In Europe and America disputes often involve a process of tedious litigation. It is not so in Turkey; although the Koran and its voluminous commentaries decide every case “from a point of faith to a right of gutter,” yet the form of trial is so simple that it becomes quite expeditious. For all Turkish jurisprudence may be condensed into these two principles, viz.,

1st. In every case of litigation the testimony of two witnesses is required of the plaintiff, and

2d. In default of witnesses an oath is administered to the defendant as the only alternative.

No written document, except judicial, is considered valid, or recognized by the courts, unless it be substantiated by two witnesses.

For instance, a banker had advanced to the treasury about $30,000 on account of a certain pasha, who farmed a province from the government. Before the year was out the pasha died, and the court of chancery taking charge of the estate of the deceased, it became necessary to examine and settle the banker’s account current with the defunct. On examination it was found that the banker had paid to the treasury the above mentioned sum in thirty-three different installments, and received from the deceased only $18,000; so that there was a balance due the banker of $12,000.

But the court of chancery would not recognize the disbursements of the banker in behalf of the deceased, unless each of the installments made by the banker to the government could be substantiated by two witnesses; thus requiring no less than sixty-six witnesses for the case. It was in vain the banker produced the vouchers of the government regularly signed and sealed by the proper authorities. The judges would admit nothing but the requisite witnesses, and in default of such witnesses claimed from the banker the $18,000, the receipt of which was avowed by him, and consequently due to the heirs.

Nor is this mode of justice, primitive as it is, ever used with impartiality.

Witnesses are never subpoenaed by the courts, and no oath is required of them for the truth of their depositions; also on account of the spirit of fanatical animosity which exists mutually between the Christians and Mohammedans, no unbiased testimony is to be procured. Indeed, formerly, the Christians were not even allowed to appear as witnesses.

The judges themselves being men of low birth and grovelling principles, only hold their offices as sources of personal emolument, as the wealth of various of these functionaries fully attests. The late Sheikh-ul Islam, at his death, left the sultan, by bequest, nearly a million of dollars!

Although strictly prohibited by the Koran, they are in the constant habit of receiving bribes to any amount; notwithstanding the precepts of their religion, which are ever and anon held up as barriers to all reform, they are so corrupted, that their consciences are immediately lulled, whenever the requisite bonus is slily slipped under the cushions on which they sit, and the testimony of hired witnesses is then winked at by them, and even supported, as their interest may demand.

The only qualification requisite for a witness to appear before these courts of justice, is to be omniscient, and never to utter the fatal word Bilmem, I don’t know.

When conflicting interests occur, which induce the judges to take side against the witnesses—and such occasions are by no means rare, since justice is not only put up at auction, but a single recommendation from a grandee suffices to turn the scale—the scene is truly farcical, and its sketch worthy of the pen of Dickens himself.

The Kadis adopt a singular method to disqualify the testimony. The questions which are put in the cross-examination, are not only entirely irrelevant to the subject matter in dispute, but would even puzzle the “cutest Yankee” how to answer. Their object is to disqualify the testimony by questions, no matter how ridiculous, but by which the witnesses will be forced at last to utter the ominous word Bilmem—I don’t know.

With a view to ascertain whether the witnesses are well acquainted with the party in whose behalf they are testifying, they are asked, “who was the grandfather of the plaintiff?” The usual and formal answer in such cases is, “Abraham,” meaning the old Patriarch. “His great grandfather?” “Adam,” beyond whom he (the plaintiff), is not supposed to have any ancestors.

On a certain occasion, a judge being very anxious to defeat the testimony of a clever witness, after various ingenious interrogatories, made the quaint inquiry, “who married Adam and Eve?” To which the witness unhesitatingly replied, not, as it may be supposed, “I don’t know,”—oh no, not so stupid as that—but, “I was not invited to the wedding.”

It was a maxim of the government and a profitable one to its employÉs, that in the administration of justice, a speedy infliction of punishment, even though unjust, was more desirable than a tedious course of litigation, as the fear and awe thus infused into the hearts of the people, rendered them submissive to the most irrational commands, and terrified the mass into a dread of infringing the laws, although some few might suffer unjustly.

This principle, though nominally abandoned by the government, is still maintained by the judiciary; therefore, no pleading by lawyers is allowed, and the sentence is passed with all possible dispatch, or deferred at pleasure, as circumstances may require.

The whole of Turkey is divided into two separate judicial districts, viz., Anadolou, and Roumely, or Asia and Europe, and there is a Kazi-ul-Asker, or chief justice, appointed to each district, who preside over their respective courts.

There, is, however, a supreme court called, Arz-Odassi, or court of appeals, where the Grand Vezir and the Grand Mufty conjointly preside, and there all cases, when appealed, are heard; but the sentences are seldom reversed, as they wish to preserve the decisions of the judiciary courts inviolable. When the injustice is too gross and palpable, a new Ilam or sentence is granted by this court, without any allusion to prior proceedings.

It is true that the people have the right to appeal to his majesty for redress, but as they are invariably referred to this court for reconsideration, justice is seldom rendered to the appellants.

Foreigners are not tried before these courts. If the litigation is between themselves, their cases are tried and settled by their legations; but if with the natives, they are referred to a special court of the ministry of commerce, called Medjlissy-Tidjaret, composed of various merchants both natives and foreigners, and presided over by the Minister of Commerce, or his deputy.

The code by which this body pretends to be governed, is the “Code de Commerce” of Napoleon. How equitably it is applied by them, may easily be perceived.

Imagine some twenty-five or thirty merchants, of different nations and tongues, assembled together in the character of jurors, who not only do not understand a word or syllable that is uttered in their hearing, but often do not even possess the means of communicating their ideas to each other.

The affair brought before them, being unintelligible to most of them, it is generally conducted by the government officials, or some of the members who are fortunate enough to know something of the language, and their decisions imparted to the passive members, who usually give their sanction, taking it for granted that all is right. The consequence is, that if one of the litigants is so happy as to secure the good will and patronage of an acting member, he is sure to come off successfully, no matter how bad his case.

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.