The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murderAli Haydar Mithat
History
The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murder
Ali Haydar Mithat
Midhat Paşa, 1822-1884; Statesmen -- Turkey -- Biography; Turkey -- History -- 19th century
newspaper correspondents, nearly all of whom are imperfectly
acquainted with, or entirely ignorant of, the Turkish language
and judicial procedure, were not allowed to take a dragoman
with them, though three‐fourths of the space reserved for
the public remained all the time unoccupied. I made personal
representations on this subject to some influential officials,
but they all declared positively that no more tickets could
be given. To the few who were admitted, I must say the
greatest courtesy and consideration were shown by the Imperial
aides‐de‐camp and the masters of the ceremonies, but the
powers of these gentlemen were very limited. With regard to
the restrictions placed on telegraphing I have already spoken
above.
“It is hardly necessary to say, that with the all‐pervading influence
of the Palace, there could be no independence or impartiality on the
part of the judicial functionaries, and no zeal in the counsel for
the defence; but there was something worse than this. The ardent
desire of nearly all concerned to gain the Imperial favour by
securing the condemnation of the prisoners in general, and of Midhat
in particular, caused certain gross violations of the guarantees
provided by the Criminal Code. I may mention a few facts by way of
illustration. Sourouri Effendi, who had in the secret preliminary
inquiry directed the case for the Prosecution, and who is well
known to be one of Midhat’s bitter personal enemies, appeared at
the trial as President of the Tribunal. He says, privately, by way
of exculpating himself, that in the preliminary inquiry he never
signed any official documents, and that during the trial of Midhat he
ceded his presidency to one of the other judges; but these specious
arguments increase rather than diminish his moral guilt. He refrained
from signing official documents simply in order to avoid giving
occasion for an appeal _en cassation_, and his making a distinction
between Midhat and the other prisoners entailed new violations of
judicial procedure, for it prevented Midhat from being present during
a great part of the trial. Besides this, the distinction was more
specious than real, for by procuring the condemnation of the other
prisoners, he impliedly secured Midhat’s condemnation likewise;
and though he did not sit on the bench when Midhat was present,
he joined his colleagues in the consulting‐room when the ex‐Grand
Vizier’s demand for permission to cross‐question the witnesses
was considered and rejected. Not content with having a devoted
adherent like Sourouri in the President’s chair, the Palace further
controlled the proceedings by Raghib Bey, one of the Sultan’s private
secretaries, and Djevdet Pasha, the obsequious Minister of Justice,
who is one of Midhat’s personal enemies. These two personages sat
behind the judges on a bench, and secretly gave directions in moments
of hesitation and difficulty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account