Mr. Brown to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have had the honor to receive your dispatch of the 11th October, asking instructions from me on the subject of the amount of protection, if any, consuls may give to the teachers, pupils, and natives who have been converted through the ministry of the American missionaries, from persecution on account of their religious belief. As I am not in possession of any instructions from the Department of State on the subject, and as it is one that must greatly interest the missionaries in Syria, I shall now transmit to it a copy of your dispatch and of my reply, for its consideration. It is for the first time, that I am aware of, that such a request has been submitted to the legation from missionaries in any part of Turkey; and I must regret that anything has now occurred to render it necessary. It seems to me that much as the Government of the United States may be interested in the principle of religious liberty and toleration in all parts of the world, the question is one of so much delicacy, when it relates to other countries and Governments, as to prevent its direct official interference to sustain it. By reference to the fifth article of the treaty, you will perceive that it has been established that the legation and consulates of the United States shall not protect Ottoman subjects, either openly or secretly, &c., and the same principle you will find repeated in your berat or exequatur of the consul-general. I do not see how this stipulation can be departed from on the ground of religious toleration in this country. Although the Ottoman Government tolerates the labors of missionaries among its subjects, it does so unwillingly, and is not disposed to favor or promote them. With this fact before me I cannot instruct you to claim a right to give your official protection to the individuals aforestated. I believe the local authorities will not allow it. The question will then be referred by them and yourself here, and I shall have invited upon the legation a question of an untenable nature. The recent case of the teacher of the Rev. Mr. Jessup offers an evidence of what I state. I certainly do not advise you from refraining to offer your officious solicitations in behalf of any clearly estab lished cases of religious persecution, be the sufferer whomever he may, or whatever his faith, and from invoking the well-known liberal principles of the Ottoman Government in such matters; but this should be done with much discretion. It would be certainly an error to interfere in the affairs of the individuals you allude to disconnected with religion. You are misinformed on the subject of any "Mussulman who, for having embraced Christianity, may be put to death." Several years ago the Sultan officially declared that this principle of Islam holy law should never be practiced; and there are now some few Christians here who were once Moslems, residing at the capital, and in frequent intercourse with the higher functionaries of the Government. I am probably better acquainted than yourself with its feelings. 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. You may, however, easily verify what I have stated by putting forward a claim to protect the individuals mentioned in your dispatch. 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. I am, &c., J. BALDWIN HAY, Esq., United States Vice-Consul-General, Beirut. JOHN P. BROWN. Mr. Hay to Mr. Brown. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Beirut, October 11, 1871. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your official note, dated the 19th ultimo, on the protection alleged to have been given by the United States consular agent at Tripoli to an employé of the Rev. Mr. H. S. Jessup. This is the first that I have heard of the affair, and I have requested Mr. Tanni to give me full particulars of the case, and to what extent he has protected the said employé; and I shall send you his report as soon as received. In the meanwhile allow me to request special instructions respecting the claim of American missionaries in Syria to official protection in their vocation. The American missionary enters the Ottoman Empire with the avowed object of teaching the Christian religion to the subjects of this Empire, not secretly, but openly. The Ottoman Government, by reason of according them permission to teach and preach the Christian religion, and to open schools, cannot justly offer them any molestation or hindrance in pursuing their object, nor can it consistently injure, threaten, or persecute such of its subjects as may embrace the religion which it allows the missionaries to teach. If a Mohammedan subject of Turkey embraces Christianity, by the laws of Mohammedanism his evidence is worthless, and he can be put to death; but a recent decree of the Sultan proclaims religious toleration throughout the Empire. This decree is not practically enforced in Syria, and American missionaries often desire and expect consular interposition to succor persecuted native teachers and native converts. Such a course is offensive to the local authorities, who are secretly (if not openly) upheld in Constantinople by their superiors. Only the firm pressure of Christian nations caused the Sultan to proclaim religious liberty, and a constant pressure is absolutely necessary to secure this liberty of conscience to converts who desire to experience its benefit. Having thus briefly stated the position of American missionaries in Syria, I earnestly desire instructions as to how far they are to be protected in their calling, and to what extent, if any, consuls can protect their teachers, their pupils, and the natives who have been converted by their ministry. (The word protection in this case means protection from persecution on account of religious belief.) I am, &c., J. BALDWIN HAY, Vice-Consul-General. Hon. JOHN P. BROWN, United States Minister, Constantinople. As to protection to be afforded to missionaries in China, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Avery, July 30, 1875; MSS. Inst., China. As to Chinese toleration in this respect, see infra, §§ 67, 144. "I transmit herewith for your information the inclosed copies of dispatches No. 67, of January 18 last, and No. 323, of the 5th ultimo, from our consul at Beirut, Syria, and consul-general at Constantinople, in relation to the difficulties encountered by American citizens and graduates of the American college at Beirut in their endeavor to practice their profession in the Ottoman Dominions. "To some extent the onerous and unjust discriminations of the Turkish authorities in respect of this general subject are familiar to your legation, the case of the late Dr. Calhoun being a recent one in point. "In that case, where it was sought to impose unreasonable restrictions in regard to Dr. Calhoun's medical practice, the Department en deavored to secure for him only such treatment in respect to his examination as was enjoyed by medical practitioners, citizens or subjects of other countries, residing and practicing in Turkey. So, too, in the present instance, where the cases are practically the same, we ask only fair and impartial treatment for our citizens who desire to follow their profession in that country. "It is difficult to believe that the Turkish Government would knowingly permit its local authorities to so unjustly discriminate against American medical practitioners. This is the more singular and to be regretted when it is remembered that our citizens have been regularly graduated from the college at Beirut, a chartered and trustworthy institution, having authority to confer such diplomas, and in view of the undoubted statement that no such exactions as are sought to be imposed upon our citizens are attempted or enforced against medical practitioners of other nationalities, even when they have not followed any prescribed course of study. Yet this is precisely the situation as represented by Mr. Robeson, whose strenuous efforts have unfortunately been thus far unavailing to stop or prevent so unjust a discriminatory practice. Nor, I regret to add, so far as Mr. Heap's knowledge goes, have those which have been put forth by the legation or consulate-general for the relief of our citizens in such cases been hardly more satisfactory, notwithstanding the orders and promises of the Turkish Government. The faculty of the college at Beirut now hope for one of the following privileges: "First. A charter as an independent medical college, with power to grant legal degrees in medicine and surgery. "Second. The privilege of granting degrees in medicine and surgery, which, to be legalized, shall be forwarded to Constantinople through the American minister or consulate-general, to be signed and sealed by the Imperial College officials. "Third. Failing in either of these, the appointment of an examining board of Government physicians in Beirut or Damascus, with power to grant a certificate to the graduates of the American college after they have passed a satisfactory examination before the said board, which certificate shall authorize the holder to practice medicine anywhere in the Ottoman Empire. "These propositions appear reasonable and just, and any one of them, if adopted, would doubtless afford a practical and satisfactory solution of the present difficulties surrounding American medical practitioners in that country. In the opinion of this Government, therefore, the Gov.ernment of Turkey should be willing to grant one or the other of these privileges, and enforce a compliance of its orders by the local authorities throughout the Empire. "The inclosed correspondence will enable you to fully and carefully present this subject to the Government of the Porte. This you will accordingly do, and endeavor to obtain through the adoption of one of the courses suggested above, or some other equally satisfactory method, recognition of the competent diplomas issued by the American college at Beirut to its medical graduates. "This Government is disposed to admit that every country has the right to prescribe the mode of recognition of medical practitioners within its borders. While granting this, it is only reasonable to expect, therefore, that any regulations governing in such cases should be fair and impartial, and not discriminate in favor of any one nationality. All that is demanded in the interest of our citizens is that the rule adopted shall be uniform and without any practical discrimination against duly graduated American practitioners. Common justice and international intercourse alike suggest that no other course should be recognized or permitted." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, March 27, 1884; MSS. Inst., "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. "I find in the records of this Department a recent instance bearing on this question and showing the views of my immediate predecessor touching the extent to which international right may be invoked to defend acts which may be lawful in themselves, but which may tend to disturb the popular feeling. "In 1884 an instruction (No. 147, of January 9) was addressed to Mr. Wallace, United States minister at Constantinople, in reply to a dispatch reporting 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. "Mr. Frelinghuysen remarked that the right of private worship in a dwelling-house must be maintained, and that if it were infringed the remonstrances of the legation were to be immediate and energetic. To insure that the intervention of this Government in such a case was obtained in good faith and due as a right, it was very desirable that such discretion should be observed by American citizens of nonMohammedan faith, who had taken 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 were wounded by any, to them, offensive demonstrations of a character usually connected with public ecclesiastical worship. "I now quote Mr. Frelinghuysen's language literally. He says: "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 case, that these bells have been hung in or upon private dwellings; that their purpose is to summon worshipers to the private services held within those dwellings, and that (in connection with the internal arrangement 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 was frankly presented by the Turkish Government as to whether a bell, so hung and so rung, openly, audibly, over an extended neighborhood, is a needful or useful adjunct to a private dwelling, the answer would be as frankly made that it was not so regarded by this Government. It is not unlikely that an equivalent, a similarly conspicuous Mohammedan demonstration upoň a private dwelling in any populous locality here or in any Christian country, would be sup pressed as a nuisance, and this without any idea of interfering with liberty of worship or individual conscience.' "Mr. Frelinghuysen also intimated to Mr. Wallace that it might be well to inform the missionaries who sought his advice or intervention in such matters, that the United States Government was not willing to make the right to use church bells on private dwellings a diplomatic question with Turkey, and that 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 was cast. "It is, however, quite clear in the cases now before me, that if antag onisms be created by acts in perfect accord with principles of domestic and international law, as well as the letter of individual rights, the parties are entitled to personal protection against any unlawful interference with those rights, by all means ordinarily within the power of the local authorities in the first instance, and secondly, in case of denial thereof, by the interposition of the Government of the country of the complaining individual. "The administrative and political system of civilized Governments is designed to afford security to the individual in the enjoyment of his lawful personal rights, and is supposed to be adequate for all usual demands upon their power. The application of extraordinary means for individual protection, especially if the assertion of the individual's |