To my mind the most serious aspect of this affair is its arbitrary quality.
No complaints were made. The missionaries were not informed that they were
pursuing a course which was offensive to the
[Page 481]
native authorities. No opportunity was given for a
comparison of the facts with the complaints. But after some informal and
irresponsible talk, on the part of a subordinate, which did not rise in
importance much above gossip, the seals were summarily placed upon both the
school and the church, thus completely arresting the work of the
missionaries, and in fact punishing them to that extent and degree while the
question was being argued as to whether or not they deserved punishment.
This was not only eminently unfair, but the later removal of the seals by
the Persian Government shows that it was also unjustifiable. No conditions
were exacted, or even mentioned, as the price of the removal. The wrong
which it was thus conceded bad been done was simply cured. But to cure the
wrong did not carry with it amends for the protracted interval during which
the missionaries were forced, by a secret and summary process, to endure the
wrong.
There is probably much in the fanatical nature of the population of Tabriz,
in the local atmosphere, which explains this act of summary suppression. But
to explain the act is not to show that it may safely be allowed to be
repeated. On the contrary, the explanation shows that the Government of the
United States ought to make more effective provision for the safety of its
citizens residing in Tabriz. Some officer of the United States should be
there with power to receive and examine complaints, and to transmit them in
authentic shape to this legation, in case the matter goes so far as that;
and all this should be done, and required to be done, before punishment is
inflicted. Otherwise the work of the missionaries at Tabriz is liable to
summary and prolonged interruption at any moment.
For some time the missionaries at Tabriz have been looking to the English
authorities in that city for such assistance as they might require. You will
recall what efficient assistance was rendered by Col. Stewart, at that time
consul-general in Tabriz (now at Odessa, Russia), at the time of the murder
of Mrs. Wright.
Under our treaty with Persia the United States have the right to have a
consul at Tabriz. This right is not now exercised, and, I believe, never has
been exercised. I have ventured to write to the Bev. Mr. Wilson, asking him
to suggest the name of some responsible man living at Tabriz who would serve
as the official representative of the United States in that city. Any
suggestions that he may make will be at once forwarded to Washington for
your consideration and that of the President. I am clear in my own mind that
there ought to be an official representative of the United States in Tabriz,
no matter how limited his powers may be.
Before American churches and schools in Persia are closed and placed in
disuse there ought to be official knowledge of the matter by an authorized
representative of the United States, to whom the Persian authorities, even
the most fanatical, would feel bound to go and to explain before the act of
interference occurred, to the end that the condemnation may not come first
and the hearing afterward.
I inclose herewith a copy of a resolution adopted at Tabriz in regard to my
own relation to the removal of the seals. The work had been done when I
arrived by Mr. Tyler, and the resolution of thanks to him is the more
important.
The thanks of the missionaries have been sent to the Shah and his
Government.
[Inclosure 1 in dispatch. No.
13.]
Mr. Tyler to Mr.
Sperry.
Legation of the United States,
Teheran, Persia, January
26, 1893.
Sir: I have the honor to present for your
information a report on the facts and circumstances which developed
themselves in connection with the closing and sealing by the
authorities, on the 27th of October last, of the doors of the American
Presbyterian mission church and boys’ school in Tabriz.
For some time previously to these extreme measures being taken it appears
that there had been considerable opposition to and agitation against the
work of the mission, though not against the missionaries in their
private capacity. In a letter addressed to me as early as the 4th of May
Mr. Wilson, one of the missionaries, complained of the highhanded and
unjustifiable behavior of the Armenian bishop of Tabriz, who had taken
and forcibly detained a young Protestant girl, a member of the mission
church. This Episcopal dignitary had not, it appears, confined his
interference and annoyance to the American missionaries only, for Mr.
Wilson states in his letter that both the French and Turkish governments
formally protested against him to the Shah’s Government.
Shortly after this Mrs. Wilson, writing to the missionaries in Teheran,
expressed her apprehension that the Mohammedan population might be
incited against them. On Mr. Fox’s first interview with the foreign
minister after his return from his tour in the south, he spoke to his
excellency on the subject, who promised to make inquiries, and if it
should appear that there was a just cause for complaint or any ground
for fear on the part of the missionaries, he would immediately
communicate with the prince governor, the heir apparent. From this time
no official report was made to the legation until the 10th of November,
when a dispatch, covering a letter from Dr. Vanneman, the medical
officer in charge of the mission, was received from the acting English
consul-general in Tabriz, informing the legation that the mission church
and boys’ school in that city had been closed and sealed by the orders
of the prince governor.
Dr. Vanneman, in his letter to the acting English consul, states that for
several days preceding the sealing of the church and boys’ school, the
mirza (native secretary) of the foreign office representative came to
the school and told the Armenian teacher, who was present, that
complaints had been made against the ornamental entrance to the roof of
the church, about the ten commandments being printed on the walls
inside, that Mohammedan children attended the school, and that Moslem
women came to the houses of the missionaries. On being shown the
entrance to the roof of the church, the ten commandments printed inside
the church, and on receiving assurances that no Moslem children attended
the school, and that Persian women only attended Dr. Miss Bradford to be
treated professionally, the mirza seemed satisfied and left. Dr.
Vanneman remarked that as no complaint was either made to himself or to
his associate, Mr. Brashear, they paid little attention to the visit of
the mirza or his conversation with the teacher. Dr. Vanneman furthermore
states that the doors were closed and sealed without any communication
whatever being made either to himself or any other person responsible
for the management of the mission. Immediately on his becoming aware of
what had been done by the authorities he at once sent word to the acting
English consul, who sent his mirza to the foreign office representative
with a request to have the seals removed, at least until the return of
Mr. Wilson (the oldest member of the mission), who at that time was on a
visit to Hamadan, to attend the annual meeting of the mission. He was,
however, put off with some evasive reply. Dr. Vanneman himself sought
and obtained an interview with the foreign office representative and
demanded to know why such an unusual and unjustifiable step had been
taken.
He was told that the valiahd (heir apparent) had given the orders without
assigning any reason.
The acting English consul-general in his dispatch to the legation
expresses himself very freely on the subject. He states that the whole
matter was traceable to the agitation by the Armenian priests, and that
they bribed the officials to induce them to close the church and school.
He adds that they did not produce and prove one specific case, and that
it was an attempt to interfere with the right of Persian subjects to
worship in that form which their consciences approved.
Immediately on receipt of the acting consul’s dispatch I wrote to the
foreign minister requesting the favor of an interview as soon as
possible, but in consequence of a death in his family and the usual
funeral ceremonies not? being concluded, he could not see me until two
days afterwards.
In my interview with his excellency I mentioned the various charges that
had been brought against the missionaries, and the explanations and
denials which they had
[Page 483]
given,
and I ventured to express my conviction that there was no ground for the
action taken by the authorities, and that I hoped he would give orders
to have the seals removed without any formal representation being made
from the legation to the foreign office. He replied that as the prince
governor was concerned in the matter he could not cancel an order given
by him without first bringing the facts of the case to the notice of the
Shah, and asked me to put in writing what I had just stated to him
verbally. On the following day I sent a dispatch in Persian and English,
in which I stated that from the information I was able to gather from
the letter of Dr. Vanneman, Mussulman women did not attend the services
of the church, although they did visit the lady doctor (Dr. Bradford),
but only to be treated professionally; that Moslem boys did not attend
the school, which was entirely devoted to the education of Armenians and
Nestorians; that the missionaries had not the least desire either to
offend the religious sentiments or the artistic tastes of the Government
authorities, in adopting that peculiar style for the entrance to the
roof of the church of which complaint had been made; that it seemed
difficult to raise any objection to the ten commandments being printed
on the inside of the wall of the church, as that was a custom generally
observed in most Christian countries, and that they merely inculcated
man’s duty to God, to his parents, to his neighbors, and to mankind;
that the missionaries regretted that these complaints were not made
directly to them, and an opportunity afforded them of giving
explanations. I added that I thought it would be evident to his
excellency that the missionaries had in no way departed from that sphere
of benevolent work among native Christians, which had been graciously
permitted and recognized for so many years past by the Government of His
Imperial Majesty the Shah. In conclusion, I begged his Excellency to
take such steps as he might deem advisable to have the seals removed,
and the work and worship of the missionaries be allowed to go on as
usual.
On the 14th of November, I addressed a letter to Mr. Paton, the acting
English consul-general, thanking him for the interest he had taken and
the efforts he had made to have the matter settled.
The Rev. S. G. Wilson, having heard, at Hamadan, of the closing of the
church and school, wrote to me on the 9th of November, giving certain
particulars relating to the building of the church and other matters,
all of which I found useful in my communications with the foreign
office. I replied to this on the 17th, informing Mr. Wilson of the
arguments I had used with the foreign minister in refutation of the
complaints that had been made against the mission, and assuring him of
my intention to do all I possibly could to remove the impediment that
had been raised against their work.
Considering that I had already waited sufficiently long to allow the
foreign minister to institute inquiries in Tabriz, I sent a verbal
message to the under secretary of state, on the 5th of December, asking
when I might expect a reply to my letter of the 13th of November. He
replied that he hoped all would be satisfactorily arranged. Not getting
any written communication from the foreign minister, I sent a formal
memorandum to the foreign office on the 9th, in which I reminded the
Department that in my dispatch of the 13th of November, I had proved
that there was no justification for closing the church and school, and I
had hoped that when it had made the inquiries an order would be given to
remove the seals. I remarked, further, that in consequence of the rains,
and access to the roof being closed, considerable damage had been done
to the church. In order to emphasize my arguments I added that the
matter had been reported to the board of foreign missions in America,
and I begged that the seals might be removed before it was brought to
the notice of the U. S. Government.
On Sunday, the 14th of December, I received the reply of the foreign
office to my two communications, which I will presently analyze in
detail, and also give a summary of my reply sent in parallel columns of
Persian and English; but in order to preserve some continuity in my
report I will briefly state, that in reply to a telegram from Mr. Wilson
I observed that the foreign minister considered the question a serious
one, and that he evidently would not on his own responsibility order the
church and school to be opened; and as the Shah had been out of Teheran
for nearly three weeks on a hunting expedition, some unavoidable delay
had been caused.
I inclosed in this letter a copy of the foreign office memorandum, and
requested Mr. Wilson to read over the document very carefully, and make
such remarks on the charges brought forward as he might consider
advisable, and forward them to me as soon as possible.
The charges preferred against the missionaries, in the memorandum
referred to above, were contained in a report from the foreign-office
representative addressed to the minister of that department, and in
substance are as follows:
That the missionaries had built the church without the permission and
sanction of the Government authorities; that they had added a spire to
the edifice, with the object of hanging therein a nakoos; that they had
been preaching in the church; that they admitted Armenian children to
the schools, and taught them the rules
[Page 484]
and principles of the Protestant faith: that
Mussulmans had been converted to Christianity; that Mussulman children
attended the school in opposition to the laws of the religion and the
state; that they published a curriculum of the lessons given in the
school; that Mohammedans had been converted to Christians in Oroomiah
and Salmos; that all persons before entering the service of the
missionaries were compelled to be baptized; that Persian (Mussulman)
women attended the services of the church; that Mr. Easton (one of the
missionaries) had had the photo of a Mohammedan woman taken in a group
of his family; that Protestants had a church for their worship and
preaching contrary to the laws of the state; that certain Armenians were
induced by improper methods (by payments of money) to send their
children to the schools; that the Armenian bishop and priests had
complained to the authorities on the subject.
In commenting upon and refuting these charges I took occasion first to
thank the foreign office for instituting inquiries as to the truth or
falsehood of the accusations brought against the missionaries; but I
remarked that, as these proceedings had not resulted in the removal of
the seals from the church and school, and that as the report of the
foreign office representative was in such conflict with the information
supplied by the missionaries, a reply in some detail seemed to be
unquestionably demanded. Briefly stated it was as follows:
- First. With regard to the charge that the missionaries had
built the church without the permission of the Government
authorities, I replied that this was not correct, as they held a
paper given to them for that purpose.
- Secondly. To the charge that they had added a spire to the
church, with the object of hanging therein a nakoos (a heavy
plank of wood suspended on hinges, and struck with a mallet to
call to prayers). I denied that such was the case, and it was
simply and solely intended as an entrance to the roof.
- Thirdly. As to the complaint that the missionaries had been
guilty of preaching in the church, I observed that the
construction of a church presupposed the holding of service, and
that preaching formed a necessary and important part in
them.
- Fourthly. In reply to the complaint that Armenian children
attended the schools, I admitted that the missionaries did not
deny the fact; but I added that as the rules of faith and
conduct were identical in these two sections of the Christian
church, there could be no objection to their being taught in the
school.
- Fifthly. With regard to the assertion that Mohammedans had
been converted to Christianity, I stated that no such report had
reached the legation, and that I very much doubted if such an
event had taken place.
- Sixthly. In answer to the charge that Mussulman children
attended the school, I said the missionaries declared that it
was not true, with the sole exception of the foreign-office
representative’s mirza’s son, who merely went to learn English;
but I added if the mirza disapproved of his son’s going, he
could have ordered him to stay away, and there would have been
an end of the matter. If his object, however, in sending him to
the school was to have a pretext for bringing a charge against
the missionaries or stir up ill feeling, it was for the foreign
office to judge whether the missionaries or the mirza was in
fault.
- Seventhly. Regarding the publication of the curriculum of the
studies in the school, I replied that these missionaries denied
that such was the case, or that any order was given to them to
discontinue the teaching as was asserted. Indeed, they
complained that these charges were not made to them personally,
and so an opportunity afforded them of making an explanation. In
fact both the church and school had been closed without any
direct communication being made to them on the subject.
- Eighthly. With regard to the conversion of Mohammedans to
Christianity in Oroomiah and Salmos, I reminded the foreign
office that missionaries had been located amongst the Nestorians
in those places for upwards of fifty years without any charge
whatever being brought against their moral character, and it was
possible that during that long period some cases of conversion
had taken place, just as many Christians had become Mussulmans;
but I thought that the foreign office would perceive that this
question had little relevancy to the subject at issue.
- Ninthly. With reference to the accusation that all persons
entering the service of the missionaries were first compelled to
be baptized, I observed that the foreign office knew as well as
the legation that baptizing a man (supposing the charge to be
true, which the missionaries denied) no more made him a
Christian than did the pronunciation of the name of Mohammed
make a man a Mussulman.
- Tenthly. To the charge that Mussulman women attended the
services of the church, I replied that the missionaries denied
this, but admitted that some did visit the lady doctor to
receive advice and assistance, but with no other motive or
intention whatever.
- Eleventhly. In noticing the accusation that Mr. Easton had had
the photo of a Mussulman woman taken in the group of his family,
I stated that I felt sure that Mr. Easton had not the remotest
intention of infringing the laws of the country, or
[Page 485]
that he supposed this
act would he made a pretext for closing the doors of the house
of God, and I was convinced that if he had had the faintest idea
that such a result would have followed he would not have
committed so serious an act of indiscretion. Moreover, he left
Tabriz in the spring, and was in no way connected with this
church.
- Twelfthly. On the question that Protestants had built
themselves a church, I ventured to observe that through the
favor of His Imperial Majesty the Shah, peoples of various
religions were allowed to have churches in which to worship God
in their own way, and I was quite certain that it was neither
the wish of the Shah nor his Government, nor that of the crown
prince, that Protestants should be denied this privilege.
- Thirteenthly. To the charge that certain Armenians were
induced by unlawful means to send their children to the school,
I maintained that if their parents were satisfied that these
children were thereby made better citizens and subjects, which
were points of great importance in the Christian religion, no
real damage was done to the state.
- Fourteenthly. Regarding the complaints of the Armenian bishop
and priests, I held it probable that if these persons were to
pay more attention to the improvement of their system of
education, and make greater efforts to carry it into effect, the
children would most likely be sent to their schools instead of
to those of the missionaries.
In commenting on these charges I remarked that I felt it necessary to
make each one the subject of some observations and explanations, which I
trusted would be found satisfactory to the imperial foreign office, and
that it would be admitted there was no further necessity for keeping the
church and school closed. I added, moreover, that the legation in
considering these charges (the first that had been brought against the
missionaries) felt, without in the least desiring to give trouble to the
Government, that it would have been preferable had the authorities,
before taking this extreme step, made some communication to the
legation, that it might have instituted inquiries as to the truth of the
charges made against the missionaries of infringing the laws of the
country. In conclusion, I remarked that the legation had taken and would
continue to take the profoundest interest in all that concerned the
happiness, prosperity, and stability of the Kingdom, and would cooperate
with the Imperial Government in preventing dissensions and disputes
between their respective subjects and so perpetuate that harmony and
good feeling which it was the utmost desire of the U. S. Government to
foster and consolidate.
Simultaneously with the above memorandum I had the honor to announce to
the minister of foreign affairs the receipt of your telegram from Vienna
and the probable date of your arrival at the Persian port of Enzelli,
and I hoped that this information would induce the authorities to see
the wisdom and justice of opening the church and schools without further
delay.
On the 17th of December I received from the foreign office a memorandum
in the form of a reply to mine of the 14th, in which the minister
asserts his belief that his representative in Tabriz had given an
unprejudiced report of the circumstances that had been the cause for
sealing up the church and school, and that the missionaries had been
obliged to use their particular arguments in order to make their case
good. Peremptory orders, continued the memorandum, had been sent to
Tabriz to have the seals removed, but at the same time the legation was
desired to warn the missionaries against allowing Mussulman women and
children to visit them or enter the church and school, and by no means
to transgress the laws of the religion and the state, and not to neglect
the advice of the representative of the Foreign Office, who was only
solicitous for their safety, lest troubles and difficulties might
follow.
Not feeling sure that the minister’s orders would be executed, even if
they were sent, on the 19th I asked Mr. Wilson by wire whether the seals
had been removed, and to my regret on the following day I received a
reply that they had not. The next day I addressed a memorandum to the
foreign office expressing my extreme surprise and disappointment at the
refusal on the part of the Tabriz authorities to carry out the
minister’s orders, and at the missionaries still being deprived of their
place of worship. On the 21st the foreign minister sent a telegram to
the legation, with a request that I would myself have it dispatched to
the foreign-office representative in Tabriz, ordering, in the most
peremptory manner, the immediate opening of the church and school. I had
it sent off at once, and at the same time apprised Mr. Wilson of the
fact and asked him to let me know the result. On the 23d I received a
telegram from Mr. Wilson informing me that instead of the minister’s
orders being carried out, the mirza of the foreign-office representative
had called at the mission and pretended to read a telegram he alleged
had been sent by the foreign minister ordering the doors of the church
and school to be kept closed. I immediately addressed a memorandum to
the foreign office expressing the greatest astonishment at this
inexplicable behavior of the Tabriz authorities, and respectfully
requested, in the most unequivocal manner, that the seals be at once
removed. Late the same day I received from the foreign minister a
telegram written by himself
[Page 486]
ordering, in the most indignant and peremptory terms, the seals to be
taken off without any further question or hesitation. On the 25th the
foreign-office representative replied to the telegram of the minister,
to the effect that he had shown his excellency’s orders to the prince
governor, who had commanded him in equally strong language to leave the
seals on, adding that he had sent a detailed telegram of all the
circumstances to the prime minister, and until his reply came the doors
were to remain closed. This last telegram was sent through the legation,
and in forwarding it to the foreign office I took occasion to observe
that from the tenor of the telegrams sent to Tabriz I had had the
greatest hope that the matter would be settled, and that I still trusted
that the doors would be opened before your arrival, that you might enter
upon your tenure of office free from complications of any kind. Not
receiving any reply to these communications I addressed a further
memorandum to the foreign office stating that I had received two letters
and two telegrams from the missionaries within the last few days who
complained that they had no church in which to conduct their religious
services; and I repeated my expressions of extreme surprise that,
notwithstanding the peremptory orders of the minister, the doors of the
church and school were still closed, yet I felt sure that from the
well-known feelings of friendship which his excellency had toward the
legation, and in view of the speedy arrival of the new minister, he
would not allow the church to be kept shut up. I added, moreover, that
the following day being the first day of the new year the legation had
the greatest desire that the church should be opened for services. On
the 6th of January, the day of your arrival, I received a private note
from one of the under secretaries assuring me that orders had been sent
to open the doors of the church, and on the following day Mr. Wilson
sent you a telegram reporting the removal of the seals.
From a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and viewed in
the light of statements and reports contained in lengthy communications
received from Mr. Wilson and Dr. Vanneman, and from information which I
had been able to gather from other sources, it was clearly evident that
there was great antagonism and opposition on the part of a portion of
the Armenian community, including the bishop and priests, to the work of
the missionaries; and that they had, by liberal bribes, incited certain
of the officials in Tabriz to get up an agitation, and by
misrepresentations prevail upon the crown prince to close the church and
school, and thus put a stop to missionary enterprise in Tabriz
altogether. Consequently it was only natural that these corrupt and
bribed servants of the Crown should hold out as long as possible, and do
all in their power at least to save appearances and to present a certain
justification for the bribes they had received. I was perfectly aware of
the force of the pecuniary argument, and, therefore, was prepared for
some delay.
There was, moreover, a prevailing impression in Teheran that this was an
initiatory move against all missions, and that similar measures would,
if this succeeded, be adopted against the missions in Oroomiah and other
places. I felt sure, however, that the Shah and his Government were too
anxious to stand well with foreign governments to take a reactionary
step of such very questionable policy. Still the prince governor of
Ispahan had expelled an agent of the “English society for the
propagation of Christianity amongst the Jews,” and the British minister
had not been able to get him reinstated.
In one letter I received from Dr. Vanneman my opinion was asked as to the
expediency of preferring a claim for damages against the Tabriz
authorities, for unlawfully entering and forcibly closing the church and
school. In replying, however, to this proposal I took the liberty to
state that I was afraid, in view of the present unsettled state of the
country, an application of that kind to the Government would have little
prospect of success and might possibly do harm rather than good. I added
that I should not like, and I did not think it was advisable to make a
demand on the foreign office which could not be supported by the
authority of the U. S. Government, and to be obliged to acquiesce in a
refusal would weaken the position and moral influence of the legation,
which at the present time it seemed necessary to strengthen and increase
as much as possible.
It is a pleasure to me to bear testimony that in the conduct of these
delicate and difficult negotiations (for some members of the Persian
Government and a vast proportion of the population are very susceptible
and sensitive on religious questions) I had the hearty cooperation and
assistance of the missionaries in Tabriz; and it was a source of great
satisfaction that I could always refer to the purity of their
intentions, their prudence and moderation, and to the blamelessness of
their moral character, without the least fear of refutation.
It will be only just to observe, too, that in all my communications with
the foreign office I was treated with great courtesy, although it might
have justly refused to recognize my position, as I had never been
introduced to the Shah or his ministers, even as the official
interpreter of the legation. I trust, however, that what I have done in
this matter meets with your satisfaction, and will not be disapproved by
the Secretary of State.
[Page 487]
Before closing I should like to put on record that the munshi of the
legation rendered me very valuable advice and assistance in the Persian
correspondence, for which I feel that, at the least, he deserves this
recognition of appreciation.
I have received from the committee of the Tabriz mission the following
resolution with regard to my action in this matter:
“At a meeting of the American missionaries held in the city of Tabriz on
the 7th instant (January), the following resolution was passed:
“We desire to express to Mr. John Tyler, interpreter in charge of the U.
S. legation, our most heartfelt thanks for the deep interest and
sympathy which ho has manifested, and the wise and masterly manner in
which he has represented before the Persian authorities our case in
regard to the closing of the church and school.
“And we feel that he has richly earned this respect and attention, as
witnessed in his bringing to a successful issue this unhappy affair of
gross injustice and indignity to a number of American subjects.
“We congratulate him most heartily on his triumphant vindication of what
seemed to be simple justice.
“We have also observed and appreciated not only the energy and
business-like way of following up each step in the progress of the case,
but especially in his keeping us so well informed, both by telegrams and
letters, of the receipt of our communications and his action in respect
to them.
“For this all he deserves and we hereby gladly give expression to our
grateful thanks.
“W. S. Vanneman, M. D.
“W. L. Whipple,
“Agent of American Bible
Society,
Committee.
Tabriz, 9th January,
1893.
I have, etc.,
