ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

While this Government sympathizes with the desire of Persia to see the interests of its numerous subjects in Egypt duly respected, this Government is not so situated with regard to the mixed tribunals as to intervene with a view to securing an enlarged representation of the non-European element in the constitution of the tribunals.

Our representative at Cairo will be advised of the desires of Persia, and instructed to report upon the subject when the question of reorganization comes up.

I am, etc.,

W. Q. GRESHAM.

No. 20.]

Mr. McDonald to Mr. Gresham.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Teheran, September 25, 1893. (Received November 3.)

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your No. 13, diplomatic series, replying to Mr. Sperry's No. 62, concerning the desire of the Persian Government to be represented in the mixed tribunals of Egypt and asking the intervention of the U. S. Government to that end.

The reason assigned by the Department for declining at present said intervention will be duly communicated to the Persian Government. I am, etc.,

ALEX. MCDONALD.

No. 77.]

Mr. McDonald to Mr. Gresham.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Teheran, March 26, 1894. (Received May 2.) SIR: My predecessor, Mr. Sperry, on the 5th of July, 1893, transmitted to the Department of State a copy and translation of a letter from the Persian foreign minister, asking for the friendly intervention and cooperation of the Government of the United States with the European governments in securing for Persia a representative to take part in the deliberations of the mixed judicial tribunal in Egypt on the reappointment of that body by the Khedive's Government. I have now the honor to forward for your information a copy and translation of another letter I have just received from the minister for foreign affairs relating to the same subject.

In consequence of the presence of a number of Persian merchants engaged in trade in Egypt, and of a still larger number who every year pass through that country on their pilgrimage to the shrine at Mecca, a member to represent their interests on the tribunal might be of advantage. Any steps taken by the U. S. Government to secure that end would, I am sure, be highly appreciated by the Shah and his minister. I have, etc.,

ALEX. MCDONALD.

[Inclosure in No. 77.]

The Minister for Foreign Affairs to Mr. McDonald.

TEHERAN, the 12th of Ramazan (March 20), 1894. YOUR EXCELLENCY: On the 15th of the month Zilhejzeh, A. H. 1310, I addressed you on the subject of the necessity for the presence of a representative of Persia on the mixed tribunals of Egypt. The

substance of the response of the Khedive's Government on this subject, made through the Italian consul-general in Egypt, is to the effect that as the citizens of Persia resident in the Ottoman Empire do not, as do the subjects of other countries, participate in the benefits of treaty rights, they can not, therefore, in Egypt, which is one of the provinces of that Government, partake of the same privileges which are accorded to other nations. Perhaps the intention of the Khedive's Government in this reply may be construed to mean that the Persian Government has no "capitulations" with the Turkish Government. If that is so, then its contention and argument are faulty, and contrary to the facts of the case, inasmuch as there are now treaties and conventions between the two governments, the stipulations of which are, throughout the whole of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, in active operation, and as Egypt forms a part of that state they ought to take effect there. At the present time, in conformity with recent treaty rights, in most of the commercial courts throughout the Turkish Empire, representatives of Persia, in the same manner as those of other favored nations, or two Persian merchants in the capacity of members, sit to adjudicate on mercantile matters.

If the Persian Government had not these treaty privileges, it is manifest that the Turkish Government would never have admitted the representatives of Persia to seats in these tribunals. Leaving these considerations out of the question, it is evident from the fourteenth article of the existing treaty, concluded by the Persian embassy of this Government (in Constantinople) and the Ottoman department of foreign affairs, a translation of which into French I send for your excellency's perusal, that whatever rights and privileges are granted to the most favored nations in the Ottoman Empire have in their entirety been secured to the Persian Government, and Persian subjects in all parts of Turkey ought to be partakers of those rights and privileges to their fullest extent. Therefore the reply of the Government of the Khedive of Egypt to the consul-general of Italy is contrary to the stipulations existing between the governments of Persia and Turkey and the clear meaning of the aforesaid treaty.

Furthermore, the Persian Government has more subjects in Egypt than most other countries, and it can not therefore relinquish its clear and undoubted rights in that country.

It is therefore very respectfully urged upon your excellency's attention that on the occasion of the renewal of the convention for the reconstruction of the mixed tribunals of Egypt your Government will take into its serious consideration the injustice of the Khedive's Government in setting aside the confirmed rights of the Persian state. There is no doubt that your Government, in its enlighted sense of justice and a sincere regard for what is right, will not fail to take such steps as may appear just and necessary.

I have nothing further to trouble you with on this occasion.

[Subinclosure in No. 77.-Translation.]

Fourteenth article of Turko-Persian treaty.

Persian subjects in Turkey and Turkish subjects in Persia shall enjoy exactly the same rights as the subjects of the most favored nations in all matters which are not mentioned in the present treaty, and in case the Persian Government shall not fulfill any one of the clauses of this treaty, the Turkish Government will act, on its part, in the same manner.

The 21 Zegadé, 1292, corresponding to A. D. 1875.

No. 57.]

Mr. Uhl to Mr. McDonald.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, May 4, 1894.

SIR: 1 have received your No. 77 of the 26th March last and the copy which you inclose of a note of the Persian minister of state, and have to say in reply that the Department in its No. 13 of August 17, 1893, has already expressed its sympathy for Persia's desire to see the interests of its subjects in Egypt duly respected, but is now, ás when the above instruction was written, unable to intervene to secure the desired representation in the mixed tribunal in Egypt.

I am, etc.,

EDWIN F. UHL,

Acting Secretary.

PORTUGAL.

SUSPENSION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL AND PROTECTION OF BRAZILIAN CITIZENS IN PORTUGAL.

Mr. Souza Roza to Mr. Gresham.

LEGATION OF PORTUGAL,

Washington, May 29, 1894. (Received June 12.)

SIR: Referring to the different interviews I have had with you in regard to the question that has been raised between the Brazilian and Portuguese governments, I note the following points as the principal ones, which will give an exact idea of the question referred to:

The intervention of Vice Admiral Castilho, commander of the Portuguese naval force at Rio de Janeiro, as a mediator in the capitulation of the insurgents, and the asylum which was afterwards given to them, were effectuated without the authorization of the Portuguese Government. The instructions given by the Portuguese Government to Mr. Paraty, its representative in Brazil, were, with respect to the mediation, that it should be authorized only if it were accepted by the Brazilian Government; and, with regard to the asylum of the refugees, that it could be given only in concert with the commanders of the other foreign vessels. (Docs. Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.)

As soon as the Portuguese Government knew that the Brazilian Government declined to accept the capitulation of the rebels it gave positive instructions to Mr. Paraty not to have anything to do with this act. (Docs. Nos. 5 and 6.)

Asylum was finally granted by Admiral Castilho on the 14th of March, the Portuguese Government being ignorant that all the insurgents had taken refuge exclusively on board of the Portuguese ships. (Docs. Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10.)

[ocr errors]

The Brazilian Government protested against the right of Portugal to give asylum to the insurgents; but on March 17, by amicable agreement, it consented that the vessels might depart from Rio de Janeiro. (Doc. No. 11.)

On March 19 the Portuguese corvettes Mindello and Alfonso de Albuquerque did depart for Buenos Ayres, carrying on board all the refugees. The question raised by the Brazilian Government over the right of asylum remained pending, the Portuguese Government declining to deliver up the insurgents, guaranteeing, however, to the Brazilian Government that they should be disembarked only on Portuguese territory, subject to the vigilance of the proper authorities, so as to prevent them from intervening in the political struggle of Brazil. (Docs. Nos. 12 and 13.)

On March 24 the corvette Alfonso de Albuquerque arrived at Buenos Ayres, and on the 26th the Mindello, and the Portuguese Government insisted upon its orders to the commanders not in any event to disembark the refugees, who were to be conveyed to Portuguese territory on

[blocks in formation]

a transport of war expressly sent from Lisbon for this purpose, since the commanders of the two corvettes declared most positively that it was impossible for them to put to sea, from lack of accommodations and from the condition in which the vessels were found to be. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.)

(Docs.

As it would take a long time for a transport to arrive, and the Portuguese Government wished to convey the insurgents to Portugal as speedily as possible, it endeavored to charter a special steamer for this purpose in Buenos Ayres. (Docs. Nos. 22 and 23.)

Meanwhile the hygienic conditions resulting from the accumulation of so many persons on board of the Portuguese vessels became extremely bad, and cases of yellow fever were not slow in appearing. A lieutenant who was asylumed on the Alfonso de Albuquerque died of this disease, and two soldiers of the Mindello were sent to the hospital. The Argentine Government, in consideration of the danger, urgently besought the Portuguese representative at Buenos Ayres to solicit instructions from the Government at Lisbon to disembark the refugees at the lazaretto, or that the corvettes would leave the Argentine waters immediately. The situation on board was extremely grave, the Portuguese representative declaring that it was impossible to await the arrival of the transport. (Docs. Nos. 24 and 25.)

This situation, already of itself so difficult, was aggravated by the circumstance of its being known that the friends and partisans of the insurgents were planning to bring about their disembarkation, which, being known to Admiral Saldanha da Gama, led him to beg for the disembarkation of the refugees by telegram directed to the Government of His Majesty. (Docs. Nos. 26 and 27.)

In spite of all these difficulties and demands, the Portuguese Government, faithful to the promise it had made to the Brazilian Government, declared most positively that under no circumstances whatever would it permit the disembarkation of the refugees, not even the sick; and it insisted that every endeavor possible should be made to charter a vessel which should carry the refugees to the territory of Portugal, under the Portuguese flag, as quickly as possible. (Docs. Nos. 28, 29, and 30.) These orders of the Portuguese Government could have been carried into effect finally, the steamer Pedro III being chartered at Buenos Ayres on April 8 for £8,000 to carry the refugees to the Island of Ascension. (Docs. Nos. 31 and 32.)

At this juncture the Portuguese Government was informed that 110 refugees had escaped from on board the corvette Mindello, in view of which it immediately gave orders that an urgent request for their restitution should be made to the Argentine Government. This Government, however, not only declined to deliver them up, but protested against the fact of some of the fugitives having been recaptured at the time when they escaped on board of the schooner Pepito Donato, with the Argentine flag. (Docs. Nos. 33, 34, and 35.)

The Brazilian Government having been informed of this escape, protested, and the Portuguese Government explained the circumstances, and proved that it had been solicitous to comply with its promise to the Brazilian Government, employing to that end all means within its reach, and that no responsibility could be attached to it for what had happened.

On the 15th of April the Portuguese Government received exact and circumstantial information about the escape of the fugitives at Buenos Ayres, and the communication that the two Portuguese corvettes had departed for the coast of Montevideo, where the steamer Pedro III

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »