Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-10-11
SULTANAND UNCLESAM
QUESTION CONCERNING USE OF
PASSPORTS.
Special cablesran b The Star.

Special Cablssran b The Star.
CONSTANTINOPLE. October 1.-THE
sultan appears to be constantly and con-
tinually In trouble with the United States.
The latest dispute grows out of questions
concerning the use OF passports.
Immediately after the attempt on the life
Of the sultan. now nearly three months ago,
q special commission was formed at Yildix
to investigate all the circumstances con-
nected with 1t and with other plots which
were assumed to have been organized by
Armenians ard other revolutionary commit
tees. Hundreds of innocent men were ar
rested and flung into prison. in the hope Of
discovering the guilty, and the life OF
Turkish subjects in Constantinople and
neighborhood was made greater burden
than ever. And not only of Turkish sub
Jects, for the commission and its agents
showed contempt for the capitulatory
rights of foreign subjects. which was bound
sooner or later to lead to conflicts with the
various powers.
An Armenian giving the name Of Johannes
Afarian and carrying an American pass
port was arrested in connection with a dy-
Mantle outrage at the Selamik and a fort
night afterward when. Vartanian, the man
charged with the murder of Apik Effendi
was arrested, 1t turned out that he, too,
claimed to be an American citizen. The
american legation was not at first In
clined to treat these incidents very seri-
ously, for 1t has little sympathy with men
who acquire American citizenship as a cloak
Tor revolutionary agitation and nurderous
outrages. and, in view of what has often
proved to be the case In similar occasions
1t was disposed to think that investigation
would show that these American passports
were forgeries or had been obtained by
fraud. Far from approaching this con-
ciliatory dispositions the Turks treated the
matter with a high hand. The American
officials were refused the right to visit the
prisoners, who were prima facie American
citizens, and Vartanian was actually tried
and condemned to death without the lega-
ton or consulate being represented at the
trial The minister than sent strongly
worded note protesting against the lille
gality Of these proceedings, and demanding
that both prisoners should be handed over
to him for trial. The porte replied, denying
that the men had been in possession Of
American passports-a statement which Is
in flat contradiction to the evidence in the
hands Of the legation-and arguing that in
any case they had no claim to American
protection, as they had never received the
necessary permission to tfivest themselves
of their Ottoman nationality. To this reply
the American minister has made a forcible
rejoinder.
Two Questions at Issue.
In this conflict there are two questions at
issue. First, what is the measureof the pro-
lection which the United States legation
has the right to give to American citizens
accused of criminal offenses. Second. have
Ottoman subjects, who have been natural
lied in America, the right to claim Ameri-
can citizenship when they return to Turkey?
The porte claims that American citizens
only possess the same rights as other for
eigners-namely. that except In urgent cases
they should not be arrested without the CO.
operation of their consul, and that at their
trial they should be assisted by repre-
ITO iva NJ S104v 1ofn "Yo, Il,
ington government claims, and has always
claimed, that its treaty of 1880 removes
American citizens altogether from the juris-
diction of the native court and gives them
the right to be arrested. tried and punish
ed only by their own national representa-
| tiyes. Although the text of the treaty
seems conclusive In favor OF the Americans
1t is only fair to say that diplomatic opin-
on the side of the Turks. OF course II
American citizens really do possess these
expensive rights the principle of the most
withheld from other foreigners and the
ambassador of one of the great powers has
already informed the grand yizier that he
will promptly claim for his nationality any
privileges which are conceded to the Amer
leans On the second question the porte
points to the Turkish law Of 1862 which rs
recognized by all of the leading powers
and by which Ottoman subjects are forbid
den to become naturalized subjects of any
other government without the written con-
sent of the porte, and such naturaliza ton is
declared null and void. The Americans, on
the other hand. refuse to admit that any
law of a foreign country can prevent them
from admitting whom they wish to become
citizens Of their commonwealth and claim
also the right and the duty to protect all
of their citizens, wherever they may be,
without distinction of origin. On this point,
too, 1t is only fair to say that local diplo-
matte opinion Is strongly In favor of the
Turkish contention, although there are I'M
doubtedly two sides to the argument On
the one hand 1t is felt that it would be
an abuse If Armenians, young Turks or
other refugees were able to assume Ameri-
can nationality and return to carry on
their agitation against the government with
the advantages and privileges Of foreign
residence. On the other hand 1t must be
admitted that the United States occupies
a different position from the other powers,
which undoubtedly profoundly affect the at
utude of the American government toward
these questions. The American republic
Is largely built up by immigrants, often
refugees who could never have obtained
the consent OF their government to become
American citizens. Even at the present day
millions of Americans are naturalized cit
liens and 1t appears natural that the gov
eminent would not wish to offend them by
even seeming not to give them the same
protection as native-born Americans. More
over, as America has no political interests
In Turkey. Washington has not the same
inducement as other capitals to wink at in
fractions of treaty rights.