Volume IV, pp. 120–142.

[6] Helfferich, _op. cit._, Part V; A. P. Brüning, _Die Entwicklung des ausländischen, speciell des überseeischen deutschen Bankwesens_ (Berlin, 1907), pp. 14 _et seq._; _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1889, p. 3; _Report of the Deutsche Bank_, 1892, p. 4, 1890, p. 4.

[7] _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1891, p. 20, 1892, pp. 16, 23.

[8] _Actes de la concession du chemin de fer Eski Shehr-Konia_ (Constantinople, 1893); _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1896, pp. 4, 9.

[9] _Corps de droit ottoman_, Volume IV, pp. 191–197. The junction of the two systems at Afiun Karahissar did not immediately materialize. The distance from that town to Constantinople is longer by sixty-six kilometres than the distance to Smyrna; the latter port, therefore, is the better natural outlet for the products of Anatolia. This diversion of traffic to Smyrna the Anatolia Railway sought to avoid, it is said, by granting discriminatory rates in favor of through freight to Constantinople over its own lines. A rate war ensued between the Anatolian and Smyrna-Cassaba systems, and neither was willing to permit an actual joining of the tracks at Afiun Karahissar, with the result that for years the rails of the two roads lay a comparatively few yards apart. This absurd situation, so obviously detrimental to the interests of the two roads, was remedied by an agreement of 1899. _Infra_, pp. 59–60. _Cf._, also R. LeCoq, _Un chemin de fer en Asie Mineure_ (Paris, 1907), pp. 23–24; _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1899, p. 3.

[10] A summary of the report of the Commission is to be found in _Diplomatic and Consular Reports_, No. 3140 (London, 1903), pp. 26 _et seq._ A statement of its membership and purposes is given in the _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1899, p. 9.

[11] _Report of the Anatolian Railway Company_, 1897, p. 3.

[12] _Alldeutsche Blätter_, December 17, 1899. It should be borne in mind, however, that until the Bagdad Railway concession was granted French financiers held the lead in the number of kilometres of railway in operation or contracted for. The situation in 1898 was as follows:

_British_ Kiloms. Smyrna-Aidin 373 Mersina-Adana 67 —- Total 440

_French_ Kiloms. Smyrna-Cassaba 512 Jaffa-Jerusalem 87 Beirut-Damascus 247 Damascus-Aleppo 420 ——- Total 1,266

_German_ Kiloms. Haidar Pasha-Ismid 91 Ismid-Angora 485 Eski Shehr-Konia 444 ——- Total 1,020

All of the British and German lines were in operation in 1898, whereas the French Syrian Railways were only partially completed.

[13] _Statistisches Handbuch für das deutsche Reich_, Volume 2, pp. 506, 510; _Diplomatic and Consular Reports_, No. 2950 (1902), pp. 5, 23; _Turkey in Europe_, No. 16 of the Foreign Office Handbooks, pp. 86–87.

[14] J. Riesser, _Die deutschen Grossbanken und ihre Konzentration im Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung der Gesamtwirtschaft in Deutschland_ (third edition, Jena, 1909); translated into English and published as Senate Document No. 593, Sixty-first Congress, Second Session, 1911. References here given are to the translation. In this connection _cf._ “The Oversea and Foreign Business of the German Credit Banks,” pp. 420 _et seq._

[15] _Syria and Palestine_, p. 126; _The Times_, October 28, 1898, August 2 and 16, 1899.

[16] Karl Helfferich, _Die deutsche Türkenpolitik_ (Berlin, 1921), pp. 10 _et seq._; J. A. R. Marriot, _The Eastern Question_ (Oxford, 1917), pp. 347 _et seq._

[17] L. Ostrorog, _The Turkish Problem_ (London, 1919), pp. 52–53; E. Dutemple, _En Turquie d’Asie_ (Paris, 1883), pp. 131 _et seq._

[18] For a biographical account of General von der Goltz (1843–1916) _cf._ F. W. Wile, _Men Around the Kaiser_ (Philadelphia, 1913),