authorized to take part in any conferences for that purpose under your general supervision. "This Department, though not fully admitting that the Turkish government gave due notice of the abrogation of the treaty of 1862, nevertheless is disposed to waive that point and to participate with the other treaty powers in the conferences on the tariff revision on the basis of the most-favored nation privileges being granted to the United States in any new agreements, as were in fact conceded by the treaty of 1830. 66 If new instructions for Mr. Heap should be necessary, as seems to be implied by his dispatch to you of the 10th instant, they should, as he suggests, correspond with those given to the delegates of the other nations, making no allusion to the treaty of 1862 as to a rerision of tariff. By Mr. Wallace's No. 476 it appears that the Austrian commercial treaty is now the only one with an undisputed future expiration,' and that the Sublime Porte has declined to accede to the request of the Austrian ambassador that the rates applied to other nations may be extended to his. This circumstance will not probably, however, stand in the way of tariff negotiations with other nations, or in the drawing up of identical commercial treaties, as is reported by Mr. Wallace in his No. 466 to be the desire of the Turkish Government." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cox, min. to Turkey, Oct. 28, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 877. 3. REAL ESTATE PROTOCOL, 1874. § 868. The Ottoman government having passed a law conceding to foreigners the right to hold real estate under certain conditions, Congress, by act of March 23, 1874, authorized the President to accept such law for citizens of the United States; and a protocol was thereupon signed to that effect. A proclamation was issued by the President October 29, 1874. Act of March 23, 1874, 18 Stat. 23; protocol of Aug. 11, 1874, id. 850. As to the interpretation of the protocol, see Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to In a case where the decision of the Turkish courts was adverse to a citizen of the United States in respect of a claim to the title of certain real property, the Department of State advised that the claimant should vacate the premises as desired by the Turkish government, and present his claim to that government for the purchase money which H. Doc. 551-vol 5-51 had been delivered to it and also for any sums necessarily expended in the prosecution of his rights. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, min. to Turkey, March 13, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 843. 4. EXTRADITION TREATY. § 869. As to nationality and naturalization, see supra, §§ 459-464; Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Sept. 13, 1898, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 274. August 11, 1874, an extradition treaty was concluded between the United States and Turkey. Ratifications were exchanged at Constantinople April 22, 1875, and the treaty was proclaimed by the United States May 26, 1875. March 29, 1886, Mr. Cox, American minister at Constantinople, reported that the Ottoman authorities did not regard the treaty as effective. The Department of State, April 16, 1886, expressed surprise at this statement. December 28, 1888, Mr. Straus, Mr. Cox's successor, wrote: "There is a disposition on the part of the Porte to claim that it is not in force, in that they couple its ratification with the treaty of naturalization which is still in negotiation. I fail to see what the one treaty has to do with the other, and know of no valid reason why the former treaty should not be binding." 1 Moore on Extradition, 102, 815-816. As to the unratified naturalization treaty with Turkey, signed in 1874, see supra, § 464. 5. EDUCATIONAL, ELEEMOSYNARY, AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. § 870. "Permit me to attract your attention to the relations of citizens of the United States as a nationality to the Ottoman Porte, in connection with which two important questions present themselves for consideration, the first being the position of citizens of the United States residing continuously in Turkey for business or other purposes; the second, the position in respect to the Porte, of educational, eleemosynary, and religious institutions established and carried on by citizens of the United States on Turkish soil. "So far as concerns missionary status, the question now immediately presented is one which does not exclusively concern the schools of the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions. Excellent as is their work, and entitled to the highest respect, I have simply to say that the efforts the Department is now making, and has heretofore steadily made, in support of those schools is wholly divested of sectarian preferences, and would be exerted with equal earnestness in support of the schools in Turkey of any other and all other American charitable or religious associations. "And, further, in view of the general question of the rights of citizens of the United States in Turkey, it is important to maintain that the rights of extraterritoriality, claimed to a greater or less extent for these schools, are part of the same system by which rights of extraterritoriality are claimed by this government in Turkey (1) for our citizens in certain juridical relations, and (2) for our diplomatic and consular establishments, so as to enable them to extend protection to the extent to which such protection is enjoyed by other Christian embassies, legations, and consulates in Turkey. The basis of this jurisdiction may be thus stated : "Constantinople and the domain of which it is the capital have, from a very early period down to the present day, been populated by distinct and diverse nationalities, to which rights of government by their own especial laws have always been conceded. We have this thus conceded (during the Greek empire) by Cassiodorus, the secretary of Theodoric the Great: 'Romanis, Romanus judex erit; Gothis, Gothus; et sub diversitate judicum una justitia complectabatur.' "When the Ottoman Porte was established by conquest in Turkey the same system of recognition and assignment of self-government to each distinct nationality was not only adopted but extended. Not only were Armenians and other nationalities whom the Turks, after the conquest, found in their domains, recognized as entitled to a large measure of local self-government, but similar privileges were from time to time accorded to foreign Christian nations. For this course on the part of the Porte-a course which has led to the nonapplication to Turkey of the principles of territorial sovereignty generally recognized elsewhere the following reasons may be given: "When the Porte took possession of Turkey its population was largely made up of Christian nationalities to which local self-government had been previously more or less assigned. These nationalities could not be expelled from Turkey without expelling the population by which its fields were tilled and its business exchanges conducted. On the other hand, the Porte could not undertake the municipal control of such nationalities, nor the settlement of their business differences, nor the supervision of their religious functions. Those who rejected Mohammed were, to the Turk, not merely enemies, but Giaours-unclean persons-persons with whom the Turk could have no business or even social relations. Hence they were to be excluded from Turkish armies. While they might be taxed for imperial purposes, they were, so far as concerns their own particular interests, to determine themselves the taxes which they were to bear. In Turkish schools their children could not be received; and, therefore, they were entitled to have schools of their own, in which the teaching was to be distinctively Christian, and which were regarded as part of the system of diverse nationality recognized by ancient usage and essential to the existence of the Empire. And so it was with regard to the settlement of business disputes. As the Porte, or its courts, whatever they might have been, could not, without abandoning its fundamental doctrine of creed isolation, take cognizance of business disputes between unbelievers, these disputes must be settled by courts of the nationalities to which these unbelievers respectively belonged. And if questions of religion were involved, such disputes must be referred for determination to the head of the church to which the disputants belonged. This demarcation of jurisdictions will not appear strange when it is recollected that a similar policy and practice are adopted in this country by the dominant race toward the North American Indians. We can scarcely rate the incapacity of these Indians to adopt and apply our institutions as greater than the Ottoman conquerors regarded the incapacity of the Christian nationalities in Turkey at the conquest to adopt and apply Ottoman institutions, nor regard the political capacity of these Indians as of a less grade than the Ottoman conquerors regarded that of their new Christian subjects. And we continue to do for the Indians what the Ottoman conquerors of Turkey did for the Christian races who at the conquest were found there. Just as the Ottomans professed themselves unable to understand the laws of those Christian races, or to establish over them Moslem law, therefore leaving them to their own courts, so we, declining to absorb Indian law into our own, or even to apply to Indians our own municipal jurisprudence, leave the adjudication of questions arising in Indian tribes to the determination of their tribal law. "This renunciation by the Porte of legislative and judicial control over Christian nationalities, which was worked into the traditions of the Empire, acquired not only greater municipal force but more fully recognized international validity, when the great European powers sent to Turkey not only diplomatic and consular agents, but merchants, to conduct business with the Christian subjects of the Porte, and missionaries to minister not only to persons of their own nationality but to whomsoever might apply. These visitors could not be repelled. Turkey could not afford to quarrel with the leading sovereigns of civilization, nor could she preclude that civilization from pouring, through its agents, into her domains. Those agents came and remained in great numbers; not merely merchants and capitalists, but religionists, devoted to the work of maintaining worship, according to their views, with hospitals and schools. To these energetic and influential settlers Turkish law, for the following reasons, was even less applicable than to the native Christians. The newcomers were protected by foreign powers whom Turkey was unwilling to offend; and they belonged to Western races who, from their idiosyncrasies, can not be fused with the Orientals. There are, to adopt Lord Stowell's language, frequently cited with approval in the United States (The Indian Chief, 3 C. Rob. Adm. Rep. 29), 'immiscible,' so that by no comity of international law can the institutions of the one be applied to the other. No foreigner with ordinary business capacity or ordinary self-respect would live in a country where he could not be heard in the local courts of justice, or, if he were heard, it would be as degraded by the disabilities of an inferior and abject race. Yet, on the other hand, the presence in Turkey of foreigners of business capacity and of self-respect is essential to the maintenance of the Empire. By them its monetary affairs are conducted, its soldiers drilled, its schools taught in all that concerns liberal civilization, and its relations with the outside world regulated. Turkey could not, and can not now, be expected to surrender the policy which, nominally at least, treats the Ottomans as the dominant race on her soil; and the only alternative open to her has been, therefore, to permit foreigners of the classes so necessary to her political prosperity to enjoy, as far as practicable when living within her borders, their own distinctive institutions. The Porte could not exist if it were to surrender the political exclusivism of Islamism. It could not exist, also, if it were deserted by those foreigners to whom its progress in civilization is due. Hence the local self-government conceded to foreign communities in Turkey, evidenced in the old capitulations and gradually extending to meet the exigencies of the times, is a necessary emanation of the political and social conditions of that Empire as they now exist. It is for the legation of the United States at Constantinople to see that American citizens in Turkey enjoy in their various relations the rights of extraterritoriality which, under the system I have outlined, are among the essential conditions of the continuous political existence of Turkey under its present dynasty. 6 "The most important of the prerogatives growing out of these conditions is that of the distinctive jurisdiction assigned to our ministers in Turkey under treaty, and as applied by Revised Statutes, section 4125, which gives these officers such jurisdiction as is permitted by the laws of Turkey or in the alternative] its usages in its intercourse with the Franks or other Christian nations.' By the same standard of usage, as evolved by the processes above stated, are to be determined the territorial rights exercised by our legations and consulates in the East, and the prerogatives of American missionaries, under the limitations above mentioned. "The effect of the treaty of 1830 on this extraterritoriality is thus stated by Mr. Cushing (7 Op. 567, 568): Commerce, in the treaty, |