File 3877/1912 Pt 4 ‘Turkey in Asia: oil concessions’ [‎38r] (17/176)

i
“d ia
uncil.
meat
f the
as no A
texts
otters
brief
?r, as
inder
(now
nany
i the
as is
-tion.
ht of
e ses
to it
is in
.e to
•ered
l can
with
•ting
;reat
cted
nce-
jters
1 be
'orte
tion
rhly
ave,
my
n a
aple
iltat
c, le
izir,
tion
du
avis
^tat
’est
t a
■ on
the
11 .
iag
me,
age
the
ne,
:he
ur,
of
tad
ne,
1 a
of
3
equity, but it is important to note that, though the contention as to the judicial
character of the Council of State’s decision was pressed upon us by one of the members
of the Council and we were ourselves doubtful of it, I, who dealt with the case to some
extent, felt strong doubts whether our support could be based on that ground, and
^ir G. Lowther, who spoke about the case to Hakki Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , then Grand Vizier, left a
note to the effect that his Highness disputed the contention. The matter was one in
which we were not disposed to go very far, as certain British parties were also interested
on the other side, and in any case it lapsed as far as the embassy was concerned. I do
not know what eventually happened, but the material point is that in 1911, in a case |
which was distinctly one of interpreting a law for a purpose of civil administration, the
Grand Vizier repudiated the view that a decision of the Council of State bound the
Government, and that the British Embassy did not feel any confidence that that
contention could be maintained, though we were disposed to think that Messrs. WhittalTs
case was in itself a good one.
In the present instance the arguments against regarding the Council of State’s
decision as a judicial and binding one are certainly not less strong than in the case just
related. From one point of view it may be said that they are a good deal stronger, as
the question before the Council of State was not one of interpreting “ a ” law, but
rather of determining whether a particular sovereign act of the late Sultan’s, done at a
time when he was the sole source of law in the Empire, was invalidated by other
enactments, which, as I pointed out above, can be said to have had themselves no higher
sanction.
ANDBEW RYAN.
i
i |