The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE BIaTIT OF TURKEY TO Trig SUZE

RAINTY OF MONTENEGRO.

The semicpflicial Journal de', Constantinople, oA
the 24th contains a reply to the article of the
Moniteur on the question of Montenegro, which
may be looked upon as embodying the views of the
Turkish Government on the subject. It opposes
an historical sketch of the relations of Turkey to
Montenegro from their beginning to the argument
of the Moniteur that no convention exists which
gives a right of suzerainete to the Porte :
" Montenegro (it says), inhabited by the remains of the
Servian army defeated in the battle of Kossova, was con-
quered in 1478 by Mohamed 11. The mountaineers had
then Strachimiz Ive for their chief. Stranicha, the son of
this last, not only submitted, but became likewise a Mus-
sulman, in order to be better protected against his Al-
hanian rival, Aben-Vouk, who had become also a Mussul-
man. Both received fiefs from the Sublime Porte. The
Albanian received that of Douallagdur, and Stranicha that
of Scodra, of which Montenegro formed a part. The
descendants of this family, known under the name of
Brutchali, maintained themselves until 1813, when the last
Pacha, having revolted, was sent into exile.
" In 1604 the Montenegrins, having revolted against
Ali Bey, Pacha of Scodra, obtained from the Porte the
permission to keep 8,000 men under arms to defend their
villages, and instead of remaining dependent on the
Pachalik, they became from that time directly dependent
on the Central Government.
" Since that time," the Journal continues, "they re-
volted frequently, partly from an innate taste for brigand-
age, partly excited by the Powers which were at war with
Turkey, and were more or less severely punished for it—
in 16011 by Suliman, Pacha of Scodra ; in 1711 by the
valiant Konili Human Bey, the avenger of the St. Bartho-
lomew of 1703; and 50 years later by Silihdar Mohamed,
who reduced them to submission. More recently, as in
1820, 1822, 1841, &c., the insurrections and the brigandage
have led to military expeditions on the side of the Porte,
clearly showing the intentions of this latter not to give up
its rights, conquered by arms, and necessary for the tran-
quility of the empire."
After this historical resume the article of the
Journal de Constantinople goes on to show that
there were likewise documents proving more or less
directly the rights of suzerainete of the Sultan over
Montenegro :
" As for authentic documents there exist none to esta-
blish the independence of Montenegro. If one goes back
to the treaty of Carlowitz in 1699, concluded between
Turkey and Austria, with the direct participation of
Russia, one can find nothing to invalidate the rights of the
Porte over Montenegro. On the contrary, one sees from
Art. 7 that the sovereign lights of the first are completely
established.
" The act of delimitation of 1703, the Ist and 2d article
of the treaty of Passarovitz in 171. z, the ad of delimitation
in 1719, the negotiations which preceded and accompanied
the conclusion of these treaties, and the maps which were
made on the occasion, all show that there never was a
question of separating Montenegro from the Ottoman ter-
ritory."
But there are, according to this article, not only
proofs of ancient date, but more recent ones like-
wise, to prove that Montenegro could never claim
the rights of an independent State. The first
proof brought forward is the memorandum given
in two years ago by Prince Daniel to the Congress
of Paris to have the independence of Montenegro
recognised, and to annex it to the tort of Antivari.
Quoting the words of this memorandum, the
article says that Prince Daniel recognises himself—
" That Montenegro is neither supported nor recognised
by the Christian States, who ought never to have forgotten
the services rendered by it to Christianity. If the Powers
know little or nothing about the people of the Mountain,
it is because our Sovereigns have never cared to have its
independence recognised, and to have it admiitod among
the European States."
If this memorandum proves that the Montene-
grins have no legal act by which they can claim in-
dependence, there are, the article says, others
coming likewise from the Montenegrins directly re-
cognising the sovereignty of the Porte :
"In 1768, during the war with Russia, two monks,
Stephen mid Vasili, agents of Catharine IT., induced the
Montenegrins to revolt, but, seeing the Ottoman army
approach, these latter drove away the monks, and ad-
dressed a petition to Mustapha, in which they recognised
the powers of the great Padishah, and promised to deliver
Stephen and Vasili if they ever appeared among them, a-id
finally conjured the Sultan, by the tomb of the Prophet,
and lily the blood of Christ, to receive them again as faith-
ful subjects. "
There is, besides, according to the article, a pub-
lic treaty which recognises the rights of the Porte
over Montenegro :
" The Montenegrins took part in the unlucky war for
Turkey which was terminated by the treaty of Sistowa,
and the first article of this treaty is as follows :
" There will be henceforth universal and perpetual
peace by sea and land, and on rivers between the two em-
pires, their subjects and vassals, a true and sincere friend.
ship, a close and perfect union, and a full and general
amnesty for all hostilities and violence committed during
this war by the two Powers, or by the subjects and vassals
of such who have helped the other, and more especially by
the inhabitants of every class of Montenegro, Bosnia,
Servia, Wallachia, and Moldavia, who, in virtue of this
amnesty, may keep their old places of residence, their
possessions, and rights, without being molested or punished
for having declared themselves against their own Sove-
reign, and submitted to the Imperial and Royal Court.'
" In the treaties which have been concluded since that of
Campo Formio in 1797, by which Austria got possession
of the Venetian territory, or that of Presburg in 1806, by
which these latter were given to France, until 1814, or
that of 'V ienna in 1815, wich all made such changes in
the possessions, contain nothing to invalidate the treaty of
Sistowa as far as Turkey is concerned. The special treaties
which have been more recently concluded by the Porte
make likewise no changes with respect to this past of the
Turkish territory. Finally, in 1856, the treaty of Paris
has guaranteed the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and
consequently, likewise its rights on Montenegro, expressed
in the treaty of Sistowa.
"Thus (the article says) the Moniteur is wrong in
saying that Turkey has abandoned for the last century the
rights given to her by conquest over Montenegro. In its
international treaties, and in its internal, political, and
military measures, the Porte has always shown that it was
decided to maintain them. The current affairs of admini-
stration show better than anything else this intention, as
well as the recognition of the _Montenegrins themselves of
the rights of the Empire.
" Whatever the Moniteur may say to the contrary, the
quiet inhabitants have always paid their taxes, that is,
the land-tax and the personal tax, which up to the most
resent times were received by the Sandjak of Soodra. The
Montenegrins, who in Constantinople and in other locali-
ties of the Empire exercise the professions of gardeners,
miners, carriers, &c., pay the taxes, and are treated in
every respect as the other Christian subjects of the Em-
pire.
"If the armed brigands of the Black Mountain have
often defied the law, and if, through the support which
they have found from the enemies of Turkey, they are
more numerous, fiercer, and better organised than those
in the Pyrenees, the Abruzzi, or the Appenines, that is no
pieof that Turkey any more than another State has ceased
to subject them to the laws, or that they have acquired in
this way the right of legal prescription.
"There is, besides, one point which the Moniteur forgets,
and that is, that the Porte does not claim a right iu pos-
session as to Montenegro, similar to that, for instance,
which is exercised over Algeria, or Poland, but only a right
of sovereignty, which has always been interpreted in the
most liberal manner. To argue from this freedom, left
thus to the subject, and which the Sovereign, although
often found to repel their savage attacks, has always dis-
puted, is to beg the question, and to place it from the be-
ginning on a ground which must lead to errors and false
measures."
The sovereignty of the Porte over Montenegro
is here eleirly shown, in spite of Russo-Gresk
mendacity and French complicity. This right
once recognised, the Turks are ready to make very
liberal concessions as regards the disputed dis-
tricts. Had it not been for diplomatic reserve,
they might have concluded their arguments with
the note of France and Russia, which threatened to
f recognise the independence of Montenegro if the
- troops were not withdrawn.