you ask whether you would be protected by this Government if you, being a naturalized Armenian, should revisit your old home in Armenia. Mr. Straus's statement was here understood to relate only to the removal of the inhibition of the travel of American citizens, missionaries, and others of non-Turkish origin in Armenia during the late disturbances in that quarter, and this understanding is confirmed by Mr. Straus himself, who is now in Washington. As to our naturalized citizens of Armenian or other Ottoman origin, the situation remains the same, in the absence of a treaty of naturalization between the two countries, the Turkish Government refusing to recognize the naturalization of a Turkish subject naturalized abroad without imperial consent since the promulgation of the Ottoman law of citizenship in 1869. The United States controverts this position, but unavailingly. In international law the status of such persons comes under the doctrines of dual allegiance, each Government claiming and exacting the allegiance of its naturals within its own jurisdiction and each being incapable of enforcing its own municipal law of citizenship within the jurisdiction of the other. Such conflicts have been adjusted in many instances by conventions between the United States and foreign powers, with the result of a mutual recognition of the validity of the naturalization of a citizen or subject of the one country within the jurisdiction and according to the domestic law of the other; but the conclusion of such a convention with the Ottoman Empire appears to be remote. As the consent of the Ottoman Government to the expatriation of a subject by naturalization in another country is only given upon the alternative condition that the applicant for release from Turkish allegiance shall either stipulate never to return or agree that in the event of return he will regard himself as an Ottoman subject, it follows that the case of permitted naturalization seldom occurs, and that when it does occur it is attended with features which prevent this Government from using a free hand in dealing with a question growing out of the return of such a naturalized citizen to Turkish jurisdiction. While the Department and its diplomatic and consular agents in the Turkish dominions will use every effort now as always to protect any naturalized citizen of Turkish origin who returns to Turkey, it can not foresee that he will be permitted to enter the Empire, or that having entered he will escape molestation or expulsion. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. [Inclosure 3.] Memorandum by Mr. Straus in regard to letter of H. D. Garabedyan, February 9, 1900. After the Armenian troubles of 1895 the subjects of foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire were interdicted from traveling in the interior of Asiatic Turkey without a local passport or teskeré, which teskeré was either refused or the granting indefinitely postponed. On my arrival in Constantinople in October, 1898, a number of foreigners-English, Americans, and Italians-were prevented from returning to their destination-Harpoot, Marash, Sivas, etc. I insisted upon our treaty rights and authorized our citizens-American missionaries—to join their post of duty, and insisted with the Porte that they should not only not be molested but accorded the usual protection. The minister for foreign affairs wired instructions to the governors or valis of the provinces to give the necessary protection. A few weeks later I had an interview with the Sultan, and he caused orders to be issued removing the restrictions, that applications for teskerés should be made as usual, and if it appeared the applicants were neither anarchists nor disturbers of the peace the teskeres should be promptly granted. This order has been generally carried out. So much for foreign subjects whose citizenship is not questioned or in dispute. In view of the fact that we have no treaty of naturalization with Turkey-and the fact that in 1869 a law was promulgated denying the right of Ottoman subjects to acquire foreign naturalization without the previous written consent of the Sultansuch Ottoman subjects of origin who in violation of this law have acquired foreign nationality, their acquired citizenship, upon their return to Ottoman territory, is not recognized, and it is not advisable, especially for Armenians, who are mostly regarded as suspects on returning from foreign countries to Turkey, to come under Ottoman jurisdiction. Each returning subject of origin raises the question of the conflict of sovereignty, with the advantages in favor of the Turkish Government while its subject of origin is within Ottoman jurisdiction. This question seldom arises in respect to other powers, as they either will not protect naturalized citizens on their return to Turkey, their country of origin, or they refuse to naturalize them except upon producing the written consent of Ottoman authorities. As that consent is only given upon the applicant stipulating either not to return or in the event of his return to agree to regard himself as a Turkish subject, it follows that the question seldom arises. Pending the absence of a treaty of naturalization, Turkish subjects of origin will come under the disadvantage caused by the conflict of sovereignty. WASHINGTON, D. C., February 16, 1900. URUGUAY AND PARAGUAY. COURTESIES SHOWN BY URUGUAYAN OFFICIALS AT FUNERAL OF LIEUT. COMMANDER F. E. GREENE, U. S. N. Mr. Hay to Mr. Finch. No. 147.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I inclose copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, reporting, the courtesies paid by officers of the Government of Uruguay on the occasion of the funeral of the late Lieut. Commander F. E. Greene, U. S. N. You will express to the minister of foreign affairs this Government's high appreciation of the tribute of respect paid by himself, the captain of the port, and the Uruguayan military and naval officers to the memory of the deceased officer. memory am, etc., JOHN HAY. [Inclosure.] Mr. Long to Mr. Hay. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 5, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for the information of the State Department, a copy of a letter from the commander in chief of the United States naval forces on the South Atlantic Station concerning the courtesies of Uruguayan officials on the occasion of the funeral of the late Lieut. Commander F. E. Greene, U. S. N. I have, etc., J. D. LONG, Secretary. [Subinclosure.] Rear-Admiral Schley to Mr. Long. SOUTH ATLANTIC STATION, U. S. FLAGSHIP CHICAGO, 1ST RATE, SIR: 1. I have the honor to inform the Department that on the occasion of the funeral of the late Lieut. Commander F. E. Greene, U. S. N., and during the preparations therefor, the Uruguayan officials at Montevideo evinced a desire to facilitate the matter in every possible way. 2. Those most directly concerned were the minister of foreign affairs, Señor Don Manuel Herrara y Espinosa, and the captain of the port, Col. Carlos Gaudencio. In addition to the force landed from the Chicago and Montgomery, the cortege was accompanied to the cemetery by a number of Uruguayan officers. 3. I take this opportunity of bringing this to the attention of the Department as indicative of the desire of the officials of Uruguay to promote the friendly relations existing between the two countries. Very respectfully, W. S. SCHLEY, Rear-Admiral, U. S. N., Commander in Chief. No. 369.] CONDOLENCES ON GALVESTON DISASTER. Mr. Finch to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Montevideo, Uruguay, September 18, 1900. SIR: Yesterday the inclosed card of sympathy was delivered at the legation, with the request that its contents be repeated to you. It is an expression of sympathy by the Government and people of Uruguay for the sufferers by the terrible disaster at Galveston, Tex. Respectfully, WILLIAM R. FINCH. [Inclosure-Translation.] The minister of foreign affairs has the honor to salute his excellency, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, and express to him the painful impression caused in the spirit of this Government and of Uruguayan society by the news of the horrible catastrophe suffered by the population of Galveston, for which sad event he begs you to please accept and transmit to your worthy Government the condolence of this Republic. MONTEVIDEO, September 17, 1900. No. 172.] Mr. Hay to Mr. Finch. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 29, 1900. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 369, of the 18th ultimo, inclosing copy of a note from the foreign office, expressing sympathy in view of the Galveston disaster. Copies of your dispatch and its inclosure have been forwarded to the governor of Texas. This Government cordially appreciates the sympathetic message communicated by that of Uruguay. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. VENEZUELA. CONSULAR IMMUNITIES-ATTACK ON THE WIFE OF UNITED STATES CONSUL AT LA GUAIRA, VENEZUELA. No. 388.] Mr. Loomis to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Caracas, February 1, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at La Guaira. Consul Goldschmidt came to Caracas to state the case orally to me, and later I had him put the facts into writing. I have sent a statement of these incidents to the minister of foreign affairs and asked for an immediate investigation of the case, suggesting that prompt and adequate reparation will be expected if the facts are as stated, and there is no reason to doubt that they are otherwise. A similar request has been presented to the Venezuelan Government by the British minister, based upon the forcible detention and searching of the British vice-consul at La Guaira. I have, etc., FRANCIS B. LOOMIS. [Inclosure.] Mr. Goldschmidt to Mr. Loomis. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: As per request, I report the following two incidents, of a very disagreeable nature, which happened to me in La Guaira. On January 1, 1900, at about 6 o'clock p. m., while walking up the "Calle de Leon" to my residence with my wife, one of the soldier police met us, and when within about 4 or 5 yards from us he fired his carbine, without cause or reason. This was sufficient cause to frighten any woman, and my wife immediately said to me that she felt a pain in her chest, as though something had struck her. I replied that probably she only imagined this, as I thought the man had fired toward the ground. However, when we reached our home my wife opened her dress and showed me a bleeding scar, left by something which had struck her, and also showed me that whatever it was cut through the dress and the underdress, cutting the skin. Although the wound was not a serious one, it took about two weeks to heal. I immediately sent Mr. Schunck to the jefe civil of the district, as he is more conversant with Spanish than I am, and requested him to explain the incident, which he did. The next day I called upon the jefe civil personally and inquired if anything had been done to that soldier, and he replied that the man was in prison, and that he (the jefe civil) was investigating the matter to find out whether the gun had been fired purposely or accidentally, adding that he should be punished accordingly, as they (the police) were forbidden to carry loaded weapons. He (the jefe civil) never expressed any regrets at the occurrence, nor made any apologies for the conduct of his inferior. |