As an Armenian-Ottoman town, Zeitun had a peculiar place in the Empire’s Armenian Question. There were serious ethnic clashes in Zeitun, like the well-known 1895-1896 Rebellion. Despite its popularity in Ottoman historiography, the town’s history after the Young Turk Revolution is mostly ignored. This is probably because in that period no serious ethnic clash occurred in Zeitun. However, ethnic tension in the town also rose during the new regime. One example is the 1909 Counterrevolution: The nearby 1909 Adana/Cilicia Massacre was the cause of that tension, yet it did not turn into a serious conflict. How it was prevented deserves an explanation, which can also highlight many details about daily relations between post-revolutionary state and local Armenians. This paper is an attempt for such a contribution. It focuses on the Ottoman Archives documents on post-revolutionary Zeitun. Most of these documents’ discourses fit well into Rahajit Guha’s famous conception of “primary discourse” due to the writings between government officials and the central state. Yet as they include polemics about the state’s Armenian policy, some officials tend to provide detailed information about locals’ daily lives and relations between those locals and themselves. Polemics of Zeytun’s two sub-district governors come forward in this paper. The first one belongs to ?brahim Pasha. For him, it was himself who had prevented the 1909 Adana/Cilicia Massacre spread into Zeitun: Antioch Armenians’ and Antioch Court Martial’s appreciations in his next duty was also a proof. However, news that Marash Court Martial had convicted ?brahim Pasha for causing troubles in Zeitun came as a blow. How could the two court martials have different opinions about ?brahim Pasha? His objection to this inconsistency would highlight many facts about how state officials try to handle great ethnic tensions. Halil Bey, ?brahim Pasha’s successor, was the second one. He was confident in his previous constitutionalist experience in Cyprus. He stood for a dove policy in arresting some suspects at large. Yet as the suspects were charged with attacking on the government building in the Counterrevolution, army officials were for repressive measures. Soon, the failure in catching the suspects would make both sides blame and castigate each other and defend their stands ambitiously. Their polemic makes one question whether a totally different Armenian policy could have been followed by the Young Turk regime.