the goods and citizens of the United States should receive in any contingency the treatment of the most-favored nation. The proposals heretofore made by us to continue such treatment while negotiating a new treaty were based on these assurances of Turkey. "As relates to these assurances, I need scarcely do more than refer you to the words of your own note of May 22d last, wherein, while stating the inability of Turkey to accept the letter of the proposal made by the United States, you make the following declaration: "As to the fear which you express that the commerce of the United States will be placed on a lower footing in consequence of the abrogation of the treaty of 1862, while other powers have treaties of longer duration, and that American commerce will thereby be subjected to a disadvantageous régime, I can assure you, in the name of my government, that the Sublime Porte entertains no such idea. The esteem and regard which it has always manifested for the United States are a sure guarantee that it will maintain their rights as it has done in the past.' Many such declarations might be cited from the notes of yourself and your predecessors and of the ministers of foreign affairs of the Porte to the same effect, but in more unequivocal language even than yours. "Besides these assurances, the United States are, in virtue of a treaty whose existing validity is beyond a doubt, entitled to the treatment of the most-favored nation. The proposals heretofore made by this government, and which have been declined by that of the Porte, were based on these assurances, and looked simply to the continuance of the most-favorednation treatment so long as other nations should be more favored than our own, and no longer. In this respect our proposals are not at variance with the drafts submitted by your own Government to the United States minister at Constantinople. The principle sought to be confirmed in both is the same. "This government stands ready to negotiate a new treaty with Turkey, whereby the commerce of the United States may be subject to the same increase of taxes as the commerce of other nations with which Turkey has concluded or may conclude treaties, such treaty to take effect with the general enforcement of the new tariff. "I can not but view the present notification, whereby the government of the Porte ignores its assurance of and agreement for favored treatment, and seeks to place the commerce of the United States on the basis of a higher taxation, while other powers are, for the time being, entitled to a lower rate, as unfavorable to that good feeling which should mark the negotiations for a reformed tariff and a new treaty. "The representative of the United States at Constantinople has been instructed to protest against any instance which may come to his knowledge of the levying of ad valorem duties against the products of the United States to which the products of other nations may not be at the time liable, as a violation of the treaty of 1830." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Tevfik Pasha, Turkish min., Oct. 24, 1884, For. Rel. 1885, 896. See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, min. to Turkey, No. 77, May 1, 1883, MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 18; same to same, No. 163, March 25, 1884, id. 97, enclosing copies of Tevfik Pasha, Turkish min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Oct. 26, 1883, and Mr. Frelinghuysen to Tevfik Pasha, March 21, 1884; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Wallace, No. 171, March 29, 1884, id. 108; same to same, No. 184, April 26, 1884, id. 129; No. 191, May 20, 1884, id. 135; No. 243, Nov. 25, 1884, id. 192. Mr. Frelinghuysen's note to Tevfik Pasha, March 21, 1884, encloses a draft of a declaration for the establishment of a modus vivendi. (MS. Notes to Turkey, I. 412.) "I have had the honor to receive the note which you were pleased to address to me, under date of the 24th ultimo, in relation to the treaty of commerce between Turkey and the United States. "In reply I can but renew to you the assurances which the imperial government has repeatedly given to that of the United States, that American merchants will receive, in the dominions of his Imperial Majesty the Sultan, the same usage as those of other nations, as is stipulated in Article I. of the treaty of 1830, which is the only treaty that is now in force. "The Sublime Porte, in an arrangement to be concluded between the two countries to take the place of the treaty of 1862, which has ceased to exist, would be perfectly willing to place American merchandise on the same footing as that of the most-favored nation. It would have to be well understood, however, that this stipulation should be reciprocal, and interpreted as it has been hitherto understood in the law of nations. That is to say, that just as American. goods imported into Turkey would receive the benefit of any advantage granted to a third power, so Ottoman goods would enjoy in the United States all advantages that, for any reason, should be accorded by the Washington government to the goods of any other country. "As to the transient question what usage will be accorded to American goods in the Ottoman Empire, so long as no new treaty shall be concluded, I have every reason to believe that such goods will be subjected to the same usage as those of other nations, with the exception of imports from Austria-Hungary, upon which, for the present, specific duties continue to be levied; goods from all other countries pay ad valorem duties. The Sublime Porte was therefore very much surprised when it learned that the representative of the United States at Constantinople had been instructed to protest every time that ad valorem duties should be levied upon American goods, unless the same duties should be levied upon the productions of other nations. "This decision can not fail to complicate the situation, and to give rise to new difficulties, without doing any good. The United States legation, moreover, will not have occasion to protest, notwithstanding the instructions of its government, since ad valorem duties are levied upon the goods of all in general. "I have been instructed by my government to beg you earnestly, Mr. Secretary of State, to be pleased to instruct the United States delegate to take part, without delay, not only in the preparation of the new tariff, but also in the negotiations for the conclusion of a new treaty to take the place of that which the Sublime Porte has regularly denounced." Tevfik Pasha, Turkish min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, Nov. 30, 1884, For. Rel. 1885, 901. "The termination of the commercial treaty of 1862 between the United States and Turkey has been sought by that government. While there is question as to the sufficiency of the notice of termination given, yet as the commercial rights of our citizens in Turkey come under the favored-nation guarantees of the prior treaty of 1830, and as equal treatment is admitted by the Porte, no inconvenience can result from the assent of this government to the revision of the Ottoman tariffs, in which the treaty powers have been invited to join.” President Cleveland, first annual message, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, xiv. Since June 5, 1884, the Ottoman government has treated the convention of 1862 as no longer operative. No result has yet attended the standing invitation of the Turkish government to negotiate a new commercial treaty. Meanwhile, the commerce of the United States enjoys in the Ottoman dominion the mostfavored treatment. The Supreme Court has held that the treaties concluded between the United States and the Ottoman Empire concede to the United States the same privileges and rights as to extraterritorial jurisdiction enjoyed by other Christian nations. (Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S. 13.) "Your dispatch No. 26, of the 13th instant, in regard to the resumption of tariff conferences with the Porte is received. "In view of the friendly disposition in the premises on the part of the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and the grand vizier, as described in Mr. Wallace's No. 466 of the 25th January last, and as the accession of a new and, as you say, liberal-minded minister of foreign affairs seems to afford a favorable opportunity for a renewal of the negotiations relative to a new tariff on the part of Turkey, and eventually, if possible, a commercial treaty, Mr. Heap is hereby 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. "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 revision 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 |