them in the fields and in the villages, and I was greatly impressed with the wonderful recuperative power which they show, and, as I said before, with their courage and cheerfulness under the adverse conditions. They feel, I think very naturally, that America has not backed them up as an ally should since the armistice, and they sometimes show a little resentment, but as a rule the sentiment towards America is friendly and would easily respond to friendly action on our part. I could see

I

no indications of a militaristic tendency, no desire for a war in the future, but a strong feeling that in a few years France will be attacked again and that they must be ready to resist to the utmost when that time comes. I think their feeling of antagonism is stronger against England than it is against America because of England's efforts to have the amount of the reparations reduced. The French feel, and I think they are right, that Germany, as long as her taxes are not as great as the taxes

in France and England, has no excuse for refusing to pay the reparations, particularly when it is well known that so much of Germany's cash capital is held in Holland and other neutral countries and pays no tax in Germany.

My recent visit has only added to the strong admiration and affection that I feel for the French people, and I trust I was right when I told them that there were many in America who felt for them as I did and who would gladly aid them in every way they could.

HAD a longing to visit Jerusalem. Besides, a serious question was pending regarding the rights of Jews to settle in the Holy Land. From Russia and Rumania oppression was driving them to emigrate to other countries. Rumania was placing restrictions upon her Jewish subjects contrary to the Treaty of Berlin, which guaranteed equal political and civil rights in this newly created principality. The Ignatieff laws of 1882 were being enforced in Russia. It was the irony of persecution that Russia claimed such Jews as came to Turkey as her subjects and protested to the Porte against their being accorded Ottoman nationality. Besides, the Russian Patriarch and dignitaries of the Roman Church in Turkey objected to the settlement of foreign Jews in Palestine.

The Ottoman authorities had long been tolerant, even hospitable, to Jewish immigrants, but under outside pressure promulgated a law interdicting Jews from coming to Palestine as permanent settlers.

The subject came to the fore with our Government when the Turkish Minister at Washington, Mavroyeni Bey, communicated to Secretary Bayard the stipulation that the passports of Jewish immigrants "should expressly state that they are going to Jerusalem in performance of a pilgrimage and not for the purpose of engaging in commerce or taking up their residence there."

Secretary Bayard sent the following instructions to me for transmission:

To require of applicants for passports, which under our laws are issued to all citizens upon the sole evidence of their citizenship, any announcement of their religious faith or declaration of their personal motives in seeking such passports, would be utterly repugnant to the spirit of our institutions and to the intent of the solemn proscription forever by the Constitution of any religious test as a qualification of the relations of the citizen to the Government, and would, moreover, assume

Baron Maurice de Hirsch, to arbitrate whose controversy with the Sultan Mr. Straus was offered an honorarium

of one million francs

an inquisitorial function in respect of the personal affairs of the individual, which this Government cannot exert for its own purposes and could still less assume to exercise with the object of aiding a foreign Government in the enforcement of an objectionable and arbitrary discrimination against certain of our citizens.

Our adherence to these principles has been unwavering since the foundation of our Government, and you will be at no loss to cite pertinent examples of our consistent defense of religious liberty, which, as I said in my note to Baron Schaeffer of May 18, 1885, in relation to the Keiley episode at Vienna, "is a chief cornerstone of the American system of

Government, and provisions of its security are imbedded in the written chapter and interwoven in the moral fabric of its laws."

The Secretary also desired me to confer, with my colleagues, the British and French Ambassadors. Some of their subjects had also been deported. While they agreed with the views of my Government, they had taken no action, but now expressed a willingness to take action similar to that outlined in my instructions.

On May 17, 1888, I called on Saïd Pasha, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. and left a note wherein I stated that my Government could not, under any circumstances, accede to the requirements. After having been furnished with copies of this note, my diplomatic colleagues sent notes of similar tenor.

JEWISH PRISONERS RELEASED

Upon our arrival at Jaffa the vali, or governor, of Jerusalem sent one of his aides with an official conveyance to take us to Jerusalem. There were several vexatious questions besides the restrictions upon Jewish immigrants pending between the vali and our Consul, Henry Gillman. I deemed it good policy to show my resentment against his arbitrary methods by declining the courteous offer. Thereupon we took a Cook's conveyance, stopping overnight at Ramleh at an inn kept by a naturalized American citizen, formerly a German subject. The next day we drove over the hills of Judea, reaching Jerusalem the same afternoon, where our Consul met us and conducted us to a pleasant, comfortable hotel outside the walls.

We had scarcely arrived at the hotel when a large number of Jews, some of the women carrying infants in their arms, came to plead with me to obtain the release from prison of relatives and friends who had come to the Holy City to settle there, and who were imprisoned because of the interdiction against Jewish immigrants. Of course I had not

known before my arrival of these conditions. Four hundred in all were in prison awaiting deportation.

Instead of calling on the vali as would ordinarily have been proper, I declined to do so. Instead, I sent a note demanding an immediate release of these immigrants who, I claimed, were imprisoned contrary to treaties with the United States, Great Britain, France, and other Powers. Unless this request was complied with promptly, I stated further, I would appeal to the Sublime Porte for the vali's removal.

While negotiating this matter with the Grand Vizier I did not know that the Jewish immigrants who had arrived were being held in prison. I felt authorized, therefore, in view of the Vizier's promise to abrogate the regulations, to serve this drastic notice upon the vali.

The result of my firm stand was that they were all released the following day. I was informed that the vali had communicated my message to the Porte, and that the Grand Vizier had instructed him to comply with my request.

The following morning there were sev eral thousand people gathered outside y hotel. They came to express their titude. At the same time I received

a beautiful engrossed memorial in Hebrew signed by Rafail Meir Panisel and Samuel Salant, the chief rabbis of the Ashkenazim, Perushim, and Hasidim communities of Jerusalem.

The following day I called upon the vali, who received me with great courtesy. I thanked him for his compliance with my request, and informed him of our understanding with the Sublime Porte that no discrimination should be made against Jewish immigrants coming to Jerusalem. It seemed that he had had no knowledge of the provisions in the treaties I referred to. I expressed the hope that in the future I should not have to complain of any infringement upon this understanding.

Official calls followed. I was accompanied by the Consul and his staff and preceded by several halberdiers of the vali. These, as was the custom, preceded high officials when going through the streets of the Holy City, so as to give them distinction, protection, and a clear passage through the streets.

As my time was limited, I could remain in Jerusalem only three or four days. I had to stop at such ports as Alexandretta and Smyrna to inquire into commercial matters which our Con

suls had been unable to adjust with the local authorities, and which had caused much vexation.

My trip, which lasted six weeks, was valuable to me and gratifying in its results. My colleagues, the British and French Ambassadors, were much pleased that I succeeded in having the objectionable regulations abrogated.

DIGGING FOUR THOUSAND YEARS
INTO THE PAST

The subject of Babylonian excavation received diplomatic consideration during my stay in Constantinople. In January, 1888, I received a letter from my friend the Rev. William Hayes Ward informing me of an expedition which the University of Pennsylvania was organizing for excavations in Babylonia under the direction of the Rev. John P. Peters. Dr. Ward had headed a prior expedition to Babylonia in 1884-5, known as the Wolfe Expedition and financed by Catherine L. Wolfe, of New York. Based upon the results of this preliminary expedition Dr. Peters organized the Babylonian Exploration Fund.

The subject was shortly thereafter brought officially to my attention, Assistant Secretary Adee writing me:

We find ourselves between two fires on one hand is the Philadelphia organization under the lead of Dr. Peters, which has the money, and on the other is the Johns Hopkins enterprise, which has the most solid ballasting of Assyriological talent; but unfortunately its dollars are limited. As the Johns Hopkins people deposit all their collections in the National Museum, Professor Langley feels kindly disposed towards them. We shall probably have to look to you as the deus ex machina to prescribe a solution.

Dr. Peters met me in London while I was on my way home on a short leave. He handed me a letter from President Cleveland asking my good offices in the matter. The entire subject interested me very much. I told him that when I returned to my post six weeks later f would immediately broach the subject to the Porte.

Upon my return early in November, 1888, I had an audience with the Sultan. I explained to him the purposes of the excavations, the great interest of the universities and the societies of scholars, and also that the President of the United States in a personal letter had requested me to obtain the necessary permission. A few days later I dined with the Sultan and afterwards went with him to a play in the little theater located in the palace grounds. During a pause in the performance, the conversation touching upon some matters in the United States, I again referred to the question of excavation, stating that some of the representatives were waiting in Constantinople for a decision. Then he consented graciously, and permission was formally granted a few days later.

The permit was far more restricted

than had been promised, yet it enabled the excavators at Alexandretta to go forward in their work. Dr. Peters's attaché at Constantinople was John Dyneley Prince, then a recent graduate of Columbia College, who later became Professor of Slavonic Languages at Columbia.

The exploration under the able direction of Dr. Peters and Professor H. V. Hilprecht was very successful. Its large collection of archæological "finds," now enriching the museum of the University of Pennsylvania and the Museum at Constantinople, are yet in the process of deciphering. Dr. Peters left a full account of the exploration in his twovolume work, "Nippur," a lasting memorial to his services in the cause of archæology. Some of his "finds" date back earlier than 4000 B.C.

At that time Mr. Budge, of the British Museum, and Theodore Bent, another well-known archæologist, were endeavoring to obtain similar permits for excavations. Bent, because of his disappointment in reference to some excavations he made in the island of Thasos, wrote an article for the "Contemporary Review" in which he made a scurrilous attack upon Hamdy Bey, director of the Museum at Constantinople, who had charge of the entire subject of excavation. Bent stated that the Americans were able to receive a favorable firman because I had bribed Hamdy Bey.

Of course this was absolutely untrue. Hamdy Bey was a scholar of high repute and a man of exceptionally fine character.

The truth is that the Sultan at that time felt under special obligations to me. I had been of service to him in a matter which threatened the good relations between Turkey and Persia. The circumstances, in brief, were as follows: There were in the Ottoman Empire about a million Persians, many of them rug dealers. A number had married Turkish women. The Sultan claimed that when a Persian subject in Turkey married a woman who was a Turkish subject his nationality followed that of the wife. The dispute had become so definite and sharp that the Shah of Persia was about to recall his Ambassador.

It was finally agreed between the two Governments to leave the matter to me for decision. I took the subject under advisement, and wrote an opinion in accordance with the universally accepted doctrine that the nationality follows that of the husband. Instead of rendering my decision, I advised the Sultan what the conclusion would be, and suggested that it would probably make for better relationship if he would anticipate my decision by agreeing with the Shah's contention. This at the same time relieved me from the necessity of deciding against the sovereign to whom I was accredited.

The Shah's Ambassador, Mohsin Khan, who had the position practically of a viceroy in the Ottoman Empire, desired to confer upon me Persia's highest

decoration, the Lion and the Sun, set in brilliants, which of course I did not accept.

BARON DE HIRSCH AT ODDS WITH
TURKISH GOVERNMENT

About this time the question of building a railway from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf was very much agitated, especially in Germany and at Constantinople. The Grand Vizier referred to this subject several times and expressed the desire to be brought into communication with reliable American railway builders. I wrote to Carl Schurz, suggesting that perhaps Henry Villard would be interested.

Just before this time William K. Vanderbilt came to Constantinople in his yacht. I tried to interest him in the Bagdad railway project and introduced him to the Grand Vizier. Mr. Vanderbilt, however, was on a pleasure trip, and did not feel inclined to take up the cares and burdens that such a project involved.

Baron and Baroness Maurice de Hirsch came to Constantinople in the latter part of 1887. The Baron was known no less as the generous philan thropist than as one of the world's greatest railway builders. He financed and constructed the railway through the Balkans to Constantinople, thus connecting Constantinople by rail with the. European cities.

The Baron came to Constantinople in order to adjust his financial differences with the Ottoman Government. The latter claimed that 132,000,000 francs were due them on the kilometric guaranties and other concessions.

While I was making a call upon the Grand Vizier one day he asked my permission to introduce some one. He said it was Baron de Hirsch. Having often heard of the Baron and of his benefactions, I was glad of the opportunity. The Grand Vizier summoned the Baron to his room, and we were introduced.

Baron de Hirsch was a man of notable appearance and of attractive address

(C) Underwood

-tall, dark, slender, with full black mustache, and something of the dandy in his dress. We had a pleasant conversation.

Two days later I was invited to dinner by the Sultan. He spoke about Baron de Hirsch and the claim which the Turkish Government had against him. All mutual efforts to arrive at a settlement having failed, appointment of a disinterested arbitrator was proposed. The Baron suggested the French Ambassador and afterwards the Austrian Ambassador, but the Sultan declined, expressing a preference for me as arbitrator. To this choice the Baron agreed. The Sultan added that it had been agreed to pay me as an honorarium 1,000,000 francs.

I told the Sultan I felt complimented by his request, but that I would have to consult the Secretary of State. He replied that he had already communicated with his Minister in Washington; that his Minister reported Secretary Bayard expressed no objection. I said I would communicate with Mr. Bayard myself and give him a reply later.

Mr. Bayard confirmed what the Sultan told me. He saw no objection to my acting as arbitrator and to my receiving the honorarium, provided it appeared to me advisable to accept.

I thought the matter over carefully. While desirous of complying with the Sultan's request, I felt that it would not be advisable. Any such transaction was always open to the suspicion of improper methods and of bribery. Should I become the arbitrator and make a decision disappointing to the Turkish Government, I would in all probability come under such a suspicion. So I advised

cretary Bayard of my attitude, and

In the course of these negotiations, which lasted several months, I became quite intimate with the Baron and with his exceptionally fine and admirable wife.

She was a remarkable woman, learned and able. Her main purpose in life seemed to be to learn how she could be most helpful to others. While at Constantinople she frequently visited the poorer quarters, both Christian and Jewish, and extended help generously. She was rather short and trim, with a benign face. She was dressed in deep mourning, as they had only a short time before lost their only child, Lucien.

I heard of an incident occurring two years before I met her which was typical. The Baron's railway passed through a little village near Constanti nople, and in order to locate a station in that village they had been obliged to tear down a number of houses belonging to poor people. The wrecking was done

by the Turkish Government, with the understanding that the Government would recompense the dispossessed people. Not receiving redress or relief, they appealed to the Baron and Baroness in Constantinople. De Hirsch said that it was the Government's affair, but the Baroness told her husband that she did not propose that this railway should be the cause of bringing unhappiness to people. It would probably be a long time before they would receive any compensation from the Turkish Government. She insisted upon taking from her own private fortune the funds with which these people could immediately build new homes and be happy.

The Baron and Baroness frequently came to the American Legation and took family dinner with us. Because of their recent bereavement, they refused the many official invitations which were extended to them. The Baron spoke about his benefactions, which up to that time had been chiefly in Russia. His purpose was during the rest of his life to devote his fortune to benevolent purposes. America interested him greatly, because, driven by persecution, many Russian Jews were emigrating there. He wanted to help these emigrants re-establish themselves.

For several years prior to my coming to Turkey I had been intimate with Michael Heilprin, the distinguished American-Jewish scholar, who worked incessantly to aid the arriving immigrants. I wrote to Heilprin to furnish full information about conditions among the Jewish immigrants in America, together with suggestions for aiding them constructively. Receiving Heilprin's reply, I sent it to Baron de Hirsch with a list of names of men who were foremost in works of benevolence among the Jews in New York. I included Meyer S. Isaacs, President of the United Hebrew Congregations; Jacob H. Schiff; Jesse Seligman, President of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum; and my brother Isidor.

Out of Baron de Hirsch's communications with these men arose the Baron de Hirsch Fund and the trade school. Subsequently, after conferring with my wife, the Baroness endowed the Clara de Hirsch Home for Working Girls. Neither my wife nor I claim any credit

for the foundation of these benevolent for communication of such information institutions. We were simply a medium

as was necessary.

THE SULTAN'S FAREWELL

The National election of 1888 resulted in a Republican victory. As I had adjusted all outstanding differences between the United States and Turkey, I felt justified in resigning. I would have resigned even if Cleveland had been reelected. With no urgent diplomatic questions before me to occupy all my attention and energy, I felt more and more that I could not afford to absent myself from my private affairs any longer. In the interim between Cox's

resignation and my appointment the salary of the post was reduced from $10,000 to $7,500 per annum. The following year it was restored to the original figure. This barely covered my house rent, as I secured the best house available for entertaining.

In diplomatic life the social functions are of real importance in establishing proper relations with one's colleagues and officials of the Government to which one is accredited. Besides, it is important so far as one's own nationals are concerned to be able to show them such hospitality as they expect from their diplomatic representative.

My immediate predecessors, General Lew Wallace and "Sunset" Cox, lived in hotels, and consequently did very little entertaining. General Wallace felt compelled to decline dinner invitations from his colleagues because he was not in a financial position to reciprocate.

In diplomacy noblesse oblige has its widest and most emphatic application. Americans are usually supposed to be rich. If an American diplomat does not show the usual hospitality, it is attributed to penuriousness.

When I returned to Washington on leave, Mr. Cleveland asked me how I got on with my salary. I told him I could live fairly well as a diplomat on four times that amount. My stay in Constantinople cost at the rate of between $35,000 and $40,000 a year.

With the inauguration of a new Administration, the heads of missions tender their resignations to the new President through the Secretary of State. This I did. I was unofficially advised that, for fear I would be displaced, numerous letters and memorials from individuals and from missionary societies and various Protestant churches were sent to the President requesting that I be retained at my post. Dr. Pepper, the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, together with the presidents of several other leading universities, asked for my retention. I wrote Dr. Pepper advising him that I could not continue, that it was imperative for me to return home.

On June 5, 1889, I received a letter from James G. Blaine, the new Secretary of State, accepting my resignation and commending me for my conduct of the mission.

A few days before I left Constantinople I was invited to dine with the Sultan. Expressing regret at my departure, he said that at no time during

his reign had the relations between our two countries been more agreeable. He referred especially to a large claim pressed through the Legation by an American citizen. It was based upon a dynamite gun which the American was permitted to exhibit. I examined the claim carefully, and found that it was not justified either morally or legally, and accordingly informed the Porte that the claim was withdrawn. It seems that the Porte was not accustomed to such fair treatment. The result was that whenever I presented a matter it was always believed to be justified.

I had frequently dined with the Sultan, but this time he was especially affable and spoke quite freely about his affairs. He was very well informed, holding the Government closely, too closely, in his own hands.

On this occasion he said he had heard of the great disaster and loss of lives in the Johnstown flood, and that he desired to transmit through me a contribution of 200 pounds. The following day I cabled this amount to the Secretary of State, who replied:

Express grateful appreciation of the President and the Government of the United States for the Sultan's generous relief for flood sufferers.

The missionaries at Constantinople sent me a joint letter on the eve of my departure, June 22, expressing regret at my leaving and satisfaction for the manner in which the prestige of the United States had been sustained. The letter read in part:

As missionaries, we are grateful to you for the effects of this care, seen in important and we hope permanent advantages incidentally secured for various of our enterprises. As fellow-exiles from the homeland we would assure you of the high value which we have placed upon those social relations with yourself and Mrs. Straus which lead us to desire always to be numbered among your friends.

We boarded the steamship to make the passage through the Black Sea to Varna. A royal caique, one of those graceful Bosphorus rowboats manned by six oarsmen, came alongside. An aide-de-camp of the Sultan boarded the ship and presented to Mrs. Straus, in the name of the Sultan, the highest order of the Shefekat decoration, a star set in brilliants. The reasons which would have prohibited me from accepting a decoration did not apply to her, so it would have been ungracious to decline it.