ence in a matter placed in your hands. He has no ground to expect that. Thanking you very much for your trouble and efforts on his behalf, I am, etc., ARTHUR S. HARDY. Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. No. 45.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Teheran, Persia, December 21, 1898. SIR: In Mr. Tyler's No. 21, of April 21, 1898, the Department was informed of the arrest and imprisonment at Tabriz of Mr. Bagdasarian, a naturalized American citizen, formerly a Turkish subject. I have no very great sympathy with Mr. Bagdasarian, who, both before and since his arrest, has shown a facility for getting into trouble, and who seems to belong to that troublesome class of naturalized subjects whose chief object in changing their nationality is to return and to live abroad under the protection of the United States. Unless some such distinction, however, as I had the honor to suggest in my No. 38, of August 8, 1898, is made and uniformly acted upon, it is exceedingly important for the safety of Americans residing in Persia that all such flagrant violation of treaty rights should be summarily dealt with. This case was therefore vigorously pressed upon the attention of the foreign office, with the result that the governor of Azabaijan was ordered to pay to Mr. Bagdasarian, who, through the assistance of Her Britannic Majesty's consul-general in Tabriz, had already been liberated and declared innocent, the indemnity of 200 tomans claimed in his behalf. Again, in June last the house of Dr. J. G. Wishard, of the American mission in the Shimran, was forcibly entered and robbed of personal effects to the value of 200 tomans. This was not a petty larcency, but a night attack by armed men. Dr. Wishard had taken every precaution within his power and had the usual guard of soldiers, who not improbably were cognizant of or concerned in the affair. The promptest measures were taken by him and myself for the discovery and arrest of the offenders, but, owing to the absence of all police efficiency and dilatory Persian methods of investigation, without result. I have meantime pressed for an indemnity of 200 tomans, for which there is ample precedent, and the general principle of liability has been admitted by the foreign office and promise of settlement given. But, as in the case of Mr. Bagdasarian, no progress has been made in collecting the money. Telegrams are sent to Tabriz and assurances given, but the claims remain unpaid. I have, etc., ARTHUR S. HARDY. Mr. Hay to Mr. Hardy. No. 38.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., February 2, 1899. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 45, of December 21, 1898, relating to the claims of Mr. Bagdasarian and Dr. J. G. Wishard against the Government of Persia. You report that the validity of each of these claims has been admitted by the Persian Government, and that in each of them a demand has been made for an indemnity in the sum of 200 tomans. Your action is approved, and you are instructed to press the payment of the claims. Referring to your No. 38, of August 8, 1898, I have to say that the Department approves generally your views therein expressed as to the line of conduct to be pursued by you toward natives of oriental countries who have come to the United States and become naturalized, and have then gone abroad without any intention of returning to the United States. The duty of allegiance goes hand in hand with the right of protection. Those who become naturalized as American citizens and then take up their permanent abode in a foreign land lose the right to claim the protection of this Government when they cease to pay it allegiance. In coming to a determination in any particular case whether protection should be granted or refused, great care should be taken not to withhold protection where it may be justly claimed; but you are authorized to refuse it if upon a careful investigation you are satisfied that the privilege of naturalization has been abused for the mere sake of protection, and without any bona fide intention to bear allegiance to the United States. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. No. 52.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to report that the indemnity of 200 tomans claimed in behalf of Mihran Bagdasarian, for arrest and imprisonment in violation of treaty provision, has been paid by his excellency Emir Nizam, governor of Azabaijan, to Mr. Cecil Wood, Her Britannic Majesty's consul-general at Tabriz, and that this incident is now satisfactorily closed. Until it was proved that Mr. Bagdasarian was formerly a Turkish subject the foreign office contested this claim on the ground that the Persian Government did not recognize the change of nationality of a native Persian unless such change had received the sanction of the Shah. It being shown that Mr. Bagdasarian was before naturalization a Turkish subject, this contention was abandoned, and the order to pay the indemnity claimed was sent to the Emir Nizam. The latter is a Persian of the old school, of undoubted ability and authority, practically independent of the central government. He has opposed in every possible way the execution of the order. Being informed recently by Mr. Wood that, as a last resort, Mr. Bagdasarian was being induced under pressure to accept a much smaller compensation, I insisted that the full amount of the claim be paid to Mr. Wood himself. I inclose herewith a copy of a letter from Hohrannes Khan, under secretary in the foreign office, announcing the final payment of the full amount of the claim to Consul-General Wood. I have, etc., FR 98-34 ARTHUR S. HARDY. [Inclosure 1 in No. 52.] Hohrannes Khan to Mr. Hardy. TEHERAN, PERSIA, February 27, 1899. SIR: We have received a telegram from his excellency the Emir-iNizam, dated 25th of February, saying that the indemnity of 200 tomans due to Mr. Bagdasarian has been paid to the English consulate at Tabriz. I am glad to see justice done to Bagdasarian and this question closed, as all others pending between the foreign office and the American legation. Yours, etc., HOHRANNES. SIR: During the coming month a new list of the diplomatic corps at this capital is to be issued by the department of ceremonies of the court at this capital, and inquiries have been made by the officials whose duty it is to prepare it, as to the designation of the members of the embassy. The official who requested this information considers that it would be anomalous should the first secretary of an embassy not be designated as conseiller. In view, however, of the Department's No. 153 of December 16, 1895, to my predecessor, I do not feel justified in sanctioning this designation without authority from the Department. In referring to the dispatch above mentioned, it is but fair to say that the ruling of the Department appears to have been given upon a somewhat incomplete understanding of the premises. The diplomatic list here does not emanate from the ministry of foreign affairs, to which the secretary of embassy is accredited, but is a list of the officers of the various missions accredited here, with their families, including ladies, published by a bureau of the court as a social convenience, the names being communicated to an officer of that bureau informally and only semiofficially. I regard it as highly desirable that the first secretary of our embassy here should be designated as conseiller, in conformity with the almost universal usage at this court, and in support of the dignity of the mission. The French and British Governments have, with this policy in view, given their first secretaries here the rank of "Minister Plenipotentiary performing the duties of conseiller," with advantage to their missions both when the ambassador is present and when abroad on leave of absence. While the rank of conseiller does not exist in the British service, the first secretary of that embassy here has for many years been so designated upon the diplomatic list until the present change was instituted last winter. As, in addition to all the embassies, four of the legations at this court designate their secretaries as conseillers, not to so designate our own would be socially disadvantageous both to the secretary and myself. As pointed out in the Department's No. 153, the title of conseiller is a special designation applied to a secretary of embassy or legation by certain governments only. Martens says (Guide Diplomatique, Chapter V) "Some governments give to the first secretaries of their higher missions the title of conseiller of embassy or legation." The functions of conseiller and secretary are identical, differing only in name, and no legal character or office is implied by the former term. I trust, therefore, that in this first list in which this mission appears as an embassy it may be found permissible for the first secretary to be termed conseiller. I have, etc., ETHAN A. HITCHCOCK. No. 69.] Mr. Day to Mr. Hitchcock. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 23, 1898. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 54 of the 30th ultimo, recommending that the first secretary of your embassy may be styled conseiller in the list of the diplomatic corps issued by the imperial department of ceremonies. Calvo, in his Dictionary of International Law, states that— The conseiller of embassy or of legation is an agent whom governments attach sometimes to diplomatic missions in order to assist with his advice the public minister in affairs of certain importance, or which demand special knowledge which the minister is not deemed to possess. No diplomatic usage has fixed the attributes of the conseiller of legation. They are ordinarily determined by his government, and are merged into those of secretary of legation. It is the rule to-day, in the absence of formal instructions to the contrary, for the conseiller to supply the place of the chief of the mission, disabled or absent; and it is only in succession to the former, or in his absence, that this task is devolved upon the first secretary. The conseiller shares the privileges and immunities recognized in secretaries. Like the latter, he is named and appointed by the government itself, which gives notice of his nomination to the ministers of foreign affairs of the country where he is to reside. He is presented to the sovereign of this country by the chief of the post to which he is attached. He is clothed with a certain representative character: enjoys immunities of his own, independently of the ambassador, or of the chief of legation, but has no right to any ceremonial. In Germany the title of conseiller of legation is conferred upon the conseiller of the department of foreign affairs. The above definition shows that the conseiller is virtually a secretary of legation. Clause 5 of section 1674 of the Revised Statutes enumerates the list of diplomatic officers of the United States, and excludes all others. In this list the office of conseiller is not mentioned. Section 37 of Instructions to Diplomatic Officers, which is based upon the law above referred to, prohibits in spirit, if not in letter, the designation of the first secretary as conseiller. The Department is, therefore, of opinion that this can not be done except by statutory authority. Respectfully, yours, WILLIAM R. DAY. Mr. Hitchcock to Mr. Day. No. 84.] EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 69, of May 23, relating to the designation of the first secretary of this embassy as conseiller. I note that in the opinion of the Department this could only be done by statutory authority; but for reasons given in my No. 54, of April 30, I trust the Department may see fit to secure such legislative enactment as will cover this point. I have, etc. ETHAN A. HITCHCOCK. |