ENPages
1
No 476 Legation of the United States Constantinople, March 289th, 1895
To the Honorable Walter Q. Gresham, Secretary of State, Washington DC
Sir, I have the honor(?) to inform you that ^the object of my letter to Miss Patrick, and the telegram referred to in your 371 of the 6th inst. have been strangely misconstrued by Dr Judson Smith.
The promise referred to in that letter was made after the iridi had issued and was not a "good bargain" of the Sultan "drove" with "our Minister", as Dr Smith asserts ^The telegram simply announced a fact apparent to every one. The motive for the prom[....] that influenced both is is {sic} fully explained in the enclosed memorandum.
I have the honor to remain, Your Obedient Servant, A. W. Terrell
2
Endorsement No 476
Memorandum.
My letter to Miss Patrick and the proposed telegram, were written on the same day, - bear the same date, and were written in the same hour, with my No 396 of Jany 16th, which informed Mr Gresham that "a messenger from the palace brought me word that the iridi had issued for Scutari College"
That messenger was Munir Bey, an aid - de - Camp of the Sultan, who was acompanied {sic} by Abdallah Pasha, a Turkish general, who had just returned from Mush. The latter came from the Sultan to present his version of events at Mush; which partly for want of time, and partly because I believed it not trustworthy, I never reported.
I told Munir Bey that Miss Patrick, I felt sure, would telegraph her opinion
3
that the Sultan's iridi for a Christian College "was not consistent with the idea that he approves atrocities on Christians" . The two things, I thought, were inconsistent. _ I Think So Still _
This was the "promise" mentioned in my letter to Miss Patrick, - this the "good bargain", of the Sultan with "our Minister" , made after full notice that the iridi had already issued
The statement in my letter viz "if in the flush of my pleasure I prommised {sic} too much, +c" should have informed so intelligent a gentlemen as Dr Smith, that the prommise {sic} refered {sic} to, was voluntarily madeˆ after accomplishing something pleasant; and not a "good bargain" that the Sultan "drove" with, "our Minister" . Consider my surroundings! All Missionaries here are suspected, as promoters of sedition.
4
3
They are suspected with inspiring the Christian press in America which describes the Sultan as a monster. That telegram was intended (not to parry evidence of atrocities!) but to "parry the force" of that suspicion.
The trembling missionaries in Asia Minor who now appeal for help to avert an impending massacre, would this day feel more secure if that telegram had gone to some one, who would have published it. It had no refference {sic} to whether atrocities had been committed, but had refference {sic} alone to the question, as to whether the Sultan approved them. The conduct of the troops, not of the Sultan is the question pending before the Commission. There is not an honest diplomat here, who believes that he either directed, or approved the massacre of women and children.
My apathy in exciting Christian
5
4
prejudice against this Sultan has disappointed more than one gentleman here, who expressed the desire that I "drive him with a club"; but until the President modifies his last injunction to me, viz. "dont get me in trouble over there and protect the Missionaries"; , or until rule 30 of my personal instructions is changed, I must disregard the criticisms of those to whom I am not responsible._
So intelligent a gentleman as Dr Smith must see how dangerous it would be for the foreign policy of our Government at this post to be dictated by Missionary Agencies. If their judgment should controll {sic} my action, then the President should have a Missionary for Minister, instead of myself._
Dr Smith must also realize how dangerous it would be for Missionaries