This body, like the other Turkish courts, admits not the pleading by lawyers, for a good and simple reason, that its members being men of business, and ignorant of law and legality, prefer to be governed by their own judgment, and constitute themselves at once, judge, jury, and prosecutors.
The interpreters of the foreign legations, are, however, required by treaty to be present, who not only interpret for the parties, but are bound to defend and protect their fellow citizens, to the best of their ability, and report thereupon to their respective ambassadors. It is to be regretted that the services of these individuals are not always disinterested. Policy sometimes inclines them to side with this serio-comical court, for the sake of keeping on good terms with the officials and its members, and thus maintaining their own reputations at the Porte as emissaries of foreign lands; while at the same time a good opportunity is offered them for the gratification of any personal pique or prejudice against their clients; so that a foreigner may either suffer injustice, or be injurious to the people of the country, without the knowledge of his own ambassador. How true, then, the observation of Lord Stratford, that “the very atmosphere of Turkey is impregnated with venality.”
The costs of lawsuits are always defrayed by the gainer of the cause, as he is supposed to be better able to afford such expenses; but the evident design is to induce people to go to law, since justice is set aside, and every facility afforded by the suborning of witnesses. Even the sentences are so carelessly, nay designedly worded, that at any time flaws may be discovered, and a new trial demanded.
The equity of making the gainer of the cause pay the costs, was ludicrously illustrated in the case of an Arnavout or Albanian, who was accused of stealing a gimlet. When in the presence of the Kadi, he pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff, according to law, was required to substantiate his accusation, by producing two witnesses. The man was in a dilemma, for he had no witnesses to produce; but, as usual, he was relieved from the anxiety, by the prompt offer of those harpies, who linger about mehkemes, or courts of justice, and tender their benevolent services in such emergencies, for certain remuneration.
Moderate as was their demand, the trifling claim not justifying much extra expense, he modestly declined availing himself of this privilege, and pleaded to have no witnesses. The only alternative then for the kadi was to administer the oath to the defendant; which was unhesitatingly complied with; for the Arnavouts are generally noted for their pliable consciences. Thus having been duly sworn, our hero was pronounced the happy gainer of the cause, and requested to pay only the costs, which were ten times more than the value of the article in question.
The Arnavout being somewhat of a speculative genius, after due consideration of the pros and cons, in the case, coolly put his hand in his bosom, and producing the disputed gimlet, threw it at his accuser, saying, “There, have your gimlet, be you the gainer of the cause, and pay the costs!”
As to criminal laws, they cannot be said to exist in Turkey; for this form of justice being based upon the principle of retaliation, or kissass, the prosecution is always on account of the injured party, and not of the government; so that the release of a criminal is at the option of an individual.