(President "Our recently appointed consul to Erzerum is at his post and discharging "Obtained Sultan's iradé granting exequatur for consul at Erzerum." 10. VARIOUS TOPICS. § 875. "It is not the desire or intention of this government to assail the sovereignty or seek to weaken the authority of the Porte in any of its recognized dependencies. On the contrary, we concede to that government, as we demand for ourselves, the right to manage its own affairs in its own way, assuming always that such control will conform to the spirit of the age, and shall not interfere with the rights of our own government or people, or conflict with obligations which may have been entered into between the United States and other countries and peoples." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, No. 23, Oct. 8, 1875, MS. Inst. Turkey, II. 140. This instruction related to certain expostulatory statements by officers of the Turkish government to the effect that the United States treated "Tunis and Tripoli as independent states, and not as provinces of the Ottoman Empire." Mr. Fish went on to say that the relations of the United States with Tripoli and Tunis were regulated by treaties, in which the Porte had acquiesced without dissent; that the United States had never been at war with Turkey, but had had a severe war with Tripoli, which was ended by a treaty of peace that was still in force; that Tripoli had at one time even maintained an ambassador at London. In conclusion Mr. Fish expressed the desire of the United States to "recognize the authority of the Porte in the several dependencies of the Ottoman government where it shall not be in conflict with long established usage and solemn treaty obligations." For Mr. Eugene Schuyler's report on the Bulgarian outrages, see special With reference to Turkish matters, see the following documents: May 31, 1876, H. Ex. Doc. 170, 44 Cong. 1 sess. The Ottoman Capitu lations, special message, April 6, 1881, S. Ex. Doc. 3, 47 Cong. special sess.; special message, Feb. 2, 1882, S. Ex. Doc. 87, 47 Cong. 1 sess. The consular service, special message, March 20, 1884, H. Ex. Doc. 121, 48 Cong. 1 sess. Certain proposals made by the Turkish government in 1888 for the erection and maintenance of lights in the Red Sea, on the southeastern coast of Arabia, and in the Persian Gulf, the Secretary of the Treasury considered it inexpedient for the United States to accept. The Secretary of the Navy thought that the proposals in the form in which they were presented would be extremely burdensome to navigators, and should not be agreed to, but that the United States might assent to a properly guarded arrangement for the erection of certain specified lights and for the collection of reasonable tolls for their maintenance, with the understanding that the tolls should cease at an early date. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, No. 94, April 19, 1888, MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 657, enclosing copy of a note from Sir L. West, British min., March 19, 1888 (with accompaniments), and a letter from Mr. Fairchild, Sec. of Treasury, April 7, 1888 (with enclosures); Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, No. 117, July 10, 1888, MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 676, enclosing copy of a letter from Mr. Whitney, Sec. of Navy, June 16, 1888, of a note to Mr. Edwardes, British chargé, July 3, 1888, and of a note from Mr. Edwardes, July 6, 1888. December 3, 1892, the American legation in London was instructed to convey to Her Britanic Majesty's government an offer on the part of the United States "to act concurrently and harmoniously " with Great Britain "in the protection and vindication of the rights of the citizens or subjects of either nation in Turkey," with a reservation of "complete liberty and independence of action when it might be found advisable." The legation reported December 30, 1892, that Lord Rosebery had stated that "it would be the earnest desire of Her Majesty's government to act in perfect cordiality with that of the United States in the matter in question." On January 17, 1893, the United States suggested that the British minister at Constantinople be instructed to cooperate with the American minister as occasion might require. The British government assented to this suggestion. Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, chargé, Dec. 3, 1892, For. Rel. 1893, 305; Mr. White to Mr. Foster, Dec. 30, 1892, id. 306, 307; Mr. Foster to Mr. Lincoln, min. to England, No. 1034, Jan. 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 308; Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Foster, No. 935, March 3, 1893, id. 321. As to the continuance of good offices by the British consul-general at Sofia in behalf of American citizens in Bulgaria, see For. Rel. 1893, 325, 326-327. As to the status of American citizens in Turkey and the solidarity of the interests of the Franks, see Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Turkey, No. 3, Nov. 29, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 609. The presence of a United States dispatch boat at Constantinople, if it were welcomed by the Porte, would merely put the United States "on the footing of the other great powers to no possible prejudice of the power or prestige of the Turkish government.” Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Oct. 15, 1896, XXX. PARAGUAY. As to the treaty relations between the United States and Paraguay, see Moore, International Arbitrations, II. 1485 et seq. XXXI. PERSIA. $ 877. A treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Persia was concluded December 13, 1856. It was many years, however, before diplomatic relations between the two countries were established. President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 6, 1886, said:" The establishment, less than four years ago, of a legation at Teheran is bearing fruit in the interest exhibited by the Shah's government in the industrial activity of the United States and the opportunities of beneficial interchanges." In 1888 Persia sent a diplomatic representative to Washington, but his stay was comparatively brief and a permanent legation was not established. See Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Hadji Hossein Ghooly Khan, Persian min., Dec. 13, 1888, MS. Notes to Persia, I. 4. As to missionary troubles in Persia, see For. Rel. 1893, 487, 495, 502, 504, 505, 507; For. Rel. 1894, 486-492, 492–506, 507–508; For. Rel. 1896, 466, 467, 470, 475-480, 481. Concerning the desire of Persia to be represented in the mixed tribunals of Egypt, see For. Rel. 1894, 508-512. In 1896, on the assassination of the Shah by a revolutionary fanatic disguised as a woman, the following telegram was sent: "President directs appropriate expression of abhorrence and sincere condolence in name of American people." (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, May 1, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 488.) As to restrictions upon the importation of books into Persia, see For. Rel. 1897, 427-429. In 1898 an indemnity of 200 tomans was paid on account of the arrest of the Rev. M. Bagdasarian, a naturalized citizen of the United States, who was charged with being an Armenian revolutionist, but who was released on the interposition of the American legation. (For. Rel. 1898, 518-530.) I XXXII. PERU. § 878. As to the distribution of the indemnity paid by Peru, under the convention of March 17, 1841, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4591 et seq. Under the treaty of July 26, 1851, the government of the United States is bound to pay a consul of the Peruvian government the value of property belonging to a deceased Peruvian, on whose estate the consul was entitled to administer, which may have been unjustly detained and administered by a local public administrator. Black, At. Gen., 9 Op. 383. December 9, 1862, the Peruvian minister at Washington gave notice of the termination of the treaty of July 26, 1851, the notice to take effect, as provided in the treaty, at the end of a year. The receipt of the notice was acknowledged Dec. 15, 1862. Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1373. By a convention between the United States and Peru, of December 20, 1862, it was agreed to refer the cases of the Georgiana and the Lizzie Thompson, American vessels, which had been seized by the Peruvian authorities, to the King of the Belgians, as arbitrator. By identic notes of August 27, 1863, the King was requested to accept the trust. In the following January, however, he declined it; but in a confidential conversation with Mr. Sanford, the American minister, His Majesty stated that he had looked into the case, and that if he had accepted the position of arbitrator he felt that he would have been constrained to decide it against the United States. In view of His Majesty's declination and of the reasons given for it, Mr. Seward wrote to the Peruvian minister that he was directed by the President to announce that there was no intention on the part of the United States to refer the matter to the arbitrament of any other power or to pursue the subject further. In a letter to Mr. H. E. Wilson, of September 18, 1875, Mr. Fish, as Secretary of State, expressed the opinion that the case of the Lizzie Thompson, which was on the same footing as that of the Georgiana, was barred by Article V. of the convention with Peru of December 4, 1868. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fitzgerald, Jan. 29, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 440; 2 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 1593-1614. An award under the convention with Peru of 1863 " payable in current money of the United States," may legally be paid in Treasury notes or in specie. Bates, At. Gen., 1864, 11 Op. 52. For the proceedings under the convention of 1863, see Moore, Int. Arbi- For the proceedings under the convention of 1868, see id. 1639 et seq. By Article XV. of the treaty of August 31, 1887, the citizens of the contracting parties are "not liable to imprisonment without formal commitment under a warrant signed by a legal authority, except in cases flagrantis delicti," and they must in all cases be brought "before a magistrate or other legal authority" for examination within twentyfour hours after arrest. If not so examined they must be discharged from custody. The United States construed this clause as requiring an examination before some "judicial authority as distinguished from a mere police or other legal authority." In reply to a proposal that a protocol be signed, to the effect that the article would be satisfied where the "intendant, or chief of police, of the place" took the prisoner's statement within the twenty-four hours, and turned him over within the same space of time to the judicial authorities, when the case so required, the Department of State said: "If, as is not conceded by this Department, an intendant of police is a legal authority within the spirit and intent of the treaty, the proposed protocol would be unnecessary, while if the effect of the protocol would be to alter the treaty, the Department of State is not competent to make such alteration." Memorandum, Sept. 2, 1898, MS. Notes to Peruvian Leg. II. 184. "The government of Peru has given the prescribed notification of its intention to abrogate the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation concluded with this country August 31, 1887. As that treaty contains many important provisions necessary to the maintenance of commerce and good relations, which could with difficulty be replaced by the negotiation of renewed provisions within the brief twelve months intervening before the treaty terminates, I have invited suggestions by Peru as to the particular provisions it is desired to annul, in the hope of reaching an arrangement whereby the remaining articles may be provisionally saved.” President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, lxxxi. "Peru, I regret to say, shows symptoms of domestic disturbance, due probably to the slowness of her recuperation from the distresses of the war of 1881. Weakened in resources, her difficulties in facing international obligations invite our kindly sympathy and justify our forbearance in pressing long pending claims. I have felt constrained |