Washington ,24-05-1924 .
My Dear Senator Lodge: With a letter dated May 25 I laid before the President the treaties concluded between the United States and Turkey on August 6, 1923 and certain papers which were signed and authenticated in connection with the conclusion of these treaties.6 It is my understanding that the President has transmitted the treaties to the Senate7 and that they are now before the Committee on Foreign Relations. The following observations with reference to the treaties are submitted with a view to facilitating the consideration of these instruments by the Committee. If further information is desired I shall be happy to furnish it.

The events which led up to the conclusion of the treaties above mentioned were outlined in a general way in an address which I delivered on 23-01-1924. To the remarks made in that address, of which a copy is attached (Enclosure l),8 it may be useful to add the following observations concerning the part played by this Government in the Conference of Lausanne and concerning the circumstances in which the negotiations between the American and Turkish representatives at that Conference were initiated and conducted.

The United States, though never at war with Turkey, was deeply interested in the settlement of the problems growing out of the war between Turkey and the Powers with which this country was associated in the war against the Central Powers. Upon the invitation of the Allied Governments, the United States was accordingly represented at the #Lausanne Conference# but was not a party to the Treaty of Peace or other instruments concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey.

During the first phase of the Conference, which extended from November 20-11- 1922, to0 4-02- 1923, the three representatives of the United States, as occasion arose, expressed the views of this Government upon questions affecting American interests. They pointed [Page 716]out the vital importance of the adoption by Turkey of a policy calculated to reassure foreigners concerning the administration of justice. They urged that recognition and protection be accorded by the Turkish authorities to American missions, schools, and hospitals in Turkey. They supported the principle of the “Open Door” and the equality of economic opportunity. They advocated freedom of navigation and passage through the Straits and associated themselves heartily with the representatives of the Allied Powers in impressing upon the Turkish Government the necessity of agreeing to adequate measures for the protection of the non-Turkish minorities in Turkish territory and for the extension to such minorities of the rights and privileges believed to be essential to their well-being.

During the first phase of the Conference agreement was reached between the Allies and Turks with regard to many important features of the peace settlement, but as there was lack of accord on certain points at issue, an adjournment took place, during which the Turkish delegates returned to Angora to ascertain the views of the Grand National Assembly. The second phase of the Conference, which began on April 23, 1923, terminated on July 24, 1923, with the signature of a treaty of peace and several other instruments, including a commercial convention, a convention regarding residence, business, and jurisdiction, and a convention relating to the regime of the Straits. Copies of these instruments are enclosed for your information (Enclosure 2).9

The arrangements thus concluded provided for the acceptance by the Allied Powers of the complete abolition of the Capitulations from every point of view. The Turkish Government, however, agreed for a period of five years to certain limitations in matters of taxation and customs dues, and it undertook for a period of seven years to permit all questions involving the civil status of Allied nationals to be determined by courts sitting within the territory of the countries to which such nationals belonged. Certain assurances were, moreover, given by declaration in regard to the employment of legal advisers to collaborate in the administration of justice as it affects foreigners in Turkey and to assist in making reforms which might be deemed necessary to modernize the administration of justice, as well as in regard to the execution of awards made upon the voluntary arbitration of controversies concerning civil or commercial matters.

The status of Allied charitable, educational, and philanthropic institutions in Turkey was dealt with in a letter addressed by the Turkish representatives to the British, French, and Italian Delegations [Page 717]at Lausanne, and in the convention relating to the régime of the Straits recognition was given to the principle of the freedom of navigation and passage for commercial vessels and aircraft and war vessels and aircraft both in time of peace and in time of war, subject to certain limitations in the case of war vessels and to certain restrictions in the event of Turkey or the country to which the vessels or aircraft belong being engaged in the war.

The Treaty of Peace incorporated provisions assuring to the non-Moslem minorities in Turkey, among other rights or privileges, the full and complete protection of life and property; the free exercise of creed, religion, or belief; freedom of movement and of emigration; equality with Moslems in civil and political rights; the right to maintain charitable, religious, social and scholastic institutions and to use their own language and exercise their own religion therein; and the right to determine questions of personal status and domestic relations in accordance with their own usages. These provisions the Turks undertook to recognize as fundamental laws. Representatives of the United States who were present at the meetings of the committee which framed and adopted these provisions, played an important part in their elaboration.

In the second phase of the Conference at Lausanne the Government of the United States was represented by the American Minister to Switzerland, the Honorable Joseph C. Grew. Shortly after the beginning of this phase of the Conference Mr. Grew was approached by Ismet Pasha, the head of the Turkish Delegation, with the suggestion that a new treaty should be made between the United States and Turkey. In response to inquiries as to the basis upon which the Turkish Delegation envisaged the making of a new treaty, Ismet Pasha stated that a new treaty or treaties should be, in general, upon the fully reciprocal basis which he regarded as alone compatible with the sovereignty of Turkey and the changed conditions in the country, but that Turkey was prepared to grant to the United States any privilege which she granted to any other Power.

The negotiations which followed between the American and Turkish Delegations at Lausanne resulted in the conclusion of the treaties of 6-08-1923 which are now before the Committee on Foreign Relations. By way of general observation, I may state that these treaties are in essential respects of the same character as the treaties usually concluded concerning similar matters between the United States and other sovereign States. As will appear from the parallel summaries which I attach (Enclosure 3),10 the provisions of the new treaties are much more detailed and definite than those of the Treaty [Page 718]of Commerce and Navigation of 183011 and the Extradition Treaty of 187412 with the Ottoman Empire.

The provisions concerning the capitulatory régime in the treaty of general relations merit further comment. Many of the rights enjoyed by foreigners in Turkey under the capitulations were such as are enjoyed by foreigners in other countries under international law or under treaties of a reciprocal character. To the maintenance of such rights the Turkish Government had no objection, as is evidenced by the fact that in the Treaty of Peace and other instruments concluded with the Allies at Lausanne, as well as in the treaty with the United States, the Turkish representatives readily agreed to the introduction of provisions of a reciprocal character granting to foreigners the right to enter and establish themselves in Turkey, subject to the observance of the laws and regulations in force therein, and assuring to them the most constant protection and security for their persons and their property in accordance with generally recognized international law. The special privileges, of a juridical and economic character, conferred upon foreigners by the Capitulations were, however, considered by the Turkish Government to be burdensome and unfair.

The Turkish National Pact which was adopted on 28-01-1920 and which was stated by the Turkish Government before the convening of the Lausanne Conference to embody the conditions upon which alone a durable peace could be made, contained a declaration that the restrictions imposed upon Turkey by the Capitulations could no longer be tolerated. In the negotiations with the Allies at Lausanne the Turkish representatives steadfastly adhered to that declaration. The result of the negotiations between the Turks and the Allies with reference to the Capitulations has already been noted. The negotiations between the United States and Turkey could have been conducted on no other basis than the agreement of this country to take towards the Capitulations an attitude similar to that adopted by the other Powers in dealing with Turkey.

The treaties which I am transmitting to you were supplemented by assurances in a formal communication to Mr. Grew from Ismet Pasha regarding the recognition and protection of American educational, charitable, and philanthropic institutions in Turkey.13 In substance the communication provides that such American institutions as had been recognized prior to 30-10-1914 shall continue to be recognized and that the situation of such of them as have been established subsequently shall be favorably examined. This communication was transmitted with the treaties.

[Page 719]
On the date of the signature of the treaties Ismet Pasha formally communicated to Mr. Grew copies of the declarations of the Turkish Delegation regarding the administration of justice and regarding sanitary affairs in Turkey. Copies of these declarations and translations thereof, with a copy and translation of the transmitting letters, were also submitted with the Treaties.14 The declarations were made under authorization of the Grand National Assembly at Angora and may doubtless be regarded as constituting international commitments. It is believed that their formal communication to the American representative was desirable in order to emphasize the interest of the United States in the matters to which they relate.

A question which it was found impracticable to settle at Lausanne was subsequently dealt with by an exchange of notes at Constantinople. This was the question of the disposition of the pecuniary claims of American citizens against Turkey. On the date of the signature of the treaties at Lausanne this question was formally reserved by an exchange of notes of which copies and translations are attached (Enclosure 4).15 In the subsequent negotiations at Constantinople it became apparent that the Turkish Government, having in mind the disturbed conditions of the last fifteen years in Turkey, as well as the financial problems incidental to the establishment of a new Government, was indisposed to make any formal commitment regarding the final settlement of claims in advance of the examination of the claims themselves. It was finally deemed to be the most feasible method of procedure to effect an agreement by an exchange of notes for the examination of all claims by a Mixed Committee which will endeavor to determine the merits of the claims examined, and to agree upon modes of settling such claims as may be deemed to possess merit. Copies and translations of the notes on this subject exchanged at Constantinople on December 24, 1923, between Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, United States High Commissioner, and Dr. Adnan Bey, Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, are attached (Enclosure 5).16

With reference to assurances regarding the treatment of minorities in Turkey, I desire to recall the part played by representatives of the United States in connection with the framing of the provisions regarding minorities contained in the Allied Treaty with Turkey. The interest of the United States in the welfare of the Minorities was appropriately expressed at both phases of the Lausanne Conference. This Government, however, in dealing with this subject has avoided the advocacy of measures impossible of realization by methods short of war or of measures which would only be calculated to make more [Page 720]difficult the reaching of adjustments between the Minorities and the authorities in control of the country. In the long run the protection of Minorities has rarely been furthered by foreign interference on their behalf and often the result of such interference has been quite the opposite of that sought to be achieved. Further, in this connection it was necessary to give consideration to the traditional policy of the United States against intervention in behalf of the nationals of other countries or the assumption of treaty obligations in such matters.

It is my deliberate opinion, predicated upon a careful consideration of the situation in Turkey, that the rights and activities of American citizens in that country can best be protected through the adoption of the new treaties which, while consenting to the abrogation of the Capitulations, assure to American citizens and concerns in Turkey rights and privileges as great as those accorded to citizens and concerns of any other Power in Turkey. Those who might be disposed to advocate an attempt to maintain the pre-war status should remember that the rights enjoyed by American citizens under the regime of the Capitulations were for the most part specifically granted to other Powers and applied to American citizens by virtue of most-favored-nation provisions in our Treaty of 1830. The Powers concerned agreed at Lausanne to surrender these capitulatory rights and the practical value of the Treaty of 1830 has therefore been seriously impaired. Unless we are willing to go to war with Turkey, a persistence on our part in claiming capitulatory rights formerly enjoyed would simply expose our Government to a series of futile negotiations and would render most arduous, if not altogether impossible, the continuance of the philanthropic, educational and commercial activities of our citizens in Turkey; instead of the substantial rights provided under the new treaties, this Government would have no recourse but to illusory claims based on a regime which the United States would be alone in endeavoring to maintain.

This is also the opinion of Americans at present actually engaged in such activities in Turkey. These Americans, who will be most directly affected by the new treaties and those interests were carefully borne in mind throughout the negotiations at Lausanne, have expressed the view that the results secured afford the only practicable basis for the carrying on of their activities in Turkey under present conditions.

Before submitting the treaties to the Senate, which as you will note were negotiated nine months ago, it was considered important, (1) to conclude the negotiations with Turkey with reference to the formation of a committee to consider outstanding claims between the two countries and their nationals, (2) to ascertain the attitude of the Allied Powers toward the treaty of peace concluded between those powers and Turkey at Lausanne shortly before the signature of the [Page 721]treaty between the United States and Turkey and (3) to secure all available information as to whether the government with which the United States had negotiated was willing and able to carry out its international obligations.

With regard to these three points the first, the question of claims, has already been dealt with in this letter. With reference to the attitude of other powers towards Turkey I may state that Italy, Greece and Rumania have ratified the treaty of peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey. This treaty has been approved by the British Parliament and has been favorably reported by the appropriate committee of the French Chamber of Deputies and the French Senate. There is every reason to believe therefore that the Allied Powers will establish peace with Turkey at an early date on the basis of the agreements negotiated by those Powers at Lausanne.

The fact that the Turkish Government has during the last nine months maintained and consolidated its position is prima facie evidence of stability but to secure the latest information, Admiral Bristol the American Representative in Turkey has recently made a trip throughout Anatolia, visiting Angora, Konia, Tarsus, Adana, Mersina and other points. According to his report the Turkish Government is stable, is in control of the country and is believed to be in a position to assume on behalf of Turkey, and to carry out, international obligations.

Further, the constitutional changes which have taken place in Turkey during the last nine months, the separation of church and state, the adoption of a new constitution, and the establishment of a republic have indicated a desire on the part of Turkey to modernize its institutions, and thereby to facilitate an administration of law more in conformity with western ideas of justice.

I have desired to set forth in this letter and its enclosures the information which appeared to be necessary to an understanding of the treaties and of the circumstances which preceded and attended their negotiation and conclusion. If further information is desired I shall be happy to furnish it.

I am [etc.]

Charles E. Hughes
Not printed.↩
See Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 1139–1148.↩
They were transmitted to the Senate May 3, 1924.↩
See telegram no. 17, Jan. 23, 1924, to the High Commissioner in Turkey, supra.↩
Enclosures not printed. Texts of agreements signed at Lausanne July 24, 1923, are printed in the League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. xxviii, and British Cmd. 1929, Treaty Series No. 16 (1923): Treaty of Peace with Turkey, and Other Instruments, Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923, etc.↩
Not printed.↩
Miller, Treaties, vol. 3, p. 541.↩
Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1341.↩
Note of Aug. 4 and its enclosure, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 1141–1142.↩
Ibid., pp. 1139–1141.↩
Ibid., p. 1143.↩
Ibid., p. 1190.↩-[1]