But by a most influential paper of Great Britain the crime at Sassoun was laid primarily at the door of England:
“The crime at Sassoun lies primarily at the door of England. It is one of the many disastrous results of that ‘peace with honor’ which the English government, represented by Lord Beaconsfield, claimed to have brought back from Berlin in 1878. Why was it that the Armenians at Sassoun were left as sheep before the butcher? Why was it that the sultan and his pashas felt themselves perfectly free to issue what order they pleased for the massacre of the poor Armenians? The answer is, unfortunately, only too simple. It is because England, at the Berlin Congress, and England alone—for none of the other powers took any interest in the matter—destroyed the security which Russia had extorted from the Turkish government at San Stefano, and substituted for the sterling guarantee of Russia the worthless paper money of Ottoman promises.”[134]
The Sultan publicly endorsed the massacre and decorated Zeki Pasha, the commander of the Fourth Army Corps, and sent four flags to the Kurdish cavalry regiments.
Well said a prominent American: “The sultan’s act is a sort of insolent challenge to Christendom.” Why should he not challenge Christendom? There were some so-called Christian rulers back of him. Though the civilized world was filled with righteous indignation at the cruelty and insolence of the successor of Mohammed, yet he was only true to the teaching and example of the prophet in thus violating all the laws of civilization and humanity.
It is the characteristic of the Armenian mothers to teach their children to cling to the religion of Christ, let come what may. And it is due to this fact that the Armenian nation, after having undergone fifteen centuries of persecution for their faith, still exists as a Christian people. “The permanence of the Armenian race has been ascribed to the virtue of their women and exceptional purity and stability of their family life.”
The Turkish government, as might have been expected, first tried to conceal the facts or even admit the occurrence of such a massacre. However, under some pressure from the British ambassador, she made the following report:
Constantinople, November 16, 1894—“The Porte has issued an account of the last Armenian troubles in Sassoun district. The responsibility is laid upon the Kurdish brigands, who murdered a Mussulman and committed many other excesses. The Turkish troops called to Sassoun are said to have restored order and protected all law-abiding persons.”
But when Sir Phillip Currie sent Mr. Hallward’s (British vice-consul at Van) report of the massacre to the Porte, the Turkish minister positively denied the facts, asserting that Mr. Hallward’s report was untrue. The Porte further “stated outright, that he (Mr. Hallward) had encouraged the Armenians to revolt.” Another report received from a Turkish official source was “that at Sassoun all the Armenians fell in open combat. The troops killed two thousand of them.”
The friends of Christianity and humanity, who sincerely sympathized with the martyred Christian Armenians, have learned that the Mohammedan rulers and the Turkish officials in the past centuries, and in the present, have given us enough instances of cruelty to convince the world that Mohammedanism and barbarism, if not identical, surely go hand in hand. Furthermore, the Turkish government and its officers have shown to the world that they were, and are, destitute of truthfulness. A well-informed recent writer says: “As rulers of subject races, the Turks have shown themselves incapable of anything except cruelty and corruption.” “Has Turkey one whit improved in the last five centuries? No. The Porte’s diplomatists have learned to tell falsehoods with more freedom, and more unblushingly; her cruelties and oppressions are practiced more vigorously but more secretly; and she is far more steeped (her higher classes) in vice and barbarism than she was five hundred years ago.”[135]
The sultan, with an air of frankness, though compelled by the demand of the British ambassador, and with a desire to postpone immediate action, so that the indignation of the Christian world might subside, appointed a commission to make an investigation of the massacre. He depended too much on the friendly relations of the United States with Turkey, through Minister Terrell. The sultan asked the President to appoint a representative of this country; but when President Cleveland appointed Mr. Jewett, consul at Sivas, to make an independent investigation and report to our government, the sultan refused his appointment. How could he allow such an honest man as Mr. Jewett to make an independent investigation? Mr. Jewett knew the corruption of the sultan’s officers; he had some experience in the Marsovan trouble; his despatches were detained and his letters were meddled with by His Majesty’s faithful servants, who, at the head of a Turkish mob, had burned the mission school.