Avetis Nazarbekian co-founded the Hunchaks. The party split into two, and the "reformed" branch was led by Arpiar Arpiarian

Before proceeding any farther it may briefly be mentioned that most of the political murders that have been perpetrated in America, and in other countries by Armenians against their co-religionists, have been due to the antagonism existing between the Hentchakiste Secret Society, and that known as the Arpiarist organization. The Hentchakiste Association was formed In 1877 by an Armenian journalist, a certain Avetist Nazarbek, in reality for the purpose of providing himself with a means of livelihood, but ostensibly in order to secure the suppression of Turkish misrule in Armenia, by means of bringing the woes of the latter before the public of Western Europe and America. With this avowed object in view, he founded in London a newspaper entitled the Hentchak, which may be described as the Tocsin or Alarm Bell, and found no difficulty in obtaining generous subscriptions from wealthy Armenian residents in America, in England, in France, Germany, and Italy, describing in lurid colors the terrible cruelties and savage oppression to which those of their countrymen were subjected, who groaned under the cruel rule of the In Turkey. As in the case of all these secret political societies, the Hentchakiste organization attracted a large number of heelers and adventurers, Armenians of the very worst type, who found it more agreeable to draw money as political agents from the treasury of the society, and to live on the subscriptions patriotically offered by their wealthy, industrious, and reputable co-religionists, than to do any actual hard, honest work. The Hentchakiste Society proved such a gold mine to scoundrels of this class that, as was only to be expected, another society of a similar character was founded not long afterward by another Armenian newspaper man, of the name of Arpiar, on analogous lines. Of course, the two societies commenced to fight with one another. The Hentcnakistes accused the Arpianists of being secretly in league with the Turks, and about four years ago an attempt was made to assassinate Arpiar in Venice, where he was very dangerously wounded, presumably by Heatchakistes. This greatly incensed the Arpiarists, who are established in strong numbers at Boston, and the Arpiarist paper there practically called on the heads of their society for revenge.

Sometimes the stories of atrocities were entirely bogus, while in other instances the outrages were deliberately provoked by the members of the society for the purpose of loosening purse strings.

It must thoroughly be understood that there is hardly a reputable well-to-do Armenian who would not welcome the disappearance of these societies as now constituted. For he has ended by regarding them as responsible not only for the increasing evil odor of the cause of Armenia Abroad, but also for the prosecution to which his co-religionists have been subjected at stated epochs in Turkey. Whenever the treasury of these two secret societies ran low, the sympathy of the rich Armenians abroad was excited by stories of massacres and outrages by Turks upon the Armenians in the Ottoman empire. Sometimes the stories of atrocities were entirely bogus, while in other instances the outrages were deliberately provoked by the members of the society for the purpose of loosening purse strings. This view has expressed by foreign consular officials, by students, and writers on the Armenian problem, such as H. F. D. Lynch, in his standard work, “Armenia,” and by many eminent Armenians, and I have before me an interview published in the Moscow press, and reprinted in the Official Gazette of Tiflis, in which of the most influential members of the Armenian community at Constantinople, while staying at Moscow, asserts that most of the stories of so-called Armenian outrages were “manufactured out of the whole cloth,” and that in the relatively few instances where massacres had actually taken place, they had been deliberately provoked by unscrupulous agitators of his own race. Mr. Lynch, in “Armenia” expresses the firm conviction, based on careful investigation on the spot, that the massacres of 1895 were not the outcome of a spontaneous rising of the Moslems against the Christians, but provoked from without by Armenian revolutionaries. Of course, the Armenians are not popular in Turkey. Like the Jews, they are too successful in every business they undertake not to excite the jealousy of their Moslem neighbors. And then, too, following as they do the professions of bankers, money lenders, traders, and loan-mongers, they have most of their less thrifty Moslem neighbors and fellow citizens in their debt. But they are extremely well treated, unless there is some deliberate act of provocation, as, for instance, on the occasion of the Armenian outrages at Constantinople some ten years ago, which originated in a disorderly and riotous Armenian demonstration at the sublime porte, leading to a sanguinary conflict between the Armenian rioters and the troops sent to restore order, whereupon the turbulent Softas or Moslem students took a hand in the game. But the trouble would never have taken place had it not been deliberately provoked by the demonstration at the sublime porte, carefully organized by the revolutionary Armenian societies, apparently for the express purpose of instigating a massacre, to excite the sympathy of the civilized world in behalf of the Armenians against the Turks.

The national aspirations of the sensible Armenians, like those of the Hebrews of the same class, are, when they exist, purely theoretical. Whereas the Bulgarians prior to their independence occupied a compact territory, where they were three times as numerous as the Turks, the Armenians are a scattered race. Indeed the congress of Berlin in 1878, after a careful investigation of the question, declared itself powerless on this account to define the limits of Turkish Armenia, and unable thereof to form any project for Armenian autonomy. In the Ottoman provinces comprised in the ancient kingdom of Armenia, there are three Turks to every Armenian, while in the remainder of Asia Minor the Turks outnumber them by ten to one. All told, there are about 4,500,000 Armenians the world of whom at least 1,500,00[sic] are subject to the rule of the Czar, 1,200,000 in Turkey, 250,000 in Persia, and as many in India. There is a large colony of them in France, mainly in Paris and at Marseilles; also at Venice, in London, and in various parts of England. A considerable number of them are to be found in Boston and in New York, and there are many thousands of them scattered in the Philippines and other Asiatic archipelagoes. Wherever they embark in business they prosper and thrive, and become useful and respected members of the community. It is only the relatively small lawless, shiftless, political adventurer oral carpet-bag element that bring into disrepute this ancient and historic race, which has furnished so many eminent statesmen to Turkey, to Persia, to Egypt in the person of Nubar Pasha, and to Russia in the late Gen. Loris Melikoff, dictator of the empire in 1880.

ARMENIAN CHARACTER 

The following article, entitled "Armenian Character," appeared in The Salt Lake Daily Tribune newspaper, December 29, 1895.


That the Turks can be regarded as patterns of gentleness and morality is not claimed by their best friends. But many writers doubt that the Osmanli deserve all the abuse which is being heaped upon them in these days. It is pointed out that the Turks, unlike the Spaniards and Russians, omitted to force the nations whom they conquered to adopt their religion. It is further pointed out that Western civilization does not benefit all races. These views are broadly defended by a correspondent in the Koinische Zeitung, Cologne, who describes himself as a “twenty-five-year resident of Turkey.” He believes that the Turks benefit about as much by contact with Western civilization as the American Indians profited by the arrival of the European settlers. As for the Armenians, their conduct is regarded as altogether unreliable by this writer. He says:

The Armenians cannot be said to have a historical right to demand independence. Long before the Turks came, Armenia had been ruled over by foreign nations. The Osmanli freed them from this worst of degradation and allowed them to settle in Constantinople, hoping that the Armenians, freed from Byzantine oppression, would become faithful friends of their new patrons. The Armenians have been petted for ages, they have amassed great wealth, and many high positions are to this day filled by them. The bitterness with which the Mussulmans regard Armenian revolt is therefore easily explained. That the Armenians suffer under the corruption which rule supreme in Turkey cannot be denied, but they suffer no more than their Mohammedan fellow subjects, who, in addition to all other ills, have to bear the burden of military service, from which the Christians are freed. Turkish officials have to spend money to obtain their positions, and as those positions are not permanent, they must endeavor to reimburse themselves as speedily as possible.

Much responsibility rests with the Anglo-Armenian committees, who work upon the easily roused humanitarian principles of the English, and instigate revolt and bloodshed in the hope of getting official positions in Armenia, if that country is ever made independent. Much harm, also is done by the American missionaries. Ostensibly they devote their lives to the education of the young; in reality they seek to make converts and promulgate modern views among a people entirely unfit to receive them. As the Turks do not support any missions in America, it is not easy to see why Turkey should grant hospitality to people who so ill requite it. The reports of English and American missionaries are very much overdrawn. The Consular commission sent to investigate the horrors of the Sassoun district has never published its report. The English declare that the Consular report would rouse public indignation in England to a fever heat, but the Turks claim that no proof of the alleged Turkish excesses can be obtained. The Turkish police and the Turkish troops behaved in the most exemplary manner. No law-abiding Armenian suffered any inconvenience, and the theatrical flight of some Armenians who sought refuge in their churches was entirely unnecessary. While the papers spoke of Constantinople as being in a state of anarchy, foreign ladies and gentlemen on a tour of pleasure visited places of interest without the slightest obstruction.