, and for the latter, because of the more serious nature of his injuries, £2,000.
THE POSITION TAKEN IN WASHINGTON.
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1884, p. 544.)
No. 419.
_Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Wallace._
(No. 153.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _Washington, February 13, 1884_.
SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 317, of the 25th ultimo, relative to the case of the Rev. Mr. Knapp and Dr. Reynolds, murderously attacked by Kurds near Bitlis, and to say that, after a careful consideration of all the facts before the Department, the inaction of the governor of Bitlis and the failure of the supreme Government to force him to undertake such measures as the case evidently demanded, must be regarded as a denial of justice. While this Government is always averse to making money demands for indemnity in countries whose administration of justice may differ from our own, the Department feels compelled to resort to this remedy under circumstances which manifestly make the local officers and the Government of the Porte responsible for the failure to do justice in this case.
The action reported in your dispatch is, consequently, approved.
I am, &c., FRED’K T. FRELINGHUYSEN.
THE POSITION TAKEN IN CONSTANTINOPLE.
General Lew Wallace is understood to have been emphatically a _persona grata_ as U. S. Minister to Turkey, in fact to have enjoyed, to a very exceptional degree, the personal confidence and friendship of His Majesty the present Sultan. The following quotation will show what treatment even he received in the discharge of his official duties in the case under consideration:
_From the Regular Correspondent of the Tribune._
CONSTANTINOPLE, March 1, 1884.
The Porte, in deciding how far it is safe to affront foreign Governments, has even ranked the United States below some of the European States. The Porte during the past year has treated General Wallace as if he were the representative of a Danubian Principality. Remonstrance after remonstrance against fresh violations of the treaties it has left unanswered, and it has repeatedly omitted the courtesy of a bare acknowledgment of their receipt. In fact, Turkey has been relying upon the distance of the United States. Perhaps its officials even suppose that the American navy is afraid to risk adventures so far from home as the coasts of the Levant.
General Wallace found it necessary, for the sake of the safety of American citizens in Turkey, to press for some definition of the situation. During nearly five weeks he had been refused a personal interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the ground of “indisposition.” During all that time the representative of that Minister declined to enter upon any discussion of the important questions at issue. Four times the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States had been turned away from the door of the Sublime Porte by the refusal of the Grand Vizier to see him. Each time plausible reasons were assigned which seemed to render any insistance on the part of the General uncourteous. Yet it became daily more evident that all these plausible excuses for declining negotiation on the injuries done by Turkey to American commerce and to American citizens were part of a settled purpose not to redress the wrongs.—_New York Semi-Weekly Tribune_, March 28, 1884.
THE RESULT.
The ten years that have elapsed since the above was written clearly show that what seemed then to be a “settled purpose” has become the settled policy of the Ottoman Government in regard to Americans and their rights in Turkey.
In regard to the outcome of the case of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, the humiliating fact must be recorded that not one cent of the indemnity demanded by the United States of America has to this day been obtained. The monster, Moussa Bey, was allowed by the Turkish Government to continue his outrages on the Armenian villages of the great Moosh plain, until his record became so appalling, that under European pressure the Porte summoned him to Constantinople, where he was entertained as the Sultan’s guest. He was whitewashed by the courts, but the Sultan was prevailed upon to invite him to make a pilgrimage to Medina at his expense, and there spend the remainder of his days in religious exercises.
APPENDIX B. U. S. CONSULATES IN EASTERN TURKEY.
The following petition was recently presented to the Hon. Walter Q. Gresham, Secretary of State, and to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, for the establishment of U. S. Consulates at Erzerum and Harpoot. The necessary legislation has been promptly enacted, for which the thanks of all Americans in Turkey is due to His Excellency the President, to the Secretary of State and to members of both Houses of Congress.
WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 3, 1895.
Apropos to the recent massacre of five thousand Armenians in Turkey, it is clearly inexpedient for the United States to mix up in the Eastern Question. But it is equally clear that _the duty of protecting a large body of native-born American citizens constantly subjected to danger, injury and insult in that land is not complicated by any Monroe Doctrine_. In their interests, attention is called to this brief statement of facts, and to a practical request for consular protection.
1. NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND INTERESTS INVOLVED.
Distributed in thirty of the principal cities of Asiatic Turkey alone, there is a permanent body of _two hundred and fifty Americans_, not including their children, who hold _over two million dollars_ of American property for residence and the use of their educational, medical, publishing and religious enterprises.
These figures do not cover the large commercial interests of Americans in Turkey, for which statistics are not at hand.
2. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DANGER TO WHICH THEY ARE EXPOSED.
There are two sources of danger: first, the _lawlessness_ of numerous highwaymen who infest the country, and of the fanatical Moslem population of the cities; and second, the _hostility_ of Turkish officials, who have repeatedly failed to restrain, and in some cases have even encouraged attacks upon the lives and property of American citizens.
3. EVIDENCE OF THIS DANGEROUS CONDITION.
So far back as June 29th, 1881, Secretary Blaine, in official instructions to Minister Wallace at Constantinople, wrote:
“Your attention will doubtless be prominently and painfully drawn to the insecurity of the lives and property of foreign travelers in Turkey, and the failures of the authorities to prevent or repress outrages upon American citizens by wayside robbers and murderers, or even to execute its own laws in the rare instances of the perpetrators of such outrages being brought to justice. I cannot take a better text on which to base this instruction, than the accompanying copy of a letter addressed to the President by a number of American residents in Turkey. Its statements are known to be entirely within the truth, and can be verified abundantly from the files of your legation. They show in simple yet forcible language, the insecurity of traveling in that country, and _the instances to the number of eight, within the past two years, when American citizens have been robbed and beaten by lawless marauders_. On these occasions the lives of the assailed have been at the mercy of the robbers and, in one instance at least, the taking of life preceded the robbery.”—_Foreign Relations of the United States 1881._
The above extract refers to outrages in Western Asia Minor and the vicinity of Constantinople, but it is well known that in the Eastern and interior part of Turkey, where many of us live, _the insecurity is greater and has steadily increased, during the thirteen years that have elapsed since the above facts were admitted by the State Department_.
The murderous attack by a Kurdish chief in person, which nearly cost Dr. G. C. Reynolds, of Van his life, and for which _no indemnity was ever obtained_, though the assailant was positively identified in court, is reported in full in _Foreign Relations of the United States_, 1883, 1884, and 1890.
The arrest and indignities inflicted upon Mr. Richardson of Erzerum, by the Governor-General, for which _no apology even was ever secured_, are related in _Foreign Relations of the United States_ 1891.
The burning of Marsovan College by an unrestrained Turkish mob and the _danger to the lives of many American residents_ is found in _Foreign Relations of the United States_ 1893.
More cases of injury and insult, may be found in the same official records. But in many other instances it has been felt to be useless and inexpedient to even report them. _The absence of any American representative to substantiate and vindicate our rights on the ground, and the hopelessness of securing anything but further injury by trying to press our claims, often drives us to the humiliating necessity of suffering injustice with scarcely a protest._
THE REQUEST.
We feel that the condition shown by the above evidence, not to add more, abundantly justifies a renewed request for _some Consular protection in the Eastern part of Turkey, for the American citizens permanently residing there in the prosecution of lawful pursuits_. Our present exposed and helpless condition is clearly set forth in a communication from the United States Legation at Constantinople, to the State Department: “It may not be doubted that the absence of an American Consul at Erzroom leaves our citizens there singularly destitute of means to vindicate their rights and protect their interests; this is the more regrettable as Erzroom is a missionary station of considerable importance, and situated in a province where official protection is most frequently and urgently needed. _The British Consul there is instructed to act ‘unofficially’ for our citizens, but his right to represent them is not recognized by the Ottoman authorities; the obvious consequence is, that when his good offices are most needed, they are of least avail._” _Foreign Relations of the United States_ 1891.
We are thus seen to be cut off from Consular protection of any kind. The nearest U. S. Consul, Mr. Jewett of Sivas, an excellent man, is unavailable for us for three reasons: first, the delay and difficulty in communicating with him on account of our isolation, and the very circuitous post-routes, in case the local authorities were kind enough not to intercept our letters, as they have repeatedly, even the official correspondence of the United States Minister (_Foreign Relations of the U. S._ 1893); second, the distance and methods of travel are such that probably from one to two months would elapse after any outrage, before the Sivas Consul could be notified and arrive; third, the Consul at Sivas could not leave his post without neglecting the large American interests in Asia Minor.
Aside from being needed when special difficulties do occur, it is obvious that the mere presence of a United States Consul on the ground would have a marked effect in _deterring_ both the lawless and fanatical elements, and the officials, who have never seen the stars and stripes, from repeating acts which have caused much injury to the interests of American citizens, and have been _the occasion of tedious and unpleasant diplomatic correspondence between the two countries_. The expense of living in Turkey is unusually low.
In view of all the foregoing facts, it is urgently requested that American Consuls be located at Erzerum and Harpoot. These cities are large centres of population and of American interests, and the seats of Provincial Governors. They have large commercial and strategic importance, and as good facilities for communication by post, telegraph, or private messenger as the country affords. From Erzerum, Bitlis and Van could also be cared for, while Mardin and Mosul would naturally be under Harpoot, and thus the Americans of that whole territory would be brought within two or three week’s journey of Consular protection.
We are from seven hundred to one thousand miles from Constantinople, which means a journey of three to six weeks. The fact that at least _5,000 men, women and children in our midst have been massacred, and this fact kept nearly three months from the civilized world, is a significant hint as to our isolation and danger_. The articles in the last _Harper’s Weekly_, Dec. 29, and in the _Review of Reviews_, Jan. 1895, give much light on the situation.
APPENDIX C. DR. HAMLIN’S EXPLANATION.
(_New York Herald, December 20, 1894._)
_To the Editor of the Herald_:
A cutting from the _Herald_ has been sent to me to-day containing a letter of His Excellency, Mavroyeni, on the Armenian atrocities. I must strongly object to the use he makes of a letter of mine in the Boston _Congregationalist_ of last year (December 23, 1893).
The object of that letter was to show the absurdity of the revolutionary plotters. The Armenians are a noble race, but few in number, scattered and unarmed. The Turkish Government has never had the least fear of any such movement. It knows well that there is no place in the Empire where one thousand or even one hundred Armenians could assemble with hostile intent. And besides they have no arms, and they are not accustomed to their use. They would be lambs in the midst of wolves. Every one knows this who knows anything of Turkey outside of Constantinople.
It is to be greatly regretted that the Ottoman Ambassador should attempt to cover up the path of these horrid atrocities which have agitated the whole Christian world and for which Turkey must give account. It were far better to deplore the fact and work for justice and judgment. It may be the time has passed when such deeds of blood and torture, committed upon unarmed men, women and children, can be condoned by the civilized world.
The plots of the revolutionists were harmless as to any effective force, but were very pernicious in arousing fanaticism. The fact that a few hair-brained young men in foreign lands had plotted a revolution was a sufficient reason in the view of Moslem fanaticism for devoting the whole race to destruction. It was this which I feared and it is this which has happened.
Another object of the letter, from which His Excellency has quoted, was to draw attention to the fact that this revolutionary movement is a game which Russia is playing in her own interests. And she has played it well. She has again caught Turkey in her trap. The whole civilized world will now approve of her marching in with force to stop the slaughter of an industrious, peaceful, unarmed peasantry. If Russia enters, it will be with professions of great kindness toward the Sultan. It will be to aid him in his well known benevolent intentions in the government of his Christian subjects! But she will call the Armenians to her standard and will arm and train them and they will prove a brave and valiant soldiery. Some of the ablest generals of the Russian army have been Armenians. Thus armed and trained, with the aid of their Russian allies, they will defend their own homes in the Sassoun or any other district.
Turkey has brought this upon herself. His Excellency is a Greek gentleman, and has a natural sympathy with Russia. His influence has been to magnify the revolutionary plots instead of showing, as my letter did, their insignificance and their Russian character, and has led his government to give to them an importance which seems absurd. The Turkish Government has had sufficient opportunity to study and understand Russia since the Treaty of 1829, and again of 1833. Have her trusted advisers been true to her, or have they betrayed her interests?
The civilized and Christian world awaits with profound and fixed attention the solution of the question whether bloody, fanatical violence or law shall reign over the Eastern regions of the Turkish Empire.
CYRUS HAMLIN.
Lexington, Mass., December 18, 1894.
APPENDIX D. THE CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS.
With what intelligence and religious toleration the censorship of the press is conducted may be judged from examples found in an official document:
“The quotation, in religious books, of the words of Scripture for proof or illustration, has been subjected to the will of the censor; and even the printing of religious books has been objected to on the ground that since Christians are graciously allowed to use the Holy Bible, they need no other books of religion. Appeal from the decisions of the censors is practically unavailing. This censor insists that the Scriptural phrase ‘Kingdom of Christ’ may not be used by Christians....
“The index list of the Bible lessons for 1893 is simply a table of contents prepared by the British Sunday School Union. The censors have refused to permit the publication of this index list, unless some fifty titles are erased, or modified into a form at variance with the matter of the lessons, or expanded to a degree impossible in a brief table of contents, for example: St. Luke iv., 14–21, ‘Gospel liberty.’ The word ‘liberty’ must be erased. Jeremiah xxxiii., 7–16, ‘Sorrow turned to joy.’ This title must be suppressed. Haggai ii., 1–9, ‘Encouraging the people.’ This title, which refers to the Divine encouragement given to the people in the work of rebuilding the temple in the days of Zerubbabel, must be erased.
“Psalm xxxiii., 10–22, ‘Wicked devices frustrated.’ This title must be stricken out.
“Esther iv., 1–9, ‘Sorrow in the palace.’ This title must be suppressed.
“Romans iv., 1–8, ‘Saved by grace.’ This title must be modified to read ‘Saved from sin by grace.’
“Psalm xxxviii., 8–15, ‘Hope in distress.’ This title must be suppressed.
“Joshua i., 1–9, ‘Fear not.’ This title can not be allowed.
“Romans viii., 31–39, ‘Rejoicing in persecution.’ This title must be erased.
“Romans xv., 25–33, ‘A benevolent object.’ This title cannot be allowed to stand unless the object is stated.”—_Foreign Relations of the United States_, 1893.
We learn that four months after the complaint was made the particular points specified above were arranged. But as soon as foreign pressure was relaxed the activity of the Censor revived, and is now more intolerable than ever. A gentleman of long experience and intimate knowledge writing from behind the scenes within a month, states: “The Censorship of the Press is so severe as to amount almost to a prohibition. At Constantinople a most reckless and destructive mutilation of books goes on; and, contrary to the expressed utterances of the Porte guaranteeing religious liberty, Christian doctrines are expunged or changed, so as, at times, to become ridiculous and false. The men appointed as Censors of the Press seem to be utterly ignorant of all Christian literature and history and their object is to make all books conform to the doctrines of Islam.
“The religious weekly of the American Mission in Syria, which had been published for thirty years, was suppressed for a whole year, no reason being given; and when the permit was finally secured, it was accompanied by puerile and humiliating conditions.”
Some special departments of literature, such as history and poetry, are forbidden, wholesale, by the Censor. Many of the Censor’s decisions and the grounds on which they are based would be most laughable, but for the fact that they are part of an attempt to throttle and starve the hungry and growing minds of millions.
APPENDIX E. PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT.
HISTORICAL.
NORMAN, _Armenia and the Campaign of 1877_. London, 1878.
MILNER, _The Turkish Empire_. London: Religious Tract Society.
CLARK, _The Arabs and the Turks_. New York: Dodd & Mead.
TOZER, _The Church and the Eastern Empire_. New York: Randolph. London: Longmans.
LATIMER, _Russia and Turkey in the XIX. Century_. Chicago: McClurg & Co., 1894.
MORFILL, _Russia_. New York: Putnams. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893.
LANE POOLE, _Turkey_. New York: Putnams. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893.
CHURCHILL, _Druzes and Maronites_. London: Quaritch, 1862.
Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, _The Eastern Question_. London: John Murray, 1881.
LATHAM, _Russian and Turk_. London: Allen, 1878.
LAYARD, _Nineveh and its Remains_. London: Murray.
RAWLINSON, _The Five Great Monarchies_. Murray.
RAWLINSON, _The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy_. Longmans.
RAWLINSON, _The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy_. Longmans.
TRAVEL.
SMITH and DWIGHT, _Researches in Armenia_. 2 vols. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1833.
STEPHENS, _Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Poland_. 2 vols. New York: Harpers, 1839.
SOUTHGATE, _A Tour through Armenia, Persia, and Mesopotamia_. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1840.
VAN LENNEP, _Travels in Asia Minor_. 2 vols. New York: Van Lennep, 1870.
VAN LENNEP, _Bible Lands: Their Modern Customs and Manners_. New York: Harpers, 1875.
THEILMANN, _Journey in the Caucasus, Persia, and Turkey_. 2 vols. London: 1875.
CREAGH, _Armenians, Koords, and Turks_. London: 1880.
TOZER, _Turkish Armenia and Eastern Asia Minor_. London: 1881.
BISHOP, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_. 2 vols. New York: Putnams. London: John Murray, 1891.
MOHAMMEDANISM.
SALE’S, _The Koran_. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Wardle, 1833.
SMITH, R. Bosworth, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_. London: John Murray. New York: Harpers, 1875.
WASHBURN, _The Points of Contact and Contrast between Christianity and Mohammedanism_. Chicago: The Parliament Publishing Company, 1893.
BURTON, _Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Mecca_. New York: Putnams. Belfast: Mullan.
MUIR, _Life of Mahomet_. London.
SPRENGER, _Life of Mohammed_. Allahabad, 1851.
IRVING, _Life of Mahomet_. Putnams.
STOBART, _Islam and its Founder_. Christian Knowledge Soc.
PFANDER, _Mezan el Hoc_. London: Church Missionary Society.
HUGHES, _Notes on Muhammadanism_. London: Allen, 1877.
OSBORN, _Islam under the Arabs_. London: Longmans, Green.
MUIR, _The Coran_. London: Christian Knowledge Society.
KOELLE, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_. London: Rivington’s, 1889.
ARNOLD, _Islam and Christianity_. London: Longmans.
AMEER ALI, _The Spirit of Islam_.
AMEER ALI, _Life and Teachings of Mohammed_. London: Williams.
MISSIONS.
_The Missionary Herald, 1820–1894._ Boston: The American Board.
DWIGHT, _Christianity Revived in the East_. New York: Baker & Scribner, 1850.
ANDERSON, _Missions to the Oriental Churches_. 2 vols. Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1872.
WHEELER, _Letters from Eden_. Boston: American Tract Society, 1868.
WHEELER, _Ten Years on the Euphrates_. Boston: American Tract Society, 1860.
WHEELER, _Daughters of Armenia_. New York: American Board, 1891.
PRIME, _Forty Years in the Turkish Empire_, or Memoirs of Rev. William Goodell, D.D., Boston: American Tract Society, 1877.
LAURIE, _Missions and Science_. Boston: American Board, 1885.
LAURIE, _Dr. Grant and the Mountain Nestorians_. Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1853.
JESSUP, _The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1879.
SCHAUFFLER, _Autobiography_. New York: Randolph, 1888.
HAMLIN, _Among the Turks_. New York: Robt. Carter & Bro.
HAMLIN, _My Life and Times_. Boston: Congregational S. S. and Pub. Soc.
ARMENIAN HISTORY.
MOSES CHORENENSIS, _Armenian History_, Arm. and Lat. London: William and George Whiston, 1736.
LANGLOIS, VICTOR, _Collection des Historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie_, en Français. Vol. i. Historiens grecs et syriens traduits anciennement en Arménien. Vol. II. Historiens arméniens de 5^e siècle. 8º. Paris, 1867.
DULAURIER, _Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents Arméniens_. Paris, 1869. Folio with facsimile reproductions. Pp. 855. Arm. and French.
DULAURIER, _Étude sur l’Organisation Politique, Religieuse et Administrative du Royaume de la Petite-Arménie à l’époque des Croisades_. Paris, 1862.
LENORMANT, _Sur l’Ethnographie et l’Histoire de l’Arménie, avant les Achéménides_. In Lettres Assyriologiques. 1871.
_Inscriptions d’un Reliquaire Arménien._ With plates. Paris, 1883.
NEUMANN, _The History of Vartan by Elisaeus_. Translated from the Armenian. London, 1830.
MALAN, _The Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator_. Translated from Armenian. London, 1868.
CHAMICH, _History of Armenia_. Translated from Armenian into English by Avdall. Calcutta, 1827.
STUBBS, WILLIAM, _The Mediæval Kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia_. In Seventeen Lectures, etc. 1886.
_Genealogical Catalogue of the Kings of Armenia._ Oriental Translation Fund. Vol. ii. London, 1834.
GABRIELIAN, _The Armenians or People of Ararat_. Philadelphia: Allen, Lane & Scott, 1892.
ARMENIAN LITERATURE.
NÈVE, FÉLIX, _L’Arménie Chrétienne et sa Littérature_. Louvain, 1886.
_Catalogue des anciennes traductions Arméniennes, siècles iv.-xiii._ 8º pp. 783. Venezia, 1889.
DWIGHT, _Catalogue of all Works known to exist in the Armenian Language earlier than the Seventeenth Century_. American Oriental Society. Vol. iii. 1853.
FORTESCUE, _The Armenian Church, History, Literature, Doctrine_. London, 1872.
ISSAVERDENZ, _The Divine Ordinances according to the Catholic Armenian Ritual_. Venice, 1867.
ALISHAN, _Armenian Popular Songs_. Armenian and English. Venice, 1867.
LORD BYRON’S _Armenian Exercises and Poetry_. Armenian and English. Venice, 1870.
GENERAL INDEX.
A
ABERDEEN, Lord, 72
AGHTAMAR, 141, 145
ALEXANDER, 53, 133
AMERICANS Position, 67, 148 Number, 149 Work, 141, 148–151 Influence, 152–154 Interests, 147–166
ANGLO-ARMENIAN ASSOC., 69
ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION See England
ARMENIA _Land_ Name, 44, 46 Extent, 45 Aspects, 44–46 Inhabitants, 45, 46 Condition, 9, 15, 32, 35, 39, 42, 46, 62–65 Autonomy, 69, 81 _Race_ Origin, 132 Number, 45, 142 Distribution, 44 Characteristics, 52, 140 Condition, chap. i., ii., iii., iv. “Revolution,” Preface, Chap. i., 69, 81, 167 Progress, 79, 117, 154 _History_ Biblical, 132, 133 Classical, 134, 135 Armenian Sources, 144 In General, 53 _Church_ Apostolic Tradition, 136 Founder, 136 Doctrine, 137 Form, 137, 144 Heroic Struggle, 53 Decline, 139 Reform, 140, 143, 154 Catholicos, 137, 138 Political Significance, 138 Future, 138 _Literature_ Language, 132, 143 Pre-Christian, 143 Golden Age, 144 Second Period, 144 Modern Revival, 146 General Character, 144 _Massacre_ See Massacres
ARNAUT, 98
AUSTRIA, Preface, 104
AUTHOR, Purpose, Preface, 147
B
BAGDAD, 48
BAIBOURT, 46
BASHI-BAZOUK, 98, 102
BASHKALLA, 16, 49
BERLIN TREATY. See Treaties
BIBLIOGRAPHY, Appendix E
BILOTTI, Consul, 113
BISHOP, Mrs., 62, 67, 131, 154
BISMARCK, Preface, 78
BITLIS, 12, 16, 37, 43
BLUE-BOOKS. See England
BLOWITZ, M. de, 83
BOSNIA, 83, 84
BRITANNICA, Encyc., 48, 49
BRYCE, Hon. James, Preface, 69
BULGARIA, 73, 83, 96, 101, 126
BYRON, Lord, 154
BYZANTINE EMPIRE, 53, 134
C
CAIRO UNIVERSITY, 75
CASTLE, Kurdish, 49
CATHOLICOS. See Armenia
CENSORSHIP, 73, Append. C
CHERMSIDE, Consul, 113
CHIOS, 97
CHOSROES, 137
CHRISTIANITY, Toleration. See Mohammedanism
CHURCHILL, 96, 100
CIRCASSIANS, 73
CODE NAPOLEON, 89
COMMISSION of Inquiry. See Massacres
CONSULAR REPORTS. British. See England United States, 66
COUNCIL of Chalcedon, 157
COURTS. See Turkey
CRETE. See Massacres
CRIMEAN War, 72
CRISIS, 33, 35, 82, 84, Preface
CYPRUS Convention, 72, 76
D
DIARBEKIR, 48
DIPLOMACY American, Preface, Append. A, B European, Preface, Chap. v. Turkish, 70, 77, 93
E
EASTERN QUESTION, Preface, 68, 85
EDUCATION, 87, 140, 143, 150, 155
EGYPT, 83
ENGLAND Attitude, Preface Responsibility, 69, 73, 76, 79, 103, 128. See Treaties Efforts, 76–79, 123 Consular Reports, Preface, 48, 66, 68, 74, 77, 78, 112
ERZERUM, 46, 62, 66, 113
ERZINGAN, 21, 23, 46
EVERETT, Consul, 113
F
FANATICISM. See Mohammedanism
FRANCE, Preface, 78, 104, 107, 138, 140, 149
FREEMAN, 79, 85, 88, 117
G
GENGHIS KHAN, 136
GERMANY, Preface, 78, 104
GLADSTONE, on Consular Reports, Preface Sassoun Massacre, 121–125 Turkish Rule, 126–130
GOSCHEN, 78
GRANVILLE, 77
GREECE, 83, 89, 97, 127, 133, 154
GREGORY, The Illuminator. See Armenian Church
H
HALLWARD, Consul, 16
HAMLIN, Cyrus, 81, 167
HANNIBAL, 134
HARPOOT, 48
HATTI HUMAYOUN, 72
HATTI SHERIF, 71
HERODOTUS, 133
HERZEGOVINA, 83
HUGHES, 89
HUMANITY, Preface, 1, 33, 123, 127, 129
I
IBRAHIM PASHA, 71
IDENTICAL NOTE, 76
“ILLUMINATOR,” 53, 137, 138. See Armenian Church
IMPERIAL RESCRIPT, 71
INDEPENDENT, The, 54, 95, 101
INFORMATION Channels, 66 Danger of, Preface, 1, 15, 16, 54, 62 Sultan’s, 13, 89, 92, 93
ISLAM. See Mohammedanism
ITALY, Preface, 104
J
JACOBITE, 54, 89
JESSUP, 75
JESUIT, 137
JEWS, 68, 89
K
KALLAY, M. de, 84
KERMANSHAH, 46
KHRIMIAN, Catholicos, 138 Motto on Title-page
KHOSHAB, Castle, 50
KNAPP, Attack on, 157
KORAN. See Mohammedanism
KURDISTAN Country, 46 Kurds, 48–52 “Hamediéh” Troops, 1–30, 126 Outrages, 54–69, 157–164
L
LATHAM, 96
LAYARD, 96, 99
LEBANON, 93
LEON VI., 136
LLOYD, Consul-Gen., 66
M
MACCOLL, Canon, 72
MACGAHAN, 96, 103
MALATIAH, 46
MAMELUKES, 136
MARONITES, 99
MASSACRES in Turkey _Greek_ (1822), 96–98 _Nestorian_ (1850), 96, 99 _Syrian_ (1860), 96, 99 _Cretan_ (1867), 104 _Bulgarian_ (1876), 96, 101 _Armenian_ (1877), 105–107 _Yezidi_ (1892), 108 _Armenian_ (1894), Chap. I. Victims, Dedication Evidence, 1–42 Uncalled for, 21, 23, 26, 36 Premeditated, 17, 18 Ordered, 7, 12, 14, 20, 28–30 Long Duration, 21, 31 Number Slain, 11, 15, 24 Manner, 20–23, 26, 31 Violation of Women, 15, 22, 27, 28, 39, 41 Denials, 12, 25, 27 Concealment, 11–15, 29–34, 40 Commission of Inquiry, Preface, 103 Gladstone’s Opinion, 121–125
MIDHAT PASHA, 86
MISSIONS. See Americans Other Missions, 149
MOHAMMEDANISM Founder, 110, 125 Koran, 89, 99, 111, 115 Exclusive, 115, 116 Spirit, 22, 74, 89, 110, 167 Rationalistic Types, 116 “Tolerance,” 42, 71, 74, 84, 107, 114, 127, 169 Converts from, 68, 114 Union with State, 111, 119
MOOSH, 43
MORFILL, 69
MOSUL, 48, 58
N
NEBUCHADNEZZAR, 53
NESTORIANS, 54, 89. See Massacres
NORMAN, 52, 85, 104
O
ORDOO, 72
OTTOMAN. See Turkey
P
PAGRATIDÆ, 134
PARRY, 107
PARTHIANS, 53, 134
PERSIA, 6, 43, 48, 53
PHIL-ARMENIC, 69
POPE, 88
PORTE, SUBLIME. See Sultan of Turkey
POWERS, EUROPEAN Attitude, Preface, 67, 76, 81, 99, 104 Responsibility, 33, 41, 69, 88, 119, 122
PROTESTANTS Origin, 153 Number, 150 Success, 147–154 Hostility to, 58, 71, 155
R
REYNOLDS, Attack on, 157, 163
REGISTER, The Christian, 127
RELIGION Classification by, 152 Freedom of, 70–75, 110–120, 169 See Mohammedanism, Turkey
REVIEW OF REVIEWS, Preface
ROBERT COLLEGE, 115, 149, 155
ROLIN-JAEQUEMYNS, 78, 112
ROMANS, 53
RUPENIAN Dynasty, 136, 144
RUSSIA Attitude, 53, 68, 104, 168 Feeling toward, 45, 52, 68, 73, 81
S
SALADIN, 48
SARACEN, 53
SASSANIDÆ, 134
SCHUYLER, EUGENE, 96, 101
SELJOUK, 53, 136
SELEUCIDÆ, 133
SHAH, 48
SHAW, DR. ALBERT, 7
SIOUFFI, 107
SMITH, R. BOSWORTH, 111
STAMBOUL, 70
STEIN, ROBERT, 96
STEVENSON, Preface, 121
STILLMAN, 104
STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, Lord, 69, 109
STRONG, DR. JOSIAH, Introduction
SUBLIME PORTE, 90–94, 155
SULTAN _Mohammed II._, 87, 152 _Selim I._, 88 _Mahmoud_, 97 _Medjid_, 71, 72 _Abd-ul-Hamid_, Preface Sincerity, 13, 87, 91, 155 Helplessness, 88 Isolation, 124 Absolutism, 90–94
SYRIAN, 89, 96, 100 See Massacres
T
TACITUS, 134
TAMERLANE, 136
TIGRANES II., 134
TIMES, THE LONDON, 104, 127
TOZER, 136
TREATIES, Chapter iv. Adrianople, 70 Berlin, 69, 73, 76–81, 112 Cyprus, Preface, 73, 76 Paris, 72
TREBIZOND, 12, 43, 113
TURKEY Americans in. See Americans, United States Antecedents, 117–120, 124, 127 Attitude, Preface, 81 Future, 108–109, 120, 127–130 _Government_ Administration, 11, 35, 46, 74, 109, 123, 128, 153 Courts, 41, 65, 74, 112 Divided, 92 Favors Kurds, 17, 20, 30, 62 Hostile to Christians, 10–41, 53, 66, 89, 100, 110–120, 153 Reports, 48, 67 Union with Islam, 111 Massacres. See Massacres Moslem Races, 86, 90 Reform, 10, 70–75, 83, 88, 94, 109, 117–120, 129 Treaties. See Treaties Taxation, 16, 27, 34, 49, 59–62 Travel, 43, 131 Turks, 46, 86
U
UNITED STATES Attitude, Introduction, Preface Consulates, 66, 163 Diplomacy, 157 Armenians in, 45
V
VAN, 37, 43, 49 Governor of, 19, 64
VIOLATION OF WOMEN, 15, 22, 27, 28, 39, 41, 98, 101, 105–107, 129
W
WALLACE, GEN. LEWIS, 157–162
WASHBURN, PREST. GEORGE, 115
WILSON, CONSUL-GEN., 73, 112, 114
X
XENOPHON, 133
XERXES, 53
Y
YEZIDI Massacre, 106
YURUK, 98
Z
ZEIBEK, 83, 98
ZEKKI PASHA, 21
ZOROASTRIANS, 134
Footnote 1:
“I am at a loss to know why the Reports of Consuls ceased to be furnished in or about the year 1881. Consuls are supposed to keep their eyes open and to report facts regarding the people among whom they live, and it is altogether a new idea that their Reports are to be regarded as confidential documents. If they are to be so, that is simply condemning the Consuls’ Reports to perpetual barrenness and absolute inutility. Why are not consular reports to be made, and being made, why are they not to be printed? If in this respect I am personally, or anyone associated with me, is open to censure, let the facts be brought out; but do not let a particular act at a particular time be confounded with the adoption of the principle of eternal silence about the horrors that prevail in Armenia.”—Speech by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, in House of Commons, May 28, 1889.
Footnote 2:
_The Speaker_, London, January 12, 1895.
Footnote 3:
“A good deal of misapprehension exists with respect to the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry. It is not an international but a Turkish Commission, and, to judge by past experience, Turkish Commissions are instruments by which truth is suppressed and issues are obscured. It is satisfactory that representatives of Great Britain, France, and Russia will have the opportunity of examining the _procès-verbaux_, besides being present at the sittings of the Commission; and credit is due to the British Foreign Office for having taken the initiative in securing this concession; but it must be remembered that the powers of the international representatives will be strictly limited, and that they will not be able to guarantee the security of the witnesses.”—F. S. Stevenson, M.P., “Armenia,” in _The Contemporary Review_, February, 1895.
Footnote 4:
See APPENDIX B on the establishment of new U. S. Consulates in Eastern Turkey. Also APPENDIX A on American Diplomacy.
Footnote 5:
Brother and predecessor of the present Consul Jewett, at Sivas.
Footnote 6:
_Encyc. Britannica_, “Kurdistan.”
Footnote 7:
_Encyc. Britannica_, “Kurdistan.”
Footnote 8:
_Armenia and the Campaign of 1877._
Footnote 9:
A piastre is a Turkish coin of about five cents, or two pence-half penny. In this region the pay of a day laborer is from two to five piastres.
Footnote 10:
Often called Nestorian.
Footnote 11:
Mrs. Isabella Bird Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_, vol. ii., p. 374, 375.
Footnote 12:
_The Contemporary Review_, May and June, 1891.
Footnote 13:
_The Case for the Armenians._ London: Anglo-Armenian Association.
Footnote 14:
_An Appeal to the Christians of America by the Christians of Armenia._ New York: Phil-Armenic Society.
Footnote 15:
Morfill’s _Russia_, p. 287. Putnam.
Footnote 16:
Rev. H. O. Dwight, _The Independent_, New York, January 17, 1895.
Footnote 17:
At the time of the Crimean War Lord Aberdeen said:
“Notwithstanding the favorable opinion entertained by many, it is difficult to believe in the improvement of the Turks. It is true that, under the pressure of the moment, benevolent decrees may be issued; but these, except under the eye of some Foreign Minister, are entirely neglected. Their whole system is radically vicious and inhuman. I do not refer to fables which may be invented at St. Petersburg or Vienna, but to numerous dispatches of Lord Stratford (de Redcliffe) himself, and of our own consuls, who describe a frightful picture of lawless oppression and cruelty.” (Sir Theodore Martin’s _Life of the Prince Consort_, vol. ii., p. 528.) Quoted by Canon MacColl, _The Contemporary Review_, January, 1895.
Footnote 18:
Judge.
Footnote 19:
Local districts.
Footnote 20:
Report of Mr. Wilson, _Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 8 (1881), page 57, No. 48.
Footnote 21:
_The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_, p. 31. Jessup. Philadelphia, Presb. Pub. Soc.
Footnote 22:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 6, 1881, reports of Wilson, Bennett, Chermside, Trotter, Stewart, Clayton, Everett, and Bilotti.
Footnote 23:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, 1881, p. 242.
Footnote 24:
Published by John Heywood, London, 1891, pp. 82–89.
Footnote 25:
Freeman, _The Turks in Europe_.
Footnote 26:
“Diplomatist,” “The Armenian Question” in _The New Review_, January, 1895.
Footnote 27:
Pp. 158–9. London: Cassell, Petter, & Galpin.
Footnote 28:
Speech in St. James’s Hall, December, 1876.
Footnote 29:
_The Nineteenth Century_, January, 1878.
Footnote 30:
From a descendant of Dahir Billah, the thirty-fifth caliph of Bagdad, Sultan Selim I. “procured the cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself the shadow of God upon earth. Since then the Ottoman padishah has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and Haroun, and to be the legitimate commander of the faithful, and, as such, possessed of plenary temporal and spiritual authority over the followers of Mohammed.”[31] The Persians and Moors, however, reject this claim, and at the close of the Russian War not a few of the Arab muftis declared that the caliphate had been forfeited by the inglorious defeat of the Turks, and should now return to the Arab family of Koreish.
Footnote 31:
Freeman, _The Saracens_, p. 158. Quoted by Jessup, _The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_, p. 21. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1879.
Footnote 32:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, pp. 209, 210.
Footnote 33:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, p. 10.
Footnote 34:
Parts of this chapter are taken from an article, “Notes on the Armenian Massacre,” in _The Independent_, New York, January 31, 1895, by a high authority, who is compelled to sign himself “A Student of Modern History.”
Footnote 35:
Latham, _Russian and Turk_, p. 417. London: W. H. Allen, 1878.
Footnote 36:
Layard’s _Nineveh_.
Footnote 37:
Colonel Churchill, _Druzes and Maronites_, p. 219. London: Quaritch, 1862.
Footnote 38:
Eugene Schuyler and Correspondent MacGahan, quoted in _The Independent_, January 10, 1895.
Footnote 39: