Until the middle of the nineteenth century, sea transportation in Istanbul was conducted in light, elegant rowboats, while the transportation of merchandise and wares was carried out in rowboats and barges; because transportation was classified as a havayic-i zaruriyye (public necessity), transportation fees were determined by the state. Steam powered ships began sailing in Ottoman waters and on the Bosphorus in 1828. Then, an English ship named Swift, which had stopped over in Istanbul, Mahmud II purchased the ship and changed its name to Sağir. The sultan conducted many domestic trips on this ship, which was also known as the Buğu (vapor) by the public¹ due to the steam it produced. Steamships were first began to be purchased, however, when engines were imported from England towards the end of the reign of Mahmud II; they also started being built in shipyards in Turkey at this time and as a result, the numbers of ships gradually increased.²

Passenger transportation on the Bosphorus was first introduced by foreign entrepreneurs who seized this opportunity in the shipping business. In response to warnings by state officials that they had no right to transport passengers or freight, foreigners, who claimed that the capitulations gave them this right, and had created a de facto situation, first took up the business of towing the sailing ships³ that were trying to head out into the Black Sea from the Bosphorus, but were facing difficulties due to unfavorable weather conditions. During the Tanzimat period, foreigners began to carry passengers on two ships on the Bosphorus.⁴ Entrepreneurs from other countries, recognizing the profitable business and opportunities created by this situation, attempted to obtain permission, presenting the ships and companies that were working between various ports as their counterparts. In such an event in 1842, the captain of an American ship requested permission to operate in the Ottoman waters; he involved the American ambassador and produced the Austrian Ship Company as a reference. In principle, the state did not approve of such demands. However, unable to resist the influence of the ambassador, eventually the state was obliged to accept the request.⁵

On the proposal of Kaptanıderya (Admiral) Mehmed Ali Pasha, these de facto moves were followed by deploying the Eser-i Hayr, which was owned by the Tersane (Shipyard) to carry passengers from the Rumelian coast of the Bosphorus; this was in the early days of 1844. The Eser-i Hayr was to leave Bahçekapı every evening and sail to Arnavutköy, Rumelihisari, Yeniköy, Tarabya and Sarıyer, returning via the same route to Bahçekapı on the following morning. Such a regulation was considered necessary after a pazar kayığı (large rowboat) that was carrying passengers from Beykoz capsized on the coast of Sarayburnu. After this incident, it was ruled that the Shipyard ship should transport passengers on the Bosphorus to ensure that the public traveled in safety. This important decision also included the operating of ships from the main ports which were transporting Istanbul’s necessities and goods essential for consumption and merchandise; these ports included Gemlik, İzmit, Bandırma and Tekirdağ, as well as neighboring ports. In this way, trade within the Marmara basin area could be conducted in safety. In this context, it was decided that the Mesir-i Bahri, also owned by the Shipyard, would sail every week to Gemlik, from where it would go to İzmit on Thursdays, Silivri, Bandırma and Tekirdağ on Saturdays, and return to Istanbul the next morning.⁶

Although the transportation of passengers and merchandise continued as before for some time on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, in boats known as pazar, piyade or ateş kayıks, these voyages became dangerous during the inclement and stormy weather of the winter months; occasionally accidents, such as drowning or capsizing occurred. Although there was a passenger ship which went to Üsküdar in 1847, because the ticket prices were six times higher than that on the smaller boats, the public preferred the smaller rowboats; this led to the voyages of this ship being terminated. Of the opinion that the link between the important settlement area of Üsküdar and Istanbul was inadequate, Kaptanıderya Süleyman Refet Pasha proposed to the government that ship voyages from Üsküdar be introduced again. In his opinion, providing separate sections on the ship in which women could travel comfortably and continuing these voyages, even if this entailed financial loss, was the obligation of the state. With the approval of the sultan, the ship began to operate again from Üsküdar, however, the ticket prices were kept low this time, one and a half times the prices of the smaller boats.⁷

Süleyman Refet’s proposal to assign a separate sectionts of the ship to women, thus allowing them to travel comfortably by ship, was extremely important; until this time women had been forbidden from boarding the intra-city ships; this ban had continued when the ships first began sailing on the Bosphorus, only being lifted in September 1850. The ban was valid, whether the passenger ship was owned by the Shipyard or a foreign company. This topic came onto the agenda after five to ten Muslim women boarded a Russian ship that was carrying passengers on the Bosphorus at the end of April, 1850. Süleyman Refet Pasha, who considered this to be a shameful act, emphasized the necessity of creating separate sections on ships for men and women. However, the Meclis-i Vala (High Council) opposed the idea of women boarding ships and Sultan Abdülmecid ratified the council’s judgment. Therefore, it was decided that the Russian company should be warned by the Hariciye Nezareti (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) not to accept Muslim women on the ships, while the minister of the gendarme should take necessary precautions to prevent Muslim women from boarding ships.⁸

Even though the sultan’s decree meant that restrictions on women boarding ships would continue, this was not the last word in terms of disputes in this matter; indeed this decision was far from the realities of the era. As a result, in a decree dated September 30, 1850, almost two and a half months after the sultan’s decision, it was stated that with the establishment of Şirket-i Hayriye (Ferryboat Company), the ban in question would be lifted, on the condition that separate sections of the boat were provided for women.⁹ Thus, due to a situation created by unidentified women boarding a Russian ship, a matter was disputed both by the state and the public in the second half of 1850, and as a result women were given permission to board ships.

The Kayıkçı Esnafı Nizamnamesi (Regulation for Guild of Boatmen), dated 1 Rabi‘ al-Akhir 1267 (February 3, 1851), was prepared when, due to an increase in the number of ships, the Istanbul sea traffic became a significant problem. The regulations, which both boat owners and passengers were to comply with when navigating the increasing sea traffic on the Bosphorus, were restructured. Opening umbrellas and smoking while passing the sultan’s palace was forbidden, and classified as an act of disrespect.¹⁰ Sultan Abdülmecid, who once again raised the subject of sea traffic two years later, in 1853,¹¹ presumably when this legislation proved inadequate, restructured passenger transportation. Now sea traffic on the Bosphorus and in the Golden Horn was included. A few of the precautions introduced were that ships were to reduce speed when approaching bridges and piers; when there was sea traffic, small boats were to sail close to the shore, with larger ships maintaining a distance from the shore; boatmen were not to be distracted while sailing; and ships were to wait in the dock during foggy weather.¹²

ISTANBUL’S SEAWAY LINKS WITHIN THE
REGION: THE İDARE-İ MAHSUSA (SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION)

The Hazine-i Hassa Vapurları İdaresi (Administration of the Imperial Treasury’s Steamboats),which was also known as Fevaid-i Osmaniye, İdare-i Aziziye, İdare-i Mahsusa-i Aziziye, İdare-i Mahsusa and Osmanlı Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, provided a link between Istanbul and the Marmara basin, the Black Sea, and the shores of the Mediterranean; this institution was later inherited by the Turkish Republic. In 1852, the name of the shipping administration was known as the Hazine-i Hassa Vapur Kumpanyası. Around this time, voyages to Çanakkale, Limni, Galos and Selanik in the Aegean Sea were organized; journeys to Sinop, Samsun and Trabzon in the Black Sea were held; and ships sailed to Gemlik, Karamürsel and İzmit in the Marmara region. In the regulations introduced on 29 Jumada al-Akhir 1273 (February 24, 1857), a large sea transportation fleet was formed; it comprised of twenty ships in total, with eight ships each belonging to the Hazine-i Hassa and the Tersane, and four ships owned by Mösyö Custinyani (Monsieur Justiniani). As a result, there was a control by the state, and any probable competition between private companies was eliminated. Also, the new company expanded its operations to Batum in the Black Sea, Beirut and Alexandria on the Mediterranean coast, even as far as Malta. However, due to unknown reasons this partnership did not continue for long; after a short time, the Hazine-i Hassa purchased all the company shares and continued operating as Hazine-i Hassa Kumpanyası.¹³

It is not clear when the company changed its name to Fevaid-i Osmaniye. Although Abdülahad Nuri, who wrote a book on the subject, suggests that the name was changed to Fevaid-i Osmaniye on 7 Jumada al-Akhir 1279 (November 30 1862),¹⁴ this date should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, reports published in the newspaper Ceride-i Havadis which claimed that the Hazine-i Hassa Kumpanya fleet was supported by ships from the Tersane is significant in this aspect. With this decree, which provided temporary support for the operations, and which would be valid until the company acquired a sufficient number of ships, the state not only expanded the passenger and postal links between Istanbul and various other regions of the country which had extensive coastal areas, but also procured the transportation of soldiers and ammunition under more suitable conditions when necessary.¹⁵ However, the name of the company still appeared in later issues of the newspaper as Hazine-i Hassa Kumpanyası, although the name Fevaid-i Osmaniye was used from the autumn of 1864.¹⁶ Thus, the name of the company was changed to Fevaid-i Osmaniye from this date. This information makes the date Abdülahad Nuri gives doubtful.

In 1870, it was decided that the name should be changed from Fevaid-i Osmaniye to Şirket-i Aziziye in honor of Sultan Abdülaziz; and the company was incorporated under the chairmanship of Egyptian Mustafa Fazıl Pasha. Although the license had been granted and the company by-laws prepared; these plans were disrupted by the German-Franco war that broke out during that period. The license had to be annulled¹⁷ and the company was not formed. However, with a decree dated 5 Rabi‘ al-Akhir 1288 (24 June 1871), the name of the company was changed to İdare-i Aziziye. The İdare-i Aziziye, which was under the directorship of the Bahriye Nezareti (Ministry of the Navy), owned the license, and had the right to operate ships to all Ottoman sea ports. Therefore, links between Istanbul and Gelibolu, Çanakkale, Midilli, İzmir, Sakız (Chios), Kalimnos (Kalymnos), İstanköy (Kos), Sömbeki (Symi), Rhodes, Antalya, Mersin, İskenderun (Alexandretta), Beirut, Jaffa, Haifa, Port Said, Jeddah, Kunfuda, Hudeyde, Cyprus, Silifke, Limasol, Inoz (Aenos), Selanik, Ereğli, Bartın, Amasra, İnebolu, Sinop, Samsun, Ünye, Ordu, Giresun, Trabzon, Rize, Batum, Burgos, Varna, Balçık, Constanta, Mudanya, Gemlik, Darıca, Karamürsel, İzmit, Yalova, Silivri, Bandırma, Tekirdağ, Bigados, Marmara Island, Karabiga, Mürefte, Paşalimanı and Erdek were secured; within Istanbul ships sailed to Kadıköy, the Princes Islands, Yeşilköy and Haydarpaşa.¹⁸

In the words of the İdare employees, the ports in question to which passengers, merchandise and post were transported in Istanbul were characterized as sevahil-i mütecavire (neighboring shores); the ports in the Marmara Sea were sevahil-i karibe (local shores), and the other ports were referred to as sevahil-i baide (distant shores). In view of the available data, it is evident that the name İdare-i Aziziye was changed to İdare-i Mahsusa when Sultan Abdulhamid II came to the throne; at this time the company owned twenty-four vessels, many of which were old.¹⁹ The old and dilapidated state of the İdare ships, and naturally the slow speed of the vessels, was a continuous source of complaint from the public. A voyage from Istanbul to İzmit took twelve hours in 1890 and during these trips the ships frequently broke down; this proves how justified the people were in complaining. The ships operating in Istanbul from Kadıköy and Haydarpaşa were no different; there were reports in the contemporary press stating that on normal days the Kadıköy trips took forty-five minutes, while in stormy or bad weather conditions these trips could take anything from between one and three hours; moreover, it took remarkable courage to make such a voyage. In addition, the irregularity of the service, the size of the ships and the attendant’s behavior towards passengers were also topics of complaint. In fact, not only were there occasions when the ships failed to leave on time, they could even fail to leave on the scheduled day of departure.²⁰

In 1883, a committee convened in an attempt to solve the situation of the İdare-i Mahsusa and to discuss what could be done about the conditions of its ships. In view of a proposal by Ziya Bey, the director of the İdare, the committee decided to merge the company with the Şirket-i Hayriye, whose ships and administration had been better from the very beginning; in this way it was hoped that a more powerful company could be formed. There were plans to expand the Şirket-i Hayriye license and opportunities upon the ratification of this decision by the sultan. It was proposed that the term for the license of this new company should be ninety years and that its capital should total 1,000,000 lira; the company should also be licensed to transport passengers, merchandise and post between all of the Ottoman ports, as well as provide local transportation within Istanbul. Shares in the company could only be purchased by Ottoman subjects, and the fleet of ships would be renovated or replaced, with the company being exempt from lighthouse and quarantine duties and all other taxes. Although the company’s by-laws and contract had been prepared, this huge project failed to materialize. However, as this project came into public discussion repeatedly, in 1885, 1890 and again 1895, it is clear that the project made an impression on both the state and the public.²¹

In 1908, after the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, when complaints regarding the ships began to be expressed more openly and restraints on the public began to fade, plans for the transformation of the İdare into a company came onto the agenda once again. As a result, in a decree dated 18 Ramadan 1327 (3 October 1909), the decision to establish a company was announced; this announcement was made both domestically and abroad and invitations for a tender were issued. Eventually, a consortium consisting of the Fairfield Ship Building and Engineering Company Limited and Weddell Turner and Company submitted the best proposal. The license term was seventy-five years and the necessary capital was 900,000 lira. An obligation to sell a 550,000 lira in shares, in other words more than 50 % of the shares, to Ottoman citizens was imposed. When the company failed to be established, despite the acceptance of the contract and approval by the sultan, the 10,000 lira submitted as a deposit was seized by the treasury.²²

In view of the adverse impact the failure of this enterprise had on the market, it became apparent that it would be difficult for this corporation to materialize; in a decree dated 6 Ramadan 1328 (September 11 1910), it was decided that the İdare-i Mahsusa should be restructured and improved; it was now to be known as Osmanlı Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi. At the same time, the right to transform the İdare into a limited corporation, if a suitable opportunity was to appear, was reserved. Under the management of a general director, the new administration was to be supervised by a board of directors; there would be a representative from each of the ministries of trade, treasury, war and navy, as well as three experts designated by the Harbiye Nezareti (Ministry of War). At the time, sixty-five of the eighty-two existing ships owned by the İdare were old and dilapidated to the extent that they were not fit to sail. In view of this, it was decided that the personnel should be selected by eliminating those considered unsuitable or unnecessary, thus avoiding paying salaries to crews that were not needed.

Another issue that should be emphasized at this point is that the İdare owed Anadolu Demiryolu Şirketi (Anatolian Railroad Company) 162,000 lira, and had pledged the income from some sea routes in lieu of this debt. In an attempt to emerge out of this crisis, it was decided that old ships should be sold and replaced with new resources, even though this would have to be a gradual process. In view of this decision, although a delegation sent to Europe purchased fifteen new ships, the succession of great wars, such as the Turco-Italian, Balkan and World War I, which broke out at the time when all these reorganizations were taking place, was a great misfortune. During the times of war the transportation of soldiers and ammunition was one of the main duties of the İdare. Presumably, this is the reason why the İdare was placed under the Harbiye Nezareti according to a temporary legislation dated 3 February 1913.²³ During the years of World War I, twenty-eight ships were lost, almost all of which were from the fleet under the command of the Harbiye Nezareti.²⁴ In addition, the company was unable to conduct regular voyages on many of the routes on which it normally transported passengers during times of peace; this was particularly true in the Black Sea. After the dissolution of the Ottoman State and the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the İdare continued to operate, now as Türkiye Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi.

The İdare used the various places from which it had operated over the years as headquarters. After the administration building of Fevaid-i Osmaniye burned down in 1869, Yalı Köşk, Kadıasker Han, Alipaşa Han, Lorando Han in Galata and Harnes Han (Hasanpaşa Han), all served as administrative centers. Although the headquarters were moved to the Dolmabahçe for a month after the 1894 earthquake, the main office returned to its location in Harnes Han, eventually moving to its headquarters opposite Hasanpaşa Han.²⁵

Other Companies Operating from Ottoman Ports

In addition to the İdare-i Mahsusa, there were also certain other local and foreign companies which operated from Istanbul and other Ottoman ports, even transporting passengers, merchandise and mail between foreign lands. Among these foreign companies were the Lloyd (Austria), Messagerie (France), Florio and Rubattino (Italy), Papayanni (Greece), Fraissinet (France) and Regular (Germany); in addition, there were English and Russian companies.²⁶ The company established during the period of Sultan Abdülmecid in Egypt as the Mecidiye, which became Aziziye Kumpanyası, during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz, and later the Hidiviyet-i Mısır Kumpanyası, also sailed to Istanbul. In fact, the ships owned by the Istanbul-based company sailed once a week from Istanbul, stopping at Gelibolu, Çanakkale, Midilli (Lesbos), İzmir, Sakız (Chios), Piraeus, Şire (Syros), Rhodes and the Alexandria ports en route to Jeddah.²⁷

After the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, the economic policies of the Committee for Union and Progress (CUP) that supported the forming of corporations led to the establishment of new transportation companies, thus paving the way for significant developments in sea transportation. One of these companies was the Istanbul-based Hilal Osmanlı Anonim Vapur Şirketi (Crescent Ottoman Incorporated Steamboat Company); this was established by Tevfik Efendi and his colleagues on 26 March 1911. The company’s license was for transporting passengers and merchandise between Ottoman shores and foreign ports and for a period of fifty years; the capital investment was declared to be 50,000 lira. The general board was allowed to increase the capital by an amount equal to the existing capital without seeking permission from the state; in addition, the company could also purchase ships with a two-thirds majority decision; bonds could also be issued to procure the necessary capital for establishing a repairs yard or constructing a port. The stock shares were registered and could only be purchased by Ottoman citizens. The company began transportation with four ships; Hilal, Güzel Girit, Millet and Cezayir. During World War I, Hilal, Güzel Girit, Millet, Cezayir and Antalya were sunk by the enemy in the Black Sea, with Tecelli going down in the Marmara Sea; the Harbiye Nezareti compensated the company for the loss of these ships. The company continued operating until the economic crisis of 1929, which caused economic destruction not only in Turkey, but all over the world.²⁸

Another company which formed to be engaged in sea transportation was the İttihad Seyr-i Sefain Anonim Şirket-i Osmaniyesi (Union Incorporated Company of Martime Travel), established by Selanikli Kerimefendizade Tevfik Bey, Eyüb Sabri Bey and their colleagues; this was in compliance with a decree dated 22 May 1911. The company headquarters, which was originally in Selanik, was later moved to the Kosova Han in Sirkeci district of Istanbul. The license term was seventy-five years, and the capital was 250,000 lira. The general board had the authority to increase this capital by fifty percent. It was stipulated that the company sell 150,000 lira of shares to Ottoman citizens, while the remaining shares belonged to the title holder. Although the company began transporting with a single ship, it ceased transportation activities during World War I; however, due to the trade and speculative activities which the company pursued during the war, it acquired huge profits.²⁹

Another company that can be discussed within the scope of this topic was the Hüdavendigar Osmanlı Seyr-i Sefain Anonim Şirketi (Hüdavendigar Ottoman Incorporated Company of Maritime Travel), which was based in Bursa and had been formed by a group of businessmen under the initiative of the Bursa Chamber of Commerce. The license for this company, established on 7 April 1911, gave permission for it to transport passengers and merchandise on approved routes; the term was thirty years and the capital was 20,000 lira; the general board was authorized to increase this capital by fifty percent. This company that was established and began operating in the unsettled period of the war, began to operate journeys between Istanbul and Karabiga. During World War I, the state seized two of the ships, the Başlangıç and Sağdıç, to transport soldiers and ammunition; one of these ships was sunk during the war. However, despite these extremely difficult conditions, the company continued operating until 1929.³⁰

THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ŞİRKET-İ HAYRİYE

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the Rumelian and Yeniköy shores were mostly home to fishing villages; in addition the upper parts of Kanlıca on the Asian side of the Bosphorus was the same. These areas were not densely populated at the time. In view of this, the limited transportation facilities in the region and the harsh conditions in the winter months made living on the Bosphorus extremely difficult. During this period, the lower sections of the Bosphorus were all resorts to which people moved in the spring on the order of the sultan. Thus, major development on the shores of the Bosphorus began to appear after the change in consumption patterns within the state and public structures, which followed the reforms introduced during the reign of Mahmud II, the start of steamships sailing in the Istanbul waters and the Crimean War. It may be said that the consumer culture, which was a result of the political and economic instability brought about by the war and the foreign loans acquired during the conflict, had a significant influence on the structural development and shaping of Istanbul and the Bosphorus.³¹ After Şirket-i Hayriye was established this scene changed rapidly, and the Bosphorus became one of Istanbul’s most prestigious settlement areas.

The idea of forming the first Ottoman incorporated company, Şirket-i Hayriye, came to Keçecizade Fuad Pasha and Ahmed Cevdet Pasha when visiting a Turkish bath in Bursa. Although the main objective was defined as presenting an example of investment to public about “companies known as an incorporated company, which were the means of great wealth and prosperity throughout all of Europe” and making travelling to and from the city for those living on the Bosphorus less difficult,³² one of the other aims was to transform the Bosphorus into a place of permanent residence rather than a resort where only officials and senior executives spent a few months of the year during the summer, returning to Istanbul in the winter. In other words, the aim was to revive the Bosphorus and transform it into a place where people resided all year round. When the pashas returned from Bursa they brought this idea to the attention of the state; Şirket-i Hayriye was established according to decree promulgated by Sultan Abdülmecid on 23 Dhu al-Qa‘da 1266 (30 September 1850). In addition to transporting passengers and merchandise on the Bosphorus, another function of the company was to tow sailing ships which had difficulties sailing out into the Black Sea due to the wind or current. As mentioned previously, because no port had been allocated from which vessels from the Shipyard could transport passengers, the ships had to anchor in the open sea and passengers were transported to the ships by rowboats, and because of the tiring nature of this process, the public naturally preferred to travel in the smaller boats. Moreover, as there were no waiting areas for passengers, it was suggested that the new company construct waiting rooms and ports in convenient locations.

With the promulgation of this decree, the license and sole right to operate ships between the ports that were to be constructed on the Anatolian and Rumelian shores of the Bosphorus was granted to the Şirket-i Hayriye for a period of twenty-five years. Additionally, in order to procure the necessary funds for the construction of ships and ports, the decision was made to issue 1,500 share certificates, each worth 3,000 kuruş. The members of the Meclis-i Vükelâ (Council of Ministers) submitted the decision to form the company to the approval of the sultan; at the same time each member wrote the number of shares they intended to purchase on a piece of paper, and this was also presented to the sultan. According to this list, it appears that members of the government pledged to buy 157 shares.³³

In order to display his support for the formation of the company and ensure that the shares were taken up by the public, on January 16, 1851 the sultan issued an imperial edict addressed to Grand Vizier Mustafa Reşid Pasha. Expressing that the issuance of imperial edicts of concession was to increase the prestige of such companies, the sultan issued such an edict to augment the status of the concerned company.³⁴ However the concession did not include the Golden Horn.

The extent of the company’s activities became even more apparent over a period of time; it soon became evident that the capital of 45,000 lira demanded at the beginning was insufficient to meet the anticipated activities of the company; indeed, the number of ships had increased from five to six, and with two tugboats to tow the ships, the total numbers of ships was now eight. In order to meet the cost of the new ships and other expenses, the decision was made to issue another 500 new share certificates, thus increasing the capital of the company to 60,000 lira.³⁵

The decree promulgated on 30 September 1850 established the Şirket-i Hayriye; this means that the ministers, government officials and capital investors, including the sultan and his mother Bezmialem Valide Sultan, had owned 830 share certificates since 7 December 1850.³⁶ As a result, it can be stated that the share certificates were issued for sale at least by November 1850, and that while capital was accumulated in this way, the procedures to establish the company were carried out.

This is an important matter, as in the literature there is a false, but common perception that the company was formed in 1851. Presumably, this error derives from the decree, dated January 1851, which was addressed to Reşid Pasha and was concerned with increasing the company’s popularity. The information given above establishes without a doubt that the company was formed in the autumn of 1850. The vakanüvis (state chronicler) Lütfi Efendi stated that he encouraged civil servants and investors to purchase Mustafa Reşid Pasha’s share certificates; that many purchased the share certificates not so much willingly, but rather as a favor to Reşid Pasha.³⁷ It appears that in particular the civil servants resorted to borrowing money from banks and moneylenders to buy shares in the company.

The decision was made to continue transporting passengers on the ships previously allocated by the Shipyard until the ships ordered from London via Emmanuel Baltazzi³⁸ arrived; the departure times of one ship in the morning and one in the evening was adjusted according to the working hours of civil servants.³⁹ After the license was granted to Şirket-i Hayriye, it was decided that the ships from the Shipyard which had previously been operating on the Bosphorus and between the Prince Islands should operate on routes to İzmit, Gemlik, Tekirdağ, Gelibolu, Missivri, Ahyolu and Varna, thus preventing competition and disorder.⁴⁰ When the ships imported from England began to operate, this decision was changed and one of the four ships operating on the Bosphorus was to sail to San Stefano, one to Kadıköy with the remaining two ships transporting passengers and goods to the Prince Islands. Moreover, ships belonging to foreign companies were banned from sailing those routes which the ships from the Shipyard operated.⁴¹

The Şirket-i Hariye commission determined the locations of the ports to be constructed on both sides of the Bosphorus. The decision was made to construct the ports on the shore at Beşiktaş, Ortaköy, Kuruçeşme, Arnavutköy, Bebek, Rumelihisarı, Baltalimanı, Emirgan, İstinye, Yeniköy, Tarabya, Büyükdere and Sarıyer on the European side, and Beykoz, Kanlıca, Anadoluhisarı, Kandilli, Çengelköy, Beylerbeyi and Kuzguncuk on the Asian side.⁴² However, the construction of the ports was delayed and some accidents occurred during this time; the grand vizier warned the company to complete the ports as soon as possible.⁴³ Even though the arrival date of the ships ordered was approaching and Şirket-i Hayriye Committee had been formed, a stable administration of the company had not yet been established. Therefore, as required in the regulations, a businessman by the name of Monsieur Lafonten (La Fontaine) was initially appointed as a temporary director of the company; he would serve until the shareholders formed an administrative board.⁴⁴ On 10 Rabi‘ al-Awwal (3 January 1852) the decision was made to lease the ships by contract.⁴⁵ The ships were contracted for an annual fee of 10,500 lira to Antuvan Kalcıyan and Agop Bilezikçiyan for period of six years.⁴⁶ As a result, the contractors took over the operation of the lines on the condition that they would be responsible for both profit and loss, and would pay the aforementioned annual fee to the company.

A detailed agreement was drawn up; twenty-two clauses set out the conditions for operating the ships that were to be used to transport passengers and the tugboats by the contractors. Other conditions regarding the features and tenders of the ports that were to be constructed were also included.⁴⁷ The four paddle wheel steamships imported from England via Emmanuel Baltazzi began operating on the Bosphorus from 1852.⁴⁸ However, there was another serious issue: the foreign ship operators who had initially begun towing ships on the Bosphorus had later expanded their operations to transporting passengers. This still posed a serious problem, and moreover, their numbers were rapidly increasing. The state contacted the British and French embassies; as the Ottoman State was justified in its demands, the foreign ships were banned from transporting passengers on the Bosphorus.⁴⁹

In the meantime, two major developments occurred in terms of the contractors; the first was that the contracting company failed to meet the conditions of the contract, and the second was the death of Agop Bilezikçiyan. In view of these developments, the government used the additional advantages which the banning of foreign ships transporting passengers on the Bosphorus entailed for the contractors as an excuse to annul the agreement. In accordance with developments at that time and in order to prevent any kind of injustice, the state, whose main objective was to obtain a higher quote by tender, gave priority in the tender to Antuvan Kalcıyan. In the event of Kalcıyan’s refusal, the proposal was to give the contract to another company.⁵⁰ As a result, when Antuvan Kalcıyan failed to reach an agreement under these conditions, the contract was granted to Hacı Mıgırdıç Kalfa who worked in construction; the contract was given to Kalfa for an annual fee of 20,000 lira. At the same time, a decree dated 29 November 1853, announced the decision to form a board selected from among the shareholders; this board would inspect the company’s accounts and collect payments from the shareholders, paying off the debt to Emmanuel Baltazzi for the purchase of the ships and deal with the general business of the company.⁵¹

The new contractor was unable to fulfill his obligations to the company and found it difficult to pay the third installment that was to be paid to the company for the lease of the ships. In view of discussions, it became evident that Mıgırdıç would not demand damages or compensation in return; an affidavit to this end was obtained from him. As a result, from June 27, 1854, although Mıgırdıç Kalfa returned the ships, he continued to manage the ships on a custodial basis until the Şirket-i Hayriye Commission issued a new tender; additionally, it was decided that the debts Mıgırdıç owed to the company should be collected from his guarantor.⁵² In order to reissue a tender that was above the true value, and to make a more reliable determination of the profit-loss of the company over the long term, the company chose to have the ships managed under a custodial basis for a while longer.⁵³ In the meantime, Antuvan Kalcıyan, the first contractor, presented various excuses in an attempt to delay the state and avoid settling his debt of 202,464 lira.⁵⁴

Mıgırdıç Kalfa assumed the management of the company, however, he resigned before his contract expired and the Şirket-i Hayriye Commission took over this duty. This meant that the company’s first board of directors was formed to manage the company temporarily under the Ticaret Nezareti (Ministry of Commerce). The chair of the company was Ali Hilmi Efendi.⁵⁵ All the bureaucratic procedures and transactions of buying and selling shares was conducted by officials under the supervision of the Beylikçi (head of the chancery office) during the establishment period of the company; this continued until the formation of the board of directors in the Ticarethane (Chamber of Commerce),⁵⁶ suggesting that in principle the company was a semi-official establishment that was dependent on the state.

Extension of the License

The term of the company’s license was extended for another ten years with a bylaw dated December 31. 1872; in exchange for this, 5 % of the company’s net profit was to be given to the Şehremaneti (Municipality). According to the bylaw, the managing bodies of the company under the Ticaret Nezareti were the general board, board of directors, chief of the board and the manager. The minister of trade met with the general board, chairing the meetings, on a routine basis; however, when necessary the minister had the authority to call an emergency meeting of the general board. To change the members of the board of directors first the general board had to vote with a secret ballot, and then the sultan could issue a decree to change the people in these positions. The members of the board, consisting of four members and a chairman, were elected for two years, whereas the chairman was elected for an unspecified period. In addition, there was also a company manager who was salaried. The manager was not a member of the board and was only allowed to attend the meetings to provide information.⁵⁷

When the license was extended on 29 October 1888, the bylaws were updated and the company’s capital was raised to 200,000 lira. The company was not allowed to increase or reduce its capital, or borrow money without permission from the state. The share certificates were registered and could only be purchased by Ottoman citizens. Additionally, a condition was imposed that all of the company employees, with the exception of technical personnel, were to be Ottoman citizens and the ships were to be inspected on an annual basis by a commission formed by the Imperial Shipyard. With these new regulations, the tenure of the chief of the administrative council was limited to four years, the authority of the board was increased and both the company’s contract and conditions of the contract were restructured.⁵⁸ However, the restriction in the new license in transporting passengers and merchandise only on the Bosphorus, and the fact that permission to tow ships sailing into the Black Sea and rescue ships stranded on the shore was not included in the license created opposition from the company executives; as a result the directors appealed to the state requesting the reinstatement of these rights and also permission to construct ports on the Marmara shores from which they could operate ships.⁵⁹ Subsequent developments reveal that the company failed to obtain a positive response to this request.

In relation to the decision by the company to increase the number of ships and repair the existing ships, the license was extended from June 19 1903 for another fifty years.⁶⁰ On October 12, 1910, the regulations of the company were reorganized. In the new regulations, which emphasized that the company was an Osmanlı Anonim Şirketi (Ottoman Limited Company), the condition that all of the shareholders, members of the board of directors and company employees were Ottoman citizens was maintained; only the technical personnel could be citizens of other countries. With the stipulation that the capital was to remain the same, the value of share certificates, which had previously been 20 lira, was reduced to 5 lira; consequently, by raising the number of share certificates to 40,000 the capital was spread out as much as possible. In addition, with a two-thirds majority vote by the shareholders the company now had the right to borrow money to the equivalent of half the capital. Another reform was that the general board was to convene, as other companies did, under the chairmanship of the chief of the board of directors rather than the minister of trade. The company’s affairs were managed by the board of executives, consisting of one general executive and two managers who had been elected by the administrative board. One of the managers was responsible for the operation of the company, the other for supplies, purchasing, storage and maintenance; the chief executive was responsible for the operations and affairs of the company as a whole.⁶¹

Although the regulations introduced in 1910 maintained that shareholders, employees and directors of the company be Ottoman citizens, it can be understood that immediately after World War I topics such as the Osmanlı Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi (Ottoman Maritime Administration) being transformed into a limited company, and the share certificates of Şirket-i Hayriye being transferred to the bearers by increasing the capital became important items on the state agenda. However, Sultan Mehmed Vahideddin’s ideas on the subject differed somewhat from that of the state. The sultan believed that the national identity of such establishments should be preserved, that these companies should not be controlled by foreign capital, and he argued that the share certificates should belong solely to Ottoman citizens.⁶² Despite the sultan’s open views and declarations, it appears that Damat Ferid Pasha’s government persistently kept this topic on the political agenda.⁶³

Company Ships

Over time, the Şirket-i Hayriye, which began operating with six passenger ships built in 1852, expanded the fleet in keeping with requirements and developments. Hüseyin Haki Efendi managed the company almost continuously from the middle of August 1866 until 1895; he was dismissed from this position for a short time in 1875, but when the business began to deteriorate he was called upon to resume the post; this period was certainly one of company’s most successful periods. In addition to increasing the number of ships during this period from sixteen to forty-six, in 1870 the first car ferry, Suhulet, was built according to designs made by English engineers. Hüseyin Haki Efendi sent employees to England, and they brought the specifications back with them. During this period, car ferries capable of sailing in the open seas did not exist in Europe; here car ferries were operated on cables that spanned between the two shores. The English captain who sailed the ship to Turkey reported that the journey had been extremely difficult. The Suhulet conducted its first voyage between Kabataş and Üsküdar; however, as with the boatmen who had previously tried to prevent passenger ships making journeys, it appears that the Üsküdar boats transporting goods between the two shores of the Bosphorus did everything possible to sabotage and prevent the car ferry from sailing. But despite all these difficulties, special ports were constructed to dock the increasing numbers of car ferries.⁶⁴

Later on, a car ferry port was also built at Sirkeci, and this was also included in the transport route.⁶⁵ Propeller driven ships began to replace the paddle steamers from 1900.⁶⁶

There was a company ship that was allocated for high-ranking officials who lived on the Bosphorus; here there were special sections for ministers and other high-ranking officials. Naturally, the fares for transporting these exclusive passengers were relatively higher than that of other ships.⁶⁷ Occasionally, ships carrying numbers of passengers above the normal capacity would run into difficulties; in one such event, the danger only became apparent after the ship had sailed into the open waters. Rowboats were sent out to the ship, and only after some of the passengers had been boarded onto these boats was the ship able to complete its journey. After this incident, a gendarme was assigned to each of the ports to prevent excessive numbers of passengers boarding the ships.⁶⁸

In a decree dated May 12, 1864, it was determined that the Ottoman flag which was flown from the ships should be changed; the new flag would be raised on all commercial ships and those owned by the Şirket-i Hayriye and Hazine-i Hassa.⁶⁹ Although it was forbidden to sell or drink alcohol on the ships, some undesired incidents occurred when those who were running the buffets on the ships had not been warned about this prohibition. As a result, the Ticaret Nezareti and officials from the Zabtiye Müşirliği (Gendarmerie Office) were warned to enforce the ban.⁷⁰ At the same time, as passenger and commercial traffic was increasing daily, the pollution caused by fumes from the coal fuel used by the ships appears to have become a major environmental problem, and began to be reflected in official documents. In fact, it appears that attempts were made to import equipment from Europe to reduce the pollution produced by these ships.⁷¹ Later the use of high quality English coal was made obligatory.⁷²

It was possible for students and security forces who had to travel by sea to do so at reduced rates; a “travel pass” was made available for such passengers.⁷³ Anyone who boarded the ship without a ticket was obliged to pay double the normal fare.⁷⁴ The summer and winter timetables were adjusted according to the working hours of civil servants⁷⁵ and a special timetable was introduced during Ramadan.⁷⁶ Due to the occurrence of unwelcome incidents on the ships and at the ports,⁷⁷ and due to the presence of people harassing women passengers—despite the fact that they travelled in separate sections of the ships—the authorities had to take some precautions. Although the company appealed to the Dahiliye Nezareti (Ministry of Internal Affairs), requesting a police officer to be assigned to each of the ships for safety reasons, the ministry rejected on the claim that there were insufficient numbers of police officers; rather the company was told to inform the nearest police station of any such incidents, and the necessary action would be taken.⁷⁸ On the other hand, due to carelessness on the part of the captains fatal accidents could sometimes occur. The Şura-yı Devlet (Council of State) determined that captains who caused such accidents had to stand trial for murder.⁷⁹

As settlement along the Bosphorus intensified, growing significantly during the years that the Şirket-i Hayriye was operating, the ports and routes which made up the company’s routes increased; however, there were occasional reductions in the routes due to some negative situations, for example political, economic or demographic conditions. Interestingly enough, it appears that in 1864 the Prince Islands and Kadıköy routes, which were part of Fevaid-i Osmaniye licensed zone, were given to the Şirket-i Hayriye; the latter placed an order for two ships from London for these two routes. After operating on these routes for some time, the company withdrew from the Kadıköy route and then from the Prince Islands route, leaving both to Fevaid-i Osmaniye Company.⁸⁰ However, it appears that between May 1868 and July 1869 the company made journeys to the Prince Islands,⁸¹ and on 6 July 1874 the Bahriye Nezareti Meclisi (Council of the Naval Ministry), which managed İdare-i Aziziye, ruled that there was no objection to company ships operating to Gemlik and Mudanya, both of which were within the zone of the İdare’s license.⁸² Despite this, it appears that this decision was not implemented. In 1912, the company expanded its field of activity to as far as Yeşilköy (Santo Stefano).⁸³ During this period, new waiting areas were constructed at the ports on Galata Bridge and the Bosphorus, and the waiting areas on Galata Bridge were also electrically illuminated.⁸⁴

After the license for the Baghdad Railway was given to the Germans, the question of operating ships to Haydarpaşa, the starting point of the route was raised by the company; however, this area was within the zone of İdare-i Mahsusa. As a result of discussions held between İdare-i Mahsusa and Şirket-i Hayriye, Şirket-i Hayriye agreed to split the proceeds from the operation of ships between Beşiktaş and Haydarpaşa between the two companies.⁸⁵ Presumably, the company used small ships on this route due to the number of passengers; however, in bad or stormy weather conditions the journeys on these smaller ships could prove hazardous for the passengers.⁸⁶ The company was not satisfied with these routes alone, and in exchange for the Prince Islands, Moda, Pendik, Maltepe and Yalova routes, all of which were within the zone of İdare-i Mahsusa’s license, the Şirket-i Hayriye proposed purchasing the ships of the other company in 1906, in addition to a payment of 3,000 lira a year to İdare-i Mahsusa.⁸⁷ However, a new decision about the company’s conducting voyages to the Prince Islands, taken by the government in February 1909 indicates that this proposition failed to materialize.⁸⁸

The operation of voyages by the Şirket-i Hayriye to the Prince Islands during this period developed as follows: one day, when İdare-i Mahsusa ship was sailing from the Islands to Istanbul, a problem occurred with the rudder chain. Allegedly some shareholders from the Şirket-i Hayriye, who were on board at the time, took advantage of the opportunity and collected 150 signatures in support of the Şirket-i Hayriye, whose ships were believed to be in a better condition, demanding that this company’s ships replace İdare-i Mahsusa ships on the route to the Islands. At this time, after the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, İdare-i Mahsusa was no longer under the auspices of the Bahriye Nezareti, but was now under the Nafia Nezareti (Ministry of Public Works); Gabriel Noradunkyan Efendi, the minister of public works, who was also the chief of İdare-i Mahsusa and a shareholder in Şirket-i Hayriye, assessed this request and immediately placed it on the government’s agenda.

The government of Kamil Pasha evaluated this request and violated the concessions that had been granted to İdare-i Mahusa by granting the Şirket-i Hayriye permission to operate to the Islands. İdare-i Mahsusa objected to this; the commission that was convened to solve this issue decided that İdare-i Mahsusa’s ships that sailed to the Islands were in a better condition than those of the Şirket-i Hayriye. As a result, İdare-i Mahsusa began operating to the Islands again.⁸⁹ In this way, Şirket-i Hayriye’s second venture in operating a line to the Prince Islands only lasted for a short period, between January and February 1909.

Shipping Activities of the Şirket-i Hayriye

During its long history, the Şirket-i Hayriye was quite naturally affected by the political and economic developments which occurred in Istanbul, in the country and in the market; as a result it sometimes faced the opposition of the people. Indeed, when the government issued banknotes to finance the 1877–1878 Ottoman-Russian war, this not only had an effect on the stability of the market, but also generated problems between the public and company employees due to the high ticket prices. As there were no ticket offices at the ports at this time, tickets were sold to passengers on board; the ticket sellers demanded coins from the passengers instead of banknotes, which were gradually losing their value, or they accepted the banknotes at a lower rate. This naturally led to frequent disputes and problems between passengers and company employees. Even intervention by the state did not help to solve the problem; when the employees on the ferry to Üsküdar only accepted banknotes at a lower rate, the passengers refused to pay. They held a protest in front of the company headquarters.

Source: BOA, İ.DH, no. 19796; BOA, MMS, no. 251; Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, Tarihçe, Sâlname, pp. 33-55.

At the same time, the company tried to raise ticket prices, justifying this move with the instability of the banknote; however, the government overrode this price increase in order to avoid public outcry. Due to such unwelcome circumstances, the company even considered suspending business at one point; after some time it decided to increase fares. The company also increased the salaries of employees, who, due to thirty-percent inflation, were experiencing difficulties.

After the banknotes were withdrawn from the market, the transportation fees were reduced to the rates that had existed before the issuance of the banknote; fares were now collected in coins.⁹⁰ However, the public still considered these prices to be too high and appealed to the government to reduce the fares. The company responded by claiming that the prices were reasonable and suggested that the costs should be calculated by an independent committee. Until this process was completed three ships were allocated to transport poorer members of society below the normal rate, and these ships travelled between the Anatolian and Rumelian sides of the Bosphorus. It was decided that each ship would sail once in the morning and once in the evening.⁹¹ Presumably, the ticket office system was put into operation from the middle of 1881 in order to solve disputes about payment between passengers and ship officials.⁹² This move also helped to prevent possible deceit in ticket sales by workers.

Close examination of Table 1 shows a clear continual increase in the company’s gross income—with the exception of times of war or crisis—that is, it is possible to monitor the economic situation in the country from the company’s financial statement. Indeed, the repercussions of the banknote that was issued at the beginning of the 1860s and was withdrawn from circulation in 1862, and the financial crisis that continued for a year or two more is clearly reflected in the above table. After overcoming this issue, it appears that once again there is an upward trend in the company’s financial statement; this lasts until the Balkan crisis and the 1877–1878 Ottoman-Russian War (93 War). Following the sharp fall in 1876, 1877 and 1878, the company’s financial table began to rise again, even though this was a gradual process. The decline in income experienced during the 93 War was the result of the negative atmosphere in the markets generated by this war, the banknotes reissued by the government in an attempt to finance the war,⁹³ and the devaluation of small coins. After the war, the company’s income returned to normal; however, even though not considerable, the 1897 Ottoman-Greek war had a negative impact on the company’s income statements. After the war, the company’s income continued to increase again until World War I. When comparing Tables 1 and 2, there appears to be a basic a balance between the company’s gross income and the number of passengers transported. However, it should also be pointed out that there is no accurate constant ratio between the number of passengers and profitability. During time of war, the company’s ships were, for the most part, allocated to transport soldiers; the soldiers were transported at a lower rate as part of the agreement with the company. Thus, the number of passengers transported on the ships may not have a direct effect on the company’s income, and, in these terms, the passenger figures may be misleading. As a result, the numbers of passengers transported by the Şirket-i Hayriyye presents a serious increase until 1914, when World War I began; the highest number of passengers can be seen in 1913 with 18,613,453 passengers, the highest figures since the company was established. In the autumn of 1914 the war spread to the Ottoman State, and as the state was at war for several months, there was a significant decline in passenger numbers; however, the true effects of the war only became clear in 1915. In 1915, a total of 9, 670, 259 passengers were transported, a decrease of almost 50 % in comparison to figures prior to the war. In addition to the conditions imposed by the war, another point that should be taken into consideration is that the government commandeered these ships to transport soldiers, and this certainly played a huge role in the decline. Moreover, a significant number were soldiers transported at a reduced rate, and as a result, it is clear that these figures do not reflect the company’s financial reports in a sound manner.

The Şirket-i Hayriyye owned a shipyard that had been built in 1861 in Hasköy; this shipyard mainly dealt with the maintenance and repairs of the ships;⁹⁴ there was also a repair yard in Galata. After the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, ships which had been neglected for a long time were overhauled and repaired; in addition, work began to modernize the Hasköy Shipyard, and waiting rooms were constructed at the ports.⁹⁵ In 1913, there was a total of 887 employees working on the Şirket-i Hayriyye ships, in the ports, repair yards and company headquarters.⁹⁶ The duties and responsibilities of the captains, attendants, laborers, in fact all of the employees, were determined in the bylaws.⁹⁷ Certain regulations regarding issues of social security and pensions for personnel were also undertaken. Based on a clause which appeared in an agreement dated October 29, 1888, and which included establishing a fund that would give employees the right to a pension in exchange for a 4 % deduction in salary, on May 20, 1893 the Şirket-i Hayriye Müstahdeminine Mahsus Tekaüd Sandığı Nizamnamesi (The Regulation for the Şirket-i Hayriye Employees’ Pension Fund) was published; employees who had worked for the company for twenty-five years were now entitled to a monthly pension totaling a third of their salary.⁹⁸ The conditions of retirement were restructured in 1914. Although this was a business aimed at public service, the personnel of the company could call for strike action in an attempt to improve their salaries and working conditions. However, because the government was aware that if the public were inconvenienced by a strike it would be subject to criticism, such actions were not approved of; in fact, the government would intervene whenever necessary to prevent such action. The first known strike attempt by the personnel of the Şirket-i Hayriye occurred at the end of 1870. The captains appealed to the company in December 1878, stating that it was impossible to live on a salary paid in banknotes which continuously decreased in value; the other employees appealed to the company in March 1879, demanding a raise. When these demands were rejected, they went on strike on 20 May. Raşid Bey, chairman of the board for the Şirket-i Hayriye resigned during the great wave of strikes that occurred after the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period; the employees of the Hasköy shipyard went on strike on 24 September 1908, but were forced to abandon these protests when security forces intervened.⁹⁹

The company personnel were not the only ones who were dissatisfied and filed complaints against the Şirket-i Hayriye; it appears that passengers would also protest against the company on occasion to complain about ticket prices. In the context of the social demands voiced following the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, a group of five to six hundred people gathered in front of Üsküdar municipality, protesting against the company and demanding a reduction in ticket prices; the protestors stated that if their demands were not met they would boycott the company. After one and a half hours of protesting, the group dispersed.¹⁰⁰

War and the Şirket-i Hayriye

As stated previously, during times of war the government would use the ships of the Şirket-i Hayriye to transport soldiers and ammunition. According to available data, the ships were first used for this purpose in the 1877–1878 Ottoman-Russian war¹⁰¹ to transport the wounded soldiers and military ammunition; in addition, the company also donated cash, totaling 150,000 kuruş to the government to be spent for military purposes and to help the wounded.¹⁰²

There was a huge influx of immigrants to Istanbul, particularly from the Balkans, after the war. While all sectors of society and the existing institutions were expected to aid these people who had been forced to abandon their homelands due to various difficulties, when information that Şirket-i Hayriye had caused problems in this matter reached Sultan Abdlhamid II, the sultan ordered the government to draw attention to the problem, and to warn these kinds of establishments that they should help the immigrants.¹⁰³

The company’s ships were used for military purposes during the Turco-Italian War and the Balkan Wars; these ships played a significant role in transporting soldiers and ammunition from the Asian to the European side of the Bosphorus, particularly during the Balkan Wars; more than fifteen of the company’s ships were used for these services.¹⁰⁴ As the allocation of ships during the times of war quite naturally restricted the company’s transportation capacity, certain problems, disruptions and congestion occurred. For example, when such congestion arose during the Balkan Wars, representatives of the trade ministry, municipality, ports department, the Şirket-i Hayriye and the Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi convened; they introduced measures that generally restructured transportation in the city and rearranged the ship schedules.¹⁰⁵

During World War I, the government commandeered all means of transport, including horses and mules; they hired a total of seventeen ships from the company. A daily rental for the ships was determined in accordance with an agreement made with the Levazımat-ı Umumiye Dairesi (Department of Public Supplies), and the fuel costs and salaries were to be paid by the company. The ships transported soldiers and ammunition between the ports within the Marmara basin, as well as between Istanbul and Çanakkale, and to ports like İzmit, Bandırma, Lapseki, Gelibolu, Şarköy and Tekirdağ; provisions and coal were transported between Zonguldak, Köstence (Constanta) and Varna. Some of the ships were converted into hospitals and used by the Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti (Red Crescent Society) to treat the wounded. Ten of the ships were sunk in enemy attacks or with striking a mine. After the war, the government formed a committee that included company representatives of the Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi to determine the costs of the sunken, damaged and purchased ships; as a result, it was decided that the Şirket-i Hayriye was to be paid 245,960 lira in compensation for the ships.

The Şirket-i Hayriye, and consequently its employees, experienced difficult times throughout the years of war. In fact, as is clear from Table 2, the company’s pre-war financial chart was relatively positive; however, the company was forced to reduce the number of voyages due to increases in expenses, and in particular, the high cost of coal during the war. In addition, the area on the Bosphorus beyond Yeniköy had been declared a forbidden zone and a significant number of ships had been commandeered for military transport. Following the huge increase in coal prices, the company attempted to reduce its losses by cancelling or reducing voyages on some major routes; however, the operation of so many ships meant an increase in the consumption of coal, leading to even greater losses. As a result, voyages to Kavak were suspended on 8 September 1914, and voyages to Kadıköy were suspended on 26 September.

As the situation became even more difficult, the company reduced the numbers of ships; at one point there were only six passenger ships.

Quite naturally, this caused problems between the public and the Şirket-i Hayriye; the passengers reacted by occasionally protesting against the company. The company changed the timetable frequently in an attempt to reach a compromise; however, despite these adverse conditions, the company refrained from increasing fares until 8 December 1918. Due to successive price increases made by the company within the following year, ticket prices rose by almost 400 %.¹⁰⁶

Civil servants, who were already suffering due to war conditions and inflation, made persistent appeals against such high fares; the government decided that the price increase should not be imposed on civil servants who earned less than 3,001 kuruş and who had to travel by ship; the difference was to be paid by the treasury.¹⁰⁷ The Bosphorus community also joined forces in an attempt to protect their own interests, forming the Boğaziçi Ahalisi Hukukunu Müdafaa Cemiyeti (Association for the Defense of the Rights of Bosphorus Residents), and campaigned against these price increases; although representatives of the association and the company met to discuss the price increases, there was no satisfactory conclusion.¹⁰⁸ In the meantime, the company, whose profits had fallen substantially, was forced to increase the salaries of its employees who were struggling against high costs and inflation.

The Şirket-i Hayriye was an important and reputable company in Istanbul’s transportation network. Although other forms of transport, such as railway, Golden Horn ships, trams and the Tünel began to emerge, it appears that in general the company managed to maintain approximately a 20 share in the city’s public transportation. In fact, in 1897, almost 21 % of the total transportation in the city was conducted by the ships belonging to the Şirket-i Hayriye; this figure was 23 % in 1912, and 18 % in 1913 and 1914.¹⁰⁹ Despite the establishment of the Şirket-i Hayriye and other companies, and the fact that the majority of sea transportation was carried out by these companies, it should also be pointed out that passengers and merchandise were still being transported on small boats and barges between neighboring ports, although this was on a smaller scale. Although incapable of competing in any way with larger ships, and suffering due to large decrease in business, these small boats still managed to survive.

The Şirket-i Hayriye headquarters initially was located in Nafia Han (Inn) in Bahçekapı. Later on the headquarters moved to Mehmet Ali Pasha Han and then to Tuzlayıcı Han in Galata, and then the old Balıkhane building and Kosova Han, which was owned by the Hazine-i Hassa (Imperial Treasury) in Sirkeci; eventually, in 1911, the headquarters moved to a building constructed on land owned by the company on Fermeneciler Street in Galata.¹¹⁰

The Şirket-i Hayriye Ships and Their Features_^*

* Murat Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriyye (1851-1945), İstanbul 2007, pp. 135-137: Ahmet Güleryüz and Hande Yüce, Şirket-i Hayriyye’nin Boğaziçi Vapurları, Istanbul: Denizler Kitabevi, 2002.

TRANSPORT ON THE GOLDEN HORN AND THE HALİÇ SHIP COMPANY

The Haliç (Golden Horn) was formed when the alluvium, carried by the Kağıthane, Alibeyköy and Kasımpaşa streams, filled the basin; this body of water begins between the historical peninsula of Istanbul and Galata, and proceeds inland in the shape of a bow. As the basin filled, it became virtually a swamp, and had always caused problems for rowboats and ferries in approaching the shore, thus making transportation by sea difficult. The area above the Golden Horn has served as a topic for many poems during the Ottoman period, and offered a unique and distinguished residential area, a place for excursions, recreation and entertainment; in particular, the Kağıthane festivals were legendary. This area was also a district that hosted yalı (waterside mansions), pavilions and palaces; the Bahriye Kasrı (Pavilion), which belonged to the sultan and waterside palaces owned by the sultan’s daughters were also located here. At the same time, the Golden Horn was also a natural, sheltered harbor where commercial ships and battleships could anchor. The factory, industrial facilities and caravanserais that were built in this area in the nineteenth century gradually camouflaged the recreational nature of this area, and the waterside mansions and pavilions have sunk into the depths of history.¹¹¹

When the Golden Horn was excluded from the license of the Şirket-i Hayriye, an unknown man named Yusuf Agha applied for the license to transport passengers on the Golden Horn in small ships; with a decree dated 5 Muharram 1273 (6 September 1856), the license was granted to Yusuf Agha. The license was dated from 2 September for a twenty-year period. Presumably, Rodoslu Ahmed Fethi Pasha, marshal of the Imperial Arsenal and husband of Atiye Sultan, Mahmud II’s daughter, embarked in the shipping business on the Golden Horn after this license was granted. There are some claims that when these new ships began sailing on the Golden Horn owners of the smaller boats put up resistance, throwing stones at them and blocking their path in an attempt to prevent the vessels reaching the ports, as well as severing the ropes of the vessels; in brief, they did everything possible to make sure that this venture failed.

Ahmed Fethi Pasha died a short while later; in 1858, this license was granted to Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha, who was married to Cemile Sultan, the daughter of Sultan Abdülmecid. Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha contracted the operation of the ships out to Artin Usta, the demircibaşı (head blacksmith) at the Shipyard; however, in 1862, when Artin Usta returned the contract, even though the operation of the ferries was transferred to another mültezim (tax-farmer), when the complaints from the public about this individual increased, Artin Usta took on the operation of the ships himself. He purchased two ships from London, the Cibali and the Eyüp, increasing the number of vessels to eight. As in the case of Şirket-i Hayriye and Fevaid-i Osmaniye, the Golden Horn ships also carried post within the city; the ships took post three times daily to Ayakapı, Fener, Balat, Ayvansaray, Eyüp, Halıcıoğlu and Hasköy. As mentioned previously, one of the major obstacles in transporting passengers and merchandise in the Golden Horn was the alluvium carried by the streams, which filled the basin; thus ships were unable to approach Kağıthane. At the same time, vessels anchoring randomly in the Golden Horn, which was classified as the Istanbul port, also affected sea traffic; other ships had to pass through the anchored vessels to reach the port, and the smoke produced from the coal used to fuel the vessels polluted the air of the district.

When Serkiz Abraham, an entrepreneur, applied for the license when the twenty-year period was coming to an end, the status of the license was investigated with an examination of government records. The result was somewhat confusing, as there was no registration of Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha’s license in the records at the Ministry of Public Works. This indicates that the license had not been acquired via normal government procedures, but had rather been obtained due to Fethi Pasha’s relationship with the sultan and the palace. On 31 December 1872, Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha’s license was extended for another ten years; in conjunction with this new license it was decided that 5 % of the net profit for each ship, in other words a total of 180 lira, was to be given to the city government, and that the licensee should increase the numbers of ships to eight. The Golden Horn, already restricted in size, had become even more crowded now with the anchoring of the Shipard’s ships and small boats; as a result, a maximum of three ships was permitted to travel between the Galata and Unkapanı bridges at one time, thus preventing any potential accidents.

Because transportation was classified as a public service, the government determined the price of tickets. As in the case of the Şirket-i Hayriye, there was a reduction for students and soldiers on the Golden Horn ships as well.¹¹²

Condition of the Ships

From the time when the Golden Horn ships first began to operate, passengers made many complaints; these complaints frequently found their way into the press. Çıngıraklı Tatar, a satirical magazine, referring to the limited space on the Golden Horn and the close distance between the ports, joked, saying that the ships should be pushed from behind rather than being fueled by coal. In addition, the magazine referred to the separation of the men’s and women’s section with canvas cloth, suggesting that the administration had made the ships out of canvas. The magazine also made fun of the speed of the ships, saying that if they were to race with the barges, the ships would be left behind. Finally, there was criticism regarding overcrowding on the ships, the captains’ high-handed behavior and the irregularity of sailing times.¹¹³

In view of the condition of the ships, the behavior of the employees, and even the passengers, this criticism was well deserved; indeed, the personnel and passengers did not behave in accordance with the regulations when boarding or disembarking; there was a failure to take safety measures in opening the doors of the ship when approaching port; ships were allowed to leave the port before the doors were closed and excessive numbers of passengers were allowed to board ships; all of these led to accidents. Moreover, as night fell before the last ship from Galata Bridge had completed its journey, the ships and ports, which were not insufficiently illuminated, posed difficulties for passengers. Another issue was that passengers polluted the environment, and the ships were not cleaned on a regular basis.

In addition to the above problems, due to the constant change in value of the banknotes that were in circulation during this period there was a general atmosphere of insecurity and confusion; this led to certain problems between the passengers and ship’s personnel, as was the case with the Şirket-i Hayriye and other shipping companies.¹¹⁴ When the banknotes were withdrawn from the market in 1979, these problems began to disappear.

On 13 February1880, Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha transferred the company to an Ottoman citizen, Midillili Panayotaki Korci (M. Courdji & Co) for a six-year term; this was in exchange for 5,000 lira. Courdji purchased four new small vessels from London for 16,060 lira on the condition that this would be paid in monthly installments of 300 lira from the rent of Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha’s ships. In October 1880, the Ayakapı, the first of these vessels to be delivered, was involved in a serious accident; the other two ships, the Defterdar and Mühürdar were delivered to Istanbul in July 1881. The name of Courdji’s company was the Derun-i Köprü Vapurları İdaresi.¹¹⁵

The Arrest of Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha

Damad Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha was exiled to Taif for his alleged involvement in the suspicious death of the dethroned Sultan Abdülaziz; on 22 Dhu al-Hijja 1298 (14 November, 1881) the license was extended until July 1891, and transferred to his wife Cemile Sultan.¹¹⁶ Presumably, the agreement with Courdji was annulled with this change.¹¹⁷ The agreement between Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha and Courdji, and the ships that had been imported from England based upon this agreement became a serious issue between Courdji and Cemile Sultan. Courdji claimed that Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha owed him 9,720 lira, excluding interest; he made two proposals, either he would pay Cemile Sultan 400 lira each month and continue to operate the business until the license expired, or in exchange for renouncing this debt and annulling the agreement, Cemile Sultan would pay Courdji 450 lira on a monthly basis over twelve years. If the second option was accepted, Cemile Sultan would be obliged to pay Courdji 54,000 lira instead of 9,720 lira. However, Cemile Sultan requested that the accounts be inspected thoroughly so the actual amount owed would be clear; she also asked that the ships be handed over to Ziya Bey, the director of the İdare-i Mahsusa.¹¹⁸ Abdülhamid II ordered the formation of a committee with Gazi Osman Pasha, the chamberlain (mabeyn müşiri) and Agop Efendi, the minister of the treasury (hazine-i hassa nazırı).¹¹⁹ As a result of intervention by the committee, an agreement was finally reached between Cemile Sultan and Courdji.¹²⁰

As from 1886, the Golden Horn ships were managed by the Bahriye Nezareti (Naval Ministry) on behalf of Cemile Sultan.¹²¹ Until August 1893, the management of the ships under John Efendi underwent a successful and profitable period. During this period, the ships were repaired and maintained, and a monthly payment of 600 lira was given to Cemile Sultan in lieu of the license.

If the figures in the report prepared by Ferid Bey, deputy of the Emlak-i Hümayun İdaresi (Administration of Imperial Real Estate) are reliable, from 12 September 1893, the capital of the company rose to 51,852 lira;¹²² however, after this period the profit-loss table is in the red once again. The report prepared by the committee which was formed in 1907 by the minister of the navy, Mehmed Celal Pasha, reveals a grim reality; there were nine vessels, one of which was wooden, with the other eight being steel; the newest ship was twenty-eight years old, and the oldest was forty-five years old. The wooden ship had rotted, while the steel vessels were corroded and had been patched; the boilers had lost power.¹²³

The report prepared by the İmalat Komisyonu (Commission of Manufacture), dated 13 January 1908, reveals that the assets of the administration had fallen to 22,963 lira after 1893, that there were difficulties in paying Cemile Sultan’s share as well as the salaries of the employees, and the company had incurred substantial debts, amounting to 13,578 lira. That is, the total loss was now 42,467 lira, meaning that almost all of the capital had been consumed. According to the committee members, who believed that the problem was due to poor management, if the existing executives remained in their positions, then the vessels would inevitably stop operating and the company would lose all of its capital.¹²⁴

The assessment by the Armenian interpreter Feyzullah Efendi also supports this striking claim; Feyzullah Efendi was of the opinion that almost all of the vessels were in need of repair. He also states that the journey by ship between the Galata Bridge and Eyüp took two hours.¹²⁵

The Freezing of the Golden Horn

The winter of 1893 was extremely severe in Istanbul; it hit the Balkans, North America, indeed the entire northern hemisphere, hard. In the fierce storm that began in January and continued for many days, six small boats and one barge sunk in Eyüp; No. 9 Haliç ship ran ashore close to the ministry of finance; the ropes of No. 5, which had been tied up in Eyüp, were severed and the ship was swept away; in general, there was substantial disruption in shipping services. The heavy snow which continued in Istanbul during the last twenty days of January fell even harder after 4 February; the Şirket-i Hayriye, İdare-i Mahsusa, Haliç ships and the Anatolian Railway Company were forced to suspend many services. The strong winds also caused several maritime accidents. On February 6, certain parts of the Golden Horn began to freeze over; the shore areas between Cibali Tobacco Factory and Kasımpaşa froze over; Kağıthane Stream also froze and small boats were unable to sail for several days.

On February 71893 when the Golden Horn froze and voyages were disrupted due to the severe cold, sailors were boarded on rowboats and broke the ice; even then it was only possible for a few journeys to be made from Eyüp to Ayvansaray in the morning. The mayor, Rıdvan Pasha, relates how he walked from Eyüp to Sütlüce on the ice; this indicates the severity of the ice and cold. In fact the thickness of the ice was 10 cm. in certain places. The area from Kâğıthane and Silahtarağa to Hasköy and Ayvansaray froze overnight. The coastal sections of the Fener, Ayakapı, Cibali and Unkapanı ports and the area between the posts that that the Şirket-i Hayriye and İdare-i Mahsusa vessels used to approach the Galata Bridge also froze. Ice scraped the copper plating on the keel of ship No. 6, which had departed from Eyüp in the morning; the ship was only able to go as far as Yemiş Port. When the Golden Horn froze in just a few hours, vessels like rowboats, small boats and sailings boats were unable to sail for a number of hours. Yakup Efendi, captain of ship No. 3, rescued soldiers who had been stranded in a rowboat close to the Fener coast and were on the verge of freezing to death. The ice also caused disruption in sea traffic on the following day, and food was transported to naval ships that were anchored in the Golden Horn by breaking the ice with axes. The Mecidiye, deployed by the naval ministry, sailed in a circular motion in the water in an attempt to prevent more icing over the Golden Horn. The ice was extremely thick, particularly in the area between Eyüp and Sütlüce. There are reports that on February 8 people crossed to the other side by walking over the ice. Due to the severity of the cold, İstinye, Moda and Büyükdere bays froze over. As the weather gradually became warmer, life in Istanbul began to return to normal.¹²⁶

Establishment of the Haliç Ship Company

Amidst the liberal, or to be more precise chaotic, atmosphere created by the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, people living along the Golden Horn found the opportunity to voice their complaints regarding the ships and management more freely; in a joint petition by passengers who had been forced to wait for the ships, which, in unfavorable conditions, failed to comply with the timetable, it was stated that that the country may have attained liberty with the Constitution, yet, it was stated ironically, people had not yet been liberated from the shipping company. The petition also stated that people’s lives were under threat and they were obliged to travel in ships with broken windows. Complaints were not restricted to passengers alone, the personnel of the ships also complained about the management; in a complaint petition submitted by the personnel on 10 December 1908, Celaleddin Bey, Cemile Sultan’s son, was held responsible for the huge circle of waste and corruption. The poor state of the ships was mentioned, and it was stated that the ships had been operated without a permit or license since 1891; this situation was the result of bribery.

In view of these complaints, Gabriel Noradunkyan Efendi, the minister of Public Works, investigated the issue; he admitted that the ships really had been operating for eighteen years without a license and that the people were justified in their complaints. He also made a proposal to the grand vizier about initiating a new tender. The ships were now to be run by an incorporated company.¹²⁷

After the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, the naval ministry returned the management of the ships to Cemile Sultan; however, Celaleddin Bey, Cemile Sultan’s son, turned away the delegation that came to inspect the ships upon the large number of complaints. Cemile Sultan was extremely disturbed about the license being discussed publically; however, as this was all in the past and times had changed, the government commissioned the ministries of trade and public works to initiate a new tender; in addition, certain precautions were taken to ensure that there would be no delays in the transportation of passengers and merchandise. Six applications were submitted at the end of the one-month application period for the tender that had been opened by the ministries of trade and public works; however there was an obligation that the tender meet certain conditions and the government did not consider this to be appropriate; as a result, the decision was taken to reoffer the tender. Cemile Sultan, who submitted the most favorable proposal in the second tender, acquired the operation of the business for a term of forty years. The license returned eighty-six percent of the net profits acquired by the future company to the municipality, and members of the board of directors were to be Ottoman citizens;¹²⁸ the sultan approved this on 29 November 1909.

The coal and other materials used on the ships and in the ports belonging to the company were exempt from all taxes with the exception of municipal taxes; the company was only liable for stamp duties for the issued share certificates and bonds. According to the agreement, on the expiry of the license, all the company’s ships, ports, and equipment were to be handed over to the government in good condition, without any debt and free of charge. Separate passenger halls were to be constructed for men and women on the ships and in the ports; the ships had to be capable of travelling at least 8 mph. The company had a number of obligations, including that it should own at least twenty ships, that the passengers boarded would not exceed the capacity of the vessel that timetables should be prepared which showed departure times, and that journeys were to be conducted in compliance with these timetables.

As before, the fares were to be determined according to status.¹²⁹

Cemile Sultan, who acquired the license decree on 16 Dhu al-Qa‘da (30 November1909), transferred all her rights to the Haliç Vapurlar Şirketi (Société des Bateaux de la Corne d’Or), which was formed as a limited company; on May 7, 1910 the company bylaws came into force. The company, whose name was determined as the Haliç Vapurlar Şirketi in the bylaw, was also referred to in other documents as the Haliç Vapurları Şirket-i Osmaniyesi, Halic-i Dersaadet Vapurları Osmanlı Anonim Şirketi and Haliç Şirketi, Halic-i Dersaadet Vapurları Şirketi. However, the letterhead carried the name Halic-i Dersaadet Vapurları Osmanlı Anonim Şirketi. Prince Celaleddin Bey, the son of Cemile Sultan, chaired the first administrative council; Devlet Bey, Kozkapaşazade Kozma Bey, the lawyer Narliyan Misak Efendi, Konstantine Lambeki Efendi, Eleksan Eleksanyan and Nikola Tilyodi Efendi contrıbuted to the capital for the company, which amounted to 100,000 lira. The share certificates were registered and could only be sold to Ottoman citizens.¹³⁰ The implementation of issuing a pass for travel, which had existed from the beginning of the Haliç ships,¹³¹ also continued during the operation of this company; the company transported students, soldiers, police and municipality officers for ten para (one para being equal of one-fourth of one kuruş).

Change in Company Bylaws

80 % of the company’s net profit went to the city municipality; however, as the company continuously declared an official loss, no payments were made. The city municipality had no authority to inspect the company accounts,¹³² and under these conditions there were two options: either it was to trust the figures issued by the company and accept the conditions, or it needed to obtain authority to inspect the company accounts. The mayor Cemil Topuzlu informed the Dahiliye Nezareti (Ministry of Internal Affairs) of the situation, and requested authorization to organize purchasing transactions.¹³³After this request, a change was made in the company legislation and 8 % of the yearly gross revenue would be paid to the municipality. Thus it was no longer relevant whether the company made a profit or a loss; a predetermined portion of the company’s income was to be paid to the municipality; in addition, the municipality was granted the authority to have an inspector present when tickets were stamped, as well as one in the company to inspect the income. In exchange for these concessions granted to the municipality, the company was allowed to increase its capital to 150,000 lira and the bonds from 50,000 lira to 75,000 lira; share certificates were now in the names of the bearers and permission was also granted for the employment of three foreign employees to work in administrative and technical services. All of these points came into effect with the ratification dated April 8 1913.¹³⁴ The condition which stipulated that all of the share certificates were to belong to Ottoman citizens was abolished, and the company’s shares were now open to foreign investment; these were mainly purchased by Italians. The company increased the capital by withdrawing bonds that had previously been issued, a total of 50,000 lira,¹³⁵ and replacing these with share certificates valuing 50,000 lira.¹³⁶

Although the company acquired authorization to increase its capital on 26 September 1914 after appealing to the government,¹³⁷ amidst the strain of the ever-deteriorating political and economic conditions, the company never exercised this right.

The status and working conditions of company employees was defined under the Haliç Vapurları Şirketi Memurin ve Müstahdemin Nizamnamesi (Regulation for the Officials and Employees of Company of Haliç Steamships) that came into force on 17 May 1913.¹³⁸ The holiday and vacation periods varied according to the employee’s position. For example, captains and crew were allowed a day off every eight days, machinists every four, stokers every two days, dock-men, ticket issuers and port control officials were allowed a day off every ten days. The personnel were given an annual 14-day paid vacation. The personnel who were in contact with the public and obliged to wear a uniform, such as captains, crew, employees, dock-men, inspectors and ticket issuers, were forbidden to leave their posts without permission, be disrespectful to the public or their superiors, drink alcohol, be involved in acts of corruption or to gamble.¹³⁹

A retirement fund was formed under the Haliç Vapurları Şirketi Memurinin Tekaüd Sandığı Nizamnamesi (Regulation for the Retirement Fund for the Officials of the Company of Haliç Steamships); this would provide company employees, their spouses and children with a state pension. But the company would not return the 5 % deductions from the personnel’s salary, even when the company dismissed an individual before his retirement. Personnel who were employed in the company for ten years but unable to work physically or psychologically, would be granted an invalid pension, if they provided two medical reports. The spouses and children of personnel who had reached the retirement age of sixty-five were included in this social security system. Employees who wanted to marry after the age of fifty, or those who intended to marry a woman fifteen years or younger than themselves were obliged to obtain permission from the company. In such cases, it was possible for the company to increase the contributions already deducted from the employee’s salary.¹⁴⁰ Presumably the reason for this was that the intended spouse would live longer, and therefore the company would be obliged to pay the retirement pension over a longer period. During the same period, the company formed the Haliç Vapurları Şirketi Memurinin Muavenet-i Tıbbiye ve Teavün Sandıği (Medical Aid and Solidarity Fund for the Officials of the Haliç Company of Steamships) to treat employees involved in accidents or those who were ill. It was proposed that a 2 % deduction be made from the personnel’s salary to form the capital for this fund.¹⁴¹

World War I

On January 30, 1911 the company put three of the twelve double-propeller vessels that had been ordered in 1910 from the Caesar Wollheim Company, based in Breslau, into service. These were small ships with flat bottoms, which were capable of sailing under bridges as they had no masts and a telescopic funnel. During the early period, the Haliç ships had names like Ayakapı, Rodos, Defterdar, Mühürdar, Cibali or Eyüp; the ships were identified by both names and numbers that were written on the front of the ships in the 1870s, and by numbers alone from the 1890s onwards. The ships sailed between fifteen ports, including Galata Bridge, Balıkpazarı, Yemiş, Kasımpaşa, Cibali, Ayakapı, Fener, Balat, Hasköy, Ayvansaray, Halıcıoğlu, Defterdar, Sütlüce, Eyüp and Kağıthane. The numbers of ports varied occasionally, according to demand and population density in certain areas.

In 1913, the number of vessels was increased to fourteen. During World War I, the government leased many ships from the Haliç Vapurları Şirketi, Şirket-i Hayriye and Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi to transport soldiers and ammunition. Ships No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 were leased; No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 14 were sunk, but No. 3 and No. 13 were later recovered and put into service again. The company, which faced hardship due to the measures enforced by the government, experienced great difficulty in continuing transportation services, while it was subjected to constant pressure from the government to increase the number of voyages. Due to the crowds of passengers at peak time in the mornings and evenings, the ships were forced to carry passengers above the normal capacity. Another matter that caused difficulty for the company during the war was obtaining coal for the ships. Coal was difficult to find, and the price was continuously increasing. On the other hand, at the beginning of the war, on 14 November 1914 when the company increased the ticket prices by ten para, hundreds of people appealed to the government to repeal this hike in prices; the government forced the company to return to the former price.¹⁴²

The war proved to be extremely difficult period for both the company and employees, nevertheless, the company not only gave the personnel, who were greatly affected by inflation and high prices, two 20 % salary increases, one in 1916 and one in 1917, but also gave every employee a salary bonus. The company, in an attempt to survive this difficult period and in view of soaring prices and increases in expenditure, made a request to increase ticket prices; however, the government rejected this. Another threat to the company was posed by the return of the ships, which had been commandeered by the government during the war; this threatened another increase in monthly losses, which had already reached 4,000–5,000 lira. The operation of more ships meant an increase in coal consumption.¹⁴³ The company executives stated that a third of the company’s capital had been lost, that the banks refused to give credit and that it was not possible to maintain the ships due to a lack of funds. As a result they wanted to increase fares by a factor of four; in addition, it was requested that 40,000 lira of the 85,000 lira debt owed by the treasury to the company for ships commandeered during the war be paid in advance, and the remainder in installments. However, the government decided that the fares should only be doubled and that 25,000 lira of the debt would be paid.¹⁴⁴ Due to the prices of coal, which had been between sixty and seventy kuruş per ton prior to the war, increasing to between twenty-five and thirty lira, and the continuous devaluation of the banknote, there was a monthly deficit in the company budget of almost 4,000 lira. The ticket fares were doubled;¹⁴⁵ however, because inflation continued, almost six months later the company was forced to request yet another fare increase from the government, and after obtaining a favorable response the company raised the ticket prices to five kuruş.¹⁴⁶ When the coal prices fell after the end of World War I, the company decreased the price on certain routes that had few passengers.¹⁴⁷

Numbers of Passengers Transported by the Company and Income-Expenditure Accounts

The numbers of passengers transported by Haliç Vapurları Şirket-i increased every year until World War I, and as was the case with the Şirket-i Hayriye, reached the highest levels in the history of the company in 1913; however, due to the outbreak of war and the government commandeering some vessels, a sharp fall occurred in the numbers of passengers transported by the company. In 1915, the company witnessed the lowest level in the Ottoman period.

In 1911 and 1912, the income and expenses of the company were almost the same. The accounts for 1913, corresponding with the period immediately before World War I, were closed with a net profit of 11,284 lira, and the municipality was paid a revenue of 4,547 lira. The company’s fleet numbered fifteen ships, most of which were new vessels. In addition, an order was given to Rotterdam for ships No. 17 and No. 18, which were to be paid by credit. The problems experienced after World War I not only had a negative impact on Haliç Vapurlar Şirketi, but also all the other companies involved in sea transportation. Due to economic loss and the poverty generated by the war, the population of Istanbul had been greatly reduced. With the outbreak of war, huge price increases in coal, the main item of expenditure, and difficulty in obtaining coal began to place a huge strain on the company.

1917 also proved to be a difficult year for the company; but even though at one stage, the number of passenger ships was reduced to two, the number of passengers transported on these vessels increased in comparison to the previous year. However, because half these passengers were soldiers who travelled at a reduced rate, this increase was not reflected in the company’s financial accounts. The accounts for 1921 reveal a profit of 14,986 lira; in addition, the fall in coal prices, which had begun after the end of the war, continued. On the other hand, an agreement was reached between the naval ministry regarding the commandeered ships; however, as the Ottoman State was abolished before the accounts were settled, discussions continued with representatives of the new government.¹⁴⁸

Undoubtedly, the main problem faced by the ships in passenger transportation in the Golden Horn was the alluvium carried to the estuary by the Kağıthane and Kasımpaşa streams; this prevented vessels from reaching the ports. Another cause of the pollution in the Golden Horn was waste from the wood and coal depots of the industrial plants which had been built in the area from the nineteenth century, as well as the waste and debris collected by the municipality, which they also emptied into the Golden Horn. In addition to taking precautionary measures in an attempt to solve this serious problem, the government also conducted several operations to clean up the silt caused by the alluvium deposit. Opening wood and coal depots on the shores of the Golden Horn, and emptying waste into the Golden Horn were banned; unlicensed factories were closed down, and facilities were forced to take measures to prevent polluting the water.¹⁴⁹ In addition, the Golden Horn was cleaned by dredgers and rotating buckets, and the mud removed from the sea was loaded onto barges and transported to deeper areas of the sea; in this way the dredgers deepened the inlet and opened channels so that ships could pass. This operation was repeated on a periodic basis.

With the outbreak of war, the company, which had proved successful in terms of passenger figures and income before World War I, experienced difficult times due to inflation, instability of the markets and rises in expenditure; in addition, the commandeering and leasing of a significant number of ships by the government, meant that the company found it difficult to carry out transportation services and was caught between the demands of the public and the government. Passenger complaints about the company, about subjects like untidiness and the insufficiency of ships and ports, as well as the treatment of passengers by personnel, the irregularity of departure times, the poor condition of the ships and their slow speed increased. The slow speed of the ships, commonly known as ip vapurları, ip being a shortening of the word Eyüp,¹⁵⁰ even become a part of Istanbul’s daily colloquial language. In fact, Ahmad Rasim wrote that the media of the period used the words Eyüp Vapuru to signify slowness and idleness, and reflects this situation as follows:¹⁵¹

During those times, two forms of transportation appeared as phrases to define slowness and idleness: these appeared in both the media and in conversation. These were the tramways on land and the Eyüp ships at sea. When such a phrase appeared in an issue of a satirical magazine, such as Hayal, Çaylak or Karagöz, the tramway driver or captain would be yelling out in fear: “Move over! Captain move to the right!” The sarcastic answer would be “Catch up if you can!”

Again, in a cartoon sketch in the Çıngıraklı Tatar magazine, a dock-man on the Karaağaç ship dangles a rope to an old boatman calling out “Old man, don’t tire yourself; tie this to your boat” offering to tow the boat. The elderly man replies “Thanks son! Another time, I am in a hurry today,” thus implying that his small boat was faster than the ship.¹⁵²

Modern sea transport in Istanbul may have been initiated with the purchase of the British Swift (Sağir) by Sultan Mahmud II in 1828; however, this was only the beginning, and with the purchase of more ships, the importation of engines from England and construction of vessels in Istanbul, the numbers of ships used in the Shipyard gradually increased. When these ships began to replace small boats that were the traditional means of sea transportation, the quality of Istanbul’s urban transportation system changed drastically. These developments were followed by some foreign entrepreneurs who towed boats that were to sail in the Black Sea, justifying this with the capitulation; these foreign businessmen went even further and started transporting passengers on ships along the Bosphorus. The government, unable to prevent this situation, despite it being contrary to international law, in 1844 began to offer transportation for passengers and merchandise on the Bosphorus with ships owned by the Shipyard. In time, the Şirket-i Hayriye and Haliç ships were issued licenses and the private sector became involved in all major developments of Istanbul’s sea transportation. Again, the voyages launched between Istanbul and local or distant places by companies that were later to be continued as Fevaid-i Osmaniye and İdare-i Mahsusa can also be assessed within this context. Following the declaration of the Second Constitutional Period, new maritime companies were established by the private sector. The Turkish Republic inherited almost all of these companies and administrations, and some of these even constituted a structure for the companies and establishments that operate today. In fact, the Istanbul Şehir Hatları Vapurları (İstanbul Deniz Otobüsleri-Istanbul Sea Buses) which operates today was established based on the historical structures of Şirket-i Hayriye and Haliç Vapurları Şirketi, while the Türkiye Denizcilik İşletmeleri (Turkey Maritime Facilities) was established on the model of the İdare-i Mahsusa.

The outlines of this venture, provided here, clearly reveals that this transportation sector that mainly served the public was greatly influenced by state decisions and the political-economic conditions of the time. Whether this was directly governed by state institutions like the İdare-i Mahsusa, or by companies like the Şirket-i Hayriye - which although having shareholders, these were mainly statesmen, and included Sultan Abdülmecid and Mustafa Reşid Pasha, and thus was under the protection of the state - or whether these were companies established by the private sector, as in the case of Haliç Vapurlar Şirketi, the situation remained the same.

The personnel working in these companies which served the public were not able to go on strike; indeed, the government enforced severe restrictions on strikes in this business, particularly after the wave of strikes in 1908, to prevent disruption in a public service of such importance. Moreover, in situations such as war and natural disasters, the companies had to assign both the personnel and ships to serve the government. Although the government paid a predetermined fee in exchange for these services and compensated the companies when ships were damaged, it is clear that severe disruption occurred in public transportation due to the commandeering of ships by the government, and disputes often occurred between the public and executives of the shipping company. The financial statements of shipping companies operating in Istanbul prove that these periods of war and crisis were extremely difficult periods. Another point to be emphasized was that companies such as the Şirket-i Hayriye and the Haliç Vapurlar Şirketi provided a certain amount of their annual income to the Istanbul Municipality, which desired an independent income, like other modern municipalities.

Any doubt surrounding the establishment date of the Şirket-i Hayriye, a company in the heart of Istanbul’s intra-city marine transportation, has been eliminated with this study, and clarified based on documentation which states that the company was in fact established in the autumn of 1850. In addition, a number of issues have been brought to light for the first time in this article; these include the fact that the infrastructure was insufficient for passenger transportation by ship in Istanbul and the Bosphorus, that there were no ports at which the ships could dock in the 1840s, nor were there waiting areas for the passengers, that ships were unable to dock on the shore and had to anchor in the open sea, that passengers were transported to the shore in rowboats, and Muslim women were banned from boarding intra-city passenger ships by the government for almost ten years due to a lack of separate sections for males and females in the ports and on the ships.

As a result, it should be pointed out that regulations introduced in the field of maritime transport in Istanbul after the Tanzimat led to an extensive experience and knowledge accumulation both in economic and social fields of the private transportation companies and state-owned ship administration that were inherited by the Turkish Republic.

FOOTNOTES

1 For more detailed information regarding the purchase of this ship and its features, see: Levent Düzcü, “Yelkenliden Buharlıya Geçişte Osmanlı Denizciliği: 1825-1855”, Phd thesis, Gazi University, 2012, pp. 200-203.

2 For the work entitled Eser-i Hayr, which is concerned with the building of ships and lowering them into the sea, see the work: Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 159 (18 January1838/21 Shawwal 1253), pp. 1-2.

3 BOA, A.AMD, 40/91 (2 October 1852/17 Zilhicce 1268).

4 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye: Tarihçe, Salname, Istanbul: Ahmed İhsan ve Şürekası, 1330, p. 2.

5 BOA, İ.DH, no. 913 (15 December 1842/12 Zilkade 1258).

6 BOA, İ.DH, no. 4162 (27 January 1844/6 Muharrem 1260); Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, nr. 266 (29 Muharrem 1260), pp. 1-2; Ahmed Lutfî Efendi, Târih, Istanbul: Mahmud Bey Matbaası, 1306, vol. 7, p. 84.

7 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13315 (November 24. 1850/19 Muharrem 1267).

8 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 5212 (July 9, 1850/28 Şaban 1266).

9 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13077 (September 30 1850/23 Zilkade 1266).

10 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 11672; Adolphus Slade, Kaptan Paşa, tr. Osman Öndeş, Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları, 1973, p. 80; Théophile Gautier, İstanbul, tr. Nurullah Berk, Istanbul: İstanbul Kitaplığı, undated p. 201.

11 BOA, İ.HR, no. 4997 (September 5, 1853/1 Zilhicce 1269).

12 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 11672 (November 15, 1853/13 Safer 1270).

13 Sema Küçükalioğlu, “İdare-i Mahsusa, Kuruluşu, Faaliyetleri ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Etkileri”, postgraduate thesis, Marmara University, 1999, p. 24 etc.

14 Abdülahad Nuri, Türkiye Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi Tarihçesi, Istanbul: Ahmed İhsan ve Şürekası, 1926, p. 14.

15 Cerîde-i Havâdis, no. 1125 (5 January 1863/14 Rajab 1279), p. 1. Whereas Ahmed Lutfî Efendi gives the establishment date of Fevaid-i Osmaniye as Hijri (Islamic calendar) 1281, in other words 1864 (Târih, prepared by Münir Aktepe, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, vol.10, p. 125).

16 BOA, C.NF, 1/41.

17 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain Idaresi, pp. 31-33.

18 Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, pp. 34-41.

19 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, pp. 29-30.

20 Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, pp. 79-81.

21 Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, pp. 93-97.

22 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, pp. 65-70; Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, pp. 117-122.

23 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, pp. 69-74, 79-81, 95.

24 Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, p. 127.

25 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, p. 21.

26 Ercüment Kuran, “XIX. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Deniz Ulaşımı: ‘İdare-i Mahsusa’nın Kuruluşu ve Faaliyetleri”, Çağını Yakalayan Osmanlı, ed. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu and Mustafa Kaçar, Istanbul İslam Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür Araştırma Merkezi, 1995, p. 162.

27 Lutfî, Târih, prepared by Münir Aktepe, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1989, vol. 12, p. 91; Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, p. 43.

28 Ali Akyıldız, Osmanlı Dönemi Tahvil ve Hisse Senetleri, Istanbul: Türk Ekonomi Bankası, 2001, pp. 204-205.

29 Akyıldız, Tahvil ve Hisse Senetleri, pp. 212-213.

30 Akyıldız, Tahvil ve Hisse Senetleri, pp. 208-209.

31 Lutfî, Târih, prepared by Münir Aktepe, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1984, vol. 9, p. 40.

32 Cevdet Paşa, Tezâkir 40 Tetimme, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1967, pp. 44-45.

33 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13077; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 436 (15 November 1850/10 Muharrem 1267), pp. 1-2.

34 For a copy of the license decree, see: BOA, İ.DH, no. 13579 (16 January 1851/13 Rebiülevvel 1267); BOA, YEE, 94/21. Also see: Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 443 (26 February 1851/24 Rebiülahir 1267), p. 1.

35 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13579 (16 January 1851); Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 441 (29 January 1851/26 Rebiülevvel 1267), pp. 2-3.

36 Cerîde-i Havâdis, nr. 509 (7 December 1850/2 Safar 1267), p. 2.

37 Lutfî, Târih, vol. 9, pp. 39-41.

38 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13629 (7 February 1851/5 Rebiülahir 1267). For information regarding the prices and capacity of the ships ordered, see: BOA, İ.DH, no. 13579 (16 February 1851).

39 BOA, İ.DH, no. 13810 (14 March 1851/11 Cemaziyelevvel 1267); BOA, A.AMD, 30/26; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 445 (1 April 1851/29 Cemaziyelevvel 1267), p. 3.

40 Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 436 (15 November 1850/10 Muharrem 1267), p. 2.

41 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 8142 (1 April 1852/10 Cemaziyelahir 1268).

42 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 7419.

43 BOA, A.MKT.NZD, 117/82.

44 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 7310 (August 25, 1851/27 Şevval 1267).

45 BOA, İ.DH, no. 14744 (November 11, 1851/16 Muharrem 1268).

46 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 7875.

47 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 7875 (January 3 1852/10 Rebiülevvel 1268). For a copy see. Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, pp. 139-143.

48 Takvîm-i Vekâyi, no. 465 (March 14, 1852/22 Cemaziyelevvel 1268), p. 2.

49 BOA, A.AMD, 40/91 (October 2, 1852/17 Zilhicce 1268).

50 BOA, İ.DH, no. 17499 (September 20, 1853/16 Zilhicce 1269). It is clear from this document that the company purchased one of its first ships from the French, at a price of almost 5,000 lira. Also see. BOA, İ.MVL, no. 13038 (August 10, 1854/16 Zilkade 1270).

51 BOA, İ.MMS, no. 2 (November 29, 1853/27 Safer 1270).

52 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 12968 (July 1, 1854/5 Şevval 1270).

53 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 13782 (February 1, 1855/13 Cemaziyelevvel 1271).

54 BOA, İ.MVL, no. 12112 (March 1, 1854/1 Cemaziyelahir 1270).

55 BOA, İ.DH, no. 23935 (December 2, 1856/4 Rebiülahir 1273). It is clear from this document that the board of directors was comprised of seven people including the manager.

56 BOA, İ.DH, no. 29593 (November 28, 1859/3 Cemaziyelevvel 1276).

57 Düstur, First edition, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Dairesi Müdürlüğü , 1295, vol. 4, 470-477; Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, pp. 144-149; Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-i Belediyye, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1995, vol 5, pp. 2295-2302.

58 BOA, İ.MMS, no. 4297 (October 29, 1888/23 Safer 1306).

59 BOA, İ.DH, no. 87493 (January 29 1889/27 Cemaziyelevvel 1306).

60 BOA, İ.TNF, 22/19 (September 29, 1910/24 Ramazan 1328).

61 BOA, İ.TNF, 22/19 (September 29, 1910/24 Ramazan 1328).

62 BOA, İ.DUİT, 17/47 (19 July 1919).

63 For decisions by Damad Ferid Pasha’s government on this the topic, see: BOA, MV, 220/58, 220/131 (4 September 1920).

64 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, p. 19.

65 BOA, Y.PRK.ASK, 158/15 (January 31, 1900/19 Kanunisani 1315).

66 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, p. 24.

67 BOA, İ.DH, no. 20628 (April 27, 1855/9 Şaban 1271).

68 BOA, A.MKT.NZD, 186/42 June 15, 1856/11 Şevval 1272).

69 BOA, İ.DH, no. 36200 (May 12, 1864/5 Zilhicce 1280).

70 BOA, A.MKT.MHM, no. 417/30.

71 BOA, ŞD, 2/5 (April 19, 1871/28 Muharrem 1288).

72 BOA, Y.MTV, 298/118 (June 6, 1907/24 Rebiülahir 1325).

73 BOA, DH.EUM.THR, 31/20 (March 14, 1910/1 March 1326).

74 BOA, DH.MKT, 1185/14 (July 22, 1907/9 July 1323); BOA, İ.DUİT, 36/14.

75 BOA, MV, 140/103 (June 6, 1910/27 Cemaziyelevvel 1328); BOA, DH.İD, 130/8 (24 July 1329).

76 BOA, MV, 143/23 (August 18, 1910/11 Şaban 1328).

77 BOA, ZB, 601/63 (December 24, 1908/11 Kanunievvel 1324).

78 BOA, DH.EUM.THR, 31/52 (7 September 1908/10 Şaban 1326); 55/48 (17 Teşrinisani (November) 1326); 57/41 (18 Kanunievvel 1326).

79 BOA, ŞD, 2/18 (29 August 1871/12 Cemaziyelahir 1288).

80 Küçükalioğlu, İdare-i Mahsusa, p. 54.

81 Şirket-i Hayriye sailed to the Princes’ Islands more due to an imposition from the state; the company conducted the voyages to the Islands with an insufficient number of ships, until those ordered from the Tersane arrived. (Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, p. 19-20).

82 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, pp. 40-41.

83 Murat Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye 1851-1945, Istanbul: İDO, 2007, p. 117.

84 Bayram Camcı-Cezmi Zafer-Şükrü Yaman, Türk Deniz Ticareti ve Türkiye Denizcilik İşletmeleri Tarihçesi, Istanbul: Türkiye Denizcilik İşletmeleri, 1994, vol. 1, p. 187.

85 BOA, İ.HUS, 107/54 (July 13, 1903/17 Rebiülahir 1321); BOA, İ.TNF, 14/31 (26 Şevval 1323).

86 BOA, Y.MTV, 303/158 (November 26, 1907/20 Şevval 1325).

87 BOA, Y.MTV, 283/57 (January 13, 1906/17 Zilkade 1323).

88 BOA, MV, 124/39 (February 1, 1909/10 Muharrem 1327).

89 Abdülahad Nuri, Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi, pp. 63-64.

90 Ali Akyıldız, Para Pul Oldu, Istanbul: İletişim, 2003, pp. 275-281.

91 BOA, İ.MMS, no. 2904 (May 12, 1879/20 Cemaziyelevvel 1296).

92 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, p. 26.

93 BOA, İ.ŞD, no. 2876 (September 25, 1880/20 Şevval 1297).

94 The operation to deepen the Hasköy Tersane and the front of the Tersane cost a total of 101,463 kuruş. (BOA, İ.MVL, no. 22280 (September 21, 1863/7 Rebiülahir 1280).

95 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, pp. 30-31.

96 Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye, p. 84.

97 For the bylaws that state in detail the duties of the company’s employees, see: Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, pp. 180-219.

98 BOA, İ.KAN, 1/17 (May 20, 1893/4 Zilkade 1310); Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye, p. 62.

99 Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye, p. 65 etc.

100 BOA, ZB, 330/154 (March 7, 1909/22 February 1324).

101 BOA, İ.DH, no. 70576 (June 5, 1883/24 May 1299).

102 BOA, İ.DH, no. 61392 (July 23, 1877/12 Receb 1294).

103 BOA, İ.DH, no. 71267 (September 25, 1883/23 Zilkade 1300).

104 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, pp. 31-32.

105 BOA, DH.İD, 75-1/75 (October 20, 1912/9 Zilkade 1330).

106 Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye, pp. 73-80, 85.

107 BOA, İ.DUİT, 117/77 (15 December 1918).

108 Murat Koraltürk, “Boğaziçi Ahalisinin Hukukunu Müdâfaa Cemiyeti, Şirket-i Hayriye’nin Zamlarına Tepki”, TT, 1997, no. 159, pp. 33-34.

109 Koraltürk, Şirket-i Hayriye, p. 123.

110 Boğaziçi, Şirket-i Hayriyye, p. 18.

111 Semavi Eyice, “Haliç”, DİA, XV, 264-265, 275-277; Cahit Kayra and Erol Üyepazarcı, İkinci Mahmud’un İstanbul’u Bostancıbaşı Sicilleri, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 1992, pp. 88-89.

112 For more information, see: Ali Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer Haliç Vapurları Şirketi, Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2007, pp. 21-24.

113 Çıngıraklı Tatar, no. 8 (3 May 1873/21 April 1289), p. 1; no. 28 (15 July 1873/3 July 1289), pp. 3-4.

114 Basiretçi Ali Efendi, İstanbul Mektupları, prepared by Nuri Sağlam, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001, pp. 338, 459-460, 483, 618, 697-698; Gustav Rasch, 19. yy. Sonlarında Avrupa’da Türkler, tr. Hüseyin Salihoğlu, Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2004, p. 83.

115 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, p. 27.

116 BOA, İmtiyaz Defteri, no. 1, pp. 136-137 (November 15, 1881/23 Zilhicce 1298); BOA, Y.A.HUS, 168/124.

117 The Levant Herald, 28 December 1881, issue. 83, p. 1291.

118 BOA, Y.PRK.AZJ, 5/1 (5 December 1881/23 November 1297).

119 BOA, Y.PRK.HH, 9/29, document 1 (January 21, 1882/9 Kanunisani (January)1297); BOA, Y.PRK.ASK, 10/30.

120 BOA, Y.PRK.HH, 12/37, document 4.

121 Dersaadet Ticaret Odası Gazetesi, Year 2, no. 9 (March 1, 1886/17 February 1301), p. 2.

122 BOA, Y.MTV, 306/118.

123 BOA, Y.MTV, 295/74 (March 3, 1907/18 Muharrem 1325).

124 BOA, Y.MTV, 306/118 (February 5, 1908/23 Kanunisani 1323).

125 BOA, Y.PRK.TKM, 28/57.

126 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, pp. 36-41.

127 BOA, ŞD, 1215/18.

128 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, pp. 45, 47.

129 BOA, İ.İMT, 8/6; BOA, Mukavelât Defteri, no. 18, pp. 196-200; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 775 (March 20 1911/6 March 1327), pp. 2-3; no. 776 (March 7, 1327), p. 3.

130 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, p. 52.

131 BOA, ZB, 486/87 (October 5,1908/22 September 1324).

132 BOA, DH.İD, 151/5 ( April 28, 1912 (15 April 1328).

133 BOA, DH.İD, 75-2/1 (December 22, 1912/9 Kanunievvel 1328).

134 BOA, İ.MMS, 165/3. For a copy of the published agreement text and decree see: Düstur, second order, Istanbul: Başvekalet Neşriyat ve Müdevvenat Dairesi Müdürlüğü, 1332, vol. 5, pp. 236-238. In addition, also see the work published by the ministry of trade and agriculture: Memâlik-i Osmaniyye’de Osmanlı Anonim Şirketleri, Istanbul: Ticaret Ve Ziraat Nezareti, 1334, pp. 147-149.

135 Memâlik-i Osmaniyye’de Osmanlı Anonim Şirketleri, p. 149.

136 Dersaadet Haliç Vapurları Şirketi Meclis-i İdare Raporu: sene 1329, Istanbul 1330, pp. 7-8.

137 BOA, İ.MMS, 190/3; BOA, Mukavelât Defteri, no. 24, pp. 62-63; BOA, ŞD, 1249/38.

138 BOA, İ.MMS, 167/1; BOA, ŞD, 1237/25, document 3; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, nr. 1484 (June 6, 1913/May 24, 1329), p. 1; nr. 1485 (May 25, 1329), pp. 1-2; Ergin, Mecelle, vol. 5, pp. 2377-2384.

139 BOA, İ.MMS, 167/1; BOA, ŞD, 1237/25, document 3; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 1484 (June 6, 1913/May 24, 1329), p. 1; no. 1485 (May 25, 1329), pp. 1-2; Ergin, Mecelle, vol. 5, pp. 2377-2384.

140 BOA, İ.MMS, 167/1; BOA, ŞD, 1237/25, document 3; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 1487 (June 9, 1913/May 27, 1329), pp. 2-3; no. 1488 (May 28, 1329), p. 1-2; Ergin, Mecelle, vol. 5, pp. 2384-2389.

141 BOA, ŞD, 1237/25, document 3; Takvîm-i Vekâyi‘, no. 1485 ( June 7, 1913/25 May 1329), pp. 3-4; no. 1486 (May 26, 1329), pp. 1-2; Ergin, Mecelle, vol. 5, pp. 2389-2390.

142 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, pp. 74-76.

143 BOA, BEO, no. 341294 (November 19,1918).

144 BOA, İ.DUİT, 22/1-1 (January 15, 1919); BOA, MV, 250/13; BOA, BEO, no. 341294. In 1918 the company suspended shipping services for forty days (BOA, İ.DUİT, 22/1-7, document 3); however, it is uncertain if this was before or after the declaration in question mentioned above.

145 BOA, İ.DUİT, 22/1-4 (May 8, 1919); BOA, MV, 250/155.

146 BOA, MV, 253/71 ( November 17, 1919).

147 İkdam, no. 8625 (March 18, 1921/8 Rajab 1339), p. 3.

148 Akyıldız, Haliç’te Seyrüsefer, pp. 83-88.

149 Tiğinçe Oktar and Hamdi Genç, “Osmanlı İstanbulu’nda Haliç ve Çevresinde Kirlilik Sorunu” (The issue of pollution in the Golden Horn and its environment in Ottoman Istanbul), Dünü ve Bugünü ile Haliç Sempozyum Bildirileri, Istanbul: Kadir Has Üniversitesi, 2004 2004, pp. 585-587. At one time, the silt and alluvium in question caused a huge problem for the ships in the Golden Horn; it was taken out and put to a useful purpose. Indeed, Evliya Çelebi states that the silt removed from the area between Eyüp and Hasköy was used to make plates and bowls. (Seyahatnâme, prep. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1995, vol. 1, p. 27).

150 R. Ekrem Koçu, “Eyyubsultan Vapurları”, İst.A, X, 5468.

151 Eşkâl-i Zaman, Istanbul: MEB Yayınları, 1992, p. 5. The caricature describing this issue mentioned by Ahmed Rasim appeared in the satirical newspaper called Çıngıraklı Tatar (no. 9 (7 May 7, 1873/April 25, 1289), p. 3).

152 Çıngıraklı Tatar, no. 26 (July 9, 1873/June 27, 1289), p. 3.