The following information regarding the Macedonian Committees was contained in a letter from General Tzoncheff to me. There are some eliminations, but no alterations in the text.—F. M.

‘The beginning of the revolutionary movement goes back to the years 1893-94, but its real, substantial work began from 1895. At this time there were already two organisations—one in Macedonia, which was revolutionary; the other in Bulgaria, which was legal, open organisation.

‘By the very nature of things the legal organisation in Bulgaria became the representative of the Macedonian cause before Europe. In accordance with the revolutionary organisation, the legal one worked up the well-known principles for an autonomy, which were proclaimed by a memorandum to the Powers and to the Press in 1896.

‘The revolutionary work was carried on by the two organisations in harmony until the year 1901, each organisation acting in its sphere for the same object. Though separated in their way of action, the two organisations were, in fact, one and the same. The members of the one passed into the other, as the needs and the circumstances dictated. All the Macedonian leaders have belonged and participated to the two organisations. Thus Deltcheff from 1899 to 1901 worked conjointly and signed the resolutions of the High Macedonian Committee under the presidency of Boris Sarafoff, who was chosen by us.

‘In 1901 the harmony was destroyed. Sarafoff and the other members of the committee, including Deltcheff, encouraged by the extreme popularity of the cause, gave a revolutionary impulse to the legal organisation in Bulgaria by acts which were very compromising. The murder of the Rumanian professor, Michailyano, in Bucharest, and other deeds brought Bulgaria to the verge of a war with Rumania. The public opinion in the principality, in the Balkan States, and in Europe was excited. We asked Sarafoff and the other members of the committee to retire, and thus to save the situation. But Sarafoff could not at that time realise how grave the situation was, and refused to quit the committee. Several intrigues were invented with the object to represent the split as of a character of fundamental principal differences. New elements, chiefly the extremists or the anarchical current, supported Sarafoff. The Bulgarian Government, under the pressure of the European diplomacy, especially of the Russian, gave its full support to the disunion in the organisation.

‘The union between the different revolutionary currents brought about during the last insurrection was again broken up. Now we have three revolutionary currents—ours, Damian Groueff’s, and the so-called anarchical current at the head of which stand B. Sarafoff, Sandansky, and others. With the current of Damian Groueff we have not any fundamental differences, but much with the anarchical. This last current is not at all a disciplined organisation; its members act nearly independently. Some of them—for instance, Sandansky and Tchernopeeff—during the last two years have made deeds in Macedonia which have brought great calamities on the population and have alienated the sympathies of the civilised world. Their aim is to throw terror and anarchy in the country and make life impossible for the inhabitants. Lacking discipline and well-defined objects, their members often go to extremes, which are very injurious to the cause of the Macedonians.

‘During the last months efforts were made for an understanding between us and Groueff. The foundations for the understanding are even laid down. If these efforts succeed fully, we hope then to have a strong revolutionary organisation which will be able to put down all the pernicious and demoralising elements in the Macedonian movement and use all its power to attain the object and the desire of the Macedonians—establishment in the country (of) a civilised government and administration, which will open to its inhabitants a free field for progress, civilisation, and economical prosperity.

‘The immediate object is not and will not be an insurrection. In the first place the present political situation in Europe is unfavourable for such an action; and in the second place our interest dictates that time and freedom should be given to the Powers to fulfil their promise for a good government, and, if they fail, that the Christian world should see that this failure is not due to the Macedonians, but to the ineffective measures of the diplomacy. And then to tighten the organisation and to give a strong impulse to the movement, so as to be ready for another struggle, when the political situation permits and if the reforms fail.’

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. LTD., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON