The daily republic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1853-1853, 1853-07-11

han Atety 0OtAned TOR IN exacting this r0trQctiOn
we wished to avoid placing the Ottoman Porte,
relatively to France, in precisely the same false
position in which she was placed relatively to ms
should ut least explain those concessions in man
ner to take away from them the appearance of
victory gained over the Grcco-Russ form Of wor-
ship, and which should re-establish, by means of
some legitimate compensation, the equilibrium
which had been destroyed at the expense Of the
parties last named a tN,aa4lI
g. To corroborate this arrangement by an au-
thentic act which might serve at the same time as
reparation for the past and guarantee for the
future. h iasy4 -~ HsiR d
We believe that, with regard to the first part of
the mission of our Ambassador Extraordinary,
(Which was very difficult and very thorny in It.
self, inasmuch it was necessary TO reconcile the
reciprocal but contradictory interests of Russa
and France,) we brought to bear upon it an earn
est spirit Of conciliation and we are happy to say
that the French government responded Oh its side
to this disposition. After long discussions it at
length ripened into result, and this result has
been that two new frmans have been agreed up
on, which were obtained without any opposition
from the French Ambassador.
But, as | said before, the question for negotia-
ton presented yet another face. To obtain an
arrangement was not all. Without an act which
should render it valid, and offer guarantee
that for the future the new fr1nans should be ex
ecuted and religously observed in their principles
and their consequences, it is evident that these
documents after the fragrant violation of the one
which had preceded them, could not in our eyes
possess any greater value than this had done. To
this guarantee the Emperor attached so much the
more Importance as il constituted the only repa-
ration for the outrage offered to his dignity by the
breach Of faith on the part Of the Ottoman Porte,
especially after the circumstances which had rem
dered this yet more notorious.
The Prince Menschikoff was charged to obtain
this by means of a convention which he should
-. ..,.Al~ N,,-1~ IL Nl~-~
never been any question of treaty, properly so
called. avs 43b g6@
Loud exclamatons have been made against the
form of this convention, as though in principle it
were injurious to the Sultan rights of sover-
egnty-as though it conferred upon us, in point
of fact, perpetual right of intervention in the
internal affairs of Turkey. We believe that on
this point phantom has been evoked, and that
apprehensions are felt the foundation of which is
more specious than real. 1IE
In principle convention, or even a treaty of
this kind, would have nothing unusual about it;
and we do not see in what respect they would
touch the Sultan's rights of sovereign authority
more than the capitulatons or other acts which
France and Austria already possess in Turkey.
For in principle only, it is Of little consequence to
the independence Of the Sultan whether an act
applies to more or less considerable number of
his subjects on whose behalf right Of foreign pro-
lection was to be exercised.
A guarantee assured by treaty in another State,
in the interests of foreign communion, has been
usual in all times At the time of the Reforma-
ton, for example, States-eve the great Catho-
lie States-concluded with other treaties or con-
minions to. those of the Protestant communions
certain privileges, franchises, and immunities; SO
that, even in our own days, the civil position of
this communion rests upon these bases, and yet the
States which have given such guarantees do not
think themselves injured in their sovereign rights
~
more reason, may such acts be concluded with a
Mussulman empire, whose Christian subjects have
suffered, and suffer STILL often, not only in their
immunities but in their properties and in their
istence.
AS to the fact, and as far as we arc concerned
it is already in existence, the form Of conven-
ton which we proposed contains no innovation on
the subject of religious liberty. The treaty of
Kaynardii, in which the Porte promises constantly
to protect the Christian religion and churches in
it's States, duplicates for sufficiently right
of surveillance and remonstrance. This right is
again established, and more clearly still specified
in the treaty of Adrianople, which confirms all
our earlier transactions The stipulations of
Kaynardii may be traced back as far as l774 We
have therefore in fact, and for nearly eighty
years, the very rights conceded to us which are
now contested, and the very mention of which is
considered as conducive to total revolution in
our relations with the Ottoman Porte, since it is
asserted that this right would give us the sove-
regnty over the majority of its subjects. Surely,
if we had been disposed to make bad
use of that right, as is supposed by those
whose suspicious are ncurable, we could not have
wanted the occasion for doing so in the course Of
this long period of time, and such occasions would
specially have presented themselves within
the last years, when Europe was prey to
anarchy, when it's governments, paralyzed by in
ternal contests, engaged in, distracted by,
the revolutions of the Occident, leaving the ORR
ent open to the ambitious views which as
cribed to us. If ours were the intentions which
some persons are pleased to suppose in us, we
should surely not have waited until peace was re-
established in Europe. Should we, with such in
tentions, have disposed our forces in such man
ner as to offer a moral and material support to
our neighbours Should we, as we have done,
have strained every nerve to reconcile our allies
and to remove every obstruction to the intimate
union of the European powers? On the contrary
in such case it clearly our interest to do all
we could to perpetuate their differences. We
should then have left the governments alone to
fight among themselves or with their rebellious
subjects, and, profting by the embarrassments Of
their position, we could have attained, without
any difficulty, that point which persons persist in
designating as the goal of our encroaching policy.
At present, when social order is fortunately re-
established in every country, and when the States
of Europe, each set firmly on its basis, have the
free disposal Of their actions and forces, such a
policy on our part would be thoroughly out Of
reason. t aalaat9ta 9A3
We reterate our assertion that, in principle and
in fact, convention with the Porte in favor Of
the members of our religion presents no novel fea-
lures. Such convention would give us no ad.
vantage which we do not already possess, and
which we might not have abused if our intentions
inclined in that direction If we arc strong, we
have no need of it,. If we arc weak, it would
scarcely succeed in making us more formidable
This is SO true that we should mover have thought
of proposing such convention with respect to the
special question of the Holy Places, if the Porte
by the neglect of its former promises, had moi
compelled US to try to bind it more efectualy to
the maintenance of the status quo Of the sanctua
res of Palestine, and if, when we demonstrated
against concessions which were made to our dis