Pass ^y/t/^ ^ Book /Td f/c) . TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1911 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS [Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone '230. Meets on call.] 1. William. Sulzer, Chairman, of New York. 12. Charles M. StedmaN; of North Carolina. 2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 3. John N. Garner, of Texas. 14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. i. George S. Legare, of South Carolina, 15. David J. Foster, of Vermont. .5. William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 16. William B. McKxnley, of Illinois. 6. Cyrus Cline, of Indiana. 17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jersey. 8. James M. Curley, of Massachusetts. 19. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri. 9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 20. George W. Faiechild, of New York. 10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. smf [Revised edition.] WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 f i t /, TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA HEARING .. BEFORE THE _,,.,«»«-^. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1911 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS [Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230. Meets on call.} 1. William Stjlzee, Chairman, of New York . 12. Charles M. Stedman, of North Carolina, 2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 3. John N. Garner, of Texas. 14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. 4. George S. Legare, of South Carolina. 15. David J. Poster, of Vermont. 6. William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 16. William B. McKinley, of Illinois. 6. Cyrcs Cline, of Indiana. 17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jersey. 8. James M. Cxjrley, of Massachusetts. 19. Richard Baetholdt, of Missouri. 9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 20. George W. Faiechild, of New York. 10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. [Revised edition.] WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 [H. Res. 345, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] Congress of the United States, In the House of Representatives, December ^i, 1911. Resolved., That there be printed for the use of the Members of the House of Representatives five thousand five hundred copies of the hear- ings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs on House joint resolu- tion 166, providing for the termination of the treaty of eighteen hundred and thirt,y-two between the United States and Russia. Estimated cost, $500. Attest: South Trimble, Glerk. i CONTENTS. Page Committee on Foreign Affairs 1 House joint resolution 166 3 Statement of William G. McAdoo 3 Speakers at mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 4 Proceedings of mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 5-31 Resolutions of mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 5 Address of — Chairman William G. McAdoo 6 President, Hon. Andrew D. White 7 United States Senator James A. O'Gorman 12 Hon. William Randolph Hearst 13 Bishop David H. Greer 14 Gov. Woodrow Wilson 15 Speaker Champ Clark _ - 16 Dr. Jacob Gould Schurman 17 Representative N. E. Kendall 21 Representative William Sulzer 24 Hon. Herbert Parsons 24 Representative William G. Sharp 24 Representative Francis Burton Harrison 26 Hon. William S. Bennet 27 Representative William M. Calder 27 Representative Henry M. Goldfogle 27 Letter of Gov. Judson Harmon 30 Telegram of — United States Senator Boies Penrose 30 Representative James M. Curley 30 Representative J. Charles Linthicum 31 Statement of — Judge Mayer Sulzberger 31 Louis Marshall, Esq 39 Hon. Harry Cutler 51 Mr. Leon Kamaiky 56 Louis Marshall, Esq. (continued) 58 Rev. Donald C. McLeod 63 Rabbi Joseph Silverman 65 Hon. Jacob H. Schiff 66 Hon. Oscar S. Straus 67 Abram I. Elkus, Esq 73 Judge Leon Sanders . 73 Mr. Samuel Dorf 74 Rabbi Solomon Foster 76 Mr. Bernard Nolan 77 Louis Marshall, F!sq., continued 78 Representative Henry M. Goldfogle 92 Representative Charles B. Smith 96 Address of — Rabbi J. H. Landau 97 Mr. John T. Ryan 98 Mr. Ellicott C. McDougal 99 Statement of — Representative William P. Murray 99 Representative Francis Burton Harrison 101 Diplomatic correspondence respecting passport question 105 iii IV CONTENTS. Page The passport question 239 Introduction 239 Circulars of Department of State, May 28, 1907 240 Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach to Secretary Koot, February 1, 1908 241 Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach to Secretary Root, February 13, 1908 242 Letter of Judge Mayer Sulzberger to President Eoosevelt, May 18, 1908.. 243 Reply of Secretary to the President 246 Reply of Secretary Root 246 Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Secretary Root „ . 246 Letter of Judge Sulzberger to President Roosevelt 248 Planks of party platforms, 1908 248 Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Hon. William H. Taft, July 17, 1908 248 Reply of Mr. Taft 249 Statement of Mr. Taft in letter accepting presidential nomination 249 Letter of Secretary Root to Mr. Jacob H . Schiff , October 19, 1908 249 Extracts from speeches of Hon. William H. Taft 250 Extract from inaugural address of President Taft 250 Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Secretary Knox 250 Letter of Secretary Wilson to Judge Sulzberger : 251 Extract from agreement with Russia, June 15, 1909 251 Letter of executive committee of American Jewish Committee to Presi- dent Taft, February 24, 191 252 Reply of Secretary to the President 253 Letter of Secretary Knox to President Taft 253 Letters of Judge Sulzberger, Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, and Dr. Cyrus Adler, to President Taft, June 3, 1910 254 Resolution of Twenty-second Council of Union of American Hebrew Con- gregations, Jannary 27, 1911 256 Resolution of Representative Herbert Parsons, February 10, 1911 256 Resolution of Representative. William Sulzer, April 6, 1911 257 Extract from circular of Russian-America Line 258 Extracts from Russian treaties with (xermany, Austria, and France 259 Summary of debate in French Chamber of Deputies, December 27, 1909.. 261 " Russia and the American Passport," by Louis Marshall, Esq 266 Hearing before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 16, 1911.. 272 Statement of — Representative Parsons 272 Louis Marshall, Esq 279 Representative Francis Burton Harrison 285 Representative Henry M. Goldfogle •. 285 Representative James M. Graham 287 "The United States Passport and Russia," by Hon. Rufus B. Smith . 288 Brief on termination of treaties, by Herbert Friedewald, Ph. D 295 The passport question in Congress, 1879-1909 304 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA. . House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Monday^ December 11, 1911. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Sulzer (chair- man) presiding. The Chairman. The hearing this morning is on the House joint resolution No. 166, as follows: joint resolution Providing for the termination of the treaty of eighteen hundred and thirty-two between the United States and Russia. Resolved 'by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of the United States assert as a fundamental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of race or religion ; that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or religion ; that the Government of the United States will not be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of race or religion ; that the Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States and Russia, concluded at Saint Petersburg December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, refusing to honor Amer- ican passports duly issued to American citizens, on account of race and reli- gion ; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; that for the aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to be terminated and of no further force and effect from the expiration of one year after the .date of noti- fication to the Government of Russia of the terms of this resolution, and that to this end the President is hereby charged with the duty of communicating such notice to the Government of Russia. By the arrangement with the gentlemen who appear here from out of town and have agreed upon the list of speakers to address the committee, the first speaker will be Mr. McAdoo. STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM G. M'ABOO, OF NEW YOIIK, PRESI- DENT OF THE HUDSON TUNNELS. Mr. McAdoo. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume much of the time of the committee, my purpose being simply to present to you the res- olutions adopted at a mass meeting of the citizens of New York on the evening of December 6, 1911. In doing so I should like to say for your information that that meeting was composed of representa- tives of every class of American citizens. It was not confined by any means to American citizens of the Jewish faith. That ^reat auditorium was packed from pit to dome by an unusually intelligent and discriminating audience, one which was intensely in earnest, 3 4 TERMINATION^ OP THE TREATY OP 1832. and the action taken on that occasion, we are confident, we may say, represents accurately the feeling of the American people on this subject. Those resolutions, which are embodied in this printed pamphlet, I beg to submit to the committee. In this pamphlet is also included the sjDeeches made on that occasion by some of the men who have dis- tinguished themselves in American life. Among them were Presi- dent Andrew D. White, United States Senator James A. O'Gorman, Hon. William R. Hearst, Bishop David H. Greer, Gov. Woodrow Wilson, Speaker Champ Clark, President Jacob Gould Schurman; Congressman N. E. Kendall, of Iowa ; Congressman William Sulzer, Congressman Herbert Parsons, of New York ; Congressman William G. Sharp, of Ohio; ^Congressman Francis Burton Harrison, of New York ; Hon. William S. Bennet, Congressman William M. Calder, of New York; and Congressman Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York. ' The question presented for your consideration is one with. which you are so familiar that it scarcely needs presentation on my part. For 40 years Russia has disregarded, as we think, the plain stipula- tions of this treaty. She has undertaken to apply a rigid test to American citizens seeking to enter Russia. We do not believe that this Government can afford to submit to any such test as applied to any part of its citizens. We believe that every American citizen, whatever his antecedents, is entitled to the benefits of a treaty made for every American citizen and every class of American citizenship. The Government of the United States has on its part strictly ob- served the obligations of their treaty, and Russia alone has been derelict in performance. It seems that when an American citizen presents a passport to the Russian consul general in New York or in any foreign capital for a visa he is immediately asked what is his religion. There are a few other questions also asked, but that seems to be the important one. The minute he confesses that he is a Jew the visa is refused and discrimination is at once made against a certain part of our citizens — a very large and important element of our citizens. Our diplomatic history is full of protests on the part of this Gov- ernment against this discrimination. Large efforts have been made to get Russia to recede from a position which is utterly and wholly untenable, but without success. The time|has now come when we believe that this committee and Congress should take a firm stand on this question and should insist that Russia either live up to the treaty or that it be abrogated. We do not believe that any satisfactory result is going to be accomplished any other way. There is no feeling of hostility, I believe, on the part of the Ameri- can people generally. We can say with confidence, I think, that there is no feeling of hostility, generally, against Russia. This movement is not conceived or pushed in any unfriendly spirit to any nation. Our particular ground is that this Nation can not afford to have treaties with any nation that does not recognize the rights of American citizens. We can not afford to have treaties and maintain them with any power that does not concede at once that every American citizen, whatever his race or creed, is entitled to the full benefit and full protection of all treaties. TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 5 The constitutional questions involved and the legal aspects of the case and the interpretation of the treaty I will leave to some other gentleman who is more familiar with the subject than I am. Mr. Garner. What powers has Congress in reference to the abro- gation of this treaty ? Mr. McAdoo. I understand that it has every power. It has the right to abrogate the treaty upon 12 months' notice. Mr. Garner. Has Congress that right, or the President? What are our powers and what are our duties in the premises ? Mr. McAdoo. I have my own views, but I prefer to let Mr. Mar- shall, who has made a profound study of this question, answer that inquiry when he speaks, as he Avill do. We have left that part of the argument to Mr. Marshall, because he has familiarized himself with the question fully. I beg to submit the resolution adopted at the mass meeting in New York, to be made a part of your proceedings. The Chairman. Without objection, that may go in. (The proceedings of the mass meeting referred to are as follows:) RUSSIA AND THE AMERICAN PASSPORT. [Report of the proceedings of the mass meetuig held at Carnegie Hall, New York City, Wednesday evening, Dec. 6, 1911, under the auspices of the National Citizens Com- mittee, 30 Church Street, New York City.] The following resolutions were read by James Creelman, Esq., and unani- mously adopted by the mass meeting held at Carnegie Hall, Wednesday evening, December 6, 1911 : " Since the establishment of the Government of the United States all of its citizens, whether native born or naturalized, irrespective of race or creed, have been uniformly recognized as entitled, under the Constitution, to equal rights, privileges, and immimities, to freedom from all discrimination, and to absolute txemption from the imposition of any religous test. " The deprivation of any part of our citizens of any of these guarantees, the withholding from the lowliest of them of any of the rights accorded to the most distinguished, or the division of our citizenship into classes, is so opposed to the spirit of our institutions as to be unthinkable. And yet, what can not be accomplished directly by the Government has for more than 30 years been effectuated with respect to our citizens by the Government of Russia, which, in the face of the continued protest of our State Department, has deliberately disregarded passports issued under our Great Seal to American citizens who happen to be Jews, Roman Catholics, and Protestant missionaries, solely because of their faith.- " This has, with singular unanimity, been declared by our statesmen, jurists, and legislators to constitute a defiant violation of the treaty made between the two great Governments in 1832. " For 30 years all efforts of diplomacy to remedy this wrong, to obviate this affront to our national honor, to procure for all our citizens their stipulated rights, have been in vain. The Republican and Democratic parties alike have for years demanded in their platforms, a cessation of this abuse, and both have promised prompt action for the vindication of the integrity of American citizenship. Nevertheless, a considerable portion of our citizens continue to suffer from the civil disabilities created by Russia's breach of her treaty obligations. " Our Government has exercised great self-restraint, and the American people have evinced extreme patience in the hope that Russia might be induced, by representation and argument, to respect the terms of her compact. Relief, however, seems to-day as remote as when it was first desired. Believing, there- fore, that the time has at length arrived when all other considerations must yield to the sacred rights of American citizenship, and the preservation of our cherished institutions, it is "Resolved, That this meeting, called by representatives from every part of the Union, and reflecting every shade of public opinion, urgently request the 6 TERMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Congress of the United States at its present session to adopt the resolutions now pending in the Senate and House of Representatives, looking to the abrogation of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia, by giving one year's notice of its termination, pursuant to its expressed pro- vision, to the end that our country, at least, shall no longer behold with equanimity, a classification of its citizens, which, if ripened into a precedent, would eventually undermine that political system which has made it the greatest moral power of the earth. Be it further "Resolved, That the National Citizens Committee be continued until the end for which it was organized has been accomplished." The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Rev. John Dixon, secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions. Address of Chaibman William G. McAdoo. Ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago an eminent American citizen, a man of exalted character, an archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, left these shores for Rome. He needed no passport to enter Italy. But suppose that he had been going to Russia, do you know what would have happened to him? He would first have made an application to the Secretary of State at Wash- ington for a passport, and in it he would have been obliged to state his age and height, the type of his forehead, the color of his hair and eyes, the size of his mouth and certain facial characteristics; but nowhere does our Government ask his color, his race, or his creed. The Secretary of State would have sent him a passport, saying : " I, the undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States of America, hereby re- quest all whom it may concern to permit , a citizen of the United States, safely and freely to pass, and in case of need to give him all lawful aid and protection." The great seal of our country afiixed to that passport is represented by an American eagle holding in one outstretched talon an olive branch, denoting peace and friendship, and in the other a quiver of arrows, denoting majesty and power and implying tnat every resource of the Nation will be employed for the protection of the citizen who holds and rightfully uses that passport. You would suppose that all the archbishop would now have to do would be to take the steamer for Russia ; but, no. He must request the Russian con- sul general in New York to vise that passport. The Russian consul general will ask what is his religion and occupation. The moment he confesses that he is a Catholic prelate, vise is refused, and the archbishop is denied admission to Russia. If the passport be presented by a Jewish-American citizen, however eminent, the result will be the same. By one stroke of his pen, or with one monosyllabic word, a subordinate Rus- sian official on American soil makes the great seal of the United States as meaningless as a piece of blank paper and annuls an express provision of the treaty between the two countries, made as far back as 1832, which declares: " The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." Nowhere does it say that Russia may exclude from its benefits certain classes of American citizens. Nowhere does it say that Russia may tell an American citizen with an American passport that he can not enter Russia because that American citizen happens to be a Jew or a Catholic priest or a missionary. Nowhere does that treaty give the United States Government the right to prac- tice similar discriminations against Russian citizens. Russia is under the most solemn compact, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land, to accord to every American citizen, without regard to creed or race, who bears an Ameri- can passport the right to " sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever " of Russian territory, on condition only of " submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 7 Sojourn and residence can only be accomplished by entry upon Russian soil, and yet Russia denies to a large part of American citizens the right to even cross the frontier. We do not seem to interfere with Russia's internal admin- istration, but we do insist upon the right of every American citizen to enter Russia for the purposes of the treaty. For 30 years Russia observed the treaty and admitted all American citizens to Russian soil. For 40 years she has violated the treaty by refusing to admit certain American citizens to Russian soil. From the date of the treaty our Government has, on the other hand, scrupulously observed every one of its obligations. The question now presented is. Shall Russia be longer permitted to say what part or what class of American citizens shall enjoy the benefits of a treaty that was made for every part and all classes of American citizens? Or, to put it another way, shall Russia be longer permitted to discriminate against any part or any class of American citizens because of race or creed — to make dis- tinctions between American citizens which our Constitution and our laws for- bid, and which are opposed to the essential and fundamental principles of our Government? The astonishing thing is that our Government has for 40 years submitted to a plain violation of that treaty. Our diplomatic history seems full of protest, but they have lacked the impelling force of determination, and nothing has been accomplished. This is emphatically not a racial or religious question. While the discrimi- nation affects certain classes only of our citizens, it strikes at the integrity oi American citizenship as a whole and impairs the prestige while it affronts the dignity of our Government. The Remedy is not war with Russia. The treaty itself provides a peaceful solution. We have the right, upon 12 months' notice, to abrogate the treaty. Should we not give that notice immediately? The objection has been raised that a termination of the treaty may injure our trade with Russia. Even should this prove true, greater issues — human rights and the equality of A.merican citizenship — are at stake. To suggest that commercial considerations are paramount to human rights is to exalt " dollar diplomacy." We have had enough of that. What we want is a return to that glorious diplomacy which prompted the spirited and immortal reply of Ambassador Pinckney to the French Government in 1796, " Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." We must not, as the price of Russia's violation of the treaty, deprive millions of American citizens of their rights and stamp them with the opprobrium of inferiority. Every citizen of this country is now and must forever be equal. More than 100 years ago our forefathers estab- lished this vital principle, and for its maintenance commerce and " dollar diplomacy " must be subordinated. Let us temperately, firmly, unflinchingly, make the world understand that every American citizen, duly accredited, is a vitalized American flag, and that wherever the flag goes, every citizen may go with equal security and protection. This great meeting has assembled to tell the authorities at Washington that the time has come when the American people demand definite action ; the protec- tion of every American citizen, whatever his race or creed ; the enforcement of every treaty obligation and the vindication of the dignity and prestige of the American Government. Address of Hon. Andrew D. White, former ambassador to Russia, president OF THE NATIONAI. CiTIZENS' COMMITTEE. Gentlemen of the National Citizens' Committee and fellow citizens, I have long believed that this day must come and rejoice that I have lived to see it. My hope is that it will prove the dawning day of a great act of international justice. At two different periods, extending somewhat over three years in all, I have resided at the Russian capital, first in the years 1854 and 1855, and last during the years 1892, 1893, and 1894. I have had occasion to observe the -growth of a system in that country which has Inflicted, and continues to inflict, upon the United States not only injustice but dishonor. By the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia equal rights were guaranteed fully and explicitly to all Russian subjects by the United States and to all American citizens by Russia, without distinction of race or religion, yet for nearly half a century this solemn guaranty has been violated by Russia 8 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. constantly, and, indeed, I think I may say without exaggeration, contemptu- ously. Jews and Christians have both suffered from this ; it has borne at times as severely, though never so frequently, upon American and Christian ministers as upon Jews in general. It had, indeed, been contended by Russia that the treaty was made subject to certain laws of the Empire then prevailing, so that its most precious guaran- ties, including those of equal rights, were thereby from the beginning neces- sarily rendered futile. This contention I have never believed, nor do I think any thoughtful person has ever believed it. The treaty was made by the Emperor Nicholas I and by James Buchanan, the American minister, and no men e^er knew better than they what they wanted and what at any given moment they intended to do. Nicholas had sat upon the throne of Russia at that time for seven years ; he was recognized throughout the world as the most autocratic monarch in Chris- tendom. In pride no other modern sovereign ever surpassed him, not even Louis XIV, or Napoleon; he was especially sensitive to the acclaim of the world; never would he have r.llowed such a treaty to be spoken of in his pres- ence if it had been in the slightest degree at variance with the law of his Empire. It is certain, also, that if any such Russian lav/s existed uallifying the treaty when it was made he knew it, and in case he knew it he had ample power as the source and center of all authority in the Empire, executive, legisla- tive, and judicial, to waive, or even to abolish it. The fact of his signing a treaty so comprehensive and explicit was proof that he had abolished all laws to the contrary. James Buchanan, the American minister in St. Petersburg at that time, was then at the height of his intellectual vigor ; in the full possession of those faculties which afterwards made him a Senator in Congress, Secretary of State, minister to Great Britain, and President of the United States. No one of Ills leading contemporaries in American politics was more noted for thorough knowledge of political subjects, and above all, for astuteness. If the treaty was futile from the beginning he knew it and yet sanctioned it, and took his place before the v/orld as its advocate. All that is unthinkable. The present misinterpretation of the treaty and misuse of it, making that an instrument of oppression which was intended to be a blessing, was, in my opinion, developed many years after it was signed. Our country regards it as a burden and disgrace to us. The question which the American people are now to meet is simply this: "What are we going to do about it?" Just two courses are presented to us — courses either of both of which we are free to take. Perhaps we can accomplish our wish in one of these ways. If it requires two ways, what is the proper order of them — which way should we take first? And in discussing this question briefly, I wish to appeal neither to your passions nor to your resentments. My appeal shall be, as far as I can make it, to your patriotism and to your plain common sense. I do not mean at all by this to put forward the pecuniary bearings of the matter — that I leave as the very last and least question to be considered. The question I ask is : " How shall we preserve the proper dignity of our country, our sense of pride in it, the rights involved in it, find, as involved in it, the integrity of the American passport as it goes forth from Washington and enters Russia, bearing the signature of the American Secretary of State, representing not only our President, but our entire people? " Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, who in his day was not only the greatest warrior but one of the wisest statesmen the modern world has seen, once criticized the other great monarch of his time, Emperor Joseph II, who ■devoted his life to urging reforms throughout his Empire, which proved gen- erally failures. Said wise, old King Frederick : " Joseph means well, but he always takes the second step before he takes the first." In my opinion, everything in this case depends on whether we start with the first step or with the second. If the first step is taken first I have faith that it will lead to a great triumph of right, reason, and justice, with vast bless- ings not only to our own country, but to Russia. You will observe that I say nothing of any third way; yet a third way has been suggested occasionally by men naturally excited over the wrong done us in this matter — namely, war. The reasons why I do not suggest this are many, and, first and simplest of all, because, if we were so foolish as to try war, the two nations can not reach each other at any vulnerable point; it would be like an elephant trying to fight a whale. TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 9 King Heury IV, making a progress througli France, arrived one day at the gates of a great city, and to his surprise found there to welcome him, not the mayor of the town, but simply the mayor's substitute. This substitute city functionary addressed the King as follows : " May it please your majesty, there are 10 reasons why his honor the mayor can not meet your majesty on this auspicious occasion. The first reason is that the mayor is dead." At this the King graciously assured the mayor's substitute that he would dispense with the other nine reasons. In this case there are 50 reasons why Russia and America can not go to war with each other. The first is their relative geographic situation — the other 49 we can dispense with. My own recollections of Russia go back to the time of the Crimean war, when I saw the allied British and French fleets, the largest which at that time had ever been brought together in human history — over 100 great ships, three and four deckers — looming high over our heads, extending across the Gulf of Finland in front of the Russian fortress at Kronstadt, the northern Watergate to the Russian capital. Although the British admiral at that time, during a great public dinner before he left England, had invited his entertainers to dine with him at St. Petersburg, he never himself had even the pleasure of seeing that capital. It may be said that I forget to state that the allies did overcome Russia in the Crimea, but it must be remembered that they had the aid of the combined armies of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Turkey, and back of these the cer- tainty of an additional army from Austria hard by, if wanted, and all these had what we never can have— access to Russia by land. The two practicable steps remain, and I will confine myself to them on this occasion. The first step which we must frequently hear proposed is that of an im- mediate official abrogation of the Buchanan treaty. The opinion is natural, no one can blame it, it merits respect, it has been urged in the public press and in Congress and by many of our most eloquent and prominent writers aud speakers. Bills to accomplish this abrogation of the treaty have already been brought into our National Legislature. No doubt they represent real patriotism. All honor to their advocates ! I freely allow that it may be neces- sary to take this step at some later stage in our effort. But is it certain that this is the step to take first? Is there not the possi- bility that King Frederick's remark on Emporer Joseph's reforms might prove true of ourselves? May we not be in danger of taking as a first step that which ought to be taken as a second? May it not happen that should we abrogate the Buchanan treaty Russia would say, " Well, let them go ; we can live with- out a treaty as long as they can. We can worry them as much and as long as they can worry us, and at any rate we shall hear no more of the question of Jewish rights or of the 'rights of Protestants, of Catholic American clergymen, or, indeed, of American rights, now that no one has any pretext for flinging them into our faces." Might they not even congratulate themselves upon the financial side of the question? Might not the pill be sweetened for them by the belief, which I observe is shared by a thoughtful American jurist, that all inheritances from Jewish families in Russia to Jewish heirs in America would lapse into the Im- perial Treasury? Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, Russia is a proud nation, as proud a nation as our own. I am not saying that she has as much reason to be proud as we. Every man must judge for himself as to that. I will only say that there are some things done in our coxmtry of which I am. not especially proud — no doubt Russia is aware of some of them. An attempt at peremptory demands upon her will, in my opinion, lead to exactly that state of mind which pei'emptory demands always arouse in any proud individual. As a rule, such demands at once dismiss right-reason from the case and lead to indignant rejoinders and reprisals, regardless of all justice. May it not be better for all concerned that we hold the abrogation of the treaty, for at least a short time, in reserve? May we not find it far better to take this as a second step than as a first step? At the organization of Cornell University an old friend of mine — a man eminently sound and sane — said to me : " I hear that you are hunting for pro- fessors. I don't know much of art, science, or literature, but if you ever estab- lish a professorship of horse sense, I am a candidate for it." By all means in 10 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. the present matter let us consult first our good sense rather than our Indig- nation. I repeat: Russia is, as a matter of fact, one of the proudest countries on earth. She wishes to be well thought of by the whole world, and it is this wish on her part that I would enlist in the service of peace with honor. Russia is always taking great pains to secure the world's respect and good opinion. Shortly before my first stay in Russia she evidently wished to seem to lead in science, and to that end she built one of the most costly observatories in the world, even though, when I visited it, she had none but German astronomers to manage it. Later she wished to be thought great in art, and she had to tol- erate the fact — though her press sometimes scolded about it — that the greatest sculptor by far in the whole Empire was a Jew — Autokolski. She has had, indeed, some great writers. One of these I knew — Lyof Tolstoy. It was once my privilege during 10 successive mornings and evenings to walk and talk and sit in discussion with Tolstoy at Moscow, and on one of these occasions he said to me : " I wake every morning surprised that I do not find myself on the road to Siberia." I answered him : " There is no danger of that ; the Russian Gov- ernment is too wise for that — it cares too much for the public opinion of the world." Russia has had some men famous in the annals of science. She has some now, but she does not, as Germany does, show any especial love for them. But at the same time she is vastly proud to exhibit them to the world, as well she may be. Nicholas I at times braved public opinion in ways monstrously autocratic, but it was this same Russian sensitiveness to public opinion which led him to prepare for the emancipation of the 40,000,000 serfs, and it was this same awe of the world's opinion which led his son, Alexander II, not only to carry out vast reforms, but to introduce trial by jury and to prepare the way for other great reforms which were stopped, probably for a century, by the idiots who assassinated him. The world is full of good people who wish to cut down the tree if it does not yield fruit the day it is planted. May it not be better for us,. as our poet sings, that we " learn to labor and to wait," for a time at least, until we find what we can do in that way? Russia's desire for the good opinion of the world entered very largely into the reasons why The Hague conference was called in the name of the Czar. There is nothing of which all Russians who do any thinking are more proud of than this fact. They are reluctant to allow that Czar Nicholas II derived his ideas which led to his calling the conference mainly, if not entirely, from the Jew, Jean de Bloch. During our talks at The Hague conference Jean de Bloch always pooh-poohed to me any such statement, but there is no doubt in the mind of any man cognizant of all the circumstances that de Bloch's ideas were filtered from his great octavos, through the newspapers, into the imperial mind. May it not be that this same Russian pride which is and always has been so constant a factor in the development of her civilization will lead her to accept an invitation from us to meet before The Hague tribunal? She is very proud of having helped to create it, and when the facts in the case are fully brought out before it and exhibited to that great tribunal of humanity, before which Thomas JefCerson displayed the wrongs of our thirteen colonies, as in- corporated in the Declaration of Independence — that tribunal which JefCerson called " a candid world " — when Russia has to face the question of whether or not she will meet the United States before that Hague world tribunal on this question, and then to face the further qiiestion as to whether she will do justice instead of injustice, which she has been doing during a period of over 40 years — injustice of which the facts are absolute and indisputable — may it not be that Russia will then desire to show the world that she proposes to array herself beside the powers which adhere to their treaties? Will her pride. allow her to refuse to appear before that tribunal which she claims to have founded? And if she consents to appear, will her Russian pride allow her to take her place, deliberately, among barbarians? I am not re- proaching her ; I utter no taunt. We, ourselves, as a nation were rightly classed as barbarians until Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation procla- mation. There are some strong men in Russia who can see and feel the eternal dis- grace which the continued violation of the Buchanan treaty and the spurning of the tribunal in which she glories as her gift to the world would be sure to TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 11 bring upon her. I have known such Russians. Typical of such was Admiral Maffaroff, great as a naval warrior, great as a scientist, great as a patriot, great as a man, whom I came to know and admire, not only at St. Petersburg, but at Washington, one of the noblest of men, an admiral of the Russian fleet, who gave up his life in his flagship in the attempt to redeem the honor of Russia during the late Japanese war. No man more devoted to the true glory of his country ever lived. There are other great Russians now living. One of these I have known, Serge De Witte. He it was who, as Russian minister of finance during the adminis- tration of President Cleveland — seeing our Government, as he thought, in need of gold as a basis for its currency, tendered to us millions upon millions of gold — largely in American eagles, on terms eminently fair and reasonable. He it was who saved Russia from humiliation and rendered her such splendid services at the treaty of Portsmouth. These men that I have mentioned are great Rus- sians, and the breed is not exhausted. Others may well arise worthy to be classed with them. Let me give one more fact pertinent to this occasion about De Witte. During my latest stay in Russia, in the year 1893, if I remember rightly, I found on my return from Germany one day that an honored Jewish rabbi of Philadelphia had, during my absence, applied by cable for admission to the Russian Empire. His wish was, and he made no secret of it, that he might study the condition of his co-religionists throughout that Empire. I also found that before my arrival the secretary in charge of the embassy during my absence had laid the rabbi's request before the Russian foreign office and had received a refusal, which had already been telegraphed to the Secretary of State and to the rabbi. I at once visited the foreign office, explained the case to the cabinet minister, showing what a mistake it was on their part to reject so eminent an American citizen. I also mentioned the case to De Witte. In about two weeks, if I remember rightly, the rabbi, Dr. Krauskopf, of Philadel- phia, arrived at our legation by way of Finland. I never knew how he got in. Judging from his account, he found no need of a passport. I only know that through some apparently occult influence he arrived without trouble. On think- ing the matter over I decided to take Dr. Krauskopf immediately, not to any cabinet minister who would probably be merely a functionary and nothing more, but to a man who "did things," a cabinet minister who was a man, fully occu- pied, not in keeping place and acquiring pelf, but really devoted to the honor of his country. I took the rabbi to Serge De Witte. When we arrived at De Witte's official residence we found the anterooms of his office thronged with generals and other personages of high degree, but all were put aside. We were admitted at once. De Witte gave Dr. Krauskopf precedence to them all, and also gave him all the time the rabbi wished for discussing the matters the rabbi had at heart. Thenceforth Dr. Krauskopf was apparently persona grata throughout the Empire, especially in the cities of Moscow and Kieft", even though Kieff was at fhat time ruled with a rod of iron by one of the most fanatical of Jew haters in existence. Gen. Ignatieff. Dr. Krauskopf was allowed to see the people he wished to see, to ask the questions he wished to ask, and finally to return to St. Petersburg and to America when he pleased and as he pleased. I never had any doubt that it was a noble form of patriotism in Serge De Witte that smoothed the way for the rabbi. You see, gentlemen, that there are men in Russia who are likely to prize right, reason, justice, and care for Russia's fair fame before the world at The Hague tribunal. Thanks to the two Hague conferences, that tribunal is now f nlly established ; its judges virtually chosen; its accessories provided for by a bureau of affairs composed of the resident diplomatic agents of all nations at The Hague and presided over by the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs. It is housed in a most beautiful and appropriate palace of justice — the world's courthouse— now approaching completion, the gift, I am proud to say, of an honored American citizen. My hope is, then, that if Russia be courteously summoned as a sister nation to meet the United States before that august tribunal in the land of Grotius and William of Orange — summoned in the presence of the whole world, and not only courteously, but solemnly — Russia will appear, and my hope is that hav- ing appeared and the facts having been fully exhibited to the full view of man- kind in the broad light of truth, right, reason, and justice, Russia may show the whole world a triumph of the better and greater qualities of the Russian people over outworn prejudice. 12 TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OE 1832. Until such an opportunity is given for such a meeting of the nations, I hesi- tate to propose any other step. If Russia accepts the proposal which I suggest, I should hope that she would send delegates animated by the spirit of Makaroff and De Witte, and they will either make this treaty good or give us another still better, which she will be proud to lay before the whole world as evidence of her determination to do justice to all American citizens. We have, fortunately, as the American representative at St. Petersburg at this time, to aid in presenting the preliminary resolution, a man eminent for his acquaintance with public affairs, for high and loyal character, for ability In negotiation, for power to maintain good relations with the nation to which he is accredited, former Gov. Guild, of Massachusetts ; and my hope is that this fact also will be a favorable element in the case. Of course, we should keep in sight the fact that the present dishonor to our country can not continue — that the integrity of the American passport must be restored. If such a great opportunity in the history of the world shall be refused by Russia then, but not before then, let the Buchanan treaty be abrogated. I have more than once sustained an argument to prove that the American people, while more devoted to what is called " practical " — that is, to put it plainly, to the love of the dollar and to the struggle for it — than any other people, are at the same time really the most idealistic of all nations. Much as the people of our country love the dollar there are other things which they love and worship vastly more. During the Civil War when all was dark, when the Nation seemed almost at its last gasp, the Union hopelessly broken, a plain, stalwart American citizen who had devoted himself to business and acquired a large fortune — a man whom I had never before suspected of any idealism, or of any other thought than those on business — said to me : " I am putting all I am worth into the bonds of the United States. I am told that they will be repudiated; that the currency based upon them is worth nothing; that this country is bankrupt, and I confess that at times it looks so to me." Then, raising himself up to his full height, he turned and said : " By the Eternal, if I am not to have any country I don't want any money." That was the spirit of the plain American people then, and I believe that same spirit exists to-day. During the American Civil War the American people sacrificed, when all is accounted for. North and South, fully ten thousand millions and the lives of nearly a million men, and those of the best they had, and they sacrificed all these for an idea — for a Union freed from slavery. If after trying arbitration it shall be found useless, then let us denounce and abrogate the treaty. There would be large pecuniary loss, but I believe that all Americans worthy of the name would prefer this to the continuance of a treaty which involves American dishonor. There would have to be adopted a modus vivendi, so that the two great na- tions could live together without perpetual reprisals on each other, but it would be a woeful exhibition of human folly. Yet if it must be, let it come. Let not the question of a mere addition or diminution of profitable trade or manufacture prevent maintenance in some fully efi'ective shape of the guarantee which Russia gave us, in which the honor of this Nation is concerned. It must and shall be maintained, but let that be a consideration reserved^let it be reserved — let it not be threatened as a preliminary. I plead, then, as our first step, for a recourse to The Hague tribunal in order that we may avail ourselves of Russian pride in standing before the world in favor of right, reason, and justice. Should we fail we can then truthfully say that all that men could do we have done, and that we have merited success, even if we have not obtained it ; and thus, in the words of Abraham Lincoln when he signed his great appeal to the world for justice, we may commend our cause " to the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Address of United States Senator James A. O' Gorman. When the Colonies triumphed over a hateful oppression and achieved their independence as separate States, they established a Government which recog- nized the equality of all men before the law, and guaranteed the absolute freedom of every form of religious worship. With these principles embedded in the Constitution the fathers of the Republic made a stride in human progress TERMIN-ATIOK" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 13 never before attempted by any people in any land in any period of recorded history. For the first time in 15 centuries the church and state, religion and government, were severed. The country knew neither monarch nor subject, king nor prince, lord nor peasant. We were a Nation of free men, recognizing no sovereignty but the will of the American people. The birth of the Republic was the dawn of a new era of hope for millions who suffered from oppression and persecution in the old lands. They loved liberty and sought our shores, and we gave them an asylum. They became part of our citizenship, and in every decade of our national life they and their posterity have contributed their share of effort and devotion to the growth, development, and prosperity of the Nation. If we would maintain the national honor and remain Joyal to the tradition of the fathers, we must adhere to those fundamental principles upon which we have reared this mighty fabric of government. We must ever insist that In the composite citizenship of the Republic there can be no distinction of creed, and that the rights and privileges of Americfui citizens cm not bo irapaired at home or abroad because of religious belief. Our treaties are made for the benefit of all the people of tbe United States. Under the Federal Constitution they become the supreme law of the land and take precedence of State constitutions and statutes. 3?eing the supreme law of the land, all citizens must yield obedience to their provisions ; and yet the present treaty as construed by Russia excludes from its protection 2,000,000 of our citizens solely because of their religious belief. For 40 years our Government has made unavailing protests against Russia's attitude. During all these years holders of our passports have been degraded and humiliated and the dignity of the Nntion has been offended. The treaty requires equality of treatment of all the citizens and subjects of the two nations and we can not without dishonor longer acquiesce in this indefensible policy of discrimination, which is violative of the treaty and in defiance of the laws and Constitution of the Republic. We do not resent this indignity to our aggrieved citizens because they are Jews, but because they are Americans, entitled to the protection of our Government against injustice and wrong every- where. We are not concerned wth the internal policies of other countries, but we must insist that the right of our citizens to immunity from discrimination on religious grounds must be respected by nations with which we maintain treaty relations. The time to end this intolerable condition has arrived. For myself, I am prepared to vote for the abrogation of the treaty, and to that end I shall support the resolution now pending in the Senate of the United States. Address of Hon. William Randolph Hearst. My friends : The object of this meeting, as I understand it, is merely to ask the Government of the United States to do its plain duty. We demand nothing more, and will be content with nothing less. The first duty of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of his rights and privileges both at home and abroad. The question involved in the rejection by Russia of the passports of American citizens is perfectly simple and perfectly clear. It is so clear that it requires no oratory in its discussion, so simple that it needs no diplomacy in its negotiation. All that is needed on the part of the United States is a firm determination to protect the rights of all of its citizens at all times, at all places, and under all circumstances. This determination should be proclaimed in a definite declaration and sup- ported by whatever action is necessary to secure universal international ac- ceptance of the principle involved. The principle involved is not a question of Judaism. It is a question of justice. It is not a question of religion. It is a question of right. It is not a question of politics. It is a question of patriotism. The insolent action of Russia does not affect one citizen or one class of citizens. It concerns all citizens and all classes of citizens. It is not merely an outrage upon the individual. It is an insult to the American Nation. The point at issue, plainly stated, is simply whether the seal and signature of the United States upon a certificate of citizenship render it valid and accept- able at its face value, or subject to discount in Russia or in any other country that chooses to depreciate it. This is a point vital to the honor and integrity of this Nation. It brings up the question of whether the United States is politically solvent, whether its guarantee is good. We invite the people of all parts of the world to our shores. We guarantee them the rights and privileges of citizenship. It is the duty, then, of our Government to protect these citizens and all our citizens in the rights and 14 ' TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. privileges which it has guaranteed. Whenever our Government fails to do this it defaults in its duty to the citizenship. Here at home our political indifference permits our citizens to be bullied by corrupt bosses, exploited by unscrupulous politicians, and plundered by priv- ileged interests. Abroad, it allows our citizens to be insulted with all the insolence and defiance characteristic of Russian bigotry and tyranny. It is time to stop these insults, to end these outrages. We are entering upon an era of reconstruction and reform, of advancement and improvement. We have begun to recognize and to remedy some of our unsatisfactory con- ditions at home. It is now time for us to take up and remedy this particular harmful and humiliating condition abroad. I myself do not happen to be of the Jewish race, or of the Jewish faith, or of Jewish descent. I am speaking merely as one American citizen interested in the honor of his country and in the welfare of his fellow citizens. To be sure. I have very many good and true friends among the Jewish people, many friends whom I have never met and may never know, but who have been very kind to me and whom I cherish dearly. I have other intimate personal friends among the Jewish people, friends whom I have known long and well. These men honor my house by their presence, and by their presence they would honor the palace of the Czar. I admit a friendship for the Jewish people, a feeling of deep appreciation for all the political and personal courtesies which the Jewish people have extended to me. But, my friends, I solemnly declare that in this cause I am moved not so much by a sense of friendship as by a sense of justice, not so much by a sense of obligation to Jewish citizens as by a sense of patriotic duty to all the citizens of our Nation. I am speaking in the interest of all Americans — of Jewish-Americans, Ger- man-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans — of all the citizens of this great Nation, whether in the East or in the West or in the North or in the South. We are a united people. Let us stand as a unit behind every American citizen. Let us secure and preserve for him at home and abroad, near at hand and in the uttermost ends of the earth, every right that has been granted him, every privilege thnt is properly his. The American citizen should be like the citizen of ancient Rome. Wherever he goes the power of the greatest country in the world should go with him and stand behind him. Our country is the greatest country in the world, and it is the character and quality, the fidelity and devotion, of our citizens that have made our country great, that have made its name honored throughout the world. Whnt our citizens have done for their coimtry. our country should do for its citizens. If our country is the most respected, the most considered, the most honored of all the countries of the world, then our citizens, wherever they go with the passport of the United States in their hands, should be and shall be the most respected, the most considered, and the most honored of all the citizens of the world. In the protection of its citizens, in the maintenance of its own self-respect, in the defense of its own honor, let the United States assert its dignity, and, if necessary, employ its power. Address op Right Rev. David H. Greer, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of New York City. This is essentially an American question. The Jews are active in the matter. Why not? Because they are discriminated against, and yet I maintain that it is not the Jews who should be chiefly interested in it, but the whole body of our American citizenry. Further, I claim that it is a moral question. When that treaty, a little more than three-quarters of a century ago, to which refer- ence hsis been made here to-night, was ratified, then it became, as Senator O'Gorman has said, according to the sixth article of our American Constitu- tion, the supreme law of the land ; and when that supreme law is disregarded, deliberately and i)ersistently, is it not lawlessness? You may say it is not we who are disregarrling it, but by our acquiescence in that disregard of it or dis- ober OF THE TREATY OF 1832. - legation, tlie object being, I infer, to have its indorsement of the legitimacy of their business as well as of their citizenship — a kind_ of guaranty of their good conduct, a matter which it might at times be difficult to give. It will thus be seen that while the Russian Government declines to accept the views as set forth by you and denies that the treaty of 1832 concedes to American citizens of Jewish faith any other or greater privileges than those enjoyed by Russian subjects of the same race, it has manifested a friendly disposition toward American citizens in the application of the laws and virtually offers to suspend their operation toward all Jewish citizens of the United States who can establish the fact that they come to Russia on legitimate business. I am, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 996.) ' Mr. De Giers to Mr. Foster. Imperial Ministry op Foreign Affairs, Department op Interior Relations, St. Petersburg, December 1, 1880. Sir : The imperial ministry has not failed to take into serious consideration the con- tents of the note which you addressed to it on the 2d of September, on the subject of the expulsion from the Russian territory of Mr. Henry Pinkos, a citizen of the United States. The ministry hopes that an accord in the appreciation of the affair in question will not fail to be established if the Government of the United States shall be satisfied that all the measures of which Mr. Pinkos complains are in perfect conformity with the Russian laws. In fact it is in the virtue of the regulations which authorize the residence of foreign Israelites in Russia only upon certain conditions that Mr. Pinkos found himself included in a general measure which was applied to him without the police having to inquire into his conduct. It is also in virtue of the regulations, of which he has no right to plead ignorance, and the application of which can equalljr give him no right to indemnity, that Mr. Pinkos, having resided six months in Russia, could not leave Cronstadt without being fur- nished with a passport from the proper authorities. You will please observe in fact, sir, that the above-named person was not reconducted to the frontier, or embarked with the aid of the imperial authorities — in a word, that he did not undergo the process of expulsion, to which he was liable. The legation of the United States, having intervened in his favor, by its note of April 8 last, the Imperial Government hastened to comply with the request made in the same communication and to ameliorate the condition of Mr. Pinkos in the very manner the legation had indicated. A delay of three months was consequently accorded to Pinkos to liquidate his affairs, and he was permitted at the expiration of this term to leave Russia on the same conditions as every foreigner wishes to repass the frontier, nothing dispensing Pinkos from the obligations which the regulations prescribe on these occasions. On the contrary, the peculiar circumstances of his posi- tion and the terms which had been granted him by special favor to regulate all the conditions of his departure, should have induced him to inform himself of the legal formalities required by the circumstances. Thus the proceeding which our authorities took toward Mr. Pinkos present them- selves both in their principle and their execution not as exceptional measures, but as the legal consequences of general laws, the effects of which the individual above named has had to undergo. It is evident, too, as the note of the 2d of September acknowledges, that the meas- ures taken on this occasion were not marked by any spirit contrary to the considera- tion which the Imperial Government has always professed for the quality of an Ameri- can citizen. As regards the exceptional dispositions of which foreign Israelites have been the object in Russia, and which have been provoked by their presumed participation in revolutionary proceedings, it is certain that the measures of the administration toward the Israelites m question have never had an exceptional character. If the prescrip- tions which concern them are rigorously executed, this rigor has nothing special in it, but results simply from the increased vigilance occasioned by present circumstances, which has led the imperial authorities to discover irregularities in the legal position of many foreigners residing in Russia. It became the duty of the imperial adminis- TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 121 tration to see to the strict observance of the existing laws, availing itself for this piirpose of the legal means in their hands. It is in this way that Mr. Pinkos has felt the effect of the precautions taken in con- sequence of the proceedings of the social revolutionists, although the conduct of this foreigner happily sheltered him from the direct action of the measures adopted to secure the public order. The imperial ministry has endeavored to show that Mr. Pinkos has not been the object of any proceeding which goes beyond the regular application of the existing laws. Convinced that in strict justice no irregularity can be imputed to our authori- ties, the ministry would consider itself so much the more fortunate if it can succeed iti inducing the Government of the United States to share this conviction, inasmuch as the affau- in question affects those relations which the- Imperial Government desires to maintarQ, on all occasions, in their unvarying cordiality. Keceive, sir, etc., Giers. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1002.) Mr. Giers to Mr;. Foster. Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Interior Relations, St. Petersburg, December 11, 1880. Sir: In a note of October 7 last, you addressed yourself to the imperial ministry of foreign affairs, with a view to obtain for Mr. Wilczynski, a citizen of the United States of America, permission to return to Russia, where the interests of a commercial enter- prise, of which he is agent, called him. The imperial ministry of foreign affairs hastened to the ministry of the interior the aforementioned request. A recent communication of the minister of the interior enables me to inform you that in view of the intervention of the legation of the United States Mr. Wilczynski is authorized to return to St. Petersburg, and to remain here six months. The com- petent authorities have been informed of the ministerial decision. Returning to you the passport of the said Wilczynski, which accompanied the above-mentioned note of the legation of the United States, I profit by this occasion, etc. Giers. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1003.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Giers, Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 5, 1880. Excellency: I have the honor to aknowedge the receipt of your two notes of the Ist instant, the one relating to the case of Henry Pinkos and the other to the case of Marx Wilczynski, both American citizens of the Jewish faith. In view of the conference which I had with your excellency on those and kindred matters yesterday, I do not deem it necessary at present to make further reply to said notes than to say that I will forward copies thereof, as well as a report of the said conference, to the Secretary of State at Washington and await his instructions. With the renewed, etc., John W. Foster, (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) Mr. Foster to Mr. White. St. Petersburg, December 14, 1880. My Dear Colleague: On the 18th of October last I acknowledged receipt of your letter regarding Mr. Wilczynski's expulsion from St. Petersburg, and wrote you a second letter on the subject in October. I now have the answer of the minister of foreign affairs to my application for Mr. Wilczynski's free return to St. Petersburg. He states that Mr. W. will be permitted 122 TERMINATION OF THE. TEEATY OP 1832. to return to this city and remain for six months, and that the authorities have been BO notified. This is the extreme limit of time allowed by the laws of Russia to all foreigners, without distinction, entering with a passport of their nationality, at the expiration of which time they are required to obtain a Russian passport or police permission of residence if they wish to remain. I return the passport which you sent me. John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December SI, 1880. Sie: At a late hour on yesterday afternoon I received yom' cablegram dated the 29th instant, as follows: "Urge treaty obligations in the Wilczynski case. Further information awaited." It will be seen by my dispatch No* 73, of yesterday, which was just completed when yom* cablegram arrived, that I have been giving attention to the case and have obtained for him permission to retiun to St. Petersburg and remain for the limit of time granted to all foreigners upon their national passports, but that the Russian Gov- ernment declines to modify the existing laws prohibiting foreign Jews to reside in this city. I inclose copies of the correspondence had with the legation at Berlin, which con- tains some additional facts relating to Mr. Wilczynski. It appeared from the letter of Minister "White, of October 15, inclosed with my No. 48, of October 20, that Mr. Wilczynski when ordered to leave St. Petersburg made no application to this legation for advice or assistance. He informed Minister White that he had addressed me a letter in regard to his case, but no such letter has been received. He has not again appeared at the legation in Berlin to learn the result of his application for permission to return to St. Petersburg, and Mr. Everett writes that he is now probably in Russia. If so, he has never made his presence known to this legation, and it is to be presumed that he has not been molested. I am, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) Mr. Everett to Mr. Foster. Legation of the United States, Berlin, December 18, 1880. Sir: In Mr. White's absence I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 14th instant, returning Mr. Wilczjniski's passport and stating he would be allowed to stay six months if he returned there. At the time his old passport was sent to you Mr. Wilczynski took out a new one, and said that he should not have any difficulty in returning to St. Petersburg and staying as long as he wished for business purposes, as he was personally known to high officials in some of the departments with which he had transacted business for some years. But his grievance was that he was expelled, as he understood, for being a Jew, and he wished to ascertain whether there was such a law against Jews, and whether the American legation could protect our citizens against it. I have been informed by one of the Russian secretaries of the legation here that there is no law in St. Petersburg expelling Jews merely because they are Jews; but that probably this gentleman had failed to comply with some regulations in his buoi- ness transactions, or had perhaps associated with some of the suspected characters in the city, or was one of the Polish refugees, who it appears are an obnoxious class there. Mr. Wilczynski has not called at this legation again, and it is probable that he is now in Russia, as he expressed his intention of returning there shortly. - With many thanks for the trouble you have taken in the matter, I am, etc., H. Sidney Everett. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1005.) TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 123 Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 31, 1880. Sir: In my No. 73 of yesterday I have given the result of my efforts to obtain a modification of the laws of Russia in regard to foreign Jews, so as to exempt American Jews from the prohibition against residence in St. Petersburg and other cities of the Empire. As a supplement to that dispatch, it may be of interest to have some infor- mation as to the conditions and treatment of the Russian subjects of the Jewish faith .^ From early times there have existed laws prohibitingthe entrance or residence of Jews in Russia, and while there were occasional exceptions to the laws, the prohibi- tion was generally enforced with rigor up to the incorporation of Poland with the Empire. From that date it was sought to confine the Jews to the Polish Provinces. But the Jews in these Provinces furnished their full contingent, and, it is alleged by them, more than their ration in the Russian Army; and as it often happened that at the expiration of their term of service they were in different or distant parts of the Empire from their homes, upon their discharge they were permitted to live in the Provinces where discharged, because they were old soldiers, and in spite of the laws prohibiting the residence there of Jews. The presence of the greater part of this race in other districts of Russia than Poland is accounted for in this way, they being either discharged soldiers or their children. But, in addition to these, a considerable number of Jews are found in the large cities and commercial towns, many of whom are authorized to become permanent residents under exceptions which have been made to the prohibitory laws. For instance, Jews possessing a certain mercantile standing are admitted as members of the first or commercial guild, and with the authorization of the law, engage in banking and mercantile pursuits. And these members of the guild are permitted to employ a certain number of Jewish clerks, servants, artisans, and other employees. So, also, exceptions are made in favor of members of the learned professions and graduates of the universities and other educational or scientific institutions. The latitude of constructions placed upon these exceptions depends very much upon the will of the local authorities, as also the strictness with which the prohibitory laws are enforced; so that in all cities of Russia the number of Jewish residents will be found more or less in excess of the police registry and greater than the strict interpretation of the law authorizes. For instance, persons who have given the subject close _ attention, asl stated to the minister of foreign affairs, estimate the number of Jewish residents in St. Petersburg at 30,000, while it is stated the number registered by the police author- ities is 1,500. From the same source I learn that, while the Government does not recognize their legal existence, nine synagogues in this city are known to the author- ities, and that there are other private places of worship; and that, while only one Hebrew school is registered by the police, there are between 3,000 and 4,000 children in unauthorized Jewish schools of this capital. As another indicatioii of the extent of Jewish influence, it is worthy of note that one or more Jewish editors or writers are said to be employed on the leading newspapers of St. Petersburg and Moscow almost without exception. It is claimed that Jews of wealth, of estabHshed professions or occupations, or of good social standing or influence, have little difliculty in securing express or tacit exemption from the laws. These facts indicate that the laws proscribing the Jewish race are not enforced with great strictness, and intelligent Jewish residents of this city, native Russian subjects, who are laboring for the amelioration of the condition of their brethren, recognize the great advance which has been made during the present reign in the liberal con- struction which is placed upon the laws, in the exceptions which have been made tending to relax their vigor, and in the increased privileges which have been granted, such as admission to the imiversities, the practice of professions and avocations, and holding of government oflSce, denied to them a generation ago. At the same time the proscription laws remain and the Government reserves to itself the right to enforce them with strictness or relax them at its will. It is to be noted that intelligent Russian Jews repel the charge that their race in this country have manifested a spirit of lawlessness or hostility to the established Government, and they deny that a greater proportion of Jews than of other classes have been implicated in the conspiracies or attempts upon the life of the Emperor, and in confirmation of their denial they point to the fact that of the 16 persons who were arraigned last month in the state trials of the nihilists only I was a Jew. I am, etc., (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1005.) John W. Foster. 124 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster. Department of State, Washington, March 3, 1881. Sir: Your several dispatches, numbered 73, 74, and 75, of the 30th and 31st of December, in relation to the treatment of American Jews in Russia have been received and I have the pleasure of commending your zealous presentation of the cases of Pinkos and WUczynski, and of the general questions involved. The assurances you have received as to the liberal treatment hereafter to be accorded, as an act of comity and courtesy by the military authorities to American citizens visiting Russia are fully appreciated. I have observed, however, that iq^ some of your conversations and writings with the foreign office you give prominence to the natural American sympathy with oppressed Jews elsewhere as a motive for our solicitude as to the treatment of Jews in Russia. Such solicitude might very properly exist; but in your presentation of the facts you should be careful to impress that we ask treaty treatment for our aggrieved citizens not because they are Jews, but because they are Americans. Russia's treatment of her own Jews or of foreign Jews resorting thither may in determinate cases attract the sympathy of the American people, but the aim of the Government of the United States is the specific one of protecting its own citizens. If the hardships to which Russian and foreign Jews are subjected involves our own citizens, we thiak we have just grounds for remonstrance and expectancy of better treatment. This Government does not know or inquh-e the religion of the American citizens it protects. It can not take cognizance of the methods by which the Russian authorities may arrive at the conclusion or conjecture that any given American citizen professes the Jewish faith. The discussion of the recent cases has not as yet developed any judicial procedure whereby an American citizen, otherwise unoffending against the laws, is to be convicted of Judaism, if that be an offense under Russian law; and we are indis- posed to regard it as a maintainable point that a religious belief is, or can be, a military offense, to be dealt with under the arbitrary methods incident to the existence of a "state of siege." This Government is not unmindful of the difiiculties under which, as alleged, the Russian Government labors in dealing with those of her subjects whom she may deem disaffected; but the reasons adduced and the methods adopted against them should have no application to American citizens sojourning peacefully for business or pleasure, in Russia, for they are not to be charged with abstract political disaffection to a gov- ernment to which they owe no allegiance; and, if charged with the commission of \uilawful acts they should have guilt explicitly imputed and proven. In the latter case the religion of the accused can not be admitted as proof or presumption of guilt or of innocence. It is not the desire of this Government to embarrass that of Russia by insistence upon these points with any degree of harshness when the disposition reported in your dis- patches is so conciliatory and the treatment offered may effectively operate to remove or prevent future causes of complaint based upon the ill-treatment of American citizens alleged to be Jews. It is most desirable, however, that you should not pretermit your efforts to bring the matter to such a stage as will insure for peaceful and law-abiding American citizens in Russia like treaty rights and personal freedom of creed as Rus- sians enjoy ia the United States. Wm. M. Evarts. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1007.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, March 25, 1881 . Sir: In acknowledging the receipt of Department No. 55 of the 3d instant, I desire to express my thanks for the kindly commendation of my presentation of the cases of Pinkos and Wilczynski, and of the general question of the treatment of the Jews in Russia. I make careful note of the desire manifested by the late honorable Secretary^ of State to appeal strongly to the treaty guarantee of personal freedom to American citi- zens sojourning peaceably, for business or pleasure, in Russia, without regard to their religious belief. I have constantly made this appeal to the Russian authorities. But it will be noted in my No. 73, of December 30, that I called attention to the fact that TEKMINATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 125 the Russian Government denied that the treaty of 1832 secures to American citizens of the Jewish faith sojourning in Russia any other or greater privileges than those enjoyed in this Empire by Russian subjects of the same faith. From the concluding sentence of Department No. 55, it would seem that the late Secretary's construction of the treaty was that American citizens in Russia were entitled to the same rights and persoml freedom as are extended to Russian subjects sojourning in the United States. This interpretation has never as yet been presented to the Russian Government, nor has the treaty been so considered by my predecessors. If that view is to be insisted upon, I will thank you for specific instructions regarding this point. As stated in my No. 73, the laws imposing disabilities upon Jews, both foreign and native, antedate the treaty of 1832, and the minister of foreign affairs claims that said treaty does not exempt American Jews coming here from their operation. I have strongly insisted that the passport of his Government should protect every peaceable American citizen coming to Russia, and that it is not proper to institute inquiry as to the religious belief of such citizen. The department is correct in the supposition indicated, that no American citizen has been convicted of Judaism by "judicial procedure." But it is to be borne in mind that in Russia it is not necessary that a judicial procedure should take place, or even the "military state of siege" exist before a person undergoes sentence of the law. The laws and regulations in question are usually intrusted to the police authorities, and it is sufficient for them to be satisfied in their own minds that the individual comes within the prohibitions to have them enforced. I shall not fail to continue to press the subject upon the Russian Government at €very proper opportunity. I am, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1012.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, March 24, 1881. Sir: A disgraceful series of disorders have occurred during the past month in the southwestern Provinces of Russia, directed against the Jewish residents, resulting in the loss of a number of lives and the destruction of an enormous amount of property. The scenes of these riots have been at and in the vicinity of Elizabethgrad and Kief, with less serious demonstrations at Odessa and other places. The participants have been almost exclusively of the lowest and most ignorant classes in the towns and cities, joined by the peasants, and the demonstrations in the two localities first named appear to have been so powerful that for days the authorities were paralyzed and the rioters were able to give full sway to their work of bigotry and destruction. In Kief, a city of over 100,000 inhabitants, with a large Jewish population, the work was so thorough, it is stated, that not a single Jewish house escaped, the inmates being driven out, beaten and stoned, and some of them killed, and the contents plundered or thrown into the streets. The damage there is estimated at several millions of roubles, and business has been seriously affected thereby; many commercial houses have sus- pended payment, other bankruptcies are feared, and the prices of provisions and articles of prime necessity have temporarily risen greatly in price. Massacres and destruction of property have become so threatening in other localities, where no actual outbreaks have taken place, that the Jews in large numbers have fled from their homes and taken refuge across the frontier in Austria, or in Moscow where the military force is sufficient to guarantee safety. In some instances the railroad officials have refused to run the trains by which the Jews were seeking to escape, for fear of attack from the infuriated mobs debauched with liquor and plunder. Indiscriminate pillage became so much feared that Christians chalked their houses with crosses or exhibited holy images with lighted lamps before them to save them- selves from the fury of the rabble. The acts which have been committed are more worthy of the Dark Ages than of the present century. The authorities were slow to realize the extent of the danger, but when once awak- ened to its widespread and deep-seated character they have manifested a commendable zeal in suppressing the riots and in arresting and punishing the offenders. National troops have been freely used, sending them to the most threatened districts, and in some places, as at Odessa, they have promptly intervened with force to put down the riots. Various causes have been assigned for these outbreaks additional to the prevailing bigotry and religious hatred of the lower classes toward the Jews. The country has not 126 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. been prosperous for sometime past; taxes have been heavy and exacted with severity; the depreciated paper currency has increased the cost of all commodities; the winter has been one of privation and suffering, and with many families indebtedness has been the rule annually. The Jews, being the money changers, traders, and speculatx)r3, have profited by this state of affairs, and the poorer classes felt that undue advantage has been taken of their misfortunes. Following the long fast so faithfully observed in the Russian national church, which was broken by holy week and its usual excesses in drinking, it has been easy to work upon the passions and prejudices of the hungry and ignorant. It is a.sserted also that the nihilist societies have profited by the situ- ation to incite and encourage the peasants and lower classes in the towns and cities in order to increase the embarrassment of the Government, but the charge is probably conjectural and not based on very tangible facts. Certain it is, however, that the disorders have developed a state of discontent and lawlessness in the country that is by no means agreeable to the Government. It is believed that the Emperor has no sympathy with the spirit manifested against the Jews, and in addition to the active use of the imperial army to put down the riots, he has given orders to have an investi- gation made of the causes which have occasioned the disturbances. I have in previous dispatches referred to the proscriptive laws and disabilities imposed upon the Jews in Russia, If these events lead to a serious consideration of the wisdom of abolishing all the Jewish disabilities and of placing Russian legislation on this subject alongside that of other enlightened nations, the loss of life and property will not have been in vain. It may not be without interest to mention that these disturbances and the Russian laws affecting foreign Jews have twice during the past week been the subject of dis- cussion in the British Parliament. As reference was made in that discussion to the action of our Government and this legation regarding the Russian laws prohibiting foreign Jews to reside in St. Petersburg, I send you herewith that portion of the par- liamentary report. It will be noticed that two questions were presented to the House of Commons: First, as to the propriety of the British Government making representations to that of Russia with regard to the atrocities committed upon the Jewish population in southern Russia, and, second, as to the action of the British Government on account of the expulsion from St. Petersburg of a highly respected London merchant having a British passport on the ground that he was a Jew. To the first question the under secretary for foreign affairs indicated that his Govern- ment was reluctant to make any representations in regard to the persecutions, and, as to the second subject, a protest has been made against the expulsion of the British subject, but without avail. This discussion in Parliament has occasioned an editorial in the St. Petersburg Journal, the semiofficial organ of the Russian foreign office, of which I send you a translation. This article asserts that the disturbances being of a purely domestic character, the British Cabinet would have no more right to address the Russian Gov- ernment representations thereon than the latter would have to address Lord Gran- ville on account of the agrarian crimes in Ireland. In reference to the expulsion it maintains that if made according to the Russian law a protest was not proper; and, on the other hand, if in violation of that law a protest was unnecessary, because the above would have been corrected. In this connection I have to report that no new case has arisen of the enforcement against American citizens of the law in question. John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1019.) SKETCH OP THE LAWS OP RUSSIA RELATIVE TO FOREIGN JEWS. Israelites in general are in Russia subject to a special legislation. There is found in the Code of Laws a series of provisions in the proper place, spread over many chapters, and divers published regulations on commerce, industry, and the trades, devoting to them special clauses. Foreign Israelites do not escape this legislation, which defines the laws applied to them relative to their admission into the territory of the Empire and to their sojourn in Russia. The localities, the limits of which are accorded to Israelites subjects of the Empire, in order to sojourn in a permanent manner, are as follows: The Governments (or Provinces) of Bessarabia, Vilna, Vitebsk, Volhynia, Grodno, Ekaterinoslav, Taurida, Kershow, Tchernigof, Kowno, Minsk, Mohilef, Poltava, Podolia, and Kief, with the exception of the city of Kief, but upon the observance of the following rules: In the Governments of Vitebsk and Mohilef the Israelites have the TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 127 right to reside in the inhabited localities, in virtue of proper tickets of sojourn which are given to them for this purpose, without, nevertheless, having the right to definitely establish themselves there in the quality of fixed inhabitants. With respect to the city of Nicolaief, they have a right to choose a domicile there and to acquire real estate, in conformity to the special provisions of the regulations of commerce. Second. Regarding the western Governments adjoining the frontier and Bessarabia the Israelites are not authorized to establish themselves within a distance of 50 versts from the frontier of the State. Along the western fit-ontier of the State the Israelites guilty of contraband are, in addition to the other penalties, condemned to vacate the above- cited limits. (See arts. 12 and 23 of the regulations on passports, sequel to the Code of Laws, ed. of 1876.) A general statute law that foreign Israelites are not authorized to immigrate to Russia, nor to receive Russian naturalization. (See art. 992 of the regulations on social condi- tions. Code of Laws, Vol. IX, ed. 1876.) Nevertheless, article 530 of the regulations on passports (Code of Laws, ed. 1857), in admitting certain exceptions to the preceding laws, particularizes who are those among foreign Israelites who are authorized to establish themselves within the limits of the localities where the right of domicile is accorded to all Jews in general. 1. Those whom the Imperial Government invites to come to Russia to exercise the functions of rabbis. 2. Those who come to Russia with the object of creating manufactories and work- shops (with the exception of distillers), and who can show a capital for this purpose of at least 15,000 rubles. The individuals at their entry into Russia must engage, in writing, to create said establishments within a period of three years. In case where they shall be found not to have complied with the terms of their engagement they shall be expelled from the Empire. On the contrary, in case they shall have fulfilled it they have the right to become Russian subjects and shall select a legal status. Artisans called to Russia by the Israelite manufacturers to engage in manufacturing labor in their factories. These artisans shall not be permitted to enter Russia except upon presentation (a) of a passport in order (2) of a certificate from the imperial legation or consulate in Russia certifying to their condition, the character of their former occupations, the trade which they follow, and showing that they have been really called to Russia, by whom, and with what object. After a sojourn of five years in the factories, and upon presentation of a certificate fz-om their employers and the local authorities attesting to their skill and irreproachable conduct, they shall be permitted to establish themselves permanently in the localities of domicile acquired for Israelites and to become Russian subjects. Foreign Israelites, arriving in the localities where the fixed sojourn is authorized for all Israelites in general, shall be put in possession of passports, in which it shall be stated that they are only of value within the limits of the localities above mentioned. (See art. 8 and the annexes to art. 486, remark 2, of the regulations on passports, sequel to Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) The local authorities are required to watch rigorous that foreign Israelites do not reside under the names of Christians in the localities where their sojourn is prohibited. The individuals discovered to be in this situation will be immediately expelled from Russia. (See art. 531 of the regulations on passports, etc.) Foreign Israelites, and especially those who are agents of large commercial houses abroad, are permitted to visit the great commercial and manufacturing centers of Russia, and to reside there a period of time, the fixing of which is submitted to the proper authority. It pertains to the department of the interior to definitely decide on the petitions presented for this object by the said Israelites. Nevertheless, the imperial legations and consulates may, without previous authorization of the department of the interior, deliver to bankers and chiefs of important commercial houses abroad passports to enter Russia and vis6 these passports, reserving notification to the department of the interior of the delivery or vise of passport to each one of the individuals. (See art. 2 of the annexes to art. 486 of the regulations on passports, etc.) Israelites, foreign subjects known for their social position and large ojDerations or commercial enterprises, are permitted, as a result of a 8j)ecial understanding in each case between the ministers of finance and of the interior and of foreign affairs, to establish a business within the limits of the Empire, and to open banking oflSces by providing themselves, nevertheless, with certificates of merchants of the first guild. They are likewise authorized to establish manufactories and acquire and lease real estate freely upon the basis of the provisions decreed by the regulations on social conditions. Foreign Israelites whose high social position and commercial operations are of public notoriety, and who come to Russia with the object of purchasing products of 19831—11 9 128 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. the Empire and exporting them abroad, can also, as a result of special understanding in eacli case between the ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs, obtain certificates of merchants of the first guild. (See pt. 5 of the remark to the third annex to art. 128 of the regulations on commerce, ed. 1876, with a complement: Decision of the committee of ministers, Dec. 26, 1877.) Israelites who may acquire by inheritance real estate situated beyond the locali- ties where their sojourn is authorized, are required to sell it within a period of six months. This law applies also to foreign Israelites who may acquire real estate in Russia by right of inheritance. (See art. 960 on the regulations of social conditions. Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) The following provisions have been decreed for the Israelite subjects of the Empire and are applicable to foreign Israelite subjects in so far only as the latter are found to have satisfied the requirements of the above-cited laws. Merchants of the first guild inscribed upon the general basis in the first guild of the cities may go there with the members of their families whose names are found upon the guild certificates. Israelite merchants who, in virtue of the preceding provisions, remove to the cities of the Empire situated beyond the limits of the localities of their authorized domicile, are permitted to bring with them clerks and servants, likewise Israelites, in limited number, by observing the foil wing rules: First. Israelite merchants who remove to one of the two capitals, St. Petersburg or Moscow, are required to state in a special petition presented to them by the governor general or the prefect of the place, the number of clerks or servants which they judge indispensable to bring with them to said capitals, and upon what consideration this number is based . The granting of these petitions is left to the judgment of the governor general and the prefect above cited. Second. Israelite merchants who are inscribed in the guilds of other cities are author- ized to bring with them, at the most, one clerk or one office boy and four servants of the two sexes of their race per family of Israelite merchant. (See annex 3 to art. 128 of the regulations on commerce, sequel to the Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) Israelite merchants of the first guild, besides the general rights of commerce, which belong to them within the limits of the localities of their authorized sojourn, enjoy the following special rights: First. They have the right to bring in bulk from the capitals and ports, in order to effect sales within the limits of the authorized districts, all kinds of merchandise, through the medium of commercial offices and local merchants, or by correspondence. Second. They are permitted to visit twice a year the capitals and other cities for the purposes of making sales there of merchandise, on condition that the period of their sojourn does not exceed six months per year. In case there shall be an imped- iment or impossibility on account of sickness or some other cause to their going in person for the above-mentioned object to the interior of the Empire, they will be authorized to send in their stead clerks provided with the proper authorization, always computing the period cited. An Israelite clerk who has already visited the provinces twice in one year, by virtue of an authorization of a merchant, can not go there a third time in the course of the same year. It shall be the same if, having gone to said provinces once for one merchant, he held the authorization of another merchant. He shall, in this case, not be authorized to make more than a single journey in the course of this same year. Third. Israelite merchants of the first guild are authorized to undertake enter- prises in the government of the interior, but on the condition that they do not employ m any case Israelites as agents or superintendents. Fourth. Israelite merchants of the first guild are permitted to carry on in the cap- itals and ports wholesale trade in the products of authorized Governments by means of Christian clerks or of merchants of the place or by direct correspondence with the manufacturers. But they are forbidden to make sale in person of said products in the capitals or ports of the Empire, or to open shops, under penalty of immediate expulsion and confiscation of merchandise. Fifth. They shall not be authorized, neither personally nor by means of Christian agents, to sell merchandise which they may have imported from abroad outside of the limits of the Governments of their authorized fixed sojourn. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1023.) TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 129 Mr. Blaine to Mr. Foster. [Extract.] Sir: Department op State, Washington, July 29, 1881. From a careful examination of the cases of grievance heretofore reported by your legation, it appears that the action of the Russian authorities toward American citi- zens alleged to be Israelites and visiting Russia has been of two kinds. First. Absolute prohibition of residence in St. Petersburg and in other cities of the Empire, on the ground that the Russian law permits no native Jews to reside there and that the treaty between Russia and the United States gives to our citizens in Russian jurisdiction no other rights or privileges than those accorded to native Rus- sians. The case of Henry Pinkos may be taken as a type of this class. Second. Permission of residence and commerce, conditionally on belonging to the first guild of Russian merchants and taking out a license. The case of Rosenstrauss is in point. The apparent contradiction between these two classes of actions becomes more and more evident as the question is traced backward. The department has rarely had Presented to it any subject of inquiry in which a connected understanding of the facts as proved more difficult. For every allegation, on the one hand, that native laws in force at the time the treaty of 1832 was signed prohibited or limited the sojourn of foreign Jews in the cities of Russia I find, on the other hand, special invitation to alien Hebrews of good repute to domicile themselves in Russia, to pursue their business calling under appropriate license, to establish factories there, and to purchase and lease real estate. Moreover, going back beyond 1832, the date of our treaty, I observe that the imperial ukases concerning the admission of foreigners into Russia are silent on all questions of faith, proper passports duly visaed being the essential requisite. And further back still, in the time of the Empress Catherine, I discover explicit tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the Empire. Before examining the issues directly before us it may not be out of place to give a brief review of these historical data. The ukase of the Empress Catherine of February 22, 1784, although concerning only the establishment of commercial relations with the new possessions of Russia on the Black Sea, contains the following notable declaration: "That Sebastopol, Kharson, and Theodocia be opened to all the nations friendly to our Empire for the advantage of their commerce with our faithful subjects ; * * * that the said nations may come to these cities in all safety and freedom. * * * Each individual of such nation, whomsoever he may be, as long as he shall remain in the said cities by reason of his business or of his own pleasure shall enjoy the free exer- cise of his religion, according to the praiseworthy precepts handed down to us by the sovereigns, our predecessors, and which we have again received and confirmed, "that all the various nationalities established in Russia shall praise God, the All Powerful, each one after the worship and religion of his ancestors," * * * and we promise, upon our imperial word, to accord to all foreigners in these three cities the same advantages which they already enjoy in our capital and seaport, St. Peters- burg, etc." The full text of this ukase, which breathes a spirit of large and enlightened toler- ance in advance of the policy of those days, is well worthy of perusal and may be consulted in vol. 4 of Marten's Recueil des Traites, first edition, Gottingen, 1795, pages 455-457. The imperial ordinance of the Czar Alexander I of 13th August, 1807, decrees a rigid system of passports for foreigners entering Russia and is applicable to "all foreigners, of whatsoever nationality," but intimates no restriction on travel or sojourn in Russia by reason of race or faith. This ordinance was modified and amplified b y the ukase of 25th February, 1817, but still without any manner of religious prescription or restriction. From this time down to 1860 I can find no trace of the enforcement, especially against American citizens, of the restrictions against Jewish travel and residence which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia was signed. It is a significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private international law, writing diu-ing this period upon the legislation of all Europe as affecting the rights of persons and aliens, make no reference to such disabilities. Even the pains- taking Foelix is silent on this point, although devoting much space to the treatment and rights of aliens in Russia. I do not desire to be here understood as arguing tha t 130 TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. the asserted disabilities did not exist at that time. The domestic history of the Russian Empire shows plainly the restrictions placed upon the native Hebrews, and especially those of Polish origin, the efforts to confine them to certain parts of the Empire, and the penalties sought to be imposed to deter them from mingling with the Christian subjects of the Czar. But the same history shows the gradual relaxation of these measures, until, in the capital itself, the native Israelite population is said to number *ome 30,000 souls, with their synagogues and sectarian schools, while a special ukase of the late Czar distinctly recognizes to foreign Hebrews every privilege of residence and trade in a certain guild which native Christian subjects possess. The ukase of the Emperor Alexander II of 7th June, 1860, after premising that the need of commercial development and the principles of international reciprocity make it proper to concede "to foreigners dwelling in Russia the same rights as those which our subjects enjoy already in the principal countries of Europe, " proceeds to permit all aliens to enter any of the trading guilds on the same footing as natives and to there- upon enjoy all the commercial privileges which these guilds confer upon native Russian traders, with the following qualification: "First remark. — Foreign Hebrew subjects known by reason of their social position and the wide extent of their commercial operations, who come from foreign lands, may, after the established formalities — that is to say, upon a special authorization, issued m each case by the ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs — trade in the Empire and establish banking houses therein, upon procuring the license of a merchant of the first guild. It is likewise permitted to these same Israelites to establish facto- ries, to acquire and to lease real estate conformably to the prescriptions of the present ukase." This provision, it will be observed, extends to the whole territory of the empire. If, as I understood the response of the Russian m-inistry in the case of Henry Pinkos, native Israelites are forbidden by law from residing or trading in the capital, then this ukase places all foreign Jews (whether belonging to treaty powers or not) on a more favored footing. But if native Hebrews, as a fact, are permitted to reside in St. Peters- burg and engage in trade in other guilds than the so-called "first guild," there may then well be question whether such restriction to a particular guild in the case of an American Israelite is consonant with the express opinions of the treaty of 1832, article 1. This point was in fact raised in the case of Theodore Rosenstrauss at Kharkoff, which is narrated at length, with all the correspondence therein exchanged, in Mr. Jewell's dispatch No. 20, of December 15, 1873; but it does not seem to have been then exhaustively considered whether the complainant received, under the treaty, the like treatment with the native Hebrews of Kharkoff, or whether he was constrained to obey the ukase of 1860, which, as I have above remarked, is framed for general application to all aliens irrespective of treaty rights. It is not, however, my present purpose to reargue this old case, but simply to call attention to the fact that the Russian law may, and possibly does, modify and restrict treaty rights. The Rosenstrauss case was special in its nature, and concerned commercial privileges under a promulgated license law of the empire. It may be necessary, at some future time, to discuss the question it involves, but just now I am concerned with a different class of cases, namely, those of American citizens visiting Russia for private business or for pleasure and travel and duly provided with the passports of this Government authenticating their national character and their consequent right to all the specific guaranties of our treaty. This brings me again to the cases of Pinkos and Wilczynski. It is unnecessary here to recapitulate the facts therein, as they are amply presented by the files of your legation and by the correspondence had with the Russian foreign office. It is suffi- cient to characterize them as instances of the notified expulsion from St. Petersburg, by the police or military authorities, of American citizens, not because of any alleged failure to comply with the ukase of 1860, or with the Russian commercial code, but simply on the allegation, unsupported by proof, that they professed the Israelitish faith, and that the law forbade the sojourn of native Israelites in the imperial capital. On this brief formulation of the case this Government believes that, under its treaty with Russia, and in view of its treatment of Russian subjects resorting under like circumstances to the United States, it has just ground for complaint and expectancy of better treatment from the Government of Russia. The provisions of our treaty of 1832 with Russia, governing the commercial privi- leges of the citizens and subjects of the two countries, is as follows: "Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. "The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security TERMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 131 and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside in all parts whatsoever of the said territories, in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particu- larly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." Article X confers specific personal rights reciprocally. In respect of this article an infringement alike of the letter and the spirit of the treaty is not only possible but probable, under the rigid interpretation of the Jewish laws, upon which Russia seems disposed to insist. Its stipulations concern the right to dispose of personal property owned by or falling to American citizens, who may receive and dispose of inherit- ances and have recourse to the courts in settlement of cases arising thereunder. It certainly could not be seriously claimed or justly admitted that an American Hebrew, coming within the provisions of this article, is to be treated as a candidate for com- mercial privileges and required to take out a license as a trader of the first guild, subject to the approval of his application by the ministries of finance, interior, and foreign affairs. A personal right, not a mercantile privilege, is conferred. To bar an American citizen whose rights may be so concerned, from personal appearance in protection of those rights, would be a distinct departure from the engagement of the treaty, while to suppose that his case might come under the discretional authority of the police or military power, which might refuse his sojourn in any part of the Em- pire, or allow it under conditions pending their good will, is to suppose a submission of the guarantees of the treaty to a tribunal never contemplated by its framers. Upon a case arising, this Government would hold that the treaty conferred specific rights on all American citizens in the matter of the disposition of their personal prop- erty, irrespective of any condition save those which the article itself expressly creates; that their actual presence when necessary to protect or assert their interests, is abso- lutely guaranteed whenever and for whatever time it may be needful; and that this international engagement supersedes any municipal rule or regulation which might interfere with the free action of such individuals. It would be, in the judgment of this Government, absolutely inadmissible that a domestic law restraining native Hebrews from residence in certain parts of the Empire might operate to hinder an American citizen, whether alleged or known to profess the Hebrew faith, from disposing of his property or taking possession thereof for himself (subject only to the laws of alien inheritance) or being heard in person by the courts, which under Russian law may be called upon to decide matters to which he is necessarily a party. The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of a treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of the con- flict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it can not be limited by the operations of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional engagement in favor of the citizens in another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable. I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United States con- cludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal protection of all classes of American citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination between them, whatever be their origin or creed. So that they abide by the laws at home or abroad it must give them due protection and expect like protection for them. Any unfriendly or discrimina- tory act against them on the part of a foreign power with which we are at peace would call for our earnest remonstrance, whether a treaty existed or not. The friendliness of our relations with foreign nations is emphasized by the treaties we have concluded with them. We have been moved to enter into international compacts by considera- tions of mutual benefit and reciprocity, by the same considerations, in short, which have animated the Russian Government from the time of the noble and tolerant declarations of the Empress Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believe that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; and it is therefore a source of unfeigned regret to us when a Government, to which we are allied by so many historical ties as to that of Russia, shows a disposition in its dealings with us to take advantage of tech- nicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not to the reciprocal motive of its interna- tional engagements in justification of. the expulsion from its territories of peaceable American citizens resorting thither under the good faith of treaties and accused of no wrongdoing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple adherence to the faith of their fathers. That the two American citizens whose unfortunate cases have brought about this discussion were not definitely expelled fi'om St. Petersburg, but were allotted by 132 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. the military autliorities a brief time to arrange their private affairs, said to coincide with the usual time during which any foreigner may remain in the Empire under hia original passport, does not alter the matter as it appears to our eyes. The motive alleged remains the same, and the principle involved is one recognized neither by our funda- mental laws nor by any of the conventions we have concluded with foreign States. It must not be forgotten that this issue, of the banishment of our citizens from a friendly territory by reason of their alleged religion, is a new one in our international relations. From the time when the treaty of 1832 was signed down to within a ver> recent period there has been nothing in our relations with Russia to lead to a suppo- sition that our flag did not carry with it equal protection to every American within the dominions of the Empire. Even in questions of citizenship affecting the interests of naturalized citizens of Russian origin the good disposition of the Imperial Govern- ment has been on several occasions shown in a most exemplary manner, and I am sure the actual counselors of His Majesty can not but contemplate with satisfaction the near approach made in 1874 to the arrangement of negotiations for a treaty of naturali- zation between the two countries. On that occasion it will be seen by consulting Mr. Jewell's No. 62 of April 22, 1874, the only remaining obstacle lay in the statutes of the Empire touching the conferment and the loss of citizenship, of which the examining commission and the consultative council of state recommended the modification in a sense compatible with the modern usage of nations. I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties remain unrepealed in the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other nations. Even we ourselves have our obsolete "blue laws," and their literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, might to-day subject a Russian of free-thinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, to the penalty of having has tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for blasphemy. Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than the letter of outworn laws, and statutory enactments are not ao inelastic but that they relax and change with the general advancement of peoples in the path of tolerance. The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pinsue their callings unmo- lested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient prescriptive laws, is in itself an eloquent testimony to the spirit of progress. And so, too, in Spain, where the per- secution and expulsion of Jews is one of the most notable and deplorable facts in history, and where the edicts of the earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see to-day an offer of protection and assured right of domicile made to Israelites of every race. I leave out of consideration in the present instruction the question whether the citizens or subjects of other nations are more or less favored than our own in this regard. I have not, however, failed to notice the statement made to you by Mr. de Giers, in one of yoiu reported conversations with him, that German and Austrian Jews are subjected to the proscriptions in question, and that the implications therefrom that if the Governments of Germany and Austria do not complain, there is no reason why we should. It is not for me to examine or conjecture the reciprocal motives of policy or of international convention which may govern in these instances. Neither have I failed to remark the seeming uncertainty with which the British Government has approached the case of the English Israelite, Mr. Lewisohn, who was recently required to quit St. Petersbm-g, notwithstanding that the personal guaranties of the Anglo- Russian treaty of January 12, 1859, in its eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles, are more particular than in our own treaty, and were presumably, like oiu own stipu- lations, framed with the intent of securing impartial rights and protection in Russia. I am perfectly willing to rest my argument on the moral weight of our treaty of 1832, although, of course, not averse to availing myself of any support which may come from any other quarter to fortify what we conceive to have been our clear pm-pose in executing that instrument. And under no circumstances would I in the name of this Government be willing to accept a less measure of impartial privilege for a citizen of the United States visiting or sojourning in Russian territory than is assured to aliens in the like case by any stipulation with or usage toward any other nation on the part of Russia. I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholomei to acquaint him with the general views of the President in relation to this matter. I can not better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating and amplifying those views which the President so firmly holds, and which he so anxiously desires to have recognized and responded to by the Russian Government. He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating the treaty of December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal engagements then entered into with the Government of Russia, gives us moral ground to expect careful attention to our opinions as to its rational interpretation in the broadest and most TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 133 impartial sense; that he would deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of the relations of the two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to find that this large national sentiment fails to control the present issue, or that a narrow and rigid limitation of the construction possible to the treaty stipulation between the two countries is likely to be adhered to; and if, after a frank comparison of the views of the two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest desire to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations between the United States and Russia are found insufficient to determine questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient in these regards; and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which Russia professes toward us than a frank declaration of her readiness to come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and generous spirit. I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore with the min- ister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you have on some occasions given discreet expression to the feelings of sympathy and gratification with which this Government and people regard any steps taken in foreign countries in the diree- tion of a liberal tolerance analogous to that which forms the fundamental principle of our national existence. Such expressions were natural on your part and reflected a sentiment which we all feel. But in making the President's views known to the minister I desire that you will carefully subordinate such sentiments to the simple consideration of what is conscientiously believed to be due to our citizens in foreign lands. You will distinctly impress upon him that, regardful of the sovereignty of Russia, we do not submit any suggestions touching the laws and customs of the Empire except where those laws and customs conflict with and destroy the rights of American citizens as assured by treaty obligations. You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their religious faith. I can not but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views of this Gov- ernment will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that of Russia and that the questions at issue will soon find their natural solution in harmony with the noble spirit of tolerance which pervaded the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the statesman-like declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the late decree of the Czar Alexander II in 1860. You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and should he desire a copy you will give it to him. James G. Blaine, (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1030.) Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, August 29, 1881. Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, having prepared a copy of your dispatch, No. 87, upon the subject of the United States Jews in Russia, I to-day called upon Mr. de Giers. I told him the object of my visit and offered to read your dispatch. He requested me not to do so, as he was very much occupied, and several persons waiting to see him, but asked me to leave him a copy, which he promised to have carefully considered. I said to him that your dispatch related to citizens of the United S tates alone ; that you did not touch upon the question of Russian Jews; and that as regards citizens of the United States you placed yourself principally and strongly upon the treaty of 1832. That under the treaty every citizen of the United States, without distinction of creed, had the right to go where he pleased, and stay as long as pleased in the Empire. He replied that he regarded the words "on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevaUtng" as qualifying this right, and subjecting American Israelites to the laws which govern Russian Israelites. I assured him that it appeared to nie that those words referred rather to laws or morals and police "ordinances " ia the ordinary acceptation of that term. I added, that in the case of Russian Jews very many exceptions were made to their laws (referring to the large number of Russian Jews permitted to reside in St. Petersburg contrary to the law). He admitted that there were many such exceptions, and added that exceptions were made and would ]3e freely made in the case of foreign Jews also. I had only to apply in any particular 134 TERMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. case, and he had no doubt an exception would be made; your dispatch should be care- fully considered, and in a week or two he would answer it verbally or in writing as I preferred. He added that the answer would probably be the same as that given to the English. The answer given to the English, I understood to be, that the treaty does not give an English Israelite the right to go anywhere, or stay any length of time in Russia, but that he is bound by the regulations which govern native Jews; but that in the case of Mr. Lewisohn an exception is made on the request of the British embassy, and he can return here if he desires to do so. I do not speak with certainty, but I learn in well- informed quarters that this is the decision. I am, etc., Wickham Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1036.) Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, October 8, 1881. Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 87 and to my No. 150 in reply, I have the honor to inform you that I called yesterday upon Mr. de Giers in reference to the ques- tion of the United States Jews in Russia. Mr. de Giers stated that he had read your dispatch with interest; that the question had two sides — its legal and moral sides; that in reference to the former, he still maintained the view he had already intimated to me, viz, that in the treaty of 1832 the words "on condition of then* submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing" were controlling, and subjected American Jews to the treatment of native Jews. He added that he had given an analogous answer to the representatives of other powers. As regards the moral side of the question he, personally, would be glad to see im- portant modifications made in the laws regulating the condition of Jews in Russia, but that they had brought much of the harshness of these laws upon themselves. A commission had, however, been appointed to examine and report upon the whole Jewish question, under the presidency of the minister of the interior; that the commis- sion would meet this autumn, and that he had already transmitted your dispatch to that officer, to be submitted to the commission. Wickham Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1037.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, July 14, 1881. Sir: After considerable delay I am at last enabled to send you herewith an abstract or sketch of the laws of Russia relative to foreign Jews. As I heretofore noted, the laws on this subject are contained in a voluminous mass of legislation, regulations, decisions of ministries, etc., many of which conflict with each other, and it has been found very difficult to know with accuracy what is the existing law applicable to a particular case. The accompanying abstract is believed to be * * * as full as I can make it without the employment of an experienced native attorney, and having in view some special question. As introductory to a notice of the inclosed abstract, it is proper to state that from early times Jews were prohibited from coming to or settling in Russia; but, by means of the conquest of Poland, the Crimea, and certain other districts, a large number of Jews became incorporated as subjects of the Empire, and it was thus made neces- sary to so modify the ancient general prohibition as to allow Israelites who had become Russian subjects by annexation of territory to reside in the western and southwestern provinces named in the inclosed abstract. And up to the present no other part of the Empire has been opened to Jewish Russian subjects for unrestricted habitation, 80 that, as a rule, even Russian Jews are confined to the provinces cited; and the ancient law prohibiting the entrance into Russia of foreign Israelites is still in force, with the very limited exceptions cited in the accompanying sketch. These excep- tions may be briefly stated as follows: 1. Certain foreign Jews may come into the governments or provinces of west and southwest Russia named, to wit: First, rabbis invited by the Russian Government TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 135 to exercise their profession; second, manufacturers with a capital of 15,000 rubles, by special aiTangement; and, third, artisans brought by said manufacturers upon certain specific conditions. II. All other parts of Russia are closed to foreign Israelites, wiMi the limited excep- tions of, first, the agents of large commercial houses abroad, who are permitted to visit, for a limited period, the great commercial and manufacturing centers of Russia, upon their petition to that effect, presented to the department of the interior, being granted; and, second, well-known bankers and chiefs of large commercial houses or enterprises coming to Russia to purchase and export native products may be admitted as merchants of the first guild, as the result of a special joint understanding with the ministers of the interior, and finance, and of foreign affairs; but, even after being ad- mitted as members of the merchants' guild, they have only specified and restricted privileges. It will thus be seen that Jewish citizens of the United States are virtually excluded from Russia, as few, if any, of them would be willing to comply with the requirements necessary for their admission under Russian laws. This code of Jewish regulations, of which some idea may be formed from the inclosed sketch, will appear somewhat curious and antiquated in our country of unrestricted commercial intercourse, and especially the limitations, not only of a business, but even of a domestic character, which are thrown around the Jewish bankers and merchants (to use the language of the law) "known for their high social position and large operations and commercial enterprises." I also transmit herewith a memorandum showing the provisions bearing upon the question of the treaties of commerce existing between Russia and Great Britain, Austria, and France. The other European nations have treaties similar to that of Great Britain, with the exception of Germany, which, singularly enough, has no treaty of commerce with Russia. A comparison with the treaty of commerce which the United States has with Russia will show that the only material variance is in the last paragraph of Article I of the British treaty (and a similar provision is found in the treaties of most of the European nations with Russia), wherein it is more explicitly provided that in the treaty with the United States that the privileges therein granted "in nowise affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry, and the police in vigor in each of the two countries." The Austrian treaty is still more precise in adding to the foregoing reservation a recognition "that the restrictions established in the states of one of the high contracting parties shall be equally applicable to the subjects of the other belonging to the same confession." It may, therefore, be con- cluded that our treaty is fully as favorable to our citizens as that of any other nation with Russia. As the case of the British subject Lewinsohn, now pending and the occasion of some inquiry in Parliament, has been heretofore referred to, I inclose a statement of the facts relating thereto, which is doubtless substantially correct. It may be noted that while Lewinsohn was refused permission to revisit St. Petersburg, the American citizen, Mr. Wilczynski, who was expelled about the same time, was, upon applica- tion of this legation, given permission to return. I am, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1022.) Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. [Extract.] Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, January 9, 1882. Sir: Referring to the correspondence between the department and this legation upon the subject of American Jews in Russia, I have the honor to report the follow- ing curious case: About three weeks ago I was called upon by a man of the name of James G. Moses, who produced his United States passport and stated that he was a Jew ; that he was employed in the Ceniselli circus in this city as stable director; and that he had been ordered out of the city as a Jew. He added that he was not "one of those Talmud Jews"; that be belonged to the American Reformed Church, known in Russia as the Karaim Jews. * * * J asked the consul general, who is in relations with the municipal author- ities, to apply to Gen. Kosloff, prefect of police, on Mr. Moses's behalf. 136 TERMIITATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. Ab soon as Gen. Kosloff understood tliat Moses was a Karaim Jew lie told tlie conBul general to send the man to him the next morning, accompanied by his employer. The next morning they went accordingly, and the result of the interview was that Mr. Moses was informed that Gen. Kosloff would recommend that permission be given . him to remain and in the meantime to give himself no uneasiness. I understand that he has since received the necessary permission. It appears that the Karaim or Reformed Jews are of a superior class and have never caused the Russian Government any trouble or been found enrolled among the Nihilists. Mr. Moses is a resident of New York, bom in Germany, but taken to the United States when a young child. I am, sir, etc., ^ Wickham Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 444.) Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, February U, 1882. Sir: At my request Mr. Rawicz, United States consul at Warsaw, has prepared for me a brief account of the late anti-Jewish riots in that city. Mr. Rawicz is a banker and a gentleman of intelligence and experience, and I have much confidence in the soundness of his judgment and the accuracy of his statements. I am, sir, etc., Wickham Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 446.) Mr. Rawicz to Mr. Hoffunann. Consulate of the United States, Warsaw, February 1, 1882. A BRIEF account OF THE LAST RIOTS AT WARSAW. In the month of April last, just before the holiday of Corpus Christi, on which^ according to the Catholic custom, great religious processions take place all over the whole country, there appeared in the streets and workshops of our town, as well as in many of the principal manufacturing towns in the whole country, printed proclama- tions instigating the Christian population against the Jews. Similar tendencies were never heard of here until the anti-Semite riots in Russia, namely, Kieff, Odessa, Charkoff, etc., and it is certain they did not spring out on this soil, but were con- veyed here from the main source. The sober and well-thinking inhabitants succeeded, withthe assistance of the local governor general, in influencing the Catholic clergy, who again, on their part, by proper sermons, preached from the pulpits all over the country, succeeded in refraining the greater part of the lowest class of people in taking part in the riots, and in reality the last events were only perpetrated by minor apprentices, people of the lowest rank, without any employment, and reprobates, as there were hardly any amidst the whole number of the arrested that might be said belonged to the better class of artisans; and it is a fact, proved by the investigating judges, that the violent hands laid upon the property of others were only those of the rabble, amidst whom appeared leaders never seen here before, but that such an event could possibly take place here was not supposed even by the greatest pessimists. During the divine serAdces on Christmas day in the Holy Cross Church, situated in one of the principal streets of this town, about 12 o'clock in the day, when the church was overcrowded with the pious, a cry of "fire" was raised,^ as it was after- wards ascertained, by pickpockets, one of whom was a Jew; and it is said the same cry was simultaneously raised in four other chm-ches. The people began to throng in the entrance, and as the church doors are somewhat elevated, to which two flights of broad stone steps of 13 steps each are leading, here they began to crowd, fall, and trample each other, and here principally the whole catastrophe took place,_ so that in the course of a quarter of an hour there were 30 killed and 26 seriously injured, who were taken to a hospital cbse by, and some of whom died soon after. The gov- TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 137 ernor general appeared on the spot in order to exert Ms influence on the excited populace, and just at that time voices were heard from amidst the crowd, "It is the Jews that caused this disaster; let us have our revenge on the Jews." Being a first-rank holiday, only the Jewish shops were half opened, and the rabble began to pilfer the Jewish brandy and tobacco shops, as well as their private lodgings, principally those belonging to the poorer classes and those situated in the back streets, and before the police, gendarmes, and troops could render any real service the rest of that day and the whole night passed. On the next day, however, the authorities took more energetic steps, and on the third succeeded in putting a final stop, and since that time no attempt whatever was made to renew the riots. During these whole disturbances there has not occurred either a single case of murder, or violation of woman, as the chief object of the rabble was pilfering, which was effected, according to official statement, in 1,025 shops, and the total number of families that suffered is stated to be 2,011, about 10,000 persons; and the damages caused by these broils, according to official statement of the committee appointed for that pmpose, was reduced to the amount of 767,339 rubles, as according to private Jewish accounts it reached to 1,200,000 rubles, which sum was doubtless greatly exaggerated. The number of persons arrested was over 3,000. The exaggeration of these street broils in the Times, as well as in many of the other foreign papers, may be principally attributed to Jewish propaganda, for the purpose of exciting commiseration, and con- sequently augmenting the subscriptions collected everywhere, and which to the pres- ent day amount to 146,400 rubles. Besides the poorer class of Jewish shopkeepers who sustained considerable losses, as many of them lost all they had, it also affected in a great measure many of the house proprietors, merchants, manufacturers, brewers, with whom that class of people car- ried on business, as on that account the Jews, with few exceptions, do not pay neither their rents nor for the goods they had taken. It is the general conviction here, and there is not the least doubt in the truth of it, that this evil propensity was totally unknown here, but as I already stated above, was brought over from the main source, but which, notwithstanding the antipathy toward the Jews, fortunately did not take deep root, thanks to the clergy, who since the very appearance of the stimulating proclamations, not only in the churches have availed themselves of every opportunity to avert the evil, and who now continue their work to obliterate the traces of inhuman deeds. I am, sir, etc., Joseph Rawicz, United States Consul. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 446.) Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Hoffmann. Department op State, Washington, April 15, 1882. Sir: The prejudice of race and creed having in our day given way to the claims of common humanity, the people of the United States have heard with great regret the stories of the sufferings of the Jews in Russia. It may be that the accounts in the newspapers are exaggerated, and the same may be true of some private reports. Making, however, due allowance for misrepresentation, it can scarcely be doubted that much has been done which a humane and just person must condemn. The President, of course, feels that the Government of the Emperor should not be held morally responsible for acts which it considers wrong but which it may be powerless to prevent. If that be true of this case, it would be worse than useless for me to direct you,_ as representative of the United States, to give official expression to the feeling which the treatment of the Jews calls forth in this country. Should, however, the attitude of the Russian Government be different, and should you be of the opinion that a more vigorous effort might be put forth for the prevention of this great wrong, you will, if a favorable opportxmity offers, state with all proper deference that the feeling of friendship which the United States entertains for Russia prompts this Government to express the hope that the Imperial Government will find means to cause the per- secution of these unfortunate beings to cease. This instruction devolves a delicate duty upon you, and a wide discretion is given you in its execution. However much this Republic may disajjprove of affairs in other nationalities, it does not conceive that it is its right or province officiously and offensively to intermeddle. If, however, it should come to yoiu: knowledgethat any citizens of the United States are- made victims of this persecution, you will feel it your duty to omit no effort to protect them and to report such cases to this department. Feedk. T. Frelinghuysen. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 451.) 138 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Mr. Hojffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, April 29, 1882. Sir: The anti-Jewish riots have commenced again in the south of Russia. They have been marked, as heretofore, by great and wanton destruction of property, but by little personal violence. The scene of the worst disturbances has been the town of Balta, a town of about 25,000 inhabitants, nearly tliree-quarters of whom are Israelites. It lies about 125 miles northwest of Odessa. The riot is reported to have been from some trifling cause, such as the refusal of a Russian peasant to pay for the liquor he had drunk in a wine shop kept by a Jew. The police, which was very weak, appeal to have interfered simply to prevent the Jews from defending themselves. At first the rioters did not number more than 200, many of them boys. But the peasants began to come in from the country, joined the rioters, and gave a more serious turn to the affair. The riot lasted two days before troops arrived from Odessa to quell it. During this time, of the thousand homes occupied by the Jews all, except perhaps 50, were gutted and sacked. As far as ascertained, one Israelite only lost his life. But the amount of suffering undergone by over 15,000 people — men, women, and chil- dren — destitute of food and lodging, is painful to contemplate. I am satisfied that the Russian Government is truly anxious to put a stop to these riots. It is reported that in the country far from the garrison towns the German inhabitants are very uneasy, and the saying is not uncommon, "After the Jews, the ■Germans." But the position of the Russian Government in this matter is an exceedingly difficult one. In a conversation with Gen. Ignatieff, a few days since, he told me that the Government had received the reports of the numerous local boards appointed by it last year to suggest measures for the amelioration of the condition of the Jews; that they had not only by a majority but unanimously recommended their expulsion from the Empire. "We have, then," he said, "on the one hand 5,000,000 Jews, Russian subjects, clamoring to be freed from all special restraints, and we have on the other 85,000,000 Russian subjects clamoring to have the 5,000,000 expelled from the Empire. What is to be done in such a case?" WicKHAM Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 452.) Mr. Hoffmann to Mr, Frelinghuysen. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, July 1, 1882. Sir: Referring to your note 123, of the 15th of April last, and to my number 226, in reply, I have the honor to forward you herewith a copy of a circular of Count Tolstg, minister of the interior, addressed to the governors of the different Provinces of the Empke, upon the subject of the persecution of the Jews, together with a translation of the same. You will see that the opinion which I have ventured to express in my number 226, and previously in my number 221, that the Russian Government was sincerely de- sirous of putting a stop to all violence toward the Jews, is borne out by this circular. WiCKHAM Hoffmann. (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 454.) [Inelosure to No. 272.] The regulation of the committee of ministers approved by His Majesty the Emperor the 3d of May last set forth: That it must be brought to the public knowledge that the Government has resolved to pursue with inflexibility all violence exercised against the person and the property of the Israelites, who are under the protection of the law, common in this respect to all the population by the same right as those of the other subjects of His Majesty the Emperor. That the competent provincial authorities must be informed that the charge belongs to their responsibilities of the measures now to be taken with a view to avoid occasions of similar disorders and to put a stop to them as soon as they may break out; and for all negligence in this respect on the part of the administrative TERMIISrATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 139 authorities and the police, when they might have but have not, taken the trouble to prevent acts of violence, those who have been guilty will be relieved of theii" functions. The publication of this expression of the imperial will has unfortunately been provoked on several occasions by disorders which have been renewed in different localities of the Empire, accompanied by violence against the Israelite population. Such disorders, which, as a result, cause individuals to lose, without distinction of race and religion, the certainty of the security of their person and of their property, prove the insufficiency of the guaranty of the regular and peaceable course of public life and deprive the Government of the possibility of devoting itself solely to a capital question, and just now of special importance, viz, to harmonize the activity of all governmental and social institutions and direct it toward the determined and clearly defined object of the reestablishment of tranquillity and order, which are the only sure guarantees of the ulterior development of public security and tranquillity. With this aim the regulations of the committee of ministers not only invite the competent authorities to take oiu- peremptory measiu-es to prevent the manifestation of all acts of violence, but to point out in addition the necessity of relieving from their functions persons who may be guilty of any negligence in this respect. In calling the most serious attention of the governors of the provinces to the punctual and inflexible execution of the imperial will expressed by the committee of ministers, I think proper on my side to explain, in development of the fundamental idea, that violence and arbitrariness can not be justified by any inciting causes; that for this reason the adoption of effective measures to be taken to prevent and arrest disorders rests upon the personal responsibility of the governors, and that every manifestation of local disorder will, as its inevitable consequence, render also legally responsible all the functionaries whose duty was the immediate charge of preventing disorders. Not judging it possible to give here any more direct instruction relative to the means of obtaining the above-mentioned end, considering that, on one side, these means are indicated by the law itself and that, on the other, the choice to make among them, when it is a question of applying them depends upon accidental circumstances, tem- porary and local, I have the couAdction that the governors of the provinces will carry out all the requirements clearly established by the imperial will, and will fully justify my hopes on this subject by pm'suing on their side, without the least hesitation, all negligence of the authorities. (Official Messenger.) (Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 454.) Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Taft. Department of State, Washington, December 18, 1884. Sir: The Hon. S. S. Cox, M. C, has addressed the department on the subject of a report that the Russian minister of the interior has ordered the expulsion from Odessa and other cities of the interior of all Hebrews holding foreign passports xmless also holding "permits of residence." So far as any of these persons are citizens of the United States I have to ask that you will communicate to the foreign office the desire of the President that law-abiding American Hebrews, on due exhibition of such passports, may receive the adequate permits of residence referred to. Should it prove that no such order has been made, you will telegraph, and in case the order has been issued you will report as promptly as convenient the approximate number of American citizens in the various cities where it is operative affected by it, that I may apprise Mr. Cox of the facts. I am, etc., Fredk. T. Frelinghuysen. (Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 655.) Mr. Taft to Mr. Frelinghuysen. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, January 17, 1885. Sir: On the receipt of your dispatch No. 7, dated December 18, 1884, relating to the reported order of the minister of the interior of this Government, requiring foreign Hebrews to have a "permit of residence" as well as a passport in order to reside m Odessa and certain other cities in Russia, I immediately addressed a letter to the 140 TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. foreign office containing specific inquiries on all the points covered by the dispatch, and communicated the desire of the President that "permits of residence" be granted to law-abiding American Hebrews. I have also personally called on the secretary of foreign affairs and on the secretary of the interior, and have likewise made inquiry of ambassadors of countries which have Jewish citizens residing in Russia. There is undoubtedly such an order as you describe in force, but it is not limited to Jews. No foreigner is allowed to reside in Russia without a "permit of residence," as well as a passport. The difficulty is that the Government in granting permits and licenses discriminates against foreign Jews, according to certain laws in force in Odessa and other cities, and declines generally to grant permits of residence to them imless they are merchants of the first guild, paying annually 800 rubles each for such a license. This is undoubtedly a different rule from that adopted by the Govermment for other foreigners, or for native Jewish citizens, and I have so presented the case to the sec- retary of foreign affairs. But it is claimed by this Government that while according to Article I of the treaty of 1832 American citizens enjoy the same security and pro- tection as do the inhabitants of the country in which they reside, it is upon condition that they submit to the laws and ordinances established there, and particularly as to the rules of commerce in force, and that as a matter of fact Israelites are subjected to a particular regime in Russia, regulated by laws and ordinances, and rules for com- merce, industry, and the police, and further that this regime referring to all foreign Israelites, without national distinction, can not be considered in the case of one indi- vidual Hebrew to whom it applies as any violation of the treaty of December 18, 1832. It is pretty clear that this Government adheres strongly to the opinion that it is essential to the interest of the Empire to restrict by law the residence of foreign Jews in the cities of the Empire. I find that Germany has many more cases of the kind than we have, and England also has Hebrew citizens residing in Russia, though not so many as Germany. Both Germany and England have conventions with Russia similar to that existing between the United States and Russia. Indeed, I think the articles are identical. I under- stand that the German Government does not dispute the right of the Russian to adopt these laws on the regulation of its internal affairs, notwithstanding the convention. Although the principle has been questioned by the English Government, the regu- lations of the Russian Government on the subject have been submitted to without any disturbance of friendly relations. As to the number of American citizens residing in the cities of Russia, accurate information is difficult to obtain, if it be at all practicable. I have requested the foreign office to give me such information on the subject as may be practicable, and I shall make such other inquiries as I can; but from the best information I have been able to obtain my belief is that the American Hebrews in Russia are very few. There is an evident belief on the part of the Russian Government that most of the Jews who have gone to America, obtained letters of naturalization, and returned to Russia for business are speculating on their naturalization papers to evade their military duty to the Russian Government. I write this statement without waiting for a specific written answer to my before- mentioned communication to the foreign office on the subject of your dispatch No. 7, as it may be some time before the answer will be received, and I believe tliat I am able to give a correct idea of the position of this Government on the subject from the verbal communications I have exchanged with the secretary of foreign affairs and from other sources. Alphonzo Taft. (Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 655.) Mr. Taft to Mr. Bayard. No. 30.] Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, March 18, 1885. Sir: Referring to instruction No. 7 from the Department of State to this legation and to my answer in part thereto, numbered 26, I have the now honor to send the answer of this Government to my application, made in pursuance of first-named dispatch, with a translation thereof. I am, etc. Alphonzo Taft. (Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 657.) TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 141 Mr. Vlangaly to Mr. Imperial Ministry-^Jp Foreign Affairs, Department of Internal Relations, St. Petersburg, March 5, 1885. Mr. Minister: Your note of December 22, 1884, with which you favored the min- istry, had for object to obtain information on the point whether the Imperial Govern- ment had issued an order by which all foreign Israelites were expelled from the city of Odessa and other localities in the Empire. You at the same time expressed in the name of your Government the desire that permits of residence might be given to all Jewish citizens of the United States of America. I have to-day the honor to inform you, on a communication from the ministry of the interior, that no such action has been taken by the Imperial Government. In regard to furnishing the Jewish citizens of America with Russian permits of resi- dence, the minister of the interior observes that he can not comply with this request, as according to the regulations established on this subject, every foreigner having this national passpost in due order is obliged, on his own application to be furnished by the competent Russian authority with a permit of residence. The law at the same time grants to foreigners the right to bring complaint for any irregularity that may take place in this respect. I have also to add that the Imperial Government is unable to supply the legation of the United States with statistics concerning the number of Jewish-American citizens residing in Russia. Receive, etc. A. Vlangalt. (Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 65T.) Mr. Lothrop to Mr. Bayard. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, September 7, 1886. Sir: As the question has recently come up again, I think it my duty to advise the State Department of the present status of the right of citizens of the United States being of the Hebrew faith to enter into or dwell m Russia. The laws of Russia forbid this. It is true that there are some exceptions in favor of members of great banking or commercial houses, but this is of no practical value to Americans. The matter has heretofore been the subject of careful and extended correspondence between the State Department and this legation, especially in 1880 and 1881. A digest of the Russian law may be found in Mr. Foster's dispatch of July 14, 1881. Every effort seems to have been made to induce the imperial authorities to modify its laws in favor of our citizens, but wholly without success . There is now no probabil- ity of such modification. Indeed, there seems to be a revival of strictness in enforcing the restrictions. Strict orders have been issued to Russian officials abroad not to vise the passport of any persons recognized as foreign Jews. The object is to turn all such persons back at the frontier, and thus prevent their entering the Empire. If, however, any get through, their passports are subjected to renewed scrutiny in all large cities, and if they are recognized they are forthwith ordered to leave. The papers announce that only a few days ago two English Jews, one of them a member of Parliament, were peremptorily expelled at Moscow. On August 29 a most respectable Hebrew merchant of New York, a native-born citizen of the United States, who was traveling in Russia as a tourist with his family, was waited on at his hotel in this city by the police, his passport returned to him, and he was ordered to leave the city that night. He came to me immediately and I at once not only went to the foreign office but filed a protest in writing against this order and asked for its revocation. At the same time I advised him to remain pend- ing my application. My explanation of this gentleman's character and the purpose of his visit was very readily accepted and the order of expulsion revoked. The Imperial Government defends its position on the ground that every country must have full liberty to determine who shall have the right to enter and dwell in its territory. It is not pretended that American citizens of the Hebrew faith have ever at any time proved dangerous to the peace or safety of the Empire. But it is urged that discrimination between natiqpalities is inadmissible, and that the harsh- ness of the general rule it mitigated by special permission given in all proper case upon special application. 142 TERMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. I believe that the Russian officials are disposed to be obliging in this respect, but it can never be acceptable that any body of American citizens should be subject to any such necessity. It seems to be an imputation which is justly held most sacred. Still, as there is not the slightest intention to abrogate or even modify the law, it may be desirable that the facts should be more fully known in America. Much annoyance and mortification would be saved if our Hebrew fellow citizens desiring to come to Russia should apply for special leave. Letters of introduction to the legation would be most useful in promoting such application. Permission could doubtless be obtained in all ordinary cases. The question has arisen in several other cases; but in no case of an American citizen has an actual order of expulsion been made. I submit the matter to you for such consideration and direction as you shall think best. I am, very truly, etc., George V. N. Lothrop. (Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 773.) Mr. Bayard to Mr. Lothrop. Department op State, Washington, September 23, 1886. Sir: In your No. 77 you inform the department of the present status of the Russian law respecting the right of an alien of the Hebrew faith to enter or reside within His Imperial Majesty's territory. You state that, save in exceptional cases, it is altogether denied, and that though efforts have been made on various occasions by the legation to induce the Russian Government to modify this law, there now exists no probability of such modification, although special exception has been made at your request. The treatment of alien Jews prescribed by the Russian law is such as we, whose system of government rests on toleration and freedom of conscience, can not compre- hend without difficulty or view without regert. Aimed, as it would appear, princi- pally at Russian Polish Jews by origin, and rigidly applied as to them even when they are lawful citizens of another State, the fact that the enforcement of the law in the case of worthy foreign Jews of other origin appears to be within the discretion of the police authorities and that the representations of the legation are generally heeded when an American Jew is in question fortunately makes occasion for protest rare. The instance cited by you is in point where a native-born Hebrew merchant of New York was promptly relieved from a harsh order of expulsion. Any case arising should be carefully examined on its merits, and where the person interested is not by origin a Russian Jew, returning to his native country under circumstances suggesting danger to the State and implying the exercise of the ultimate right of self-preservation, the earnest efforts of the legation will doubtless be exerted to secure relief in whatever way the Russian administrative system may indicate as practical. The Government of the Czar is fully aware that we do not admit the principle of discriminating against American citizens because of their religious tenets. T. F. Bayard (Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 774.) Mr. Bayard to Baron Rosen. Department op State, Washington, October 4, 1887, The Secretary of State presents his compliments to the charg6 d'affaires ad interim of Russia, and has the honor to request him to cause the inclosed documents to be authenticated under the seal of the Russian legation and then returned to the Depart- , ment of State. (Foreign Relations, 1887, p, 971.) •lEBMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 143 Baron Rosen to Mr. Bayard. Imperial Russian Legation, Washington, September 2S-October 5, 1887. The charg^ d'affaires of Russia presents his compliments to the Secretary of State, and has the honor to say, in reply to his communication of the 4th of October, that the documents foi-warded for authentication relating to property in Russian Poland, and issuing from persons who appear to be Hebrews, could only be legalized by this legation if accompanied by passports for foreign travel or other documentary evidence showing that the said persons had left Russia with the permission of the Imperial Gov- ernment, as all legations and consulates are under instructions not to authenticate any documents whatsoever relating to the transfer of property in Russian Poland issuing from Hebrews who have left Russia without permission. In the absence of the evi- dence above referred to the charg6 d'affaires of Russia regrets not to be able to comply with the requests of the Secretary of State in regard to the authentication of the said documents, which are returned herewith. (Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 971.) Mr. Lothrop to Mr. Bayard. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, November 29, 1887. Sir: As I have in a previous dispatch had the honor to make known to you the laws_ of Russia prohibit foreign-born Jews, with some unimportant exceptions, from coming into Russia, or becoming domiciled therein. During this year the law has been very rigorously enforced against all newcomers, and it now seems to be a fixed policy to drive out all who have hitherto become domiciled in the Empire. The newspapers mention the expulsion of large bodies in southern Russia, where they principally live. I have been appealed to by several naturalized American citizens, who have been notified that they must leave the Empire by the end of the year. I have replied to all such applications that, while I should always be glad to render them any proper asistance, this was a matter wholly within the domain of Russian law, so long as foreign Jews of all nationalities were treated alike, and no discrimination made against American citizens. _ The ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs have power on peti- tion to grant permission to remain here in special cases. Mr. D. Waldenberg, a naturalized American citizen, but a Jew of foreign birth long settled at Plock and doing business there, was some months ago notified that he must leave the country by the end of the year. He was so well esteemed by his neighbors that they generally petitioned for a grant of special permission in his favor. I thought the case was one in which I could properly join in the application, and did so. No reply has been made. I have a warm sympathy for these people whose homes and business are thus relent- lessly broken up; but my concern would be even deeper if they were only temporarily living here, engaged in promoting business and commerce with their adopted country. But I regret to say that_ in nearly every case brought to my attention they seem to be permanently settled in Russia and engaged in its domestic business. As many of these persons, if expelled, will be likely to find their way back to America, where their hardships may attract attention, and it has seemed to me proper to set out the precise facts of the case, and to show that the unfortunate condition of this class of our fellow citizens has not been regarded here with indifference. George V. N. Lothrop. (Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 1399.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, September 25, 1890. Sir: You have been advised by previous dispatches from this legation that the published rumors of the new prescriptive measures, or the revival and oppressive application of the old and obsolete edicts, against the Hebrew residents and subjects 19831—11 ^10 144 TERMIlSrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. of the Russian Empire are declared by the Russian Government to be entirely- groundless. Notwithstanding the authoritative denial of these reports, they still crop up from time to time, and are persistently repeated with a degree of circumstance well calculated to create the impression that they have some foundation of fact. This continued imputation of purpose and acts, to which, if really entertained or executed, we could not be indifferent, renders it proper that I should apprise you of some further evidence on the subject. The statement recently appeared in the colums of the London Times that, despite the disavowal of the Russian Government, some 500 or 600 Hebrew families residing at Odessa had been summarily notified that they must immediately abandon their homes, and in fact that they had already been expelled from the country. It has come to my knowledge that in view of this publication the British Embassy at this capital called on the British consul at Odessa to investigate the story and report upon its truth. His report has now been made, and I am able to communicate its substance. He directed his inquiries not only among the Government ofiicials, but among the Hebrews themselves, and the latter were as emphatic as the former in declaring that no order of the character described had been issued and no movement of the kind attempted. He found no confirmation of the story in any quarter. A number of Hebrew families had emigrated or were preparing to do so, but the action was entirely voluntary on their part and was not taken under compulsion. This emigration was explained by the rabbis and the highest authorities among the Hebrews as due to the fact that there were many youths in those families, and that, as the number admitted to the universities in Russia is limited, they removed to other countries to secure the opportunity of higher education; and thus it was made clear that there was no foundation for the particular charge which has been preferred against the Government. These reports of new prescriptive designs against the Hebrews on the part of the Russian Government have actually created more concern in other coimtries than here, because, so far as can be ascertained, they had their sole origin and obtained their sole credence remote from the scene. Had there been any good reason for supposing that measures so repugnant to every sentiment of justice and humanity were actually undertaken or seriously contemplated, it would have been a duty to report them for such consideration as they would have required; but it is a source of special gratification to be able to present not only the denial of the Government, but confirmatory testimony that these injurious allegations are baseless. I have, etc., Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 701.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation or the United States, St. Petersburg, February 10, 1891. Sir: A few days ago I had an extended, interesting, and suggestive conversation with the imperial minister of foreign affairs, Mr. de Giers, concerning the attitude and policy of Russia in respect to the Jewish subjects of the Empire. Mr. de Giers himself introduced the theme. In the absence of specific instructions and of any pending cases involving the rights of American citizens of Jewish faith, and thus touching the subject more or less directly, I might have felt some hesitation, unless in the couse of an informal and personal talk, in opening an inquiry possibly liable to the reproach of intruding into the domain of the internal policy and domestic affairs of the Empire. But the freedom with which Mr. de Giers himself raised the question removed all embarrassment. In view of recent publications throughout the world and of the wide public and hiimane interest in the subject, the exposition and statements of the minister of foreign affairs are noteworthy and valuable. I can not undertake to repeat all that was said in a conversation that was quite prolonged, but will give the most salient features. Mr. de Giers began by alluding to recent publications in American newspapers respecting Russia and the Jewish question, and said that these publications had been the subject of a conversation between the Emperor and himself the day before. Some of these contained personal references to the American representative, and an expres- sion of the Emperor on this point was repeated — an expression to which allusion is made only as indicating how the conversation originated. Mr. de Giers then referred to the current reports that the" Russian Government had projected or meditated new laws of a harsh character against the Jews, and said in the most explicit terms that no new laws had been made on this subject, and none were in contemplation. He TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 145 added that he was thoroughly informed, for he was a member of the council having charge of the question. The published reports were destitute of foundation and no such piu-pose was entertained as that which had been imputed to the Government. The statement was a repetition and confirmation of the denial made a few months ago on the first publication of the reports. At that time, however, it was charged in response that, while it might be true that no new laws had been framed or would be promulgated, still substantially the same object would be attained by the revival and vigorous execution of the edicts of 1882, which had long remained dormant. I re- called these facts and asked Mr. De Giers whether there was any good warrant for this allegation. He replied that there was not. The edicts of 1882 were, he said, some- what misunderstood. They were not strictly new measures. They were rather in the natm-e of formulating and more precisely defining provisions already in existence in less specific and exact form. They had come just after the assassination of the late Emperor and after the anti-Jewish distiu'bances in several of the interior Provinces where there was a tendency toward a more stringent application of the restrictive policy. It was his own feeling that the minister of the interior at that time had pro- ceeded with too much rigor. Old laws which had slept practically imexecuted in many features were suddenly applied with too severe a hand, and hardships had inevitably resulted. Since then the execution of the laws had again been relaxed, and their restriction had been disregarded and overstepped. I asked Mr. De Giers, if it was not true that measxu-es had recently been taken toward the removal of the Jews from the villages to the towns in the pale to which their residence is limited by law. He answered that there was some movement in that direction. What was being done was to tighten the application of the old laws somewhat, but it would be done gently and gradually — I am careful to quote his own words— and with every reasonable allowance and con- sideration. The laws had not been changed; they had simply slumbered, in large part, and because they had been so generally disregarded and nullified both by the Government and by the Jews, the movement to enforce them, even though in a lim- ited degree, created all the more outcry. In answer to my inquiry as to why it was deemed necessary to withdraw the Jews from the villages and lands where they had been located, Mr. De Giers said that, so far as it was done at all, it was a measure of self -protection. This question involves what is well known to be a subject of earnest controversy. The Jews contend that when they have a fair chance they address themselves to agriculture as faithfully and successfully as other people. Mr. De Giers, however, maintained the other view. He said that if they would really devote themselves to agricultural pursuits the Government would leave them undisturbed and would gladly give them land for cultivation. He cited a special and notable experiment of the kind in the Prov- ince of Kiev under the Emperor Nicholas, which was claimed to have resulted unfor- tunately. He insisted that when they acquired land they secure a Christian tenant and go on as before with their own vocations. He declared that they monopolize what he described as the saloons and the mills. They make such a combination that all operations of production and sale must go through their hands. He gave these alle- gations as an explanation of the law which restricts Jews tothe towns, and insisted that it was a question not of religion but of economic policy. This view will be vigorously resented and resisted by the friends of the Jews, who hold that it is unfair in statement and unjust in conclusion, and that so far as it has a basis of fact, the conditions grow out of the exceptional necessities imposed by a long historical course of oppressive measures directed against the race and not limited to any country. But Mr. De Giers was stating what was relied on as the justification for the policy of the Russian Government, and in reporting his observations, I am under the duty of giving them as he made them. He frankly admits that the question was one of great difficulty and perplexity, and it was hard to tell what ought to be done in justice and reason. On the one hand, he recognized that the Jews suffered hardships, and he felt much sympathy for them. On the other hand, it was necessary to protect their own people, and especially the simple and improvident peasantry. In this connection he adverted to the restriction upon the proportion of Jewish students permitted to enter the schools. The Hebrews were an intellectual race, more alert mentally than the ingenuous people by whom they were surrounded, and if they had free and unlimited access to the highest oppor- tunities of education they would absorb the professions within themselves. As an additional reason, he repeated the statement earnestly made in some quarters and as earnestly denied in others — that among the educated Hebrews are found many nihilists. Mr. De Giers recmred several times to the fact that the laws were left in a large measrure unexecuted. They existed on paper, but they were loosely applied. For 146 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. instance, theoretically, Jews are not permitted to reside at St. Petersburg or at Moscow, yet in practice they are here by the thousands, filling the professions and the banking houses, with their great synagogue, recently erected, and their unfettered religious devotions. The laws had long nominally restricted the movements of the Jews to the towns within the 15 districts which constitute the pale. They had prohibited those proscribed people from holding lands or dwelling in the villages, except under cer- tain conditions. But these laws had not been strictly enforced and there has been a steady encroachment upon prohibited ground, and now that their interdictions are again applied to some extent it produces all the more friction and complaint. In answer to an inquiry as to whether there was not at present a considerable emigration of Jews under these coercive measures or through fear of a more serious proscription, Mr. De Giers said that at various times there had been an emigration under such appre- hensions, but in many of these cases the emigrants found their way back worse off than when they went away. One great source of trouble, he remarked, was the difficulty of controlling the sub- ordinate officials. He did not doubt that there were wrongs of which the Government had no knowledge. In an empire as vast as Russia it was impossible to watch closely all of the thousands of employees. The whole question, Mr. De Giers repeated, was surrounded with difficulty, but he hoped that some solution might be found though he did not suggest what it might be, and his tone carried the impression that there was yet no clear perception of a satisfactory issue. Though the fact that Mr. De Giers himself introduced the topic, and was so free and frank in discussing it, seemed to invite and encourage corresponding freedom of inquiry, I intimated that I felt some hesitation in interrogating him upon what might be regarded as a matter of internal policy. In reply he desired me to dismiss all hesita- tion and to ask any question I liked. He added, speaking with emphasis: "Don't hesitate to ask even disagreeable questions, or questions that you might think disagreeable, for we are so conscious of our good intentions in this matter that we are willing to meet any inquiry." The subject had come up unexpectedly, and I thought it best under the circum- stances, to confine myself chiefly to eliciting information, and to reserve representations deemed expedient or obligatory until another occasion, after communicating with the department. I did, however, feel it incumbent on me to say, as I did during the course of the conversation, that, while we recognize the treatment of the people within its own borders as a question of domestic concern that belongs primarily to Russia, except so far as it may affect the rights of American citizens, we hold, and in any reference to the subject the representative of the United States must hold, the attitude which is in harmony with the theory and practice of our Government, which makes no distinction on account of creed. I added that the American people, prompted by the liberal and humane sentiments which distinguished them, would witness with satisfaction movements toward the amelioration of the condition of the Jews; at the same time, in any utterance on the question, we desired to approach it in a fair and friendly spirit and with a just sense of the peculiar situation of Russia. To this Mr. De Giers replied that he thought the feeling of the American people was quite natural; there was, unfortunately, much in the condition of the Jews to pity, but the conditions of the two countries were entirely different. The Jews of the United States were of a high class and were in accord with the general body of the citizens, and he thought the American people, though their feeling was easily understood, misapprehended the real facts as to Russia. Such, in substance, and at the more vital points in the exact language, eo far as it can be recalled, was the conversation. It furnishes as a fresh assurance, in harmony with the information I have heretofore communicated, that the Russian Government itself declares that no new measures of a proscriptive character against the Jews are contemplated. _ As to the existing laws, they have come to be "fairly well known, though on various points it is still difficult to ascertain their precise provisions. They consist of a vast mass of edicts, ordained from time to time, filling hundreds of pages, some of them actively in force and some of them practically obsolete and unexecuted. They subject the Jews to a special code in the matters of taxation, education, residence, rights of worship, limitations of industry and trade, and kindred affairs, entering into all the relations of life. If they were generally and stringently enforced they would involve incalculable hardship. As showing what the Russian Government itself says in explanation of these discriminatory and restrictive laws, and in regard to the disposition with which it approaches their administration, the statements of Mr. de Giers have a value that will be appreciated. His reputation as one of the most liberal and careful statesmen of Russia gives them weight. To a people trained with a different inheritance, and under a different system of reflec- tion is, however, suggested that, whatever may be thought of the evils alleged in TEEMINATI03Sr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 147 justification of the existing policy, the remedy more consonant with the spirit of the age would seem to be not to proscribe an entire people, the innocent with the guilty, but to proscribe the offenses and proceed against the offenders without regard to their race or their faith. On the question of the administration of the laws, I have instituted inquiries in other quarters, upon which I shall report hereafter. Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 734.) Mr, Blaine to Mr. Smith. Department of State, Washington, February 18, 1891. Sir : On the 26th of August last the House of Representatives adopted a resolution requesting the President to communicate to that body any information in his posses- sion concerning the enforcement of the prescriptive edicts against the Jews in Russia. To this resolution the President responded on the 1st of October, and accompanying his response there was a report in which, with reference to the rumors that new meas- ures of repression were about to be put in force, I said : "Such a step, if in reality contemplated, would not only wound the universal and intimate sentiment of humanity, but would suggest the difficult problem of affording an immediate asylum to a million or more exiles without seriously deranging the con- ditions of labor and of social organization in other communities." The correspondence communicated to the House of Representatives included your reassuring dispatch No. 44, of the 25th of September last; and this dispatch, together with assurances received in conversations with the diplomatic representative of Russia at this capital, tended to allay the apprehension necessarily aroused by the prospect either of the adoption of new measures or the harsh enforcement of the old. Up to the present time the department has not been advised that any new edicts affecting the Jews have been promulgated. The cases of distress that have been brought to our notice are the result, in some instances, of the new interpretation and in others of the strict enforcement of regulations which have for some years been in existence, but of which the severity was not generally understood because they were not rigorously applied. The department is informed that for many years the Jews in Russia have, as a race, been compelled to live within a certain area denominated the pale of settlement. Under the laws of May, 1882, it is understood that their places of residence within this area have been restricted by forbidding them to live in villages and to force them into the towns. The effect of the recent and summary enforcement of this measure in certain districts has been to deprive many of their means of livelihood. It is also understood that under the laws for many years in existence Jewish artisans have been permitted to reside outside of the pale of settlement. The department is informed that by a new interpretation of the law many classes of workers formerly regarded as artisans are now denied that privilege, and being suddenly forced to quit their homes and to swell the number of their race in the overcrowded towns within the pale of settlement, find themselves unable to gain a subsistence by the pursuit of their respective occupations. Other measures, such as the withdrawal of the privilege of pursuing many occupa- tions, the denial of admission to the schools, and the actual expulsion as "alien vagrants" of persons long domiciled in Russia contribute to swell the emigration. I forbear to enumerate the edicts particularly applicable to the family, by which the ties of relationship are rent and a premium put upon their severance. I do not dwell on these things, not only because it is not my purpose to indulge in a general criticism of the anti-Jewish laws, but also because those that I have explicitly referred to in the main account for the cases that have been brought to my notice. That numbers of Jews have been and are daily being compelled to quit their homes in Russia by the enforcement of these oppressive measures is amply shown by the present immigration of destitute Russian Jews into the United States. Heretofore this immigration, although large, being mainly made up of persons who were in some measure prepared for the change, has not overtaxed the resources of the variour benevolent associations which are so generously maintained and admirably admin- istered by the Jews of the United States. I am told on excellent authority that within 10 years some 200,000 Jews of Russian origin have been received into this country, have been furnished, when necessary, with occupation and home, and have become speedily assimilated into the body politic, of which they form an orderly, thrifty, and law-abiding element. 148 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. The gravest fears are expressed lest this resource should fail if taxed with a great influx of Russian Jews, who by reason of theii' sudden expulsion from their homes, and their unfamiliarity with the language and ways of life in this country would stand in need of immediate, and in many cases long- continued assistance, and care. You are aware that the problem of efficiently controlling immigration has been before the National Legislature for some years. Measures have aheady been adopted for its regulation, and several schemes of further legislation are now pending before Congress. These measiues, however, have not been due to an inhospitable disposition. The policy of this Government in respect to the admission of aliens to its shores has been most liberal. It has afforded to many thousands a home and a ready entrance into its political and social life, and it still offers to spontaneous, self-helpful, and inde- pendent immigration a cordial welcome. If measures of restriction have been adopted, it is only because it has been found necessary to avert the injection into the population of elements not assimilable and the bringing or sending hither the indigent and the helpless to become a charge upon the community. In no instance has any measure of expulsion or of oppression been adopted in respect to those who are already here, all of whom stand under the equal protection of the laws. But the hospitality of a nation should not be turned into a burden. And however much we may sympathize with wanderers forced by untoward circumstances to quit their homes, and however ready the disposition to relieve the deplorable condition into which they may be cast by the application of the laws of their native country, the Government and the people of the United States can not avoid a measure of concern at the enforcement of measures which threaten to frustrate their efforts to minister to the wants and improve the conditions of those who are driven to seek a livelihocd within its borders. We are not forgetful of the ties of good relationship that have long subsisted between the United States and Russia, and of the friendly acts of Russia toward our country in the past. The Government and people of the United States are fully animated with a desire to preserve this cordiality of feeling, and for this reason they the more strongly deprecate the enforcement in Russia, in respect to a portion of her people, of measures which not only arouse a general feeling of disappointment, but which also operate to impose a tax upon the charitable and humane in this country. The Government of the United States does not assume to dictate the internal policy of other nations or to make suggestions as to what their municipal laws should be or as to the manner in which they should be administered. Nevertheless the mutual duties of nations require that each should use its power with a due regard for the other and for the results which its exercise produces on the rest of the world. It is in this respect that the condition of the Jews in Russia is now brought to the attention of the United States, upon whose shores are cast daily evidences of the suffering and destitution wrought by the enforcements of the edicts against this unhappy people. I am pursuaded that His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia and his councillors can feel no sympathy with measures which are forced upon other nations by such deplorable consequences. You will read this instruction to the minister of foreign affairs and give him a copy, if he desires it. I am, etc., James G. Blaine. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 737.) Mr. Blaine to Mr, Smith. Department of State, Washington, February £7, 1891. Sir: Your dispatch No. 75 of the 10th of February, reporting a conversation with Mr. de Giers in relation to the treatment of the Jews in Russia, was received by the departmen on the 25th of the same month. On the 18th of February, just a week previously, I addressed to you a communication to be read to Mr. de Giers on the same subject. "While the statement in that communication touching the harsh treatment of theJews are completely confirmed by Mr. de Giers, I have observed with not a little satisfac- tion his readiness in suggesting this topic of conversation and his expression of willing- ness to consider any inquiries you might make. It was believed that the Government of Russia would not disregard the evidences which have appeared in various countries of the general interest and solicitude which have been elicited throughout the civilized world by the reports of the oppression of the Jewish race in the domains of His Imperial TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 149 Majesty. Nevertheless the fact that the subject has been brought forward by the impe- rial minister of foreign affairs himself increases our hope that the representations of this Government, based upon the deplorable aspects of the question which have been brought to its notice, will not only receive the consideration to which they are thought to be justly entitled, but will also more fully impress the Government of Russia with the fact that the effects of the repressive policy against the Jews are not confined to that country, but that they also excite the sympathy and appeal to the generous and chai'i table efforts of the people of other lands. Ever since the transmission to you of the instructions of the 18th of February, the department has received fresh evidences of the immediate and material, as well as of the broad and general interest which has been felt in this country in regard to the hardships of the Jewish subjects of His Imperial Majesty. Almost every day commu- nications are received upon this subject, temperate and couched in language respect- ful to the Government of the Czar, but at the same time indicative and strongly expres- sive of the depth and prevalence of the sentiment of disapprobation and regret. No Government can be insensible of a fact of so much significance and I am happy to perceive the appreciation of the sentiments and interests of other people which the conversation of Mr. de Giers discloses. I am, etc., James G. Blaine. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 740.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, February 28, 1891. Sir: In view of the numerous and varied reports during the last few months con- cerning the purpose and action of the Russian Government in regard to the Jewish people living within the Empire, I have deemed it useful to institute some inquiries on the subject through the consuls of the United States. To this end I sent out in January a circular letter. The design of this circular was not to initiate a minute investigation into the details, Avhich would require much time, but to elicit trust- worthy information upon the spirit and tendencies which mark the present policy toward the Jews. It was deemed necessary to communicate only with the consuls located in the section where the Jews are found in considerable numbers, and the circular was therefore addressed only to the consuls at Warsaw, Odessa, and Riga. They all agree that there is no evidence of the application and enforcement of new measures against the Hebrews. At the same time those on the western frontier of the Empire observe signs of the more stringent execution of the old laws which have heretofore so loosely and lightly been observed as to be practically inoperative. As to St. Petersburg and Moscow, the best information I can gather leads to the conclusion that the present policy of the Government is inducing some withdrawal of the Jews from these centers. The long-established laws permit only Jewish merchants of the first guild and Jews of certain other professional or artisan classes to reside in these cities. But the pro- hibition against Jews outside of these classes has not been enforced with any degree of strictness, and under the influence of this laxity thousands who are interdicted by the terms of the law have settled in St. Petersburg and Moscow. I do not under- stand that there is any harsh or general movement to enforce the law now, but am informed that such inquiries have been set on foot as to create the fear on the part of those not embraced within the tolerated classes that trouble may be experienced, and that under this apprehension some of them are removing from the two chief cities of the Empire. I am, etc., Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 740.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, March 12, 1891. Sir- I have the honor to report that I yesterday waited upon the minister of foreign affairs, Mr. de Giers, with a copy of your instructions No. 78, relating to the edicts and policy of Russia concerning the Jews. Upon hearing my statement of the 150 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. object of my call, Mr. de Giers requested me not to read the dispatch to him but to leave a copy which he could examine at leisure. I then gave him a verbal outline of its contents, referring to the resolution of inquiry passed by the House of Representatives in August of last year touching rumored prescriptive edicts against the Jews and to your report in response. You had received assurances, so you stated in this dispatch, which tended to allay apprehensions that had been aroused by alarming publications, and the department had no information that any new measures hostile to the Jews had been undertaken. The cases of dis- tress which had been brought to its attention were explained by the more rigorous enforcement of the old laws whose severity had not been understood so long as they had not been applied. That the Jews of Russia were subjected to coercive and oppressive measures which compelled them to quit their homes was shown by the number of unfortunate and indigent Russian Jews who were now arriving in the United States. You had been informed on excellent authority that within a period of 10 years this immigration amounted to 200,000. Most of these immigrants had been well provided for, but a further influx of destitute persons entirely unprepared for the conditions and requirements of American life would be a very serious burden for the American people. It was in this aspect of the results forced upon our country that the condition of the Jews in Russia under existing measures presented itself to the attention of our Government and people, and, in view of the mutual duties of nations, constrained this expression of their sentiments. On this statement of the general tenor of your dispatch, Mr. de Giers hastened to ask at the outset what was its conclusion — what demand it presented. I replied that it presented no demand, but was a declaration of the views of the Government and people of the United States, which was submitted for the consideration of the Imperial Government of Russia under a sense of its own obligations. Mr. de Giers inquired particularly as to the statement that 200,000 Russian Jews had emigrated to the United States within 10 years. I repeated your statement on this point. He rejoined that if such a number of people had gone to the United States as workers to aid in developing the country he supposed they would be acceptable, but if they went to "exploit" the American people, as he expressed it, he could understand how objectionable it was. After some further observations of a general character Mr. de Giers concluded by saying that the dispatch would be received in the same friendly spirit in which it was sent; that he would submit it to the Emperor; and that, if it was determined to make reply either verbally or in writing, it would be duly com- municated. I have, etc., Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 741.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation op The United States, St. Petersburg, April 20, 1891. Sir: In my No. 79, it was stated that some of the Hebrew residents of St. Petersburg and Moscow were taking their departure fi-om these cities under the apprehension that xneasines threatened in the near future and directed against them which would render their continued stay either quite uncomfortable or altogether impossible. These per- sons belon» to the class of Hebrews who are prohibited by law from locating outside the pale of settlement. Under the nonenforcement of lenient administration of the law, they have established themselves here and at Moscow and have remained for years without being disturbed. But the premonition of a more stringent policy has led a few to withdraw themselves in anticipation of early steps for their forcible expulsion. These fears have been measurably justified by the event. Within a few days the Russian journals have stated that 150 Jewish families of Moscow have been notified that they must remove from that city, and I am informed that 50 families of this city are about to receive similar notification. It is probable that these are only the fore- runners of further expulsions. No new law has been ordained and none has been required to this end. It is held to be simply an application of the existing law hitherto unenforced. According to the strict letter of the law there are many thousands living here and at the ancient capital of the Empire without legal authority. The number is said to be from 10,000 to 20,000 at St. Petersburg and nearly 100,000 at Moscow. Though destitute of technical right, their residence has had the sanction of long tolera- ion and has acquired the sacredness of an established home, the compulsory abandon- TEEMINATIOI^ OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 151 ment of which would be attended with hardship. It is supposed that the result will be tempered with such a degree of consideration and such allowance of time for prepara- tion as are compatible with a measm'e of this nature. The Government has declared that this new application of the old laws would be made "gently and gradually" and the steps now taken, with those to follow, will show how these terms are to be interpreted. Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 742.) Mr. Wurts to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, April 27, 1891. Sir: Referring to Mr. Smith's dispatch. No. 89, of the 20th instant, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith inclosed a translation of an imperial ukase prohibiting the emigration of certain categories of Israelites from the zone assigned for Israelites, as well as their immigration into the city and Province' of Moscow, and at the same time directing the expulsion of these classes of Israelites from that place into the zone assigned for their settlemtnt. It will be remarked that this order applies only to Moscow, no mention being made of the city and Province of St. Petersburg, perhaps for the reason that the number of Jews in this city being estimated at five times less than at the ancient capital of the Empire, no special urgency is felt for a measure to arrest the increase of. the Hebrew population in this place. It is premature to report on how this order, made public only a few days ago, is being executed, but I regret to say that rumors are heard of undue severity in its application. George W. Wurts. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 743.) [Tmperial ukase concerning the domicile of Jews.] On the proposition of the minister of the interior. His Majesty the Emperor, has deigned to give an order, on the 28th of March, 1891, as follows: (1) To forbid until revision by legislative channel of the arrangement of article 157, note 3, of the regulation concerning passports, Israelites engaged in the business of machinist, brewer, distiller, and in general Israelite workmen and artisans, to emigrate from the zone assigned for the fixed settlement of Israelites; as also to emigrate from other parts of the Empire to Moscow or to the Province of Moscow. (2) To charge the minister of the interior to take, in concert with the governor general of Moscow, the necessary measures in order that the Israelites above mentioned maji gradually be sent away from Moscow and from the Province of Moscow into the zone assigned for their settlement. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 743.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Wharton. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, October 20, 1891. Sir: As stated in my No. 114, I prolonged my stay in London while returning to this post for the purpose of meeting several gentlemen particularly conversant with the Jewish question as is now presented in Russia. I was especially anxious to see Mr. Arnold White, the representative and active manager of Baron Hirsch in his project for the colonization of the Jews. His visits and investigations in Russia in furtherance of this scheme had been made since my departure on leave; and indeed, the full de- velopment of the Russian policy had come mthin the same period, so that a conference with him gave promise of information which would be instructive and useful in dealing with the subject. I wished to learn the spirit with which he had been received, the attitude of the Government toward the movement for the relief of the proscribed people, the general result of his inquiries and the character of the measures contem- plated. All of these points, it was manifest, would have a direct bearing upon the utility and efficacy of independent representations. ]\Ir. White informed me that he had been favorably received by the members of the Russian Government, and that every facility had been furnished to him for the prose- 152 TEEMINATION OE THE TEE AT Y OF 1832. cution of his inqiiiries and for the advancement of his work. He believes that the pol- icy which treats the Hebrews as a people separate and distinct from the great body of the Russian subjects, to be proscribed and prohibited from the major portion of the Empire, and to be restricted within a limited area under special conditions and special laws, had been adopted as a deliberate and settled purpose and was not likely to be abandoned. At the same time he believed from his observations that the methods of its execution might be tempered and that the time allowed for the removal of those ordered away from their existing domiciles might be extended. He had traversed the parts of the Empire where the Jews are chiefly concentrated; he had examined into their conditions, attributes, and tendencies; and he was able to give a favorable report of their disposition and capabilities. Contrary to the representations made in some quarters, he insisted that the Jewish agricultm-al communities in Russia presented creditable and successful results, and that the Jewish occupants of land attested their inclination and their adaptability to agricultural pursuits. As the plan of colonization is based upon their willingness and capacity for farm labor, this was important testi- mony. Mr. White found much distress in the Jewish settlements. The great body of the people were poor, and the limitation of their activities under the Russian laws made the struggle of life all the harder. The summary expulsion of thousands who were living outside of the legal pale of settlement and who were compelled to take their choice between locating in districts already overcrowded with those of their race or removing from the Empire altogether aggravated the hardships. As to the manner in which these arbitrary expulsions were enforced, little was said in detail. Mr. White had found himself exposed to some public censure in England because he had depre- cated violent criticism and had indicated that some of the current reports of severities were exaggerated. He stated, in explanation of his attitude, that he regarded himself as acting in semidiplomatic capacity; that he wanted to accomplish practical results in which the concurrence and cooperation of the Government were vital; and that he did not wish to embarrass this work by arousing a suspicious and unfriendly feeling on the part of those to whom he must look for aid. In the promotion of this scheme of colonization he proj)osed to return to Russia and spend some months in organizing committees of emigration and in arranging the essential machinery of operation. In some other quarters deeply concerned about the future of the Jews in Russia I find as hopeful a feeling respecting the practical fruits of Baron Hirsch's great pro- ject. In the munificent spirit which prompts it and in the great-hearted and large- minded nature of the conception it must command the sincere admiration of every friend of humanity. But magnificent as it is in its liberality and broad as it is in its scope, it is questioned whether it is equal to the exigencies of a problem which touches the welfare of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people. I was told in London that even at its best this project could not provide for more than 25,000 people a year. Without hav- ing undertaken any calculation, this seems to me a serious underestimate. Possibly, if applied only to those who could not help themselves at all, it would not be wide of the mark; but when self-help is united with philanthropic aid it must reach a much larger number. Even on the most favorable calculation, however, it must be limited in its operations. It is estimated that the increase of the Russian Jews is 3 per cent per annum, which, if there were no countervailing movement, would be an increase of .150,000 to 180,000 a year, and thus the problem would become constantly more difficult. Against this steady augmentation there has been within the past few months a large outflow. The number of Russian Jew emigrants passing through Charlottenberg, and thence sailing from Bremen and Hamburg was in the two months of July and August, about 23,000. That is entirely independent of the exodus through Odessa and the southern parts of the Empire, which, however, is not supposed to be large. The major portion of this emigration through Bremen and Hamburg goes to the United States. Germany does not permit the fugitives to remain within her domains, and English authorities do all that is within their power to direct them away from the British shores. The chief force of this movement of the Russian Jew has come within a comparatively short period. My dispatch No. 79 of February 28, reported a begin- ning of the withdrawal from Moscow and St. Petersburg, in apprehension of adverse measures. In my No. 89 sent on the eve of my departure on leave, the first known order of the year for the expulsion of a number of families from the two capitals were indicated. This was the open inauguration of a policy which has since assumed large proportions. The laws under which the expulsion of Jews living outside of the pale of settlement was directed have not for a considerable period been rigorously applied, and were now practically and palpably enforced for the first time in many years. When last year it was currently rumored that harsh and prescriptive measures had been or were TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 153 about to be undertaken, this legation in common with others, reported that the Rus- sian Government denied and repelled these allegations. This answer, it is believed, was strictly in accord with the fact as it then was. The movement for the- renewal application of the old laws has taken practical form and force within a few months. I observe that the correspondent of the New York Times, who has been in Russia making a special investigation of the subject, indicates that its enforcement began in March. Information from other sources harmonizes with this statement. While before that time there had been some emigration, induced perhaps by the strenuous and precarious struggle for life in vocations which were limited and crowded, or by the apprehension of a severer policy, or by the harshness of irresponsible and subor- dinate officials, the great outflow which excites the attention and interest of the world did not commence until last spring. Since then it has gone on in a steady current, and it becomes a question of special importance to us whether this movement and the causes which lie behind it can be influenced and modified. I am desirous of meeting Col. Weber, the chau-man of the Emigration Commission, on the completion of his investigation in Russia, and on my arrival in London I opened correspondence with him for this purpose. But as he was moving about, the letter was delayed in reaching him, and it was only a few days before his departure that I received a message that he was obliged to sail for home before I could reach Berlin. Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 744.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, December 24, 1891. Sir: I availed myself yesterday of the first appropriate occasion which had offered since the return of the minister of foreign affairs from his extended absence abroad to have a conversation with him touching the later aspects under which the attitude and action of the Russian Government respecting the Hebrews of the Empire pre- sent themselves. As indicated in previous^ dispatches, I have interested myself in the project of the Jewish Colonization Association, under the munificent inspiration and presidency of Baron Hirsh, for the colonization of Russian Hebrews in the Argentine Republic and in the disposition of the Russian Government toward it. There are two reasons for this special interest. In the first place, if the project meets with the sanction and cooperation of the Government it makes obligatory in good faith and presum- ably involves the amelioration of the measures against the Jews, so that their removal shall proceed only as fast as the association can make adequate provision for it. In the second place, it directs the emigration especially toward a destination where- ample land has been purchased and special preparations have been made to receive it. I therefore introduced the conversation with Mr. de Giers by referring to this project and said to him that I desired to talk with him concerning this movement for the colonization of Russian Hebrews and the general questions connected with it. For his convenience, as well as my own, I had reduced the points of what I wished to say in writing, though preserving the conversational form, and, if agreeable to him, I would read them. He intimated his approval of this suggestion, and I thereupon read the memorandum, of which the following is a translation: "I am greatly interested in the project of Baron Hirsh, of which Mr. Arnold White is the representative, for the colonization of Russian Hebrews. I am glad to hear that this project has met with a favorable reception on the part of the Government, and that practical measures are in train to carry it out. The subject is one of much concern for my country. The number of Russian Jews arriving in the United States has grown very greatly of late, and this fact naturally increases our interest in the question. "I have made special inqunies and have found that during the two months of July and August last 25,000 Hebrews who went from Russia embarked at the two ports of Bremen and Hamburg. I do not know the exact figure of the succeeding months, but it rnust be in the same proportion, The greater part of these emigrants went to the United States. The number of Russian Jews landing in our country considerably exceeds 5,000 a month. To feel some solicitude as to this great influx of people who are destitute, and without preparations for the new conditions, is entirely natural. Upto this time the liberality^ of the American people, chiefly of the Hebrews of the United^ States, has been sufficient to provide this army of immigrants with what their immediate necessities demanded. But if the immigration should continue in the same proT)ortion it would impose a burden beyond the resources of the benevolent societies. 154 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. To furnish shelter and work for such a number, constantly growing, would be difficult if not impossible. Besides this inundation would derange the conditions of labor and distm-b its market. "Yoin- excellency will recall that, in presenting a dispatch from Mr. Blaine last spring, I had the honor to bring to your attention the concern of the Government and people of the United States on this subject. From that time the question has become aggravated by reason of the increase of immigrants of which I have spoken. During my visit to my country last summer, the President expressed his views to me and charged me to communicate them in suitable terms to the Government of the Emperor. He said to me that he had a sincere feeling of friendship for Russia, and cherished a deep sense of gratitude for the great service which Russia had rendered to the United States. When he felt it a duty to refer to the measures of Russia against the Jews, he expressed the desire to approach the question from the standpoint of a true friend who earnestly wished well to this country. It was, however, impossible to be indifferent to measures which compelled a large number of Russian Hebrews to seek a refuge in the United States. The effects of these measures were not limited to Russia, but are felt in our country, and apart from the considerations of humanity, these results make it a ques- tion of immediate interest to us. When the acts of one nation in expelling a class of its own people directly affect another friendly nation, the President felt that there is an obligation to take this effect into consideration. He hoped that the Government of Russia would find that its own best interests were served in mitigating the measures which entailed the practical banishment of so large a number of people; and if the Government felt unable to abandon these measures, the President hoped that it would at least be disposed to modify them, so that the removal might be extended over a long period. Thus the hardships would be diminished, and better provision could be made for those who seek an asylum in another land." Mr. De Giers listened to the reading of this memorandum with much apparent inter- est and once or twice interrupted it with inquiries or suggestions. He thought the statements of the number of Russian Jews sailing from Hamburg and Bremen and landing in the United States must be exaggerated; but I assured him. that they were derived from entirely authentic sources. He returned afterwards to the question of figures, still expressing his surprise, and apparently there was an implied recognition of the force of a representation based on such grounds. He said that there was no expulsion or banishment of Jews from the Empire. I had explained that while this was true in the literal sense of the term, the emigration was the effect of "measures which compelled so large a number to seek refuge in the United States," and I again indicated this point. Mr. De Giers responded that Christians as well as Jews had emi- grated, and they had gone under the attraction of what he described that America is an El Dorado where they would all be well off. I replied that the great increase in the Jewish emigration to which I referred had come at the same time with the expul- sion of Jews from Moscow and other places within the Empire. Mr. De Giers remarked, in conclusion, that the subject came within the province of the Minister of the Interior, and he would confer with that minister. He asked me for a copy of the verbal note which I had read, and of which a translation is given above, and I have to-day sent it to him. I inclose a copy of the form in which it was placed in his hands. I have, etc., Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 363.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, April 12, 1892. Sir: The prospect of an enlarged emigration of Jews from Russia during the coming spring and summer has been a subject of consideration here and concern abroad. It has been given out through the Jewish Aid Committee of Berlin that an outflow of 400,000 was to be expected. It is probable that, even without restrictions, these would have proved to be exaggerated figures, but at the same time, with the effect of the Russian policy concerning the Jews on the one hand, and with the influence of the public reports of colonization projects on the other, there was every reason to antici- pate an increased movement. The representative of Baron Hirsh, Mr. Arnold White, has been here for some weeks, partly for the purpose of advancing the measures essential to the scheme of colonization and partly with the object of checking this large immediate emigration. It was naturally felt that, if great numbers of Hebrews should pour out now before the colo- TERMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 155 nies in Argentine are prepared for their reception, and while their reception elsewhere was open to question, it would prejudice and embarrass the whole effort on their behalf. I was advised of these considerations, and in response to questions put to me I felt warranted by the recent legislation and attitude of our Government and people in concurring in the counsel against premature emigration. No action on my part was asked. There was simply a request to know whether authority would be given for a reference to the American Legation as approving the advice against an excessive immediate exodus. It was proposed to send out messengers who should spread this advice, and, though some obstacles were interposed, it is believed that the plan was at least in part carried out. Recently a factor of great importance has intervened in the matter. You have doubtless learned through the public prints that the German Government has issued orders closing the frontier against the entrance of Russian Jewish emigrants. I am advised that it is not improbable, though not yet certain, that the Austro-Hungarian Government will take the same course. It is stated in defense of this action that this class of emigrants are not received in England, and as objection is made as to their entrance into the United States, they are thrown back and become a charge upon Germany. Should the new order be stringently enforced, it will effectually prevent a large outflow before the plans of colonization shall be perfected, but it is supposed that in many cases means of evading it will be found. All this leaves it uncertain whether the emigration of Russian Jews will be as large or larger than last year. Probably the most intelligent opinion is that it will be some- what, but not much larger, but this is only conjecture at the best. Charles Emory Smith. (Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 379.) Mr. Foster to Mr. Wurts. Department op State, Washington, August 23, 1892. Sir: I inclose herewith a statement with accompanying certificates made to this department by Mrs. Jennie Goldstein, of New York City, concerning the alleged arrest and imprisonment of her husband, Jacob Goldstein, at Kharkov, Russia, on the ground that he "is amenable to militia duties." The records of the department confirm this statement of Messrs. C. B. Richard & Co., that Mr. Goldstein received a passport, No. 35320, from this department. It was issued February 23, 1892, and sent to Messrs. Richard & Co., to be forwarded. From Mr. Goldstein's application it appears that he was bom at Tszelecz, in Russia, July 4, 1862; emigrated to this country in 1879, and was naturalized before the superior court of the city of New York, October 8, 1888, his certificate of naturalization having been duly produced with his application for a passport. I will thank you to apply in the proper quarter for information concerning the reported arrest of Mr. Goldstein and the nature of the charges against him. Should his case fall within the purview of the standing instructions of your legation, you will take such action as may be necessary and proper to protect Mr. Goldstein's interest. I am, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 526.) Mrs. Goldstein to Mr. Foster. New York, August 17, 1892. Honorable Sir: On February 23, 1892, one Jacob Goldstein left this port by steamer Spree of the Bremen line. On the same day, the said Jacob Goldstein paid to Messrs. C. B. Richard & Co., bankers, No. 61 Broadway, New York City, certain moneys to procure for the said Jacob Goldstein a passport, and at the same time deliv- ered to them his citizenship papers, all of which will more fully appear by the cer- tificate of the said Messrs. Richard & Co., herewith inclosed; that said passport was issued to the said Jacob Goldstein, and the same was, together with his citizenship Eapers, sent to the said Jacob Goldstein by the said Messrs. Richard & Co., and as I ave been informed the same was received by the said Jacob Goldstein upon his 156 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. arrival on the other side; that a few days after his arrival he, the said "Jacob Gold- stein," an American citizen, "was arrested by some Government (officer) at Kharkov Russia," and his passport and citizenship papers taken away from him, and still is detained at said place. As I have been informed, the cause of the detention of the said Jacob Goldstein is that the Russian Government claims that the said Jacob Goldstein is amenable to militia duties. Inclosed please find two photographs of the said Jacob Goldstein for the purpose of identification, also a letter from the Hon. Charles Smith, the present alderman of the eighth assembly district, in which the said Jacob Goldstein has resided for over 12 years, also a letter from the lodge that the said Jacob Goldstein is a member of. I am the wife of the said Jacob Goldstein and reside with the children, of which I am the mother and the said Jacob Goldstein the father, at No. 43 Delancey Street, New York City. By giving this your earliest attention, I remain, etc., Jennie Goldstein. N. B. — Please address all communications to Mr. Philip Gratz, jr., No. 333 Grand Street, New York City, and oblige, etc., Jennie Goldstein. (Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 526-527.) Mr. Smith to Mr. Crawford. New York City, August 11, 1892. Hon. United States Consul to Russia: Dear Sir: Mr. Jacob Goldstein, a citizen of the United States, has been arrested in Kharkov, Russia, and is illegally detained there. He has his passport with him. He has a wife and children and mother here (New York City). You will perceive by the foregoing that he is illegally detained there, and is a breach of the treaty between these United States and Russia. He has been living in my district for over 12 years, and I have known him to be a good and loyal citizen. You will kindly look into this matter and secure the release of said Jacob Goldstein. By so doing you will confer a personal favor on. Yours, very truly, etc., Charles Smith, Alderman for Eighth Election District of the City of New Yorh. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 527.) New York, August 11, 1892. Hon. United States Consul to Kharkov, Russia. Dear Sir: This is to certify that Jacob Goldstein, who is illegally detained in your city, is a member of our congregation (the Congregation Adosholum Uriemtzer), of New York City. He is a citizen of these United States, and we have known him to be a good and loyal citizen. He has a mother, wife, and children here. Yours, etc., A. Weinstein, President. N. Beaurtties, Secretary. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 527.) New York, August 12, 1892. To whom it may concern: This is to certify that Jacob Goldstein purchased of us, on February 20, 1892, one steerage ticket to Bremen per steamer Spree, sailing February 23, and on the same day paid us the amount for a United States passport, which we procured for him from Washington and mailed to him poste restante Bremen. C. B. Richard & Co. (Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 527.) TERMINATIOISI- OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 157 Mr. Wurts to Mr. Foster. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, September 7, 1892. Sir: Your instruction, No. 212, of the 23d ultimo, on the subject of the reported arrest and detention at Kharkov of Jacob Goldstein was duly received, and I at once represented the case to the Russian foreign office with the request that an investigation be made and information thereof be furnished me. In all probability the cause of the arrest will prove to be as surmised, that Goldstein "is amenable to militia (that is, military) duties." As you are aware, this legation has had to deal with a number of cases of this char- acter,' the result of which has, if my memory does not betray me, been the same, a refusal of the Russian Government to waive its light to punish a former subject on his venturing again within its jurisdiction for offense committed prior to his naturalization as the citizen or subject of a foreign state. The arguments used by us have not made the slightest impression here, and seem to be rather exhausted. I shall of course do all in my power mth them, but must respectfully beg the department, if possible, to furnish me with some new ones, in preparation for the response to the Russian Govern- ment that Goldstein is charged with and liable to punishment for escaping abroad^ when close upon the age for military service, in order to evade that service by becoming an American citizen. The penalty for this offense is exile to Siberia, but while this Government has closely adhered to the principle involved in cases such as this is supposed to be, it has never been applied to an American citizen. The last case of the kind, which is on file at the department, was that of Kempinski, in 1889, the result of which was that no concession was made by the Russian Government, and Kempinski was condemned, but released on his successfid petition for the clemency of the Emperor. It might be well for the friends of Goldstein to ad visa him to prepare to follow Kempinski 's example. I have, etc., George W. Wurts, Charge d\Affaires ad interim. (Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 527-528.) Mr. Wurts to Mr. Foster. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, October 17, 1892. Sir: Referring to my dispatch No. 239, of the 7th ultimo, in relation to the case of the alleged citizen of the United States, Jacob Goldstein, held in arrest at Kharkov, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note from the imperial foreign office in response to my communication on the subject, by which it will be seen that there is a conflict of testimony as to the identity of the person in question, the Russian authorities affirming that he is not Jacob Goldstein, but Yankel Zlotow, and that he is accused of coming to Russia with a false passport. Mr. Heenan, our consul at Odessa, has sent me copies of his correspondence in this case with the authorities at Kharkov, which, it appears, has also been transniitted tp the department. In this correspondence Goldstein states that he is a native of Germany,^ that he emigrated when very young to the United States, and that he came to Kharkov on business last June. He does not state whether this was his first visit or not to Russia. The inspector of the prison points out, however, in his letter to Mr. Heenan that Goldstein speaks Russian fluently, which is a very sus- picious circumstance. Awaiting fm-ther instructions from you in the matter, I am, etc., George W. Wurts, Charge d^ Affaires ad interim. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 528.) Mr. Chichhine to Mr. Wurts. Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department op the Home Relations, St. Petersburg, October SjlS, 1892. Mr. Charge d'Afpaires: You addressed yom-self to the imperial ministry in order to know what reasons had determined the imperial authorities to arrest, at Kharkov, Mr. Goldstein. 158 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. I have, in consequence, the honor to inform you that the individual in question who pretends to be an American citizen, is accused, by the terms of article 977 of the penal code, of having arrived in Russia with a false passport, his real name being Yankel Zlotow. Accept, etc., (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 529.) Mr. Foster to Mr. White. Department of State, Washington, November 7, 1892. Sir: I have received Mr. Wiu-ts's No. 249, of October 17 last, in regard to the case of Jacob Goldstein, an American citizen, imprisoned at Harkov (Kharkov). The statem^ents of the reply of the Russian foreign office appear to be a repetition of the allegations made by the authorities of Harkov in their communication to the United States consul at Odessa, dated September 11/28, 1892, copy of which was sent to yom' legation with the other correspondence by Mr. Heenan. It is noted that, by the admission of the Russian authorities themselves, Mr. Gold- stein's passport and certificate of naturalization have been sent to New York for investigation. This proceeding natui'ally occasions some surprise, and is only explicable on the conjecture that the Russian authorities are ignorant of the Federal character of these papers. The Government of the United Sta.es is the sole judge of the competence and validity of the passport which it issues and of the evidence of national citizenship of which it is granted. It does not pertain to the authorities of New York to examine the validity of a United States passport. If any question were raised as to the identity of the bearer or the legality of his naturalization this Government would be happy to investigate any offered testimony throwing doubt on the case, upon the request to that end, through the proper channel. So far as concerns any charge against the prisoner of fraudulent impersonation of the Jacob Goldstein to whom the passport purports to have been issued it is proper to say that the evidence now furnished to this department states that Jacob Goldstein's mother, wife, and children reside in New York City, while the mother of Yankel Zlotow, the fugitive with whom Goldstein is confounded, still resides in Harkov, and it would seem fails to identify her alleged son. The application upon which passport No. 35320 was granted to Jacob Goldstein, or Zheikop Goldschtein, as he signs his name, avers his birth at Cszelecz, in Russia, on or about July 4, 1862, and his naturalization, before the superior court of the city of New York, October 8, 1888. The place of birth so given conflicts with Mr. Gold- stein's allegation of German birth made in his petition addressed to Mr. Heenan, who will be directed to make inquiry in this regard. The name Cszelecz appears to be Hungarian or Galician, but the town is not iden- tified on any map in this department. lam, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 529.) Mr. Foster to Mr. White. Department op State, Washington, November 26, 1892. Sir: Referring to my instructions No. 12, of the 7th instant, in relation to the case of Jacob Goldstein, detained at Harkov on charges reported in Mr. Wurta's No. 249, of October 17 last, I have now to inform you that Baron Schilling, Russian chargi d'affaires ad interim, called, informally, this morning, on the Second Assistant Secre- tary, and exhibited to him Mr. Goldstein's passport, No. 35320, issued by this depart- ment February 23, 1892, with a view to ascertaining its genuineness. Baron Schilling at the same time produced the original certificate of naturalization before the superior court of the city of New York, October 8, 1888, with a view to making like inquiry in regard thereto. Mr. Adee advised Baron Schilling that oflBcial response would be made to such inquiries if the request to that end were addressed by the legation to the Secretary of TEKMHSTATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 159 State. As a matter of fact, the passport appeared to be genuine, and the certificate of naturalization to agree with the department's record, upon which the passport had been issued, but he, Mr. Adee, could not competently declare those facts. It thus appears that instead of the passport being "sent to New York for investi- gation," the Russian legation here has been intrusted with the inquiry. No previous instance is recalled of such a proceeding on the part of the Russian Government. I should regret were it to form a precedent. The passports issued by the Secretary of State, under the seal of this department, being prima facie evi- dence of the facts therein certified, the purpose for which they are issued_ would be defeated were foreign authorities at liberty to disregard them until certified anew by the issuing authority. Their examination and viee is properly the function of the legation of the United States in the country where the bearer may chance to be. In several recent instances, notably in Austria and Turkey, this Government has had occasion to remonstrate against the inconvenience and restriction of personal liberty to which the holders of United States passports have been subjected by the dilatory action of the local authorities detaining them and sending their passports to the American legation for attestation. In the present case, by forwarding the passport and certificate of naturalization to this country for a like purpose, the holder, Mr. Goldstein, would seem to have been needlessly restrained of his liberty for sev- eral weeks longer than he would have been had application been seasonably made to your legation for the desired information. Moreover, the occasion for the inquiry is not apparent, for the ascertainment of the genuineness of the passport and certifi- cate of natm-alization granted to Jacob Goldstein neither proves nor disproves his alleged identity with Yankel Zlotow, of Harkov, nor establishes whether the present holder of these papers himself acquired them lawfully as Jacob Goldstein or is falsely impersonating the individual to whom thej^ were issued. As already intimated in my instruction No. 12, of the 7th instant, this Government stands ready to cooperate in the investigation of any case where reasonable evidence of the fraudulent use of a United States passport may be forthcoming. You may say to the minister of foreign affairs that where there may be good ground to believe that a passport has been forged or tampered with, or is held by another than the person to whom it was lawfully issued, your legation will cheerfully render assistance so far as an examination of the authority of the document is concerned, and will, in case of need, refer the matter to this department, but that otherwise it is the just expectation of the Government that its passports will be duly respected abroad as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and that its validity is only to be traversed by competent proof. For your further information I inclose a copy of Mr. Goldstein's application to this department for a passport. I am, etc., John W. Poster. (Foreign Relation, 1892, pp. 530-531.) Mr. White to Mr. Foster. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 15, 1892. Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 12, of November 7, regarding the submission of Jacob Goldstein's passport to the Russian legation at Washington rather than to the American legation here, I went the day after receiving it to the foreign office and called the attention of Mr. Chichkine to the subject. He explained that the matter came up during the interim between Mr. Smith's departure and my arrival, and that it was therefore thought best to refer it directly to Washington. Upon this I resented your view of the delay thus caused, and of the injury involved, not merely in the case of the person claiming to be Jacob Goldstein, but in other cases should this novel action of the Russian Government be considered as a precedent. He received my statement in a very satisfactory manner, assuring me that in future such cases would be referred to the American Legation here and not to the State Department at Washington. I have, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 531.) 19831—11 11 160 TEBMIISrATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Mr. White to Mr. Foster. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, December 16, 1892. Sir: As already stated in my dispatch No. 21, relative to the passport of Jacob Goldstein, I confined myself in my interview with Mr. Chichkine at the foreign office to the point I was instructed to urge, namely, the injury done or likely to be done by forwarding passports taken from suspected persons to the Russian legation at Wash- ington rather than to the American legation at St. Petersburg. The question regarding the rights and present position of the person detained at Kharkov and claiming to be Goldstein, I thought it not best to raise until I could secure additional facts. This, indeed, is the only course which promises anything for the person now detained at Kharkov, claiming to be Jacob Goldstein, but declared by the local authorities to be Yankel Zlotow, who has thus far avoided military service. As the case now stands it presents the following difficulties, which, as the case is new to me, I trust that you will excuse my recapitulating. In his letter to our consul at Odessa, dated July 20-August 1, 1892, the person under arrest gives the country of his birth as Germany, but his application for a passport six months before the applicant swore that he was born in Russia. In the letter above referred to the person under arrest also says that he is unable to fix the year of his arrival in America, because he was taken there when a child; but the person who applied for and received the Goldstein passport swore that he went to America in July, 1879, at the age of 17 years. In addition to these troublesome discrepancies in the two statements claiming to be made by the same man only a few months apart, the letter from the prison authori- ties at Kharkov to our consul at Odessa, dated September 16-28, 1892, alleges that the person under arrest has been detected in feigning such knowledge or want of knowledge of the Russian and other languages as might give color to a fraudulent impersonation. And the letter also conveys the idea that the Russian authorities have no doubt as to the identity of the detained person with Yankel Zlotow. As an application for his release to the foreign office would, if made at present, certainly be wrecked upon the above facts and allegations, I at once telegraphed Consul Heenan, at Odessa, asking him to wire me any new information he might possess on the subject or that he might be able to secure by wire or mail from Kharkov. I also wrote him fully authorizing him to send to Kharkov a discreet and careful man to make inquiries and report on the case, suggesting the name of a gentleman especially recommended to me by our consul general at St. Petersburg, but leaving Consul Heenan free to choose any other person whom he might think more fit. I suggested in my letter that very careful examination be made as to the testimony identifying the person in possession of the Goldstein passport as Yankel Zlotow, and especially as to the statement of the person arrested that Zlotow's mother failed to recognize the said arrested person as her son, and also as to the probability or possi- bility of collusion between the mother of Zlotow and the arrested person. To my telegram I have just received answer by wire that the consul has no new facts in the case, but that he is telegraphing Kharkov. From my letter and from the special messenger sent to Kharkov I hope to secure some facts which will enable me to present the matter at the foreign office here with more hope of a favorable result than the facts at present before me enable me to anticipate. I shall continue to give constant attention to the matter in the hope of remedying any injustice to an American citizen on one hand and of preventing any prostitution of American citizenship on the other. I have, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 531-532.) Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, May 19, 1893. Sir: Referring to my No. 22 and previous dispatches relating to Jacob Goldstein, I have the honor to state that a letter fi-om Mr. Consul Heenan, at Odessa, informs me that the local court at Kharkov has decided in Goldstein's favor, but that he "took French leave" last December, has not been since heard of, and that his present whereabouts are unknown. I am, sir, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 541.) TERMHsTATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 161 Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, May 19, 1893. Sir: I have the honor to submit the cases of David Waldenberg, and of his son Jacob, based on documents received this morning. They apply for new passports under the following circumstances: It appears that David, the father, went to the United States 42 years ago; that after five years' residence he was naturalized, and that he finally left the United States in 1864. He has now resided in Poland nearly 30 years, and it is clear from the accompanying papers that he has no intention of returning to resume the rights and duties of an American citizen. As to his son Jacob, the documents show that he was born in Poland in July, 1872; that he has never been in America, and, although he swears, in making his claim for citizenship, that he intends to "return" to the United States within two years, his letter shows clearly that he has no such intention. Fm-ther light is thrown upon the young man's case by the fact that although he has finished a course of study in a German university, and affixes to his name the title of doctor of philosophy, he does not appear to have prepared himself for exercising the rights and duties of an American citizen by learning the English language; both his letter and that of his father are sent to me in a translation from Warsaw. It will be observed that the father is not molested. Our consul, Mr. Rawicz, speaks of him in very high terms as "an honest business man, well liked in the community, and really a square and upright man." As to the son Jacob, whom the authorities propose to exclude from Russia, the main difficulty in the case doubtless comes partly from the general tendency to discrimi- nate against Jews, but mainly from the question arising as regards his evasion of military service. I have already asked through the foreign office that the family of Mr. Waldenberg, including his sons Isidore and Jacob and his daughter Emily, shall be allowed to remain with him, stating the case as strongly as possible in their favor, asking that this per- mission may be made permanent or that as regards Jacob it may be continued at least two years, he having sworn that within that time he intends to take up his residence in the United States. I need hardly say that in so far as any action taken against Waldenberg and his family may be actuated by prejudice of race or religion, my whole nature revolts at it, and my sympathies are deeply with him, but the question which presents itself is whether there is not here an attempted prostitution of American citizenship, an attempt to secure its immunities and privileges without the discharge of its duties. The Russians know as well as we that were this worthy man a German and had he returned to the country of his nativity at the date of his return here he would, over 25 years ago, have lost his right to claim American citizenship; they also know the other weak points in the case, and especially that the animus revertendi is conspicuously absent from it. This being the case, although my predecessor, Mr. Smith, granted passports to both these claimants two years ago, I have decided, while asking the ministry of foreign affairs to use its good offices in their favor as above stated, at the same time to ask the department for instructions. I have, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 541-542.) Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, May 22, 1893. Sir: On May 10 I received a letter from one Joseph Glowacki, dated at Kempen, Province of Posen, Germany, making a statement to the effect that being an American citizen in the employ of a manufacturing establishment at Gzerstockowa, Government of Petikow, Poland, he had been summarily expelled on eight hours' notice by the local police; thrown into prison and kept there four days, from which he was only released on his signing an agreement not to return to Russia under pain of banishment to Siberia, and then taken over the Austrian frontier and set free. He declares that the only reason assigned for the treatment he has received is a charge made by a drunken employee, who had been discharged from the factory, to the effect that he 162 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. had spoken disrespectfully of the Emperor. This he says that he had never done and that all the other workmen would testify that they had never heard him utter a dis- loyal sentiment. He further says that he has been obliged to leave behind him his aged mother, of whom he is the only support. The letter is well written in fairly good English, and while of course I could know nothing as yet of the other side of the case, it raised in my mind so strong a presump- tion in his favor that I at once addressed a note to the foreign office urging the earliest possible examination of the case and the young man's speedy restoration to his situa- tion and to the support of his mother, if the facts are found as stated. At the same time I wrote to Glowacki, informing him as to the steps which had been taken here, but took the liberty of suggesting the question whether in case the matter presents any doubtful features and the decision upon it is delayed he might not well reenter into the enjoyment of his rights and the discharge of his duties as an American citizen within the country of his adoption. The fact that his letter is so well expressed and that his employers think so well of him that they are holding his place open for him would seem to indicate abilities on which he could rely to secure him a situation quite as well remunerated in the United States. The department shall be informed regarding any further developments of interest in the case. I am, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, pp 542-543.) Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. Department of State, Washington, June 3, 1893. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 97, of the 19th ultimo, report- ing that Jacob Goldstein had been acquitted by the local court at Kharkov, but that he had, in December last, escaped, and had not since been heard of. The cape thus appears to be removed from further consideration. I am, sir, etc., W. Q. Gresham. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 543.) Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. Department op State, Washington, June 6, 189S. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 99, of the 19th ultimo, in regard to the application for passports made in behalf of David Waldenberg and Jacob, his son. On the facts as stated, all presumption of conservation of right to continued protec- tion as a naturalized citizen of the United States is conspicuously neeatived in the case of the father, David Waldenberg, he having resumed and maintained permanent domicile in the country of his original allegiance; as for the eldest son, Jacob, his right to protection after coming of age has not been established by conclusive evidence of intention to come to the United States after attaining the age of 21 years in July next. If he makes his purpose in that regard clear by taking the necessary steps to effect it by actual removal to the United States, here to dwell and perform the duties incumben t on a good citizen, he may have a passport to come to the United States, not otherwise. The dates of the births of the other children, Isidore and Emily, do not appear in your dispatch, but, inferring that they are minors, they should have the benefit of the doubt, and be secured recognition of the status of American citizenship under section 1993, Revised Statutes, until they come of age and become competent to exercise the option of domicile which belongs to them. In this connection. I inclose for your information copy of my instruction No. 84, of April 28 last., to the minister to Japan, in regard to the applications for passports of Alex and Basil Powers, both of Russian origin. I am, sir, etc., W. Q. Gresham. (Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 543-554.) TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 163 Mr. Webb to Mr. Gresham. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, August 25, 1893. Sir: Referring to dispatch No. 100 of this legation, I have the honor to inform you that a note bearing date June 29, from the imperial foreign office, informed this legation that Joseph Glowacki woudl be permitted to return to the Empire, but could not again inhabit the village of district Chenstockova, from which he had been expelled. This concession was as much as could be asked for, it being hardly to be expected that the return in triumph of one of the proscribed class (Glowacki is a Hebrew) to the scene whence he had been summarily ejected would be permitted, in view of the bad effect it would have on the morale of the community. A few days ago, however, I received a letter from Joseph Glowacki, dated from a point in Germany, near the frontier, in which he states that after five days of continual effort to enter Russia, during which time he was kept constantly moving from station to station along the frontier, his passport was taken from him, the permit thereon inscribed under orders from the minister of the interior blotted out, and he was once more ejected from the Empire. His letter stated, as before, that his mother, 78 years of age, of whom he was the sole support, was ill and in great want, and he only asked to be able to reach her in order to take her away from Russia once and for all. I immediately addressed a note on the subject to the imperial foreign office and_ in a personal interview with Mr. Chichkine received assurance that instant attention would be paid to the note and permission for Glowacki to cross the frontier accorded, unless new and unfavorable evidence in his case had come to light. I shall inform the department of further developments in the case. I am, etc., G. Creighton Webb, Charge d^ Affaires ad Interim. (Foreign Regulations, 1893, p. 544-545.) Mr. Webb to Mr. Gresham. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, September 5, 1893. Sir: Referring to dispatches Nos. 100 and 129 of this legation regarding the case of Joseph Glowacki, an American citizen, I have the honor to state that the matter is at last satisfactorily settled. You will remember that Glowacki, after having been expelled from the Empire, received permission, through the intercessions of Mr. White, to return to Russia, and that at the frontier, while seeking to avail himself of this permission, the order inscribed on his passport by which only he could be enabled to do so was erased by the officer in command at that post. _ • To-day, in response to several communications, and as the result of several inter- views, and after a delay of only two weeks from the time that the matter was brought to its notice, I received from the foreign office full permission for Glowacki to reenter Russia, together with a handsome expression of regret that the misunderstanding at the frontier had taken place. I have issued a new passport to Glowacki, which has been duly indorsed at the foreign office, and this would seem to close the case. I am, etc., G. Creighton Webb, Charge d' Affaires ad interim. Mr. Adee to Mr. White. Department of State, Washington, September 21, 1893. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Webb's No. 134, of the 5th instant, reporting that Mr. Joseph Glowacki has been again granted permission to enter Russia. The department is gratified to learn that the case is thus closed. I am, etc., Alvey a. Adee, Acting Secretary. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 545.) 164 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Mr. Wurts to Mr. Wharton. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, June 16, 1892. Sir: I have the honor to inclose you herewith a translation of the law adopted by the Imperial Government regarding the emigration of Hebrews from Russia under the project of Baron Hirsch, which received the supreme sanction of the Emperor on the 8-20th ultimo. I have, etc., George W. Wurts, Charge d^ Affaires ad interim. (Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 387.) [Inclosure.] STATUTES OR REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEES ON EMIGRATION. 1. The committees on emigration instituted by the present statutes have for their object to contribute to the emigration of Russian Israelites by their transplantation in other countries. 2. There will be created a central committee at St. Petersburg, which will be assisted in various cities of the Empire by local committees, whose formation will proceed successively, following the need and the previous consent of the minister of the interior. The central committee, as well as the local committees, shall work under the supervision of the Government, which can suppress and annul all their arrangements and their activity, with all the consequences, if the minister of the interior finds.it necessary. 3. The central committee is under the jurisdiction of the ministry of the interior, and is placed under the supervision of the department of police. It is composed of Beyen to eleven members designated with the consent of the minister of the interior, by the president of the Jewish Colonization Association. The minister of the interior can at any time require the resignation of those members of the central committee whose activity does not respond to the views of the Government. 4. In case of the death, or the retirement for any reason, of a member of the com- mittee, his successor will be designated in the manner indicated in the preceeding article. 5. The central committee will choose from among its members a president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary. These appointments are made for one year. The officers are eligible to reelection. 6. Three members at least of the committee designated for one year by their col- leagues and reeligible form an executive committee charged with the management of affairs and the necessary relations with the Government in everything which concerns the enterprise, as well as with the direction of railroads for the free transportaion of emigrants to the frontier. 7. The divisions of the central committee are determined by an absolute majority of the members present. The presence of at least four members of this committee is necessary for the validity of its deliberations. In case of an equal division of votes, the vote of the president decides. In case of the absence of the vice president, the oldest member present will preside. 8. The decisions of the central committee are put in force only after the authoriza- tion of the minister of the interior. If the minister, within a month of the reception of the decisions, shall not have notified the central committee of their annulment, they can be put into execution. The central committee must submit every year to the minister of the interior a report of what has been done. 9. The central committee, being in constant relations with the Jewish Colonization Association, should keep the latter informed of its work and transmit to the said association the proces verbal of the sessions, as well as the sessions of the executive committee. The central committee receives the proces verbal of the local com- mittees 10. The president of the Jewish Colonization Association can at any time charge one or two delegates to verify upon the ground the work of the committees and to assist at their sessions. The designation of these delegates must be submitted to the previous approbation of the minister of the interior. 11. The services of Jhe members of the committee are gratuitous. 12. The central committee organizes its bureaus accordiag to the needs of the service. 13. Before the commencement of operations of the central committee, the Jewish Colonization Association shall lodge 100,000 rubles in the State Bank in St. Petersburg, TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 165 in deposit for the minister of the interior. Out of this capital shall be defrayed, by order of the minister of the interior, all expenses which may be incurred in connection with the return and repatriation in Russia, on account of the Government, of Jews who shall have emigrated with the assistance of the above committee. The sum expended out of the above 100,000 rubles shall be completed by the Jewish Colonization Asso- ciation, on the demand of the minister of the mterior, when the available balance shall not exceed 25,000 rubles. The interest on the above capital constitutes the property of the association, and shall be payable to its authorized agents. 14. The local committees are under the supervision of the governors or persons who are designated by them for this purpose. 15. All of the arrangements of the local committees are brought to the knowledge of the governors, who can arrest their execution while submitting them to the approba- tion and authorization of the minister of the interior. 16. The members of the local committees are named by the central committee for a term and under conditions to be determined by it. The nominations must be sub- mitted to the previous approbation of the minister of the interior. The minister of the interior can at any time require the resignation of members of the local committees whose activity does not respond to the views of the Government. 17. In places where the elements necessary for the formation of a local committee are not found, the central committee can name one or two delegates charged with the functions of the local committees. The method of the designation, as well as the revo- cation of these delegates, is subject to the provisions of articles 13-15. 18. The services of members of the local committees are gratuitous. The delegates mentioned in the preceding article can, in case of need, receive compensation. 19. If a committee is formed in a province, its jurisdiction covers the whole extent of the province. In case of the formation of several committees or of the designation of two or more delegates in the same province, the range of the activity of each of them will be determined by the governor. 20. The central committee, as well as the local committees, are authorized to receive donations and legacies in view of the object defined by article 1 of the present statutes, but on condition that they must be in ready money or in paper bearing interest. 21. The central committee and the local committee shall have seals bearing the name of the committee with the inscription "Colonization of Russian Israelites." 22 . Employment in the commissions gives to Israelites no right or privilege in respect to the choice of their place of habitation. 23. The direction of the Jewish Colonization Association will indicate successively to the central committee the number of emigrants who can be sent to the frontier in a specific period, and the central committee will divide this number between the differ- ent localities in accord with the Jewish Colonization Association. 24. The local committees, as well as the delegates of the central committee, will prepare for each person desiring to emigrate a sheet conforming to the model appended, which is subject to modification. No. — — Month. Year. I. Head of family. (a) First and surname. (6) Age. (c) Place of inscription. Id) Military conscription district in which registered, (e) Present place of abode. (/) Former abode and time of residence therein. {g) Occupation. 0i) Has such occupation latterly served as a means of livelihood, (i) Amount of yearly earnings. (j) Means for traveling and purchase of land. Ih) Amount of money. (Z) What relations or acquaintances he may have in Argentine Republic or other non-European countries, (m) Their names. II. Wife. Name, age, place of birth, occupation, how long married. III. Children. (a) Number of children, boys and girls. (6) Name, age, place of birth, occupation of each child-. (c) Military conscription district in which male children are registered. 166 ■ TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. IV. Can the parents and children read and write. V. Do other members of the family live with and are supported by the head of the family? II. Remarks. (a) Respecting the answers supplied and particularly with regard to occupation. {h) Respecting the mental and physical capacities of each member of the family, condition of their health, etc. (c) The special aptitudes of a given person must be pointed out, and whether the person desirous of emigrating is capable of agricultural labor. (d) Whether the head of the family and his sons have performed military service. Signature of head of family . Signature of member of commission or of authorized agent. Remarks of government officials or institutions. 25. Two copies of the sheet are prepared, one in white and the other in blue. The two copies bear the same number, and the correctness of the information given is certified by the competent committee or delegates. 26. The sheets prepared according to the preceding article are simultaneously sent by the committees or delegates; the blue to the governor of the place, the white to the central committee, which transmits them to the direction of the Jewish Coloniza- tion Association. 27. The direction of the Jewish Colonization Association, after having examined the white sheets above mentioned, returns them to the central committee and the latter presents to the department of police, in the original, those of the sheets which relate to the individuals indicated for emigration. The sheets must bear the stamp showing that they have been examined by the association. 28. The white sheets relating to Jews of military age, indicated for emigration, must be presented, comformably to the preceding article, to the department of police at the latest on the 1st of March of the year in which these persons are obliged to present themselves for the draft. 29. Simultaneously with the presentation to the department of police of the white sheets the central committee communicates to the local committees or to its delegates the list of sheets with the indication of their numbers. 30. Ths local committees, as well as the delegates, fulfill the formalities required by the authorities concerning the free departure from the Enipire of the individuals indicated for emigration, and after having received from the governors the permits to leave charge themselves with the care of forwarding the emigrants to the frontier within a period which shall not exceed one month from the receipt of the said permits. 31. The list of emigrants must be sent by the local committees, eight days at least before their departure, to the central committee or to the persons who will be charged by the Jewish Colonization Association to receive the emigrants at the frontier. 32. The committee as well as the delegates are required to inform the local police in sufficient time of each considerable removal of emigrants and of the frontier toward which they are directed. 33. The Jewish Colonization Association as well as the committees of emigration are authorized to bring to the knowledge of the Israelite population that the Israelites who shall have emigrated without the consent of the committees which work imder the supervision of the Government can not count upon anj^ aid either on the part of the said association or on the nart of the committees. The notices as well as the appeals can be published and distributed only after the previous authorization of the minister of the interior. 34. The Israelites possessed of the necessary means to emigrate and to establish themselves abroad without the pecuniary assistance of the committees and of the Jewish Colonization Association can nevertheless be invited to address themselves to the agency of the committees, which will facilitate the obtaining of the necessary documents and accomplish for them the formalities demanded. (Foreign Relations, 1892, pp. 387-389.) TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 167 Mr. Wharton to Mr. White. Department of State, Washington, February 28, 1893. Sir: I transmit herewith for your information copies of correspondence recently exchanged -with the Russian minister here in relation to the refusal of the consul general of Russia at New York to attach his vise to the passport of Mrs. Minnie Lerin, a naturalized citizen of the United States, because she is of the Jewish faith. The avowal of Prince Cantacuzene's note that the action of the Russian consul general is under instructions from his Government which interdict the authentica- tion of passports of foreign Jews, presents a question embarrassing as it is painful when arising with a nation for whose Government and people such intimate friend- ship has so long been manifested by the American people. It is apt to be inferred from Prince Cantacuzene's note that the declaration of Mrs. Lerin's religious profession was elicited from her by some interrogative process on the part of the Imperial consul general. It is not constitutionally within the power of this Government or of any of its authorities to apply a religious test in qualification of equal rights of all citizens of the United States; and it is therefore impossible to acquiesce in the application of such a test, within the jurisdiction of the United States, by agents of a foreign power, to the impairment of the rights of any American citizen or in derogation of the certificate of this Government to the fact of such citizenship. On several occasions in the past this Government has made temperate but earnest remonstrance against the examination into the religious faith of American citizens by the Russian authorities in Russia. The asserted right of territorial sovereignty over ail sojourners in the Empire, to our deep regret, outweighed our friendly protests. His Majesty's Government, however, surely can not expect the United States to acquiesce in the assumption of a religious inquisitorial function within our own borders by a foreign agency in a manner so repugnant to the national sense. I can not but surmise that some strange misapprehension exists in this regard in the mind of His Majesty's Government which your accustomed ability and tact may perhaps explain and perhaps remove. It does not appear needful to my present purpose to consider whether a special phase may not be given to the question by the circumstance that Mrs. Lerin was bom in Russia. Mr. Foster's note of the 16th instant to Prince Cantacuzene indicates a disposition to consider and discuss an explanation based on the former political status of the individual. The reply of the minister announces that with certain un- specified exceptions the prohibition in question applies to "foreign Jews." The sweeping character of this statement suggests inadvertence, and confirms my assump- tion that the matter is misapprehended by the Russian Government or by its agents in the United States. For this reason I have contented myself with a simple ac- knowledgment of Prince Cantucuzene's note, under the reserve necessarily imposed upon this Government by the Constitution and the laws, and by its just expectation that his passports shall be respected as authoritative evidence of citizenship. In this connection you may conveniently consult Mr. Bayard's instruction to Mr. Wurts's No. 140, of September 11, 1888, in relation to a previous refusal of the Russian consul general to authenticate legal documents for use in Russia when applied for by a Jew. On this general subject you may examine Mr. Evarts's No. 55 to Mr. Foster (March 3, 1881) and Mr. Blaine's No. 87 (July 29, 1881). William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 536.) Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. [Extract.] Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, April 11, 1893. Sir: Referring to Mr. ^^Tiarton's dispatch No. 60, of February 28, 1893, in regard to the case of Mrs. Mannie Lerin, a naturalized citizen of the United States bom in Russia, to whom a vise was refused at the Piussian consulate general in New York, I have taken no action for the reason that there seems little chance at present of secur- ing anything either in behalf of the person above named or of the doctrine for which our Government has contended so long in vain. While ready to seize any favorable 168 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. opportunity to bring up the subject and to urge views favorable to the doctrine which we would naturally like to see established, I have thought it wise to await the return of the minister of foreign affairs, M. de Giers, who can speak and act with an author- ity on subjects of this kind, which the acting minister can hardly be expected to I have, etc., Andrew D. White. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 538.) Mr. Foster to Prince Cantacuzene. Department op State, Washington, February 16, 1893. My Dear Sir: The department is advised that the consul of Russia at New York has peremptorily refused to vise a passport. No. 46250, issued on the 6th instant to Mannie Lerin, a duly naturalized citizen of the United States, born at Odessa, Russia. Miss Lerin explains that she desires to visit her parents in Russia, and the action of the consul, of course, precludes all possibility of her doing so. It is inferred that the consul bases his action upon the general instructions of his Government, allowing him to decline to vis6 a passport of a former subject of Russia who had left his native land without permission to escape military service. If this theory is correct, it is not perceived how this condition can apply to a woman, and I shall be glad to learn, if you please, the reason of the consul's action in this particular instance. Awaiting, etc., John W. Foster. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 547.) Prince Cantacuzene to Mr. Adee. Legation of Russia, Washington, February 20, 1893. Dear Sir: In reply to your note of February 16, concerning the refusal of our consul general in New York to vis6 the passport of Mrs. (not Miss) Mannie Lerin, a naturalized citizen of the United States, I beg to say that it appears from the informa- tion I just received from our consul general that the said Mrs. Lerin declared herself to be a Jewess. In the present circumstance Mr. Olarovosky acted according to the instructions of his Government interdicting to vise passports of foreign Jews, with the exception of certain cases, under which Mrs. Lerin can not be placed. Accept, etc., Cantacuzene. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 548.) Mr. Wharton to Prince Cantacuzene. Department of State, Washington, February 28, 1893. Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 20th instant, in reply to Mr. Foster's of the 16th, concerning the refusal of the Russian consul general at New York to vis6 the United States passport of Mrs. Minnie Lerin. _ In view of your statement that the vis6 in question was refused because Mrs. Lerin declared herself to be a "Jewess," and in accordance with the instructions of the Imperial Government "interdicting to vis6 passports of foreign Jews, with the excep- tion of certain cases under which Mrs. Lerin can not be placed," I limit myself for the present to acknowledge your communication under the reserve necessarily imposed upon the Government by its Constitution and laws and by its just expecta- tion that its certification of the character of American citizenship will be respected. Accept, sir, etc., William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary. (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 548.) TERMIlSrATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832, 169 Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. [Telegram.] Department of State, Washington, May 17, 1893. Representations made here that Russian Government is about to enforce edict against Jews which will result in a large emigration of destitute people of that class to the United States. If there is foundation for what we hear, you will please ascertain and report as speedily as possible the terms of the edict and its probable effect. Gkesham. (Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 525.) Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. Legation op the United States, *' St. Petersburg, July 6, 1893. Sir: Your telegram, presumably of May 17, was received on the morning of May 18 and answered at once. Since telegraphing you I have made additional inquiries with reference to your question and am persuaded that there has been no new edict banishing Israelites from Poland, as was stated in some of the papers of western Europe; but for some time past the old edicts and regulations against them have been enforced in various parts of the Empire with more and more severity. Soon after my arrival at this post it was rumored that there was to be some mitigation in the treatment of them, but the hopes based on this rumor have grown less and less, and it is now clear that the tendency is all in the direction of not only excluding Israelites more rigorously than ever from parts of the Empire where they were formerly allowed on sufferance, but to make life more and more difficult for them in those parts of the Empire where they have been allowed to live for many generations. As you are doubtless aware, there are about 5,000,000 Israelites in Russia, forming, as it is claimed, more than half of the entire Jewish race, and these are packed together in the cities and villages of what was formerly Poland and adjacent Governments, in a belt extending along the western borders from northwest to southeast, but which for many years has been drawn back from the frontier about 40 miles under the neces- sity, as it is claimed, imposed by the tendency of the Israelites in that region to con- duct smuggling operations. In other parts of the Empire they have only been allowed to reside as a matter of exceptional favor. This alleged favor, under the more kindly reign of Alexander II, was largely developed and matured into a sort of quasi right in the case of certain classes, such as Israelites who have been admitted into the learned professions or have taken a university degree or have received the rights of merchants df the first or second guild, paying the heavy fees required in such cases. Certain skilled artisans have also been allowed to reside in certain towns outside the Jewish pale; but their privileges are very uncertain, liable to revocation at any time, and have in recent years been greatly diminished. Besides this, certain Israelites are allowed by special permits to reside as clerks in sundry establishments, but under the most uncertain tenure. This tenure can be understood by a case which occurred here about a month since. At that time died an eminent Israelite of St. Petersburg, a Mr. , who had distinguished himself by rescuing certain great companies from ruin by his integ- rity and skill in various large operations and by the fact that, while he made large and constant gains for those interested in these companies and operations, he laid up for himself only a modest competence. He had in his employ a large number of Jewish clerks, and it is now regarded here as a matter of fact that at the expira- tion of their passes, say in a few months, all of them must leave St. Petersburg. The treatment of the Israelites, whether good or evil, is not based entirely upon any one ukase or statute. There are said to be in the vast jungle of the laws of the Empire more than 1,000 decrees and statutes relating to them, besides innumerable circulars, open or secret, regulations, restrictions, extensions, and temporary arrange- ments, general, special, and local, forming such a tangled growth that probably no human being can say what the law as a whole is — least of all can a Jew in any province have any knowledge of his rights. From time to time, and especially during the reign of Alexander II, who showed himself more kind to them than any other sovereign had ever been, many of them were 170 TEEMINATION OP THE. TEEATY OF 1832. allowed to leave this overcrowded territory, and, at least, were not hindered from coming into territory and towns which, strictly speaking, they were not considered as entitled to enter; but for some time past this residence on sufferance has been rendered more and more difficult. Details of the treatment to which they have been subjected may be found in the report made by Mr. J. C. Weber and his associate commissioners, entitled "Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the causes which incite immigra- tion to the United States," Government Printing Office. I must confess that when I first read this report its statements seemed to me exaggerated, or, at least, overcolored, but it is with very great regret that I say that this is no longer my opinion. Not only is great severity exercised as regards the main body of Israelites here, but it is from time to time brought to bear with especial force upon those returning to Russia from abroad. The case was recently brought to my notice of a Jewish woman who, having gone abroad, was stopped on her return at a frontier station, and, at last accounts, had been there three days, hoping that some members of her family in Russia might be able to do something to enable her to rejoin them. Israelites of the humbler class find it more and more difficult to reenter Russia, and this fact will explain the case of Mrs. Minnie Lerin, referred to in Mr. Wharton's dis- patch No. 60 (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 536), as being refused a vis6 at the Russian consulate general in New York, and it will also throw light on various other cases we have had in which the legation has been able to secure mitigation in the application of the rules. On this latter point we have been successful in obtaining such mitigation in cases of many Israelites who have been subjected to annoyance by overzealous local author- ities. It may appear strange that any nation should wish to expel a people who, in other parts of the world, have amassed so much wealth. The fact is that but a very small fraction of them in Russia are wealthy; few even in comfortable circumstances. The vast majority of them are in poverty and a very considerable part in misery — ^just on the border of starvation. Nearly 40 years ago, when, as an attache of this legation, I was for 7 days and nights on the outside of a post coach between St. Petersburg and Warsaw — there being then no railway to the frontier — I had ample opportunity to see something of these Israelites and of the region in which they live. They exist for the most part in squalor, obliged to resort to almost anything that offers, in order to keep soul and body together. Even the best of them were treated with contempt by the lowest of the pure Russians. I myself saw two Israelites, evidently of the wealthier class and richly clad, who had ventured into the inclosure in front of the posthouse to look at the coach in which I was, lashed v/ith a coach whip and driven out of the inclosure with blows by one of the postilions — evidently a serf. A very few millionaire Israelites are to be found among the merchants of the first guild in some of the larger cities, but there is no such proportion of wealthy men among them as in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany. In the smaller towns, in some of which they form the majority of the residents, their poverty is so abject that they drag each other down, making frequently a ruinous competition with each other in such branches of business as they are allowed to pursue. This is now even more the case than ever before, since recent regulations have swept the Israelites living in many rural districts into the towns. A case was a few days since mentioned to me in which a small town of 8,000 or 10,000 inhabitants had recently received into its population nearly 6,000 Israelites from the surrounding country. The restrictions are by no means confined to residence ; they extend into every field of activity. Even in the parts of the Empire where the Israelites are most free they are not allowed to hold property in land, or to take a mortgage on land, or to farm land, and of late they have been even, to a large extent, prevented from living on farms, and have been thrown back into the cities and villages. As to other occupations, Jewish manufacturers have at times, even under the present reign, been crippled by laws or regulations forbidding them to employ Christian work- men, but these are understood to be not now in force. They are relics of the old legis- lation which in the interest of the servant's soul forbade a Jew to employ a Christian servant under pain of death, and which, in a mitigated form, remained on the statute book until 1865, when it was abolished by Alexander II. There are also many restrictions upon" the professions considered more honorable. A few Israelites are allowed to become engineers, and they are allowed to hold 5 per cent of the positions of army surgeons, but no more; and this in spite of the fact that from the middle ages until now their race has been recognized as having a peculiar aptitude for medicine and surgery. As a rule, also, they are debarred from charging any public functions of importance, and even as to lesser functions a Jew can not be elected mayor of a village or even member of its council. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 171 Not more than one man in ten of those summoned to do jury duty can be a Jew, and even in the cities within the pale, where the Jews form the great majority of the popu- lation, they can not hold more than one-thu-d of the places on a municipal council. Perhaps the most painful of the restrictions upon them is in regard to the education of their children. The world over, as is well known, the Israelites will make sacrifices to educate their sons and daughters, such as are not made, save in exceptional cases, by any other people. They are, as is universally recognized, a very_ gifted people, but no matter how gifted a young Israelite may be his chances of receiving an educa- tion are small. In regions where they are most numerous only 10 per cent of the scholars in high schools and universities are allowed to be Jews, but in many cases the number allowed them is but 5 per cent, and in St. Petersburg and Moscow only 3 per cent. Out of 75 young Israelites who applied for admission to the University of Dorpat in 1887 only 7 were allowed to enter. A few days since the case was brought to my notice of a well- to-do Israelite who wished to educate his son, whom he considered especially gifted, but could not obtain permission to educate him in St. Petersburg, and was obliged to be satisfied with the permission to enter him at one of the small provincial universi- ties remote from this capital. To account for this particular restriction it is urged that if freely allowed to receive an advanced education, they would swarm in the high schools, universities, _ and learned professions; and, as a proof of this, the fact is mentioned that some time since, in the absence of restrictions, at Odessa from 50 to 70 per cent of the scholars in sundry Russian colleges were Jews. As to religious restrictions, the general policy pursued seems to an unprejudiced observer from any other country so illogical as to be incomprehensible. On one hand great powers are given to Jewish rabbis and religious authorities. They are allowed in the districts where the Israelites mainly live to form a sort of state within the state, with power to impose taxes upon their coreligionists and to give their regu- lations virtually the force of law. On the other hand, efforts of zealous orthodox Christians to proselyte Israelites, which must provoke much bitterness, are allowed and even favored. The proselytes once brought within the orthodox Russian fold, no matter by what means, any resumption of the old religion by them is treated as a crime. Recent cases have occurred where Jews who have been thus converted and who have afterwards attended the synagogue have been brought before the courts. So, too, in regard to religious instruction it would seem to an unprejudiced observer, wishing well both to Russia and to the Israelites, that the first thing to do would be to substitute instruction in science, general literature, and in technical branches for that which is so strongly complained of by Russians generally — the instruction in the Talmud and Jewish theology. But this is just what is not done, and, indeed, as above stated, not allowed. The whole system at present in vogue is calculated to make Talmudic and theolog- ical schools, which are so constantly complained of as the nurseries and hotbeds of anti-Russian and anti-Christian fanaticism, the only schools accessible to the great majority of gifted young Israelites. As to recent interferences of which accounts have been published in the English newspapers, and especially as to a statement that a very large number of Jewish children were early during the present year taken from their parents in one of the southern governments of Russia and put into monastic schools under charge of orthodox priests, this statement having been brought especially to my notice by letters addressed to me as the representative of the United States, I communicated with our consuls in the regions referred to, and also obtained information from other trust- worthy sources, and the conclusion at which I arrived was that the statement was untrue. It probably had its origin in the fact that much anxiety has recently been shown by high officials, and especially ecclesiastics, to promote education in which orthodox religious instruction holds a very important part. In justification of all these restrictions various claims are made. First of all, it is claimed that the Jews lend money to peasants and others at enormous rates of interest^ But it is pointed out in answer to this that sundry bankers and individuals in parts of Russia where no Jews are permitted have made loans at much higher rate than Jews have ever ventured to do. While it is allowed that 100 per cent a year has not infre- quently been taken by the Israelites, there seems to be no doubt of the fact that from 300 to 800 per cent, and even more sometimes, has been taken by Christians. This statement seems incredible, but it is unimpeachable. In a general way it is supported by a recent report of a Russian official to Mr. Sagonof ; and a leading journal of St. Petersburg, published under f^trict cen=or.~hip, has recently given ca es_with names and dates, where a rate higher than the highest above named was paid by Russian peasants to Christian money lenders. 172 TERMIISrATIO]^ OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Tliose inclined to lenity toward tlie Jews point to the fact that none of them would dare to take any such rates of interest as Christians may freely demand; that to do so would raic-e_ against the Israelites in their neighborhood storms which they could not resist, and it is argued that, as their desire for gain is restricted in this way, their presence in any part of Russia tends to diminish the rate of interest, rather than to increase it. On the other hand, it is claimed that they will not work at agriculture, and, indeed, they will do no sort of manual labor which they can avoid. As to the first of these charges, the fact is dwelt upon, which has so impressed Mr. McKenzie Wallace and other travelers, that the Jewish agricultural colonies founded by Alexander I in 1810 and by Nicholas I in 1840 have not done well. But in answer it may be stated as a simple matter of history that, having been originally an agricultural people, they have been made what they are by ages of per- secution, which have driven them into the occupations to which they are now so generally devoted; that in Russia they have for generations been incapacitated for agricultural work by such restrictions as those above referred to; that even if they are allowed here and there to till the land, they are not allowed, in the parts of the Empire which they most inhabit, to buy or even farm it, and thus the greatest incentive to labor is taken away. As to other branches of manual labor, simply as a matter of fact, there are very large bodies of Jewish artisans in Poland, numbering in the aggregate about one-half of the entire adult male Israelite population. Almost every branch of manual labor is represented among them, and well represented. As stone masons they have an especially high reputation, and it is generally conceded that in sobriety, capacity, and attention to work they are fully equal to their Christian rivals. Complaint is also made that they, as far as possible, avoid military service. This is doubtless true, but the reasons for it are evident. For the Jewish soldier there is no chance of prornotion, and when he retires from the service he is, as a rule, subject to the same restrictions and inflictions as others of his rare. In spite of this fact the number of them in the conscription of 1886 was over 40,000. I find everywhere, in discussing this subject, a complaint that the Israelites, wher- ever they are allowed to exist, get the better of the Russian peasant. The difficulty is that the life of the Israelite is marked by sobriety, self-denial, and foresight; and whatever may be the kindly qualities ascribed to the Russian peasant — and there are many — these qualities are rarely, if ever, mentioned among them. It is also urged against the Israelites in Russii that they are not patriotic, but in view of the policy pursued reu could not hear from me. I received your letters and have been earnestly trying to get you out of prison, from which place I was happy to leam some time ago that you had been released. I am just in receipt of a letter from Mr. R. M. Lewis, a banker at Glasgow, Mont., saying that you want to return to the United States, though you have not expressed this wish to me. If this is your wish, so inform me, and I will do what I can to get the Imperial Government to release you of every claim and let you go back to the United States. What was your age when you went to the L'nited States? I am, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge, (Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1089-1090.) TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 199 Mr. Peirce to Mr. Gresham. Legation of the United States. St. Petersburg, May 27, 1895. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Uhl's No. 54, of May 15, 1895, relating to the case of John Ginzberg, and inclosing copy of a letter from his excellency the governor of Montana, covering an affidavit of John M. Lewis, of Glas- gow, in that State, and also inclosing copy of Ginzberg's passport application, dated October 4, 1894. The department was informed in Mr. Breckinridge's No. 74, of May 18, 1895, of the action of the legation in this case, which has been energetically pushed, as is shown by the correspondence. It is an unfortunate circumstance in Ginzberg's case that he entered Russia without having his passport visaed as required by law; a law, by the way, of which it appears he was informed by our consul at Hamburg. It now seems to me that an appeal made personally to the minister of the interior may have some effect. Should the case continue to remain in the hands of the "judi- cial authorities " there is no limit practically to the technicalities which may be used to obstruct a speedy conclusion of the affair. I will therefore make it my business to call upon the minister of the interior at an early date and urge upon him the release of this man, in the hope that this further detention may seem to him undesirable. I have, etc., Herbert H. D. Peirce. (Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1090.) Mr. Peirce to Mr. Uhl. Legation of the United States, 1^- ■■' St. Petersburg, May 30, 1895. Sir: Referring to my No. 81, of May 27, I have the honor to inform you that on calling yesterday upon Mr. Chichkine, at the foreign office, I was informed that Baron Osten-Sacken now has charge of the case of John Ginzberg so far as that ministry is concerned, the case being at present in the hands of the ministry of justice. It seemed to me prudent to inform Baron Osten-Sacken of the letter of the governor of the State of Montana and to urge upon him certain views of this case before bringing the question up with the minister of the interior. I accordingly spent some hours with Baron Osten-Sacken both yesterday and to-day, going over with him the history of the case, and I am able to report as a result that on leaving him this afternoon I had his assurance that he would address a note to the minister of justice recommending Ginzberg's release. Whether this will have the desired result I am unable to say, but it can not, I think, but have a favorable effect. I shall continue to follow this matter up with Baron Osten-Sacken and Mr. Dournovo, the minister of the interior, whom I hope to see to-morrow, that being his first reception day since the receipt of your No. 54. I shall also, if the course of events seems to warrant it, call upon the minister of justice in regard to this case. I have, etc., Herbert H. D. Peirce. (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1090-1091.) Mr. Olney to Mr. Peirce. Department of State, Washington, June 15, 1895. Sir: Mr. Breckinridge's No. 74, of the 18th, and your Nos. 81 and 85, of the 27th and 30th ultimo, in relation to the arrest of John Ginzberg, have been received. The minister's action in anticipating the department's instructions, Nos. 50, of May 3, and 54, of May 15, on the same subject, upon information received by him from the United States consul at Hamburg, is appreciated, and your attention to the case is approved. In reading the voluminous correspondence now sent hither an important conflict is observed between the statements on behalf of the airested man and those communi- cated to Mr. Breckinridge by Mr. Chichkine, as having been furnished by the governor of Minsk. It is expressly said by the latter that Schimon (otherwise called John) 200 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Ginzberg deserted the military serAdce in 1886 by taking refuge in America, and after having been fully identified he was, upon the governor's order, turned over to the judicial authorities in virtue of the laws applicable to the "crime of desertion." On the other hand, in the application of John Ginzberg, upon which passport No. 17003 was issued him_ October 8, 1894, he swears he was born at Minsk on or about September 4, 1865, and emigrated, sailing on the Hammonia from Hamburg on or about the 7th day of July, 1880, subsequently naturalized in Wilmington, Del., August 10, 1886. It is obvious that the military offense of desertion could not have been committed by this boy of less than 15 years of age when he quitted Russia in the early part of 1880; and the fact that the governor of Minsk specifies as the date of the alleged desertion the year in which Ginzberg was duly made a citizen of the United States, in pursuance of our laws, raises a presumption that the so-called act of desertion for which Ginzberg is to he tried may in fact be his acquisition of American citizenship. If this be so, the Government of the United States can never acquiesce in any claim of any other Government to penalize the act of naturalization when lawfully granted within our jurisdiction to one of its former subjects or citizens. Actual desertion from service is universally regarded as a continuing offense, con- doned neither by lapse of time nor change of citizenship, and were this proved in the present case you would have practicallj^ no ground for remonstrance against the pun- ishment of Ginzberg as such a deserter; but, as already remarked, a child of 14 can not be a deserter in this military sense ; nor is it reasonable to suppose that any man with the well-known penalites of actual desertion from active service hanging over him would have so persistently endeavored to reenter Russian jurisdiction as Mr. Ginz- berg has done . It is, however, probable, in view of Baron Osten-Sacken's conclusion that the facts of the case warranted his addressing a note to the minister of justice recommending Ginzberg's release, that actual desertion from the ranks does not figure in the case. Should the action of the foreign ofiice not bring about a favorable result it may be necessary to press the case on the ground that the punishment of a naturalized person for the mere act of becoming a citizen of the United States by due operation of our laws is "nadmissible and unfriendly. Before presenting the case positively on this ground it may be well, however, to put John Ginzberg's right to protection as an American citizen beyond all doubt. The circumstances of his application for a passport disclose an irregularity which may or may not be vital. A copy of John Ginzberg's application for a passport, made October 4, 1894, before one Moritz Silberstein, a notary public of New York City, was sent to the legation with Mr. Uhl's No. 54, of May 15. It will be observed that Ginzberg therein swears that he was born at Minsk, Russia, on or about the 4th day of September, 1865, and was naturalized before the circuit court of the United States at Wilmington, Del., on the 10th day of August, 1886 — that is, 25 days before attaining legal age. As the date of birth is only approximately given, this apparent defect may be removed upon the production of a copy of his certificate of birth. Mr. Lewis, who wrote to the department on the subject, will be informed of what you have done and of your interest in the matter, in addition to the informationyou have already directly given to him in your letter of May 10. I am, etc., " Richard Olney. (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1091-1092.) Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, August 22, 1895. Sir: Your No. 79, of June 15, inclosing traced signature of John Ginzberg, copy of his application for a passport, and review of his case was duly received. I am happy to note your approval of the steps previously taken by the legation, and the contents of your present dispatch have my careful attention. I have now to report the present status of the case and to inform you of the proceed- ings since the receipt of the dispatch above referred to. The status is practically unchanged except so far as it may be advanced to a decision by these proceedings. No result following the favorable note of the foreign office to the minister of justice, reported in the legation's No. 85, of May 30, and having your dispatch as an occasion for additional urgency, I again addressed Prince Lobanow, July 19, copy of which note is inclosed. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 201 In this note I carefully restated the whole case, following the lines already pressed and those laid down in your dispatch . This was followed up by a personal visit to Baron Osten-Sacken, when the case was fully discussed and a favorable view of the matter was taken by him. He said the power to disnaiss the jyroceedings against Ginzberg lay with the minister of the interior. I pressed the. case from the standpoint already taken by the Russian Government, that of desertion from the military service, urged the interest taken in it by the department, and requested him to use his good offices with the minister of the interior to dismiss the whole matter and let Ginzberg return to the United States. Agreeing with me substantially about the merits of the case, the baron also agreed that it was one his Government could not well desire to continue, and that the anxiety, ex- pense, and suffering already incurred made up of themselves no small measure of pun- ishment. He promised to at once comply with my request. After this the minister of the interior was seen. He spoke not unfavorably about the case; and, despite all that had been written through the regular chanels, he requested that I submit in writing a further statement of the case to him. This I did August 17, copy of which is inclosed. I am not without hope of favorable action within a short time by the minister of the interior. Thus the case stands: The application to the minister of justice to expedite it, with the possibility of a light penalty or of acquittal is still pending. The application to the minister of the interior to dismiss the case is in the same position, and the matter will continue to be followed up in every way that may seem possible. * * * The leniency in the present case has been, measured by the usual standard, very great. He was soon let out of prison upon mere personal recognizance; and I am in- formed that if his case takes its "usual" course it would be six months yet before he would come to trial. Your remarks about pressing the case upon the ground that it is one of punishment for the mere act of becoming a citizen of the United States by due operation of our laws if it be "necessary," the position of the United States in that contingency, and the caution as to probable error in Ginzberg's approximate statement of the date of his berth, all have my careful attention. As I am still hoping for a solution upon the grounds already laid down , I do not yet press that point, nor do I yet move in the matter of the date of birth, which may technically, at least, affect Ginzberg's status, since the question of his full compliance with our laws is not raised by the Russian Govern- ment. You state such action on the part of the Russian Government to be "inadmissible and unfriendly." This being true in a general sense, it is particularly true of one who came to us when a boy, grew up with us, and has really never known any other coun- try. So, while not urging this in the general sense, I have used it in this special case, but without, of course, admitting in any degree that it would be proper or just in any case. Indeed, I have taken occasion in conversation to express fully to Prince Loba- now and Baron Osten-Sacken the position of the United States upon this subject. This case will continue to be followed up and you will be promptly informed of any changes or results. Respectfully submitting the present statement, I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge, (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1092-1093.) [Inclosure No. 1.] Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lohanovj. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, July 7-19, 1895. Your Excellency: My Government has communicated with me at length and with much interest in regard to John (Simon) Ginzberg, a naturalized American citizen, detained in the government of Minsk upon the charge of desertion from the military service. The last note from this legation upon this subject was on April 28-May 10. It seems that Ginzberg was bom in 1865 and that he went to America in 1880, when he was between 14 and 15 years of age. My Government is very far from desiring to condone in any way the crime of actual desertion from military service. It is a continuing crime, and the acquisition of citizenship in the United States by a deserter would not give him any right to invoke our intervention were he subsequently duly apprehended by the country to which he once owed such allegiance. 202 TERMIITATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. While these points have been alluded to in the former notes of this legation, yet, in view of the stress laid upon them by my Government, I feel constrained to bring them more particularly to your excellency's attention. It seems quite incomprehensible that this crime can seriously lay against a child, as Ginzberg was at the time he left or was carried from the Empire. He thus appears to have grown upon our soil to a fair and honorable acquisition of citizenship, and as the possession of such a title to have full right to our utmost solicitude and interest. Surely no deserter would ever have gone back to be apprehended as this man did. He was warned by our consul at Hamburg not to visit Russia unless his passport was viseed. The consul knew that the Russian consul had refused to vis6 Ginzberg' s pass- port, and so wrote me. But he said nothing of any liability to arrest for any crime, and I do not suppose Ginzberg dreamed that any such charge could possibly be laid to him. He was turned back from the frontier; but with a sense of innocence and safety he returned to his birthplace without permission, and was there arrested as stated. It is not charged that Ginzberg entered the Empire with any evil purpose, and hence it'may be said that no remarks upon this point are necessary. But I can not refrain, as indicative of the complete harmoniousness and innocence of character of this man, from inclosing a copy of a letter kindly sent to him from me by the foreign office. This copy shows that the man is still but a child in mind and disposition, and can not but incline the imperial authorities to believe that this man never committed a crime. He certainly never will commit one. In conclusion, I submit especially to your excellency those observations particu- larly arising from the present communication from my Government; and I ask that Ginzberg may be permitted to return to America, as formerly requested, without fur- ther let or hindrance. I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1093-1094.) [Inclosure No. 2.] Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Dournovo. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, August 5-17, 1895. Your Excellency: I hasten to comply with the i.vish you so kindly expressed to the secretary of this legation that I should submit a statement of the case of John Ginzberg, a naturalized American citizen, in detention at Loguishin, Minsk Pinsk. I wish to express my appreciation at the same time of your goodness in accepting this statement in English instead of in one of the several other languages at your command, for I regret to say that English is the only language in which I can express myself. Ginzberg was born at Minsk, Russia, in 1865. He went to the United States when he was 14 years of age, and upon becoming of age he was made a citizen according to the laws of the United States. In the month of December of last year he retm-ned to Russia to visit his family. He is the bearer of passport No. 17003, issued by the Department of State of the United States on the 8th of October, 1894. Upon reaching Prostken he was arrested upon the charge, as I am informed by the imperial foreign office, of desertion, and I have been further informed that he is now released from confinement, but is required to confine himself to the locality of Logui- shin, Minsk, under bond or assurance of Leiser Tchetchik. This case has been the subject of my earnest representations from my Government, and of repeated communications and interviews between this legation and the foreign office. As to the merits of the case my Government wishes it first to be clearly understood that if Ginzberg had actually deserted from the military service of the Empire, or had fled from service which had matured, it would not interpose in his behalf. It has no desire to condone the crime of desertion. But the accused left the Empire when he was a boy, an irresponsible child, and surely he was not liable at that tender age to any military service. Having come to the United States at that age, and having grown up there, my Government thinks it unfriendly to hold him liable as one who has consciovisly and purposely sought to avoid a matured duty. Hence it earnestly desires that in this state of the case he be discharged and permitted to return to the United States, TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 203 Attention is also called to the obvious fact that Ginzberg is a man of simple, I may well say, of weak mind, and one hardly to be held responsible for at least such acts as are not hurtful to others. His letters to me strongly indicate this. Your excellency doubtless has a copy of one these letters with the papers from the foreign office, and two or three more of such childish communications have been received by me. The character of sympathy shown for him by persons in the United States further indi- cates this. The very fact of his coming here in the way he did, clearly shows that since he is not a vicious man, he must be a man of very weak mind. The United States consul at Hamburg wrote that Ginzberg applied to the Russian consul there to have his passport viseed, which was refused. He then applied to the United States consul for advice, and was strongly advised not to attempt to enter Russia under the circumstances. Yet he came to the frontier and was turned back by the Russian officials. Even after this experience he eluded the guards and entered the Empii-e, all of which, in so harmless a man, with no very strong inducement of any kind, shows a lack of intelligence that must attract attention. I have fully submitted the case to your excellency, and I hope that the earnest wish of my Government can be complied with, and that in accordance therewith Ginzberg can be set at liberty and permitted to return to his home in the United States. He has now suffered from great anxiety and long detention, and I ask the kindness of information of yom* excellency's decision in the matter. I avail, myseh, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1094.) Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, August 29, 1895. Sir: Referring to my No. 130, in regard to John Ginzberg, I now have to say that I am informed by a note from Mr. Chichkine that the foreign office has been informed by the ministry of justice that the necessary steps have been taken to hasten the progress of this case. The appeal to the minister of the interior to dismiss the case is still pending. I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge » (Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1096.) banishment of JOHN GINZBERG, Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. Sir: Preferring to my No. 135, of August 29, 1895, I now have the honor and pleasure of inclosing copy of a letter from Mr. Ginzberg, dated Minsk, September 19-October 1, stating that his trial was concluded September 16-28, with the result that he can return to the United States. Mr. Ginzberg further alludes to the method of his return, desires the return of hia American papers, and he prefers a claim against the Russian Government of $3 a day for 730 days of arrest and detention. I also inclose copy of my letter of this date to Mr. Ginzberg and of my note of same date to the foreign office. I express gratification at the reported conclusion of the trial, ask for fuller and more explicit information of the result, request the return to Ginzberg of his papers and full liberty as respects his return to the United States, but refrain from taking any action in regard to his claim, informing him that it is referred to the department. Further information will be reported to you as it may be obtained. Submitting the foregoing, I have the honor, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge, (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 509.) 204 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Breckinridge. My petition and request. Merciful Gentlemen: I let you know that my trial is over by the judges of Minsk, in the city of Pinsk, on the 6th of September, 1896. It was finished for to send me to the United States of America. So I am afraid that Russia will not send me as a passenger. But they might send me through jails or arrest houses, as they always do m their land. Therefore, my beloved and good gentlemen, I pray you very much to be so kind unto your servant and let me not suffer in this journey. Ask, please, the Russian rulers to give me only in my hands the American papers, with a ticket for the railroad and steamship, and so it will take me only about two week.s' time to come to the United States of America. But if they will carry me so it will take seven weeks' time, and I will be mixed up with all kinds of bad men, so that I can not stand that. And I pray you very much charge Russia for two years' time that they kept me arrested, for, indeed, they arrested me unlawfully on the Prussian ground, till it now makes altogether 730 days. I charge them $3 a day. Yours, truly, John Ginzberg. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 510.) Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Ginzberg. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. Sir: I have your letter of September 17-October 1, and it affords me much pleas- ure to learn that the decision in your case permits of your return to the United States. In regard to the method of yoiir going, of which you speak, I make inquiry, and will inform you of the result as soon as practicable. The request is also made that your American papers be returned to you. Concerning your claim against the Russian Government for compensation, I take no action at this time beyond including a statement of your claim in my report to the Department of State. I am, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 510.) Mr. Breckinridge to Count Lamsdorff. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. Your Excellency: Referring to the case of John Ginzberg, of which my note of August 21-September 2, 1895, to the imperial ministry of foreign affairs was my last communication, I now have the honor to say that a letter from Mr. Ginzberg, dated r^Minsk (city of Pinsk), September 19-October 1, informs me that his trial was con- cluded September 6-18, and that the result permits of his return to the United States. Beyond the foregoing in a general way Mr. Ginzberg does not give me any informa- tion as to the nature of the verdict. I beg to say that this information will be gratifying to my Government. I should be pleased to receive a more full and explicit statement of the finding of the court and of the further course intended to be pursued with respect to Mr. Ginzberg, and I have the honor to request your excellency's good offices to this end. Mr. Ginzberg expresses a desire for the return of his American papers, and for unre- stricted liberty as regards his return to the United States. Without entering upon any of the controverted points between the Imperial Government and the Government of the United States, in cases similar to this, I will only say that this course would be gratifying to my Government. I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 510-511.) TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 205 Mr. Olney to Mr. Breckinridge. Department of State, Washington, October 27, 1896. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 405, of the 7th instant, announcing the decision of the court at Pinsk in the case of John Ginzberg. Expressing the department's gratification at the apparently favorable result, I have to say that it will await further and more definite information in relation to his case before expressing an opinion upon the subject of his claim for $3 per day for 730 days during his arrest and detention. I am, etc., Richard Olney. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 511.) Mr. Pierce to Mr. Olney. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 5, 1896. Sir: I have the honor to inclose copies of recent correspondence in regard to John Ginzberg, from which it will be seen that he has been convicted of the charge brought against him and condemned to deprivation of civil rights and banishment from the Empire. It appears that what Mr. Ginzberg himself wants is to leave the Empire and return to the United States, but it now becomes a question of how he is to be transported there. The penalty for remaining iu Russia beyond a limited time after sentence is like that of return after banishment — dejwrtation to Siberia. The officials at the foreign office have given me a verbal assurance that the case shall remain in statu quo for six weeks, pending advices from the department. If the means can be furnished, he can travel to the frontier in such way as he sees fit, except that his route must be determined beforehand, with the consent of the Imperial Government. If his friends can not furnish the money for a more comfortable means of making the journey, he can be marched to the frontier by "etape" in the usual manner for criminals. But it will be necessary to furnish.means to pass him through Germany, so that he will not be prevented by the regulations of the German Government regarding paupers from crossing the frontier. All Ginzberg's letters to this legation indicate that he is destitute of the means to pay for his journey to the United States. Awaiting your instructions, I am, etc., Herbert H. D. Pierce, Charge d' Affaires ad interim. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Breckinridge. [Inclosure.] Province op Minsk, Pinsk District, October 22, 1896. Good Master and Gentlemen: Upon my soul I can not understand the Russian ways how they do justice. I can tell that the arrest is lying on me more than two years' time. And behold my case was finished on the 6th of September, 1896, and still they are keeping me now in such a little town — Loguishin, Russia — where no employment can be for such a man like I am. Now, I pray you, beloved master, show kindness to me and pity me, for I am a true man for the United States of America, and ask, please, the judges of Russia, let them send me my American papers quick as it is possible, because I have now a place for employment in the United States in the city of New York. There is a girl waiting for me; she would like to get married for me; and I have promised her that I will be her bridegroom. Therefore, beloved master, I pray you finish my case and send me out from Russia the same way like the Minsk judges are willing to do it. Yours, etc., John Ginzberg. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) 206 TERMIiSTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Mr. ChichHne to Mr. Pierce. Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Internal Relations, St. Petersburg, November 20, 1896. Mr. Charge d'affaires: Referring to the note of the legation of the United States under date of September 25 last, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy of the sentence of the Minsk district court relating to the case of Simon (alias John) Ginzberg. As it appears from the said document, Ginzberg is, in virtue of article 325 of the penal code, condemned to the deprivation of all civilrights and to perpetual banishment from the Empire. In communicating to you the foregoing, please, Mr. Charg6 d 'Affaires, accept, etc., Chichkinb, (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) [Subinclosure— Translation.] September 9, 1896, in the presence of the assistant attorney N. K. Gavriloff, and the assistant secretary, A. P. Kozitch, the following sentence was returned, based upon Nos. 829-834 and 842 of the statutes of the criminal court, by the member of the court, A. A. Prostomolotoff. sentence. 6th day of September, 1896. By oukase of His Imperial Majesty, in the criminal department of the district court of Minsk, represented as follows: President J. V. Mouchketoff ; members of the court X. F. Solovievitch, A. A. Prostomolotoff, with the assistance of the secretary, E. F. Loponchansky, and in the presence of Mr. Assistant Attorney N. K. Gavriloff, with the participation of a sworn jury, the case of Simon Jankel Ginzberg, aged 29 years, was heard, recognized guilty (but deserving leniency) in that, being a Russian subject he left his native land and went to America, and on the 10th of August, 1886, became, without permission of the Government, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, and that in the autumn of 1896 he voluntarily returned to Russia. Referring to the decree of laws governing the above verdict the sworn jury of the district court found that the action of which Ginzberg is found guilty (according to collection of laws of the governing senate of 1878 under No. 21), by his own admission, the crime defined in No. 325, part 1st of the penal code, and entailing with it for the person found guilty the deprivation of all civil rights and perpetual banishment irom the Empire, which sentence is pronounced upon Ginzberg. The cost of the present case, according to Nos. 976-979 of the statutes of criminal courts, to be paid by Ginzberg, and in case of his inability to pay, the said costs to be born by the Crown. Documents referring to the identification of Ginzberg now in the possession of the court to be returned to him. In conformity with the above and with No. 776 of the statutes governing criminal courts, the district court declares, according to the decision of the sworn jury, that the commoner of Little Laguishin, district of Pinsk, Simon Jankel Ginzberg, aged 29 years, based upon No. 325, part first of the penal code, is deprived of all civil rights and is sentenced to perpetual banishment from the limits of the Russian Empire; the costs of the trial to be paid by Ginzberg, and in case of his inability to pay, said costs to be defrayed by the Crown, the documents relative to the identification of Ginzberg, now held by the court, issued to Ginzberg by the Government of the United States, to be retiurned to Ginzberg as belonging to him. The original bears the proper signatures. (Signature illegible.) Acting Secretary of tJie District Court of Minsk. Countersigned: A. Lavrovitch, Assistant Secretary. (Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) tebmijStatiox of the treaty of 1832, 207 Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. Department op State, Washington, November 9, 1897. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 635 of the 23d ultimo, reporting that the application of Mr. Marks Nathan, an American Hebrew, to visit Russia, had been granted by the minister of the interior. In this connection I inclose copy of a letter from Mr. Charles L. Aarons, of Mil- waukee, transmitting copy of a reply made by the Russian Legation at this Capital to a request for permission made, in behalf of a naturalized American citizen of Russian birth, to visit Russia. This reply was couched in terms new to this department. It may be prudent to inquire if the condition of five years' service in the Russian Army is in lieu of the criminal liability incurred under article 325 of the penal code for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen in a foreign country and whether the same condition of return extends to Jews. If penal exile to Siberia or arrest and expulsion as a Jew should lie, the reply of the Russian Legation would seem to be unnecessarily silent as to these possible aspects of the case. Respectfully, yours, John Sherman. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 437.) [Inclosure.] Mr. Aarons to Mr. Sherman. Milwaukee^ Wis., November 4, 1897. Esteemed Sir: Mr. Harry Marks, of this city, is a citizen of the United States and of this State of long standing. He is desirous of making a visit to Russo-Poland, his birthplace, to visit his aged parents, whom he left about 20 years ago, and makes this request for a passport or such other authority as will show his citizenship and right to travel. He is in posses- sion of his first and second citizenship papers, and will forward them to you if neces- sary. He begs furthermore to call your attention to the following: On his behalf I have recently written to the Russian ambassador at Washington, stating that Mr. Marks left his native land at the age of 17 and for no other purpose than to earn a living for himself and for his parents. He has been doing this in this country ever since; con- sequently he was not in Russia at the time when his enlistment would have taken place at the age of 21 years. I wrote asking the Russian ambassador that a special permit from him be given to Mr. Marks assuring him that he would not be disturbed and allowing him to visit his birthplace. I herewith inclose copy of answer received by me. I, as well as many others here who are awaiting the outcome of this matter with deep interest, would greatly appreciate any consideration that you can bestow upon this matter. Awaiting your reply in the inclosed stamped envelope, I am, etc., Charles L. Aarons. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 437.) [Subinclosure.] Mr. Zelenoi to Mr. Aarons. Russian Imperial Legation, Washington, October 20, 1897. Dear Sir: In reply to your letter I have the honor to inform you that everyone who left Russia before his enlistment in the army, on his return to that country must serve his term, which is five years. Before speaking of a permit, I found it necessary to announce to you this matter. If Mr. Harry Marks is willing to serve his country five years as a soldier, we can consider his case. Believe me, sir, yours, truly, A. Zelenoi, Secretary of the Russian Legation. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) 19831—11 ^14 208 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. Mr. Hitchcoch to Mr. Shervian. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, December 22, 1S97. Sir: Referring to your No. 485 of November 9, I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a note of this legation of November 26-December 8, and of the reply of the Imperial Government thereto, dated December 20. It appears from Count Lamsdorff's note that the five years' service referred to by the imperial legation at Washington is not in lieu of the criminal liability incurred under article 325 of the penal code for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen of a foreign country without permission of the Imperial Government, and that condition, as regards military service, applies to all subjects of the Empire irrespective of religion, and hence extends to Jews . I have, etc., Ethan A. Hitchcock. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) [Inclosure. ] Mr. Breckinridge to Count Mouravieff. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 8, 1897. Your Excellency: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter from the imperial legation at Washington of October 20-November 1, sent me by my Government with instructions to inquire if the conditions of five years' service in the Russian Army, therein referred to, is in lieu of the criminal liability under article 325 of the Penal Code for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen of a foreign country without imperial consent, and whether the same condition of return extends to Jews. It may be observed that the communication from the imperial legation was sent to the Department of State by the applicant in the usual course of correspondence about his desires to procure a permit to return to Russia on a visit, but that its failure to mention the liabilities formerly imposed suggested the inquiry as to the present status of the law on the subject. I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) [Inclosure. — Translation.] Count Lamsdorffto Mr. Hitchcoch. Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Internal Relations, St. Petersburg, December 8-20, 1897. Mr. Minister: Referring to the note of November 21-December 8, I hasten to communicate to you that the five years of military service mentioned in the letter of Mr. Zelenoi are not in lieu of the penalties established by article 325 of the Penal Code for unlawful abandonment of Russian subjection. All the subjects of the Empire without distinction of religion are held to serve during that time under the flag. Accept, etc., Count Lamsdorpp. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 439.) exclusion of jews. Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. Department of State, Washington, June 18, 1897. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 561, of the 24th ultimo, in further relation to the interesting case of Frederick G. Grenz, a naturalized American citizen, who has been acquitted of the charge of having expatriated himself without imperial permission. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 209 This gratifying result, and the remarks of Baron Osten Sacken. appear to justify your inference that there is a growing disposition among the more advanced statesmen of Russia to regard the old policy and treatment in this class of cases as being "too drastic to meet the requirements of to-day." It would afford this Government much satisfaction to witness a change in the direction of recognizing the larger policy of most of the modern States by which the right of the citizen or subject to peaceably change his allegiance by orderly process of law is admitted by statute or confirmed by the con- clusion of naturalization treaties. The spirit of accommodation which, after many failures through a long series of years, at length enabled the Russian Government to negotiate with the United States a convention of extradition on the most advanced modern lines may, it is hoped, yet permit of an agreement upon the terms of a treaty whereby the irritating questions affecting our naturalized citizens of Russian origin may be removed from the field of discussion and given that practical settlement which may not hopefully be devised so long as the two Governments approach the matter from diametrically opposed standpoints. The department is disposed to commend the course pursued by you and by Consul Heenan in so dealing with the case of Mr. Grenz as to avoid academic discussion of the abstract merits of the controversy. This Government has no desu-e to force that of Russia to any abrupt acquiescence in the doctrines we profess as to the liberty of the subject, which tenets we may frankly admit are derived from sources very distant fi'om the historical traditions of imperialism. It is willing to recognize the good dis- position which Russia has shown in her own way and through her own municipal and judicial workings toward personally deserving American citizens who have incurred statutory or technical disabilities in Russia. It would deplore on the part of Russia, as much as it would avoid for its own part, any attempt to narrow the controversy to rigid limits and to bring about a deadlock fi'om which neither party may recede with self-respect. It is prepared now, for many years past, to give to its representatives in Russia the widest latitude to deal with this class of questions according to the more amiable and elastic formulas of unwritten diplomacy, in the confidence that by pur- suing this mutually deferential course a more formal agreement upon the essential principles involved may eventually be found within reach. It would be gratifying to discern a similar disposition on the part of the Russian agents in this country. The Russian Government has lately been made acquainted with the indisposition of the United States to acquiesce in any inquisitorial office on the part of the Russian agents toward American citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States, whereby a religious test and consequent disability as respects civil rights in Russia may be imposed. The response has been elicited that the test com- plained of is not essentially_ religious, but rather racial and political; and in proof of this the laws of Russia providing for the favorable treatment of foreign Jews of certain categories seeking to enter Russia have been officially communicated. By the judicial order of March 14, 1891, the power of legations and consulates to vis^ passports for Russia extends — without previous authorization of the ministry of the interior — to Jewish bankers, chiefs of important commercial houses, and the brokers, representatives, clerks, and agents of such houses. Nevertheless, this department learns from time to time of the refusal of Russian agents in this country to authenticate the passports of Jews unquestionably belonging to the privileged categories, no other reason for refusal being assigned them than that the applicants are Jews. The recent case of Mr. Adolph Kutner, a wealthy and highly esteemed merchant of California, to whom a -sds^ was refused by the charge d'affaires because he "was not a Christian," has created a painful impression in the Senate, to members of which high body Mr, Kutner is well and favorably known. A resolution introduced by Senator Perkins on the 25th ultimo seeks to emphasize the contrast between the professions of the Rus- sian Government in regard to the favorable treatment of alien Jews resorting to the Empire and the prohibitory practice of the Russian agents in this country. That resolution having been referred by the Committee on Foreign Relations to this depart- ment for an expression of its views on the subject, a letter, of which copy is inclosed, was addressed to the chairman of that committee on the 5th instant, in which the position of the Russian Government is truthfully but temperately stated. This matter is not now presented by way of argument and protest, but in order that you may in such friendly and discreet manner as may be practicable, suggest to the minister for foreign affairs that one annoying feature of?the case may be justly elimi- nated if the discretion conceded by the Russian law to the imperial legations and con- sulates in the matter of authenticating passports of Jews resorting to Russia were made effective and practical as to Jews of the privileged classes; or, in the language of Prince Lobanow's note of August 12-24, 1895, were in fact operative to admit Jews "of foreign allegiance when they seem to present a guaranty that they will not be a charge and a parasitic element in the State,|but will be able, on'the contrary, to be useful to the internal development of the country." 210 TEEMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. This suggestion is made in the same amicable spirit which appears to have prompted the disposal of the Grenz case, and which characterizes your dispatch on the subject and this reply. It can not now be foreseen whether the resolution will be adopted as introduced, but should the Senate approve it, the course of the department thereunder would be greatly facilitated were it ascertained in advance that the action of the Russian agencies in the United States will be in full harmony with the liberal features of the Russian law. Respectfully, yours, John Sherman. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 443.) Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Sherman. Legation op The United States, St. Petersburg, August 11, 1897. Sir: Referring to your No. 429 of June 18, with inclosures, concerning the laws and regluations of the Russian Government, affecting the vis6s of passports of our citizens of Hebrew origin, and to other controverted matters, I have the honor to inclose my note of July 20 to Count Mouravieff. These matters have been the occasion also of verbal discussion with the foreign office. I am not prepared, however, to say more at present than to state in general terms what has passed has been well received, the reasonableness of the department's suggestions have been unofficially concurred in, and there is reason for hope that progress will be made upon lines so reasonable and consistent as those proposed. I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 443.) [Inclosure.] Mr. Breckinridge to Count Mouravieff. Legation of the United States, St. Petersburg, July 8-20, 1897. Your Excellency: Referring to my note of June 27-July 9, in which I had the honor to express assurance of the satisfaction of my Government in the generous recognition by the Imperial Government of the mitigating conditions in the case of Mr. Grenz, a Russian subject who became an American citizen without the consent of the Imperial Government, and his acquittal in accordance therewith, I now have the honor to say that I am in receipt of a dispatch from my Government fully expressing its sentiments in regard to that and other kindred matters. My Government charges me to make known to the Imperial Government that while recognizing the extreme doctrinal differences which arise from different historical traditions, it yet appreciates and reciprocates the sentiments of consideration and respect which has been shown. It is pleased to recognize the good disposition shown by the administrative and judicial authorities of the Empire, in accordance with its established laws and practice toward personally deserving persons of conflicting allegiance. It is noted that it was in th^s spirit of reasonable accommodation and mutual respect which enabled the two Governments, after many failures through a long series of years, to at length agree upon a convention of extradition; and it is believed that the same spirit, so historically maintained, will continue to ameliorate and remove the practical differences which may exist or occasionally arise in the course of the growth and increasing intercourse between the two nations. Concerning the matter of travel and convenience of citizens about whose nationality there is no question, but of the Jewish race, which is subject to special regulations within the Empire, the same dispatch desires me to call attention to a practice by the imperial officials abroad, which is objectionable and seemingly not at all required by the laws of the Empire. In this connection I beg to cite the note to this legation of His Excellency Prince Lobanoff, dated June 26-July 8, 1895, and a note from the same to the same, dated August 12-24, 1895. In these communications, accompanied by an extract of the Russian law upon the subject, his excellency stated that in the case of a Jewish banker, chief of a commercial house, and qertain other enumerated classes of business men of TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 211 known importance of the Hebrew race, the imperial legations and consulates were authorized to issue and vis6 passports for them to enter Russia according to the same regulations which apply to all foreigners who seek to enter the Empire, the only con- dition being that the acting official shall inform his excellency, the minister of the interior, of any passport granted or visaed for an Israelite of the category named. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of the law, it seems that the imperial officials hesitate to act in the manner indicated. A number of cases of this character have recently been brought to the attention of my Government, and it is believed that by simply amending the practice stated, and in accordance with existing law, a great inconvenience to this unobjectionable category of our citizens can be relieved, and the irritating incidents arising therefrom can be obviated. There is no difficulty in the United States of any citizen of the category named (and there can be but little difficulty with such persons applying for a vise abroad) in giving satisfactory commercial or official evidence of his identity and character. So I submit this feature to your excellency with the hope that it may be acceptable. I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 444.) [Banishment of John Ginzberg.] Mr. Peirce to Mr. Sherman. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, January f5, 1897. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 354 of January 4, inclosing copy of a letter from the governor of Montana in regard to the case of John Ginzberg. Ginzberg has been, at my request, sent from Loguishin, in the Province of Minsk, to Libau, from which port Mr. Neils P. Bornholdt, United States consul at Riga, who has a large shipping business, has promised for him opportunity to work his passage to Antwerp. I have requested Mr. Bornholdt to instruct his agents to hand over to Ginzberg 95 rubles, the amount of draft which has been received for him. As this is to Mr. Breckinridge's order, I have told Mr. Bornholdt that I would per- sonally be responsible tor the payment to him of the amount, but that I awaited the return of the minister before remitting. Ginzberg's departure for the United States may be expected in the course of the next 10 days. I may add with regard to this case that on the occasion of my last visit to the foreign office regarding him the officer immediately in charge of the documents in his case remarked with exclamation that according to usual practice he had been very len- iently dealt with. I have, etc., Herbert H. D. Peirce, ■ Charge d' Affaires ad interim. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 435.) Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Sherman. Legation op the United States, St. Petersburg, March 8, 1897. Sir: Referring to the department's No. 372, of February 13, I have the honor to say that advices from our consul at Riga, Mr. Bornholdt, inform me that Mr. John Ginzberg has sailed from Libau for London by the steamer Kiew. It gives me pleasure to state in regard to this protracted and interesting case that during _my absence upon leave it has been followed up with zeal and discretion by Mr. Peirce, the charge d'affaires ad interim, and that his efforts received the cordial and efficient cooperation of Mr. Bornholdt, our consul at Riga. Mr. Ginzberg, by the course followed, has been slowly, but as rapidly as possible, relieved from the embarrassments that were found to exist even after his acquittal; and it is a great relief to be able to report that he is at last out of the Empire and safely on his way home. Remittance of 95 rubles has been made to Mr. Bornholdt to cover money advanced by him to Mr. Ginzberg. I may remark that an apparent result of the continuous and earnest efforts of the past two or more years is some amelioration of the unbending severity that previously 212 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. marked the policy of the Russian Government in cases of this kind. Until, however, the still ineffectual efforts to effect a conventional arrangement with Russia, upon the subject of expatriation, are more successful, our citizens of Russian origin, unless with previous Russian consent, expose themselves to the gravest hardship by return- ing to the Empire. I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. (Foreign Relations, 1897, pp. 435-436.) Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. Department of State, Washington, March 25, 1897. Sir: I have been gratified to receive your No. 501, of the 8th instant, announcing the departure of John Ginzberg for the United States and commending the course of the secretary of your legation when in charge of his case. Its happy disposition may illustrate the advantage of dealing with such matters in a friendljr way, without unnecessary argument on the principles involved, as to which the views of the United States and Russia are apparently irreconcilable. Respectfully, yours, John Sherman. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 436.) liability op naturalized citizens op the united states under military and expatriation laws op their native country. Department of State, Washington, April 1, 1901. Notice to American citizens formerly subjects of Russia who contemplate returning to that country. The information given below is believed to be correct, yet it is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. ******* Naturalized Americans of Russian birth of the Jewish race are not allowed to enter Russia except by special permission. For this they must apply to the minister of the interior; but the department can not act as intermediary in making the application. There is no treaty between the United States and Russia defining the status of American citizens of Russian birth upon their return to Russia. No one is admitted to Russia without a passport. It must be visaed by a Russian diplomatic or consular representative. Upon entering Russia it should be shown at the first Government house, and the holder will be given another passport or permit of sojourn. At least 24 hours before departure from Russia this permit should be pre- sented and a passport of departure will be granted and the original passport returned. A fresh permit to remain in Russia must be obtained every six months. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 453.) Mr. Tower to Mr. Hay. Embassy of the United States, St. Petersburg, January 10, 1901. Sir: I have the honor to report to you the case of a naturalized citizen named Giovanni J. Margolin who has recently come to Russia and now asks this embassy to secure him the privilege of remaining here for an indefinite time. The subject of this gentleman's request was brought to my attention by the United States consul at Riga, a copy of whose letter dated the 3d of December, as well as of the entire correspondence, is respectfully submitted herewith. This Mr. Margolin is an Austrian by birth, 32 years of age, who emigrated to the United States in 1895, and was naturalized before the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York on the 2d day of October, 1900. He has TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 213 come to Russia with every apparent intention of remaining here, having, as he says, "a great number of relations in Russia and which are all connected with business houses of influence. " As he is a Jew, however, he has been granted a limited permit, which, as you well know, is required under the provisions of the Russian law, by which he is authorized to reside within the Empire for three months. But not content with this, he calls upon this embassy to exert the influence of the United States Govern- ment in his behalf to the end that he may secure "permission to stop in this country as long as my passport." The passport which he presented is dated in Berlin the 1st day of November, 1900, and was issued there by the Hon. Andrew D. White, United States ambassador. Under the receipt of this communication through Mr. Bornholdt, United States consul, I replied that I should require some further details as to Mr. Margolin's origin and nationality before I could take up his case, and that I wished to know more clearly what his connection is with America, and upon what ground he calls upon the Govern- ment of the United States to serve him. Thereupon Mr. Margolin wrote me a letter of the 17th of December, from Vitebsk, which forms part of the correspondence hereto attached. It appears from the details which I have been able to obtain that this man was naturalized only last October and left America at once, for we find him already in Berlin equipped with an American passport on the 1st day of November. He has no interest in the United States that I can discover; he has never paid any tax there; has never served upon a jury. In fine, he has rendered no service of any kind to the country. Immediately upon coming to Europe, however, he seeks to employ his newly acquired citizenship, not for protection against personal injury, but for the acquire- ment of privilege in the furtherance of his own aims. In order to ascertain definitely whether Mr. Margolin intends in good faith to return to the United States and perform there his duties as an American citizen or not, I wrote him on the 2d of January asking him whether he wished a permit to live in Russia for two years, the period for which he holds his present American passport, and whether he sought also to remain here permanently. By his reply, dated the 6th of January, to which I have the honor to refer you, he informs me that he intends to live permanently in Russia if the imperial authorities will allow him to do so. There is nothing to show that this man had any interest in becoming an American citizen beyond the ptupose of using the advantages of citizenship in order to obtain privileges abroad which certainly would not have been asked for in his behalf by his own representatives if he had come to Russia directly from the country of his origin. Nor is it unreasonable, from his own presentation of the case, to assume that he has already substantially abandoned his duties and obligations as an American citizen. It is true he declares in his letter of the 17th of December, "I expect by importing different American novelties exclusively for Russia, to approve as well with the inter- est of my country as I think it will provide convenient for my share." A statement which I incline to regard as an appeal to the sentiment than an indication of a serious pmpose to develop American industry. And I have not been willing to comply with Mr. Margolin's request, because if we have on the one hand his unsupported declaration that he intends to introduce American wares into Russia, I respectfully submit that we have on the other a plain attempt to abuse an American certificate of naturalization. Charlemagne Tower. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 446.) Mr. Bornholdt to Mr. Tower. United States Consulate, Riga, November 3, 1900. Sir: Mr. Margolin, concerning whom you will receive simultaneously an official letter from this consulate, referred to a similar case, which he asserted had taken place some time ago. In this case, he said, the permission (to stay in Russia) had at first been refused by the Imperial Government, but had been granted later on, in consequence of a direct appeal from the Hebrew in question to the United States President. You are, of course, the best judge concerning the attention which this tale deserves. However, as I understand that Mr. Margolin intends, in case of refusal, to address 214 TEEMIE-ATIOE" OF THE TEE ATT OF 1832. a similar appeal to the President, I have considered it not quite superfluous to men- tion to you what he told me. N. P. BORNHOLDT. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) Mr. Bornholdt to Mr. Tower. United States Consulate, Riga, November W, 1900. Sir: According to the inclosed United States passport with Russian vise, the bearer of the same, Mr. Giovanni Margolin, has obtained the permission to stay in Russia for a period of three months on account of his being of Hebrew origin. Mr. Margolin informs me that he has come to Russia with the intention of forming commercial relations here, and that for this purpose he deems it necessary to prolong his stay here for about two years. Although this seems to be rather a long time, I make free, at the request of Mr. Mar- golin, to submit the matter to your appreciation in case it might be possible to obtain the petitioner the desired permission. I have, etc., N. P. Bornholdt, (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) United States Consul. Mr. Tower to Mr. Bornholdt. Embassy of the United States, St. Petersburg, December 6, 1900. Sir: I have duly received your letter of the 3d of December, and your personal letter of the same date, in regard to Mr. Giovanni Margolin, who wishes to have a perrnit which he has received from the Russian authorities to reside for three months within the Empire extended for a period of two years. Before taking up this case I shall require some further detail as to Mr. Margolin, the country of his origin, and his connection with America. As he is a naturalized citizen of the United States, I wish you would ask him to state to me where and when he was born, when he emigrated to America, where he lived, and what his occupation was while there and vjlien he left there. Ask him also to state whether he pays any taxes in the United States; and if so, how much and where. I wish further to know whether he has ever served on a jury there; and in general what American interest he may have, if any, to strengthen his claim for protection as an American citizen. I return you herewith the certificate of naturalization of Giovanni J. Margolin, before the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, on the 2d day of October, 1900; and the passport of Giovanni J. Margolin, No. 2386, issued by the Hon. Andrew D. White at Berlin, November, 1900. Charlemagne Tower. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) Mr. Margolin to Mr. Touer. Vitebsk, December 4, 1900. Your Excellency: A few days ago I received a letter from the United Sta,tes consul at Riga, where I applied for kind assistance to protect my sojourn in Russia, as an American citizen, with "the instruction to furnish the embassy on the direct way with some further details in regard to my person. I hereby take the liberty to com- ply with the order of the consul, and I venture to hope that the honorable embassy will convey my petition. The origin of my country is Austria, and I was born on the 10th of October, 1868, at Stanislau, Austria, of Jewish parentage. After finishing different colleges of education in Austria and Germany, I went to New York with the purpose of entering a business career. I landed in New York on the 4th day of January, 1895, and lived there all the time until October 4, 1900, when I sailed for Europe. I was employed there for several years in prominent commercial houses as a bookkeeper. After acquiring some of the' important methods how to transact and TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 2 15 own business, and possessing partly the American language, I represented in partner- ship wih another gentleman under our own firm a large concern in "American novel- ties" for sale in the State of New York. Finally I was engaged in the real estate business for myself until my departure, with a success capable of being named. I have never been taxed there and I have never served upon a jury. My intention and good will are to stay a citizen of the United States. Under the circumstances that I have a great many relatives iii" Russia and which are well connected with business houses of influence, I expect, by importing different American novelties, exclusively for Russia, to approve as well with the interests of my country, and I think it will provide convenient for my share. Therefore I request of the highly esteemed embassy to secure for me the permission to stop in this country at least as long as my passport, which I presume was sent to the embassy with my citizen papers by the consul at Riga. Trusting that my petition will find a favorable assistance with the honorable embassy, I have, etc., G. J. Margolin. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 449.) Mr. Tower to Mr. Margolin. Embassy op the United States, St. Petersburg, January 2, 1901. Sir: I have received youi' letter, dated at Whitebsk the 4th of December, 1900, in which you reply to the questions which I asked of Mr. Bornholdt, United States consul, in regard to your nationality and your naturalization in America. You now request me to secure for you a permit to reside in Russia "at least as long as your passport." By this I judge you would like a permit for two years, with the privilege of having it renewed when you renew yoiir passport. Is this not so, or do you wish a permanent residence in Russia? Charlemagne Tower. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 449.) Mr. Margolin to Mr. Tower. Vitebsk, January 6, 1901. Your Excellency: I have received your letter of January 2, with which your excellency had the kindness to honor me, and I will hasten to submit to your excel- lency an obedient reply. It will deign perfectly to my satisfaction if your excellency shall favor me with the grace to secure for me a permit to reside as long as my passport as issued by the esteemed embassy at Berlin for two years is ciirrent. In case my enterprises should exhibit a favorable result, in every respect, I would prefer, if pos- sible, having the privilege of renewing your excellency's, for me, kindly obtained permit, together with my passport, after its expiration. I presume that to secure a permanent residence in Russia will be connected with many difficulties, therefore I have decided to aim at that idea. Finally, I take the liberty of mentioning the fact thatthe permission of my sojourn in Russia, originally granted to me by the Russian minister, as your excellency will kindly notice on my passport, will soon lose its validity, in consequence of which I hereby request your excellency to relieve my case, to your excellency's earliest convenience, with an affirmative success. G. J. Margolin. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) Mr. Tower to Mr. Margolin. Embassy of the United States, 8t. Petersburg, January 9, 1901. Sir: I have received your letter of the 6th of January. You tell me, in reply to my inquiry, that you wish to obtain a permit to remain in Russia at least for two years, and, if possible, the right to live here permanently. I have submitted yom- case to the Department of State, at Washington, and shall inform you immediately upon the receipt by me of its decision. 216 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. In the meantime I say to you that in view of the fact that you lived in the United States barely long enough to become a citizen; that you have never performed any service there whatever, or paid any taxes; that you left America immediately upon having obtained your certificate of naturalization, you are not likely to be looked upon as one in a position to call upon the United States Government to interest itself in seeming a privilege for you abroad . Chaklemagne Towek. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) Mr. Hay to Mr. Tower. Department op State, Washington, January 30, 1901. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 381 of the 10th instant, reporting the case of Mr, Giovanni J. Margolin, an Austrian by birth, Jewish faith, who emi- grated to the United States in 1895, was natiu-alized October 2, 1900, then went to Europe, secured a passport dated November 1, 1900, at the United States embassy at Berlin, entered Russia with a permission as a Hebrew to stay three months, and who now asks the good offices of this Government in order to secure the extension of that permission on the part of the Rxissian Government, to the full term of the passport or indefinitely. The department approves your view of the case. More satisfactory evidence should be forthcoming than is now submitted of Mr. Margolin's actual conservation of his acquired citizenship before the intervention of this Government should be exercised to proc\ure for him the continued privilege of residence in Russia for which he applies. John Hay. (Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormich. Department op State, Washington, April 20, 190S. Mr. Hay states that it is persistently reported upon what appears to be adequate authority that there is great want and suffering among the Jews in Kishenef, and that their friends in the United States desire to know if financial aid and supplies would be permitted to reach the sufferers. Mr. McCormick is instructed to obtain the desired information without discussing the political phase of the situation. (Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 712.) Mr. McCormich to Mr. Hay. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, May 9, 1903. Mr. McCormick reports that it is authoritatively denied that there is any want or suffering among the Jews in southwestern Russia and that aid of any kind is unneces- sary; that while the offer is appreciated in the spirit in which it was made, it is grate- fully declined. (Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 712.) Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, May IS, 1903. Sir: Referring to your cablegraphic instructions in the matter of the alleged famine conditions among the Jews in Kishenef, I have the honor to inclose herewith a cutting from the London Standard of May 1, which will throw some light on the subject of that instruction. I have, etc., Robert S. McCormick. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 217 [From the London Standard, Friday, May 1, 1903.] When I arrived here late last evening, the Bessarabian capital presented all the appearance of a city suddenly evacuated by its inhabitants and committed to the charge of the military. At 11 p. m. not a civilian was to be seen on the streets, but the alternating patrols of infantry and cavalry were met with at intervals of a few hundred yards. Under the terror of the last few days, people of all classes and conditions carefully shutter and bar their windows after nightfall. On crossing the municipal boundary my coachman was halted by a police inspector, to whom he handed a ticket received at the railway station, showing whence he brought his fare. In the hotel vestibule I find another inspector of police questioning a group of young men, all apparently Jews and refugee guests, who have temporarily deserted their homes for the greater security of the pclice-guarded hotel. In the cross corridors of the bel-etage I pass two other police inspectors similarly engaged in cross-examining guests and domestics. Several of the former, I oberve, wear bandages. One of these inspectors following me to the door of the apartment to which an attendant is conducting me, salutes me respectfully in military fashion, desires to know whence I come, and begs to be favored with a glance at my passport. His examination of my papers being satisfactory, and his demeanor unusually affable for an official of his class, I offer htm my cigarette case, and essay, with a pretense of casual curiosity, to elicit some information with regard to the terrible and fatal tumult which has convulsed the city during the last few days — that is, during the Russian Eastertide. The attempt failed. The police inspector lauded the quality of my tobacco, smilingly observed that the discussion of tragic events was a bad soporific, and wished me spokoinoi notch. My room attend- ant goes about his duties in a curiously dejected and perfunctory manner. I ask him if he is fatigued and learn that he is a Jew who has lost two relatives in the murderous attack upon his coreligionists. My early peregrinations of the city this morning were made under the favor of delightful sunny and genial spring weather, whose brilliance enhanced, indeed, the glaring desolation of the scene of wreck and ruin in the Jewish quarters, more especially and in all the chief thoroughfares generally. I should say at the outset that Kishnef is for the nonce in a state of close siege. There are 15,000 troops in the city; 9,000 are kept in barracks under arms, and 6,000 infantry and cavalry are on patrol duty. All the infantry patrols and stationary pickets carry fixed bayonets, and the cavalry carbines are loaded with ball cartridges. These precautions, after the terrible outbreaks on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday last, appear to be unnecessarily excessive. The popular tumult and outrages ceased simul- taneously with the receipt of the order from St. Petersburg authorizing the governor and commandant to fire upon the rioters. As a matter of fact the military did not fire a shot during the frightful m^l6e. So far as I can gather in the best-informed quarters, there were 56 Jews, including 3 women and 4 children, and 7 Russians killed in the emeute between Easter Sunday afternoon and Tuesday evening. There are 339 injured people in the hospitals, the great majority of whom are Jews and Jewesses, including about 40 young children. About 700 arrests were made. I wit- nessed this morning the funerals of five victims who succumbed to their injuries yesterday. Added to the number given above, this makes a total of 68 lives lost, and the fatal record is probably not yet compete. Altogether, some 2,400 shops, magazines, stores, and booths were wrecked, and the windows of private houses, public buildings, banks, and commercial offices were wholly or partly shattered. Street kiosks were overturned and smashed, and sign- boards torn down and used as battering rams against shuttered windows and closed doors. The streets are still strewn with wreckage of all kinds of wares pillaged from the Jewish shops and booths. Desperate attempts were made upon the various banks and banking agencies, but these were saved by the military and are still under armed guards. In such leading and fashionable thoroughfares as the Alexandrofskaya and Pushinskaya, and in the immediate neighborhood of the official residences of the governor, the mayor, and the commandant, there was any amount of destructive havoc. Every shop in the block in which my hotel is situated is wrecked, and all the front windows of the hotel itself are shattered. It is in the Jewish quarter proper, however, in the bazaars and adjoining streets, that the full fury of the frenzied anti-Jewish rioters has left its desolating mark. Not a house or a shop was spared. The battered windows and doors are now nailed up vrith. unsightly boards, which hide the looted interiors. To-day the Jews are venturing out of doors under the ubiquitous and pro- tecting presence of the military. Here and there at courtyard gates and street corners, one sees small groups of sad and terror-stricken Jews and Jewesses, bemoaning their bereavements and material losses. The greater number appear with bandaged heads or arms in splints or slings. 218 TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. There can be no manner of doubt that the outbreak took the form of a savage and merciless attack upon the Jews. During the Eastertide more especially the ignorant and fanatic orthodox Slav is prone to revenge the crucifixion of the Saviour upon his Hebrew neighbors, and once his passions, besotted or sober, are fully aroused, he be- comes a wild animal. There is just a little doubt, however, that the popular tumult against the Jews was engineered by the organizers of the politically disaffected secret associations of the Russian industrial classes, whose ramifications are taking root all over the country. Their object is not so much a crusade against the Jews — since their "tenets of freedom" are, in principle at least, opposed to such persecutions — as a desire to discredit the imperial and local governments. Their guiding hands were certainly revealed on Monday and Tuesday last, when the mob assailed, happily unsuccessfully, one of the orthodox churches and the offices of the holy consistory of Bessarabia. For three days and nights past, and at the present moment, the cathe- dral of Kishnef is protected by four companies of infantry. Although it is scarcely possible to believe that there is the slightest fiirther danger or even the possibility of a renewal of the disturbances, not more than a score of shops in the whole city are open this afternoon. All the banks, commercial houses, and other places of business remain closed and guarded. The cavalry patrols have each been increased from 30 to 50 troopers, and the infantry patrols have single to double companies. The garrison commandant has had the main thoroughfares paraded at hourly intervals all day by battalions of infantry and half squadrons of cavalry, in additioB io the regular patrols. The Bessarabets, a leading local journal, again pub- lishes yesterday's stringent injunctions from the governor. Gen. Von Raaben, warning the unruly elements that no mercy will be shown to any disturber of the public peace, who is liable to be tried by drumhead court-martial, and summarily shot. The ordinary justice is suspended for a calendar month and replaced by martial law. I am this evening credibly informed that three of the Russian victims were con- stables, and 29 members of the force are under hospital treatment for serious injuries. In the thick of the desperate fray in the Jewish quarter on Monday night 13 cavalry troops were dragged from their saddles and brutally beaten. The infantrymen came scatheless out of their many struggles with the infurated mobs, thanks to keeping their ranks well closed. April 25. — The director general of the police, Lieut. Gen. Lopuchin, arrived here this morning from St. Petersburg; the same special train also brought Maj. Gen. Schostak, commander of the Eighth Army Corps, which includes the troops garrisoned in this city. Two more of the Jews in hospital last night succumbed to their injuries. This brings the death roll to 70, of whom 63 were Jewish victims to the massacre. Just before nightfall yesterday I had the opportunity of penetrating, unmolested by the police or military patrols and pickets, more closely into the lanes and alleys of the purely Jewish quarters. Whole streets and lanes, throughout their lengths, show nothing but sacked houses, shops and booths. The open doors and windows gape darkly like those of structures gutted by fire. The contents of the shops and booths have been pillaged and the furniture and fittings demolished, the private dwellings of the Jews meeting the same fate. It is a mystery to the spectator where the thousands of miserable refugees thus despoiled, expropriated, and brutally abused are hiding and herding. Some three or four thousand have fled to Benderi, Tiraspol, and Odessa. "Whichever way one turns in the lower part of the city the same scenes meet the eye. There is one somewhat narrow street absolutely blocked between the trottoirs by more than a score of overturned and looted booths. It is curious — although quite customary under similar terrible circumstances^to observe the anxious solicitude with which the occupants of all the houses and shops left wholly or partially intact have hastened to display ikons and other sacred emblems or pictures conspicuously in every window, or lacking a sufficient number of ikons, have cut crosses out of white or colored paper, and stuck them on windows, doors, and outer walls. These are the external and visible signs meant to inform the rioters that the inmates are Christians. I foimd opportunity this morning for a brief talk with a member of the medical staff of the city hospital. He substantially confirmed the numbers of killed and seriously injm'ed given in my first dispatch. Concerning the reports of Jemsh children having been torn limb from limb by some of the murderers, the doctor could only say that no such case or cases had come under his observation, but he admitted that many of the Jewish victims were murdered outright, and some of them who subsequently died in the hospital were badly mutilated. The Russian rioter seldom or never employs the knife. Small hatchets and stout wooden clubs, the latter frequently held by a wrist strap, and stones clutched in the hands and used as battering weapons, are the chief features of the ruffians' armory. The population of Kishnef now approximates some 160,000, and includes some 65,000 Jews. TBRMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 219' April 27. — I am this morning credibly informed that the governor, Lieut. Gen. Von Raaben, as well as the police master, Col. Khanzheneff, the latter's chief of staff, and two or three other local authorities are to be removed from their posts on account of their lack of promptitude, energy, and decision of action in the early and prevent- able stage of the dreadful emeute of last week. The minister of the mterior, M. Von Plevhe, is expected here within the next few days. Notwithstanding the semi- official assurances given yesterday by the Bessarabetz that there were no more dan- gerous cases among the injured Jews in the, hospital, three more have proved fatal within the last 24 hours. Altogether some 10,000 Jews have fled from the city. They are further alarmed no doubt by the sinister current reports of an intended and general popular outbreak against the Jews throughout the Province. The Roumanian ele- ments of Moldavians and Wallachs are very numerous in this city, and their inimical- feeling toward the Jews is quite as rancorous as those of the lower class Russians. RECOGNITION BY RUSSIAN LAW OF JEWISH DIVORCES GRANTED BY JEWISH RABBIS. Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick. Department of State, Washington, October 22, 1903. Sir: To enable the department to answer several inquiries it has received, I shall be pleased if you will ascertain whether Jewish divorces granted by Jewish rabbis- are recognized by the Russian law. If such a law is in force a translation of its text is desired. I am, etc., John Hay. Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 10, 1903. Sir: With reference to the department's No. 56, of October 22, 1903, I have the- honor to inclose herewith translations from the Russian code pertaining to the recog- nition by Russian law of Jewish divorces granted by Jewish rabbis, which were made- for me by Mr. Berline, an attorney in good standing and by birth himself a Hebrew. In addition to the memorandum sent to me by Mr. Berline, the translation of which is inclosed, he writes that the Russian law recognizes all certificates of birth, marriage, divorce, and death issued by Jewish rabbis, as well as all certificates given by minis- ters of the Jewish faith abroad to Russian Jewish subjects. I have, etc., Robert S. McCormick. (Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) EXTRACTS OF LAW FURNISHED BY MR. BERLINE, OF THE ST. PETERSBURG BAR. The principal sections of the Russian law which relate to the marriage, divorce, and* separation of non-Christians are as follows : Article 20 of the Civil Code (Chap. Ill) officialedition,lS87.—Eachiacea,ixdesich-peo]^le, including heathen, are allowed to contract marriage according to the stipulations of their law or in conformity with the customs established, etc., without any participa- tion whatsoever of the civil authorities or of the Christian ecclesiastical authorities. Article 103 {Chap. iF).— Husband and wife must live together, consequently: _ 1. All acts tending to an arbitrary separation of the couple are rigorously prohibited. 2. The wife must follow the husband upon emigration, entrance into service, and likewise upon any change of residence. Article 1325 ( Vol. XI) oj the regulations concerning the Jewish faith (official edition of 1896). — The functions of rabbis consist (1 and 2 unnecessary) (3) in exercising to the full extent the rite of circumcision, the giving of fore names to the newly born, in celebrating marriages and pronouncing divorces, attending funerals, and keeping regis- ters of the civil status of Israelites,. presenting them to the proper authorities in con- formity with the rules prescribed irf the laws on social classes. (Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) 220 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormicJc. Department of State, Washington, July 1, 1904. Sir: On the 21st of April last the House of Representatives of the United States adopted a resolution in the following words: "Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the Govern- ments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the ground of religious faith or belief to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of treat- ment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authori- ties of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries, without regard to race, creed, or religious faith." The subject to which this resolution relates has heretofore been the occasion of friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that of the United States. The instructions on file in your office and the corre- spondence had by your predecessors with the imperial foreign office leaves no doubt as to the feeling of the United States in regard to what it has constantly believed to be a needlessly repressive treatment of many of the most reputable and honored citizens of the United States. Similar views have been expressed by my predecessors as well as by myself in conference with the representatives of Russia at this Capital. That these friendly representations have not hitherto produced the results so befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more than a century and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual regard is not, in the Presi- dent's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience. I have therefore to instruct you to inform Count Lamsdorff that the text of the fore- going resolution has been sent to you for your information and for your guidance in interpreting this expression of the feeling of the people of this country, through their direct representatives, as to the treatment of the citizens in question. You will make knoT;^Ti to his excellency the views of this Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such discriminations between different classes of American citizens on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or travel. That such discriminatory treatment is naturally a matter of much concern to this Government is a proposition which his excellency will readily comprehend without dissent. In no other country in the world is a class discrimination applied to our visiting citizens. That the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to counterbal- ance the inconveniences involved is open to question from the practical standpoint. In the view of the President it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business whose character and position in life are such as to afford in most cases a guaranty against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and entitle them to win for themselves abroad no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own land. I have, etc., John Hay. (Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 790.) Mr. McCormick to Count Lamsdorff. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, August 22, 1904- Your Excellency: Under instructions from my Government which I found await- ing me on my return from Carlsbad, I have the honor to bring before you for con- sideration at this time a subject which has been the occasion from time to time of friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that of the United States. The feeling of the people of the United States, which is deep and widespread with reference to this subject, found expression in a resolution adopted on the 21st of April last by the House of Representatives. I assume that your excellency's attention was called to this resolution at the time of its adoption by His Excellency Count Cassini, His Imperial Majesty's ambassador at Washington, and that a copy of the resolution was transmitted to you for your infer- TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 221 mation. As your excellency doubtless noted at the time, this resolution is conceived in a friendly spirit and expressed in moderate terms, such as to recommend its recep- tion in a similar spirit as well as the consideration of the subject which it brings forward. The text of this resolution was sent me for my information in interpreting this expres- sion of the feeling of the American people as to the treatment of the citizens in ques- tion, and I beg to insert the resolution as placing that expression on record, although, as above indicated, a copy of the resolution has already been transmitted to you by Count Cassini. [Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] Congress of the United States, In the House op Representatives, April 21, 1904. Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the Govern- ments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the ground of religious faith or belief, to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of treat- ment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authori- ties of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries without regard to race, creed, or religious faith. This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle which lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the question has been, is, and always will be a live question with us, and liable to become acute and be brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the friendly relations which have always existed between Russia and the United States. Aside from the belief that the treatment accorded by Russia to many of our most reputable and honored citizens is needlessly repressive, public opinion, as your excellency knows, plays a large part in the foreign relations as well as domestic affairs with us, and when underneath this public opinion there lies an important principle, as is the case in the United States, it can not be left out of account by those who have maintained the close relations which it is desired by my Government to see maintained with this great Empire and her august ruler. "That friendly representations," as set forth in my instructions, "have not hitherto produced results befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more than a century, and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual regard is not, in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience." Moreover, in no other country in the world is class discrimination applied to our visiting citizens, nor can it be seen from the practical standpoint that the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to counterbalance the inconvenience involved. In the view of the President, "it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business whose character and position in life are such as to offer in most cases a guaranty against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and to win for themselves abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own land. " It seems to me that there are higher grounds to which to appeal and to which it is opportune to appeal at this present time than those of expediency and reciprocal convenience, evidences of the influence of which have manifested themselves in steps already taken toward the alleviation of the condition of the representatives of the race referred to within the Empire. At this time, too, when the world is extending its congratulations to His Majesty on an event which has brought happiness to himself and gratification to his friends; when he is extending the imperial clemency to some justly under the ban of the law, it would seem fitting to take under consideration this larger question, a solution of which would not only tend to draw closer the relations between this great Empire and the United States, but also to arouse a responsive feeling of good will throughout the world. The railway and the telegraph are breaking down the barriers of distance which have until now kept apart the peoples of the various nations of the earth; Russia has made a notable contribution to this object in the great system of railways constructed "within the Empire, which are operated in close connection and harmony with those of the outside world. To throw this great railway system open more fully to those who would avail themselves of it for legitimate purposes, is but to dedicate it to a use which would be of the greatest good to the Empire and the world at large. Events have proven that no artificial barrier can keep out those who come with hostile intent or who from without seek to circulate ideas of a hostile character. Is 222 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. there any reason, therefore, why at least serious consideration should not be given to the \dews of my Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such dis- criminations as now exist in Russia between different classes of American citizens on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or for travel? In transmitting the views of my Government at this length and personally adding some reasons for favorable action which seem to me to be cogent, I have been actu- ated by the desire, as your excellency will appreciate, to contribute something toward those friendly relations which have marked the past and which I value. For this reason I lend myself most earnestly to the work of carrying out my Government's instructions, in the hope that the result will be such as to contribute to the removal of one question of disturbing character from the realm of discussion by a mutually satisfactory understanding concerning it. I take this occasion to renew to your excellency the assmance of my high consid- eration. Robert S. McCormick. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 791.) Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, October 7, 1904. Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note ceived from Count Lamsdorff, imperial minister for foreign affairs, in reply to mine c iAugust 22 last, relating to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the United States on April 21 last, concerning "the freedom of travel and sojourn in Russia, without regard to race, creed, or religious faith," of all American citizens, which was transmitted to me in your dispatch No. 127, of July 1 last. I have, etc., Robert S. McCormick. (Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 793.) Count Lamsdorff to Mr. McCormick. Ministry FOR Foreign Affairs, St. Petersburg, October 4, 1904. Mr. Ambassador: It is with special interest that I have become acquainted with the consideration expressed by your excellency in j^our note of August 9-22, relative to certaiQ facilities to be granted to American citizens of the Hebrew faith, with regard to their entry into Russia. In this connection I have the honor to inform you that a special commission has been instituted by supreme oider on December 17, 1903, with the ministry of the interior, in view of generally revising the passport regulations actually in force. The imperial ministry of foreign affairs having appointed a representative with this commission, I shall not fail to bring, through his intermediary, to the knowledge of that commission your views on the subject and the desire of the Federal Govern- ment, of which your excellency has been the interpreter. I avail, etc., Lamsdorff. (Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 793.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, May 5, 1905. Sir: I beg leave to report that the ukase issued by the Tsar on the Russian Easter Sunday (Apr. 30) makes religious freedom to all Russian sects, except the Jews, an accomplished fact. * * * ■ f If the ukase is carried out in all its completeness, it will be the greatest concession of individual liberty since the liberation of the serfs, and may be the first step toward a separation of church and state. I have, etc., - G. v. L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 767.) TERMINATION OE THE TREATY OF 1832. 223 Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. [Telegram. — Paraphrase.] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 5, 1905. (Mr. Eddy reports that the American consuls at Riga and RostofE have asked for military protection. The same has been asked for and has been obtained for Riga and will also be given to the consulate at Rostoff . The consul at Odessa reports that severe conflicts between Jews and Russians were begun by the Jews. The fighting is still going on and probably thousands of Jews were killed . American interests at that place are not threatened. The situation at Warsaw is serious. Conflicts continue between the Poles and the Russian army. At Moscow everything is quiet. The people have resumed work at St. Petersburg. A large meeting occurred to-day, without conflict, after the funeral services of those killed in the recent disturbances. Large crowds assembled, composed principally of sightseers. Important concessions have been made to Finland.) (Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 779.) TREATMENT OF JEWS IN RUSSIA. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Meyer. [Telegram. — Paraphrase! Department op State, Washington, November 22, 1905. (Mr. Root informs Mr. Meyer that many influential Hebrews in this country are endeavoring to raise relief funds, being greatly distressed over the reports of Jewish loss of life and suffering in the recent outbreaks. Requests him to furnish as accurate report of these occurrences as possible, giving the number of killed, wounded, sick, and destitute, and the losses sustained.) (Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. [Telegram. — Paraphrase.] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 25, 1905. (Mr. Eddy reports that about 100 Jews were killed and wounded in Warsaw; that great destitution prevails among the poorer classes, but that Jews have suffered no more than Christians. Bread and provisions to the value of 10,000 rubles are being distributed daily. As far as known, no Jews have been killed in the district of Batum. Seven Jews were killed and 25 wounded in the Riga district, and little or no destitu- tion prevails there. Suffering and destitution at Odessa are great — 560 Jews killed and 2,000 are in the hospitals.) (Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) Chargi Eddy to the Secretary of State. [Telegram. — Paraphrase.] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 26, 1905. (Mr. Eddy reports that 15 Jews were killed and 30 wounded at Rostoff; that about 11,000 were ruined financially, the loss to Jews there amounting to about 7,000,000 rubles. In the neighboring towns the losses of the Jews were severe, chiefly in Marino- pol, Ghenitchesk, Lugansk, Bahmut, and Ekaterinoslav.) (Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) 19831—11 ^15 224 TEEMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. [Telegram.— Paraphrase.] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 29, 1905. (Mr. Eddy reports that no further accurate information in regard to the destitution of the Jews and the losses sustained by them can be obtained. No Jews were injured at St. Petersbm-g and Moscow.) (Foreign Relations, J905, p. 831.) The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Meyer. [Telegram.— Paraphrase.] Department op State, Washington, April 7, 1906. (Mr. Bacon states that grave fears are felt in this country by relatives of the Jews in Russia, who believe that mob disturbances and unlawful attacks are planned for Easter, and wants to know what information Mr. Meyer has as to the precautions which have been taken to avert the dreadful events of former years.) (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. [Telegram.— Paraphrase.] St. Petersburg, April 9, 1906. (Mr. Meyer states that he has been assured by N. Witte that there will not be any disturbances, and that the minister of the interior sent out a circular to all the governors saying they must hold the police responsible, and that this has reassured the chairman ot the Jewish committee. Mr. Meyer says that he thinks that disturbances will occur in isolated places on account of the ill feeling of some subordinates.) (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, June 16, 1906. Sir: I beg to report that Thursday, June 14, Corpus Christi Day, was the anniver- sary of the saving of Bielostok from cholera. The day was observed by orthodox pro- cessions, which were interrupted by pistol shots from the tops of certain Jewish houses, supplemented by the throwing of a bomb. This created a terrible commotion, result- ing in the massacre of Jews and much loss of life on both sides. It is diflBcult to obtain authentic and reliable information concerning the affair. The report, however, appears to be confirmed from several sources that the authors were Jewish anarchists, who fired revolvers at the Russian Church procession and killed several people taking part in it. This occasioned uprisings against the Jews, and out- rages by rioters as well as destruction of Jewish property. The troops have dislodged bands of rioters, and order is being slowly restored. The exact number of victims is unknown, but 100 killed and 250 wounded is thought at this time to represent the casualties. Bielostok is a town of about 60,000 inhabitants. Martial law has been proclaimed and additional troops are arriving. Messrs. Shtchepkin, Arokantseff, and Jakobson, members of the Duma, specially appointed as a committee to investigate as to the real causes of the late disturbance and massacre, have left for Bielostok. I have, etc., G. von L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 225 Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. [Telegram.— Paraphrase. ] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, June 23, 1906. (Mr. Meyer states tljat he has been advised by a responsible party, who has just returned from investigating the massacre of the Jews last week, that 100 were killed and nearly 100 wounded, that there were several cases of mutilation, but none of ravishing, and that the rioters plundered considerable property of the Jews. He adds that evidence points to the work and enmity of the lower local military and police officials, who acted withe ut instructions from St. Petersburg.) (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) Ambassador Meyer to the Acting Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, July 13, 1906. Sir: I beg leave to inclose herewith the official communication on the disorders at Bielostok, and a copy of a letter ^ received from Mr. Stolypin, minister of the interior. I have, etc., G. von L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) [Inclosure.] official communication on the disorders at bielostok. St. Petersburg, 1906. On the 1st of June last there occurred some very regrettable disorders at Bielostok, involving the death of 82 persons, of whom 7 were Christiana and 75 Jews; besides 78 persons (18 Christians and 60 Jews) received more or less serious wounds, and 169 dwellings and shops belonging to the Jewish inhabitants of the city were demolished, causing damages estimated at 200,000 rubles. Deeming it his bounden duty to have a rigorous investigation made into the causes of this deplorable event as soon as possible, the minister of the interior at once intrusted this mission to Mr. Frisch, a member of his council fulfilling the office of marshal of the court of His Majesty the Emperor. The information gathered by this envoy, as well as that obtained from other sources through the efforts of the Government, enables the following account of the events which took place on June 1 to be prepared, the underlying causes being at the same time set forth. The city of Bielostok, which contains about 100,000 inhabitants, has become within recent years the chief center of the revolutionary movement in the western section of the Empire. In the midst of the local population, of whom 75 per cent are Jews, numerous revolutionary organizations have been formed, some of which are radically anarchistic. These organizations, without any regard whatever for the interests of the peaceful and working population, pursue their purpose with dogged persistence and with weapon in hand by the means of attempts against the lives of the police and of the garrison troops stationed there for the sake of maintaining public order and opposing the development of revolutionary activity. The members of this organization have even adopted a distinctive dress in the shape of a uniform, which serves to determine their identity, and they have established their central headquarters in the Sourays- kaia, one of the streets of the city, where they do not allow either the police or the troops to penetrate. The criminal machinations of these revolutionary societies became more extensive in 1905, and were signalized by the whole series of murders and attempts against the lives of the police officers and the garrison soldiers, beginning with the murder of Chief of Police Metlenko, which was followed by the murder of the chief of police of the Eltschine district; the attempt made June 8 against the life of Chief of Police Polenkine, who was wounded; that of July 21, made by means of a bomb against the Assistant Chief of Police Goubsky and Commissioner Joulkevitch, both of whom were wounded; that of August 24 against Police Commissioner Samson; the murders, committed on different dates, of Policemen Mosguere, Moniechko, and Barantsevitch, and the attempts made against Police Corporals Savitsky and Costitsky, who were wounded, as were also eight policemen. 1 Not printed. 226 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Last September, after Bielostock was declared to be in a state of siege, the activity of the terrorists was relaxed, but it manifested itself with renewed vigor March 1 of this year, when the siege was raised. Without mentioning the numerous shots fired at the patrols and the military rounds, a new series of murders and attempts against the lives of the officials began at this time. On March 4 Commissioner Rasky was wounded and his assistant, Koultschinsky, killed; on March 18 the noncom- missioned officer of the gendarmery, Rybansky, and the baggage-master, Syralevitch, were killed; on April 29 an attempt was made against the life of Policeman Davydoff; on different dates during the month of May Policemen Zenevitch and Alexietaschouk were wounded; Policeman Cheymann was wounded; three soldiers of the Vladimir Regiment were wounded ; the Cossack Lopatine was killed ; on May 28 Chief of Police Berkatscheff was killed by shots fired from the crowd in Sourayskaia Street, and finally on May 29 the soldier, Arsentseff, was killed. Within this same period six attacks were made with bombs by the terrorists against the buildings of local manu- facturers, as well as against a banking office at Bielostock. Within a space of three months, from March 1 to June 1 of this year, the crimes of a terrorist character committed against officials and private individuals of the city gave rise to 45 judicial investigations. In almost all the cases the authors of these crimes failed to be discovered, for the eyewitnesses, fearing the vengeance of the terrorists refused to testify. This series of attempts against the life, as well as other acts of violence committed against the peaceful inhabitants, including Jews, had produced a state of panic among the people of Bielostock, and when the chief of police, Berkatscheff, who enjoyed the public esteem of all the orderly people of Bielostock, whether Christians or Jews, was murdered on May 29, this crime brought the feeling of panic, as well as the general irritation against the promoters of these disturbances, to the culminating point. Rumors were spread about the city that the terrorists had decided to massacre all the officials, and at the same time the report was circulated that preparations were being- made for the pogrom (destruction) of the Jewish population, among whom, according to the general opinion, all the criminal attempts had originated. While these rumors were taking form and maddening all the inhabitants, confusion set in among the ranks of the police, the members of which became more and more inefficient. The best police officers had been killed, wounded, or crippled, and the others fearing for their lives had hastened to resign. To supply their places, and especially that of policemen, it became necessary, owing to the lack of volunteers, to appoint persons who in most cases had not been trained at all for this employment, so that they had continually to be changed. Since June, 1905, seven persons had been successively appointed in Bielostock to the office of chief of police, and three police officers to whom this position had been offered refused to accept it. During this same period five persons had successively held the office of assistant chief of police. It has been the same with the police commissioners and their assist- ants, who had continually to be replaced. In the absence of anyone desirous of holding these positions it was necessary to recruit persons from different parts of the Grodno government and to intrust those offices to them provisionally. The circum- stances above described combined together to create a state of apathy and a lack of initiative among the police, who even hesitated to show themselves in certain quarters of the city. Thus, in Sourayskaia Street, where the revolutionary organizations were more particularly concentrated, it had been necessary to withdraw all the police officers from duty, because those sent there inevitably became the victims of mur- derous assaults. The overexcitement of the population of the city on the one hand, and the dis- organization of the police on the other, had created a state of affairs favorable to the outbreak of disorders with an irresistible force at the slightest provocation. This provocation was furnished June 1, when a fresh assault, audaciously committed by the enemies of public order, brought about an outburst of general indignation on the part of the Christians of Bielostock. On this day it was customary to celebrate religious ceremonies, which are followed by two processions through the city, one being orthodox, in commemoration of the return of the United Greeks to the Russian Church, and the other being Catholic, on the occasion of the Corpus Christi day. These solemnities bring together not only all the inhabitants of the city, but also attract a great number of people from the sur- rounding country. In expectation of this influx of people, and in view of the excite- ment prevailing among the inhabitants, extraordinary measures had been taken to preserve order. A reinforcement of the police had been arranged and an agreement reached between the chief of police and the military authorities whereby the city was divided into two sections, in which the guards of soldiers had been doubled and placed under the respective orders of appointed chiefs, under the general command of the head of the infantry division. TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 227 In spite of all these precautionary measures there were two or three places in the city where explosive devices were thrown, at the crowds following both the orthodox and the Catholic precessions. It was the same with regard to the faithful who began to disperse at the end of the ceremony. The processions were fired on, besides, with revolvers. Those who suffered from the explosion of these devices are still at this time under treatment at the city hospital; they are Stanislao Miliousky, janitor of the city school, and three women (two of whom were married to policemen), viz, Anna Demidiouk, Alexandra Minekowsky, and Marie Commissariouk. As far as Miliousky and Minekowsky are concerned, the fact of their having been wounded by the bursting of an explosive device was established by the testimony of the victims and confirmed by the juridico-medical certificates given by the physicians Jdanoff, Granowsky, and Rosenthal, assisted by Dr. Epstein, of the Israelite hospital. These revolting crimes and sacrileges brought to the spot a detachment of troops who opened fire on the houses from which it was supposed the revolver shots had been fired at the procession. Almost at the same time the "pogrom" (destruction) of the Jews by the Christian population broke out with the fqrce of an irresistible element, 'withoiit distinction of innocent or guilty. In certain places the Jews armed themselves to repel the attack, which increased still more the fury of the overexcited crowd . To follow out the course of events on June 1 in all their details when the disorders ceased in certain parts of the city only to begin elsewhere, and to gather the truth from the declarations of the victims and discriminate it from their falsehoods, either intentional or unconscious, is manifestly the mission of the judicial authorities who already have the matter in hand and are prosecuting it with all possible energy. While any positive conclusion before the completion of the judicial investigation would be premature, the Government believes that it may affirm one fact as being well established, viz, that the crimes against life and property were for the most part the work of small bands of evildoers from among the population of the city and the surrounding country who, acting separately, attacked the houses and stores of the Jews and chose for this purpose the part of the city where no troops were stationed. In the great majority of cases the disturbances were quelled by the detachment of troops who arrived in good time. Toward 6 p. m. the pillagers had been driven away everywhere, and at the principal entrances of the city military patrols barred the road against the inhabitants of the surrounding region who started toward the city at the first news of the "pogrom." The disorders, which had ceased in the evening were renewed in the morning. Attempts were made to sack a few more shops, while at the railroad station, where there was but a small guard owing to the troops being detailed to the center of the city, the Jews were suddenly attacked by a numerous crowd. Toward the middle of this day the revolutionary organizations proceeded to make a series of attacks against the troops which did not end until the night of June 4. The patrols were fired upon as well as the police guardhouses and the buildings of the staff of the Sixteenth Infantry Division and the Fourth Cavalry Division, and even the Government banking establishment was not spared . Three soldiers were wounded in these affrays. The troops, in replying to these attacks, fired on the houses from which the shots proceeded, and, as was to be expected, the victims included not only those guilty of armed aggression, but also peaceful inhabitants who were in the houses. The Government has already taken measures in accordance with the data secm-ed in the administrative investigation in order to render the activity of the local authori- ties more conformable to the exigencies of good order and normal conditions. As to the principal participants in the bloody distturbances, as well as their accomplices and the instigators of the crime, the courts will, without any doubt, exercise then* full rights in discovering, trying, and punishing them. The Government will, on its part, make it a duty to lend all the assistance possible to the courts in order that not one of the guilty parties may escape justice and the punishment which he deserves. The Government indignantly denies the rumors spread abroad that the anti-Jewish riots at Bielostock took place with the knowledge and connivance of the local admin- istration and of the troops at that place. The Government deemed it its duty to express the firm conviction that the true cause of the lamentable events at Bielostock must primarily be sought in the machinations of the revolutionary parties. It was the revolutionists who, by an uninterrupted series of murderous attacks upon the authorities and private individuals, wrought up a peaceful population to extreme fury and threw disorder into the ranks of the local police by rendering impossible the task which devolved upon it of preventing and promptly quelling any incipient dis- turbance. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) 228 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, September 15, 1906. Sir: Referring to the department's cabled instructions of July 31, 1906, whereby the embassy is directed to furnish, from time to time, information concerning the Jews throughout Russia, I have now the honor to give you the following facts, which I have gathered from Government documents, from conversations with men who are in a position to know the situation, and fi'om the Russian law. The number of Jews throughout the entire world is variously estimated at from 9,000,000 to 11,000,000, of which number 5,140,800 live in the Russian Empire. Of those who live in the Empire,, 2,797,880 reside in Em-opean Russia, or about 3.2 per cent of the entire population; in Poland there are 815,443; in the Caucasus, 22,732; in Siberia, 11,941. To understand the position of the Jew in modern Russia it is first necessary to understand something of the laws dealing with and directed against him. The Russian Government first began to take an interest in the Jews in the year 1772, when, for the first time, the latter were officially received as citizens of the Empire. In examining the contemporary Russian laws, it is seen that they divide the Jews into four categories: (1) The ' ' Caraime " Jews : These Jews have the same rights as other Russian subjects. (2) The Polish Jews: These, according to the law of 1862, enjoy the rights of other subjects, but only within the limits of Poland itself. However, the law promulgated in 1891 forbids them to acquire and to cultivate as their property the land of the (3) Foreign Jews: Those who are not Russian subjects are not permitted to enter the Russian Empire and there become naturalized. The right of temporary sojourn in Russia can only be granted by the minister of the interior or by the Russian embas- sies, legations, and consulates. (Law of Mar. 14, 1891.) It is hardly necessary to add that Russian representatives abroad never actually give permission to foreign Jews to enter the Empire, even for a short time, and that such permission must be obtained through the ministry of the interior. It is true that the Jews living in Central Asia have the right to enter Russia proper, to there transact their business, and even to become Russian subjects, provided they register themselves immediately in one of the merchant guilds. But the right of citizenship, even then, can only be obtained by the direct permission of the minister of the interior or of the Governor General of Turkestan. (4) The Rabbinist Jews: The right of domicile is granted only to the Jews in Poland and in the governments of Bessarabia, Vilna, Kieff (with the exception of certain parts of the city of Kieff), Taurida (with the exception of the city cA Yalta), Klierson (with the exception of the town of Nikolaieff), Moghileff, Volhynia, Vitebsk, Grodno, Poltava, Ekaterinoslaff, Podolia, Tchernigoff, Minsk, and Kovno. No Jews have the right to live in Finland save those who have been domiciled there from time imme- morial. In the Provinces of Kouban and of Terek those only have the right of domicile who have obtained a degree of arts or sciences. (Law of 1892.) In Siberia, according to the explanation of the law by the Senate, no Jews may make their home except those who have lived there for several generations. The question of the status of the Jews in Siberia has, however, not yet been fully defined. In Kurland the right of domicile is accorded only to those Jews (and their descendants) who have lived there before the revision of the law in 1835, and in the Caucasus only to those who were there before the subjection of that country. Certain classes of Jews have the right to establish themselves anywhere throughout the Empire, some temporarily and others as permanent residents. Those having the right of permanent domicile are composed of: (1) Merchants of the first guild who, according to the law of 1859, are allowed to establish themselves in the cities, where they are registered in a guild on the condi- tion that they have been formerly merchants of the first guild within the Jewish pale. (2) Those who have the degree of doctor of medicine, doctor of laws, or are candi- dates for such degrees at the universities, and also all Jewish doctors as well as those who have graduated from the Polytechnical Institute of St. Petersburg, or from the Russian universities. (Law of 1879.) (3) Jews who ended their military service before 1874, the year when universal conscription was put in practice throughout Russia. These have the right to settle with their families on Government lands. (4) Artisans of the highest class. (Law of 1867.) But this latter law, though good in theory, amounts to very little in practice. The guilds are purely _ Christian insti- tutions, and to produce a certificate of membership of the first guild within the pale is TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 229 not an easy matter. Moreover, this certificate produced, the Jew must pass an exami- nationand pay a large fee. If he succeeds up to this point and becomes a member of the guild in his new place of residence, he is forced to submit to annoyances by the authorities, and especially by the police. The regulations are very hard on him; he can not trade in any town but the town in which he has settled; he can not change his trade; if he meets with an accident and is unable to work at his calling, he must return with the pale. The classes of Jews who enjoy the right to travel about and to reside temporarily in different parts of the Empire are: (1) Merchants of the first guild registered in the cities within the pale have the rights to sojourn in other governments for a period not to exceed six months each year; and merchants of the second guild have the same right for a period of three months each year. (Law of 1879.) (2) Those who have graduated from schools and gymnasia and wish to enter univer- sities and other higher schools have the right of domicile in all cities where there are universities and schools of the higher order. A significant fact is that the right of universal domicile and temporary sojourn is a personal right and does not apply to the wife or children of the possessor. There are two forms of public service theoretically open to the Jews: (a) Service by appointment and (b) service by election. (a) Such Jews are nominally admitted to the public service who have received a higher education and have obtained scientific degrees. But none the less many departments do not admit their participation, as, for example, the ministry of justice. (b) According to the law of 1870, the number of Jews in the village councils and in the councils of municipalities must not exceed one-third of the number of Christian members of the said council. Mayors of villages must be Christians. According to the laws of 1890 and 1892, Jews can not take part in assemblies for elections beyond the Jewish pale, and the same law forbids them to hold oifice under the municipalities outside the pale. Furthermore, in courts of justice, whatever the religion of the plaintiff or defendant, there must be more Christians than Jews in the jury and the foreman of the jury must be a Christian. Professional careers are not verj^ restricted so far as the Russian Jews are concerned. Most occupations of this nature are as free to them as to the Gentile. But to be a practicing lawyer the Government demands of the Jew that he shall, after passing the necessary examinations, obtain the permission of the minister of justice. Further- more, the number of the Jews practicing law is limited to 10 per cent of the entire number of lawyers throughout the Empire, so that it is rather difficult for a Jew to obtain admission to this calling. However, owing largely to the efforts of the lawyers and to the influence of more modem ideas, the above restrictions are now being taken in the broadest possible sense and the admission of Jews to the Russian bar is daily becoming more easy. The profession of teaching is forbidden to Jews, whether in Government institutions of learning or in private schools. According to the census of 1892, more than 35 per cent of the Israelite population are earning a living in cities as (a) artisans and as (b) workmen. (a) In 1897 there were registered in 1,200 districts a total of 500,986 Jewish artisans, who composed in themselves 13.2 per cent of the population of these 1,200 districts. Master workmen. Skilled workers. • Appren- ticas. Total. Men 229,485 29,911 115, 784 24,744 79, 169 21, 893 424,438 76,548 Women Total 259, 396 140, 528 101,062 500, 986 Other statistics show that, withia the Jewish pale, there are 15 Jewish artisans for every Christian artisan. If we suppose that two members of each family are artisans and that the average family is composed of five members, we find that 1,400,000 live by artisan labor, or nearly 30 per cent of the entire Jewish population within the pale. The_ statistics of the town of Mogileff show that the average salary of an independent Jewish artisan amounts to as much as 500 rubles ($250) yearly; that of an artisan who is not independent is about 240 rubles ($120) a year. The working day for the former la from 11 to 13 hours, for the latter anywhere from 15 to 18 hours. Such a number of 230 TEEMHSTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. working hours seems almost impossible, and yet it is the life lived by most of the poorer Russian Jews. The fact that they are none the less a fairly healthy and long- lived class speaks highly for the stamina of the race. The greater part of the Jewish working class (as distinguished from the artisans) is employed in domestic service. Of this class there are about 170,000 men and women. There are also about 100,000 day laborers, of whom 32,000 are engaged in quaiTying and as teamsters, 30,000 as bearers of burdens and porters, 20,000 as woodcutters, sawyers, terrace-makers, pavers of streets, etc., and 13,000 are employed on farms or live in small towns and seek their employment in the surrounding fields. The number of Jews employed in factories within the pale, including Poland, approaches 50,000. The following table gives an idea of the employment of Jews within the pale, with the exception of Poland. The percentages given indicate the proportion of Jews among the entire number of workers: Products. Govem- rhents of Northwest. Southwest. South. Glove makers Per cent. 100.0 95.2 84.7 62.4 25.4 14.9 4.2 49.4 Per cent. 100.0 12.0 81.1 100.0 4.2 15.2 Per cent. Matches Soap 63.6 Sweetmeats 21.4 .2 Mechanics Bricklayers . . . . 8.8 3.0 It is especially noteworthy that the number of Jews engaged in planting tobacco and in the cigar and cigarette manufactories is everywhere greater than the number of Christians so employed. For example, in 1899 the total number employed in the tobacco plantations amounted to 3,720, of which number 3,431 were Jews, or 92.3 per cent. The number of women and children employed is in general greater than the number of men. For example, in 1899 in the government of Grodno the women and children composed 74 per cent of the total, and in the government of Ekater- inoslaff the percentage was 91. In regard to agriculture in its more general form the Jews are discriminated against. The law of 1804 allowed them to cultivate and own the unoccupied lands belonging to the Crown, and the enjoyment of these rights were on very advantageous conditions. After 1850 the Government began to organize agrarian colonies on a large scale; but the lands which were available were not very fertile and the sums of money appropriated for the purpose were insufficient; now, these agrarian colonies have a very hard time of it. Many of them have ceased to exist, for the conditions imposed for the right to cultivate the Crown lands are so severe for the Jews that they no longer dare to enter into any agreement. The poverty among this class is unbelievable. Their food consists largely of cabbage soup and a sort of broth made out of grain. Meat is an almost unheard-of luxury. One wooden spoon has to suffice for an entire family, as the cost of one for each member of the family can not be borne; yet a wooden spoon can be bought for 3 kopecks (14 cents). While traveling through the country on a sleigh on a shooting expedition, I once threw away a piece of newspaper which had been used as wrapping for a parcel. This happened in a village, and those inhabitants who were standing about almost fought one another for it. On inquiry I found they wished the piece of old newspaper to make cigarettes of and '^to wrap things in." There is a lying-in hospital supported by charity in St. Petersburg itself, where it is a common occurrence for women to wrap up their newly born chil- dren in newspapers when leaving the hospital for their homes simply because they could not afford to buy even a piece of flannel cloth suitable for the purpose. My own experiences have all been within 100 miles of St. Petersburg, but I have seen enough poverty even in this prosperous section of the country to give a good idea of what the condition must be of the poorer Jewish agricultural people within the pale. In the Jewish agricultural colonies above mentioned there are within the pale 13,000 families, making in all about 76,000 persons, who are in possession of 98,000 arpents of land. Of this land only 17,000 arpents are the personal property of the Jews. Seventy-eight thousand arpents compose the land ceded by the state, and 3,000 arpents are rented. Jews have the free right to acquhe property in all the towns and villages within the pale with the exception of certain parts of the cities of Kieff, Yalta, and Sebastopol. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 231 The law of 1903 forbids Jews to acquire real estate outside of the towns and villages beyond the pale. The conditions for holding real properly and for the renting of lands are more favora- ble to the Jews in Poland than anywhere else. The law of 1862 allowed them to buy and to rent land, except (law of 1891) the land belonging to the peasants. The fol- lowing table shows the proportion of land belonging to the Jews within the pale, and within the Kingdom of Poland: The 15 governments of the pale. The 10 governments of Poland. Outside of the pale.i Total. Number of arpents.2 Percentage of total. Number of arpents. Percentage of total. Number of ai-pents. Real property owned 411,108 521,649 0.58 .74 240, 273 37,765 2.13 .33 718, 160 53,807 1 , 369, 541 613,221 Total 932,757 1.32 278,038 2.46 771,967 1,982,762 1 Outside the pale: European Russia, 745,646; Caucasus, 5,072; Siberia, 18,753; Central Asia, 2,496; total, 771,967. 2 An arpent is equivalent to about 550 square yards. The Russian Government first took up the question of Jewish public education at the beginning of the ninteeenth century, when the Jewish question first claimed their attention. The law of 1804 stated that "all children of Jews are to be received and educated, without any discrimination whatever between them and the children of Christians, in the Russian schools, gymnasia, and universities." This law also stated that "no one shall be turned from his or her religion under any pretext what- soever;" and, fm'ther, "the degrees which shall be conferred upon Jews as a recom- pense for their personal efforts shall be fully recognized." None the less the Jews did not place their children in Russian institutions of learning, where everything would have been strange to them — customs, language, and even the studies themselves. During the intervening 40 years the Jews, with the permission of 'the Government, founded only three private schools — in 1822 at Ouname, in 1826 at Odessa, in 1830 at Vilna. In 1835, according to the Government statistics, there were only 11 Jews in all the Russian universities, and in 1840 only 72 Jews in all the Russian Government schools. But at the present time there are an appreciable number .of Israelite students in the universities. In the St. Peters- burg Universitv there are 140, or 3.64 per cent of the entire number; at Kharkoff 395, at Kieff 363, at Novo-Rossik 255, at Tomsk 140, at Warsaw 170, at Kazan 64. The total proportion in all Russian universities is about 10.6 per cent Christians for every Jew. As the number of Christians in Russia is about 14 times the number of Jews, it will be seen that the proportion of Jews desirous of obtaining an education is greater than that of the Christians. It may be added that the Israelite students in the universities, though somewhat addicted to socialistic and anarchistic doc- trines, are, for the most part, very intelligent, and take a fairly high rank in the examinations. They specialize largely in the learned professions, medicine and law having the greatest number of followers. In 1844 the Emperor Nicholas I promulgated a law according to which it was decided to establish special schools for Jewish children in all the towns and villages within the pale. These schools were to be of two classes, a higher and a lower. For school-teachers there were provided certain training schools; but these institutions did not gain very much sympathy from the Jews, and therefore measures were taken to cause the Jews to enter their children in them. The authorities simply demanded the parents to cause their children to attend; but it was only after Jews had been appointed as inspectors of these schools that the new movement began to obtain Jewish approval; but in 1873, for some unknown reason, these schools were all closed, and the result was that the number of Jews in the Government schools and universi- ties was greatly increased. In 1887 the then minister of public instruction, M. Delianoff, decided to limit the number of Jewish students. This measure was car- ried into effect, and the number of Jews was reduced to a certain percentage of the total number of students in the different localities. For the institutions within the pale this was fixed at 30 per cent; outside the pale, 5 per cent; and at St. Petersburg and Moscow, 3 per cent. Moreover, there were a certain number of institutions 232 TEEMINATIOIsr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. where Jews were not received at all. After this the number of Jewish students began to diminish as follows: Number of Jews in 1881. Number of Jews in 1894. Preparatory schools Per cent. 12 8 Per cent. 6 2 High schools 5.2 Total 20 11 4 In the universities the same results followed; in 1886 the Jews composed 12.7fper cent and in 1894, 4.4 per cent of the entire student body. In the higher technical schools a limit was also placed; the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology received 3 per cent, the St. Petersburg School of Mines 5 per cent. Some of the higher insti- tutions were entirely closed to the Jews, such as the St. Petersburg School of Elec- trical Engineering, the Military School of Medicine, the St. Petersburg School of Civil Engineers, etc. After placing these limits on the Government schools in general the minister of education began the opening of the present plan of Jewish public education, which has resulted in the following system: In the cities and towns within the pale there are 800 Jewish schools with 600,000 pupils, but this number of schools is really insufficient, as more than two-thirds of the villages remain without schools. The State schools compose altogether one-fifth of the entire number of Jewish schools, the public schools one-fifth, and the private schools three-fifths. Beyond this there are 25,000 Jewish schools which are not under State control, with a total of 300,000 scholars. Unfortunately there is a dearth of capa- ble instructors, as the two institutions for the training of teachers are entirely inade- quate. The special taxes paid by the Jews in Russia, apart from the taxes which they pay in common with all other subjects of the Empire, are divided into two classes which are known as general taxes and special taxes. The former are taxes on all animals killed for food and are known as the ' ' korobochny sbor . ' ' Each animal killed is taxed ; on beef this amounts to about 1 cent per pound. Each chicken killed after the Jewish custom is also taxed. Then there is the special payment to the Government for the right to sell meat which has been killed and prepared in accordance with the Hebrew customs. This tax falls very heavily upon cretain classes of the Jews. By those who do not observe the strict teachings of the Mosaic creed it is not felt at all, while those who live up to their religion with all its usages are very much affected. The special taxes comprise many small ways of collecting money from the Jews, e.g., the tax paid by the Jews for the right to rent houses, shops, etc., as well as the tax on factories owned by them. The collection of these taxes is farmed out by the Government of each Province. Another special tax is what is known as the "candle tax." (Law of Jan. 17, 1848.) By this law there is a special payment to be made for every candle which is burned by the Jewish families on Friday evenings. The revenue from this is divided between the public instruction of the Jews and the administration. At the present day, how- ever, this candle tax exists only in name. It has been found more easy to take a fixed sum each year from the "korobochny sbor" for both objects named above (public instruction and the administration) . According to the law of 1862 the Jews have the right to open publishing houses for the printing exclusively of Jewish books . Permission for this is obtained only through the minister of the interior. Each printing press is taxed according to its size. Small presses pay 20 rubles ($10) a year, while large rotary presses pay up to 240 rubles ($120) yearly. In 1874, when universal conscription was introduced in Russia, no particular regu- lations were laid down in regard to military service for the Jews. But two years later many restrictions were instituted, chief among which were the following: (1) Jews can not serve in the regiments of the guards, in the frontier guards, in the gendarmerie, or in the navy. (2) No Jew can attain the rank of ofiicer in the army or navy. No matter what his capacity may be, he can not be admitted to the examinations for a commission. (3) The families of Jews who have fled the country to avoid military service must pay a fine of 300 rubles. TERMINATION OP THE TEEATT OF 1832, 233 These regulations, however, have failed to attain their end. For each year the number of Jews who do not materialize for military service increases in a startling manner. It is almost impossible to obtain accurate statistics on which to base a state- ment as to how many young men should yearly be called upon to perform military ser^dce. During the past 20 years more than 1,000,000 Jews have emigrated from Russia to America alone, of which number two-thirds have been men. But if we take the census of 1897 as a basis, we find that the Jewish population of Russia was 4.13 per cent of the Avhole, and as the number of young males of 21 years of age is nearly always the same among all peoples, we are safe in saying that the correlation between the male Jewsof 21 and the male Christians of 21 is also 4.13. However, the following statement gives an entirely different result: There should Difference Christians have been Number of between and Jews. of Jews (at 4.13 per cent)— Jews taken. sec. 2 and sec. 3. There were called upon to serve 1,053,572 43,512 58,635 15,123 Number taken for service 320,832 13,250 19,911 6,661 According to official reports there were taken Jews less 1,970 And nevertheless there were actuallj^ taken 4,691 The Russian point of view is, briefly, about as follows: A Jew comes to a Russian village in which the peasants have been living in peace and quietness. The peasant is by nature a good-natured, stupid, hard-working indi- vidual, who has never thought it possible for himself to gain more than enough to keep himself and his family in food, clothes, and fuel, with a more or less solid roof to cover them. In a short time the Jew, by his keener intelligence and greater energy, begins to get money by perfectly lawful buying and selling. Then the Jew lends money, taking as security the land or house or personal property of the peasant. Then comes the foreclosures and the consequent enmity, which leads in many cases to violence. The Jew is unwilling to relinquish what he has got hold of by legal means. The peasant considers himself wronged and tries to even up things in his own way. The Jewish point of view is well given in a statement of their case which was made as a memorial from 32 Jewish communities in Russia, presented to the committee of ministers on March 9, 1905. A translation of this memorial reads as follows : "The measures taken in the last quarter of a century dealing with Russian Jews have directly tended to drive them to beggary and to leave them without means of subsistence, the benefits of education, and human dignity. A continuous system of persecution was artfully devised and regularly put into force. When the common people massacred the threatened Jews in the towns the bureaucracy judged it proper to take away the right to live in the country districts and to acquire any property there. By law and by means of administrative measures not only was further settle- ment in the villages prohibited, but at the same time crowds of people, settled in the 50-verst zone and Provinces outside of the pale, were driven into the towns, and the very limits of the pale were narrowed. In the government outside of the pale certain privileged localities were created where only persons who had completed their studies were allowed to come (Moscow, the government of Moscow, the military Provinces etc.). Finally, one part of the Empire was closed to all Jews but convicted criminals. In consequence of these measiu-es and the forced migration of a mass of people, the population of the pale increased. In spite of a considerable emigration beyond the ocean and to European countries, there are actually 4,200,000 Jews inclosed within the walls of towns, and only 700,000 within the villages of this great district. Measures were taken to prevent the Jews from entering middle and high schools; to counteract their wish to learn, percentage restrictions were imposed. Jews were admitted to the middle schools with the greatest difficulty; thousands were not ad- mitted. Only units entered the high schools. These few fortunate ones had not the right to enter the public service; they could only become lawyers with the permis- sion of the minister of justice, and for 15 years this permission was never accorded. Without exaggeration it might be said that the whole machine of state aimed at making it impossible for Jews to exist in Russia. Every department had something to say on the Jewish question. It seems improbable, but it is certain, that not long ago every measure was the more popular the more it was intended to persecute and destroy the people who were considered the enemies of God and man. It was in 234 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. short, even a short time back, found necessary to forbid Jews to acquire real estate in the interior of Russia, in spite of the fact that only in three governments is prop- erty held by Jews more than 1 per cent of the entire amount. The bureaucracy has persecuted the Jews by all means and in all their aspirations. It has gone so far that, even in creating savings banks, Jewish founders were not allowed to elect directors from among their coreligionists, and Jew workmen, united for mutual help, were •obliged to intrust their affairs to casual and disinterested persons. A large percentage of the Jews settled in the towns of the pale (in some 60 per cent, and calculated on the payment of municipal rates, 90 per cent), have no right to take part in municipal administration, and their needs are provided for by persons who are not interested in the town, and are ignorant of the needs of the local population. It would be difficult to summarize all those legal and administrative restrictions which hamper the Russian Jew from his birth to his death. WTierever he lives — within or without the pale — he is not guaranteed either from material ruin or moral outrage at the caprice of the authorities. He is at the mercy of the police. The aim of the administration has been achieved even in a greater degree than those responsible for this system would wish. Among the Jews of the pale, who for the most part consist of a half-starving crowd, a fifth are dependent on charity, and in the large towns, such as Wilna and Berdicheff, as much as a fourth and even a third. Such a percentage of paupers can not be equaled in any country in Europe. Living side by side with this mass of paupers, is a proletariat of workmen and arti- sans. The only condition — writes an inquirer into the conditions of the Jewish working class — which makes it impossible for a workman to toil otherwise than as a slave, is the right to move from one place to another, and Jewish workmen are in fact subjected to severe restrictions or are without this right. If they do not wish to die of hunger, or to go begging, they must submit to every condition. On the other hand, Jewish capitalists are subjected to many restrictions, and it is difficult for them to be in touch with the extensive markets and purchasers outside the pale. The disabilities of the Jews have also influenced the economical prosperity of the Christian population; the removal of Jews from participation in economic life ham- pers trade, and also imposes restrictions on the Christians in the domain of credit and the free disposal of property. An eloquent proof of this is the attempt of many Chris- tian landowners to evade these restrictions by fictitious leases or deeds of sale. Restrictive laws demoralize the authorities who cany them out. The Government has latterly recognized that everlasting deportations of Jews are only a temptation to the police authorities, and have a demoralizing effect on a nation. Under such influ- ences the authorities look upon the Jews as a people outside of the law, for whom there are no courts and no protection. It leads to innocent people being persecuted, ruined, and even murdered, as is shown by the Kishineff, Gomel, and Moghileff massacres. The only way to improve the sad lot of the Jewish population in Russia is to give them the same rights as the rest of the nation, as has been done in all European coun- tries. Beyond the right of taking part on an equal footing with other citizens in political and social life, justice demands that they should have the same elementary rights of citizenship — freedom of action, freedom of profession, the rights to acquire property, the right to be educated . Freedom of movement and freedom of occupation are closely connected with, and are indispensable to the well-ordered state. These rights give a man the possibility to develop and apply his capacity and strength to gain the means of existence in those occupations which he finds congenial and in the place which is congenial. These are the elementary rights of every human community, and every obstacle to freedom of movement, of occupation, and the acquisition of property, are felt as being a cruel persecution and an encroachment on the rights of humanity. The struggle of life is already hard enough without creating further obstacles in the way of earning a living, whether physical or intellectual. On the contrary, initiative and independence must be encouraged. For this pm-pose all races and creeds must be allowed free development. "When the object is to better the lot of a people, then small means have less than small results; they have no effect at all." This is a truism which no one denies. A gradual change, which only prolongs the evil, has already been condemned by the Russian statesman, B. N. Chicherin, with special reference to the Jewish question. "Restriction of rights," he declares, "is a kind of punishment. If I am convinced that the man is being punished wrongfully, why is it necessary to gradually change his punishment? " Such a gradual change is not only unjust but it is ineffectual. The Jewish people in all its ills feel profoundly, not only physical and material wants, but also the moral outrage of their degraded position. JEalf measures are no reparation for an injury. A people of many millions, aroused to consciousness of its right to existence, can not • TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 235- indefinitely remain a race of suspects. Most of the legislative and administrative enactments concerning the Jews of the last 25 years have been based on the danger that they are supposed to represent to the prosperity and greatness of the country. This idea has been spread by certain sections of the press to draw attention from the real evils of Russia; it was proclaimed by the bureaucracy because the "pernicious aspira- tions and activity of the Jews seemed to be a convenient explanation of all our mis- fortunes." "Russia for the Russians." This formula justified and explained every- thing, excluding from the number of Russians the following of foreign creeds, although they had been settled in the country for centuries. But is the unity and stability of a great empire really guaranteed by narrowing the foundations? Not only in their pres- ent trials, but when they have passed, the thoughts of the Russian people should be- . directed to reconstituting their internal strength. Union is only possible by unity of interests and sentiment. Restrictive laws condemning the Jews to poverty and demoralization paralyze all their efforts toward normal activity, having driven hun- dreds of thousands of energetic, laborious persons beyond the seas, and have sapped at the root of the intellectual strength of a people of many millions, to the detriment of the whole country. All Jews in Russia are at present animated by one thought, that the cruel force of endless limitations and restrictions is sapping the very foundation of their existence; that such an existence is no longer tolerable. Wearied by the past, seriously anxious for the future, the Jews are awaiting for the complete restoration of their strength and a final abrogation of all exclusive laws, in order that, free and equal with other citi- zens of a great country, they may labor for its welfare and prosperity. With this feeling on both sides it seems hopeless to try to arrange matters satisfac- torily. The religion of the member of the Orthodox Greek Church teaches him that the property of the Jew is not to be looked upon as is a fellow Christian, and the severe tenets of the Christianity of three centuries ago still hold the people in this Empire, from the highest to the lowest. It is true that the faith of the people in the governing class has recently been practically broken, but their faith in their church has prac- tically remained unchanged, and in considering the Jewish problem in Russia it must not be forgotten that the Russian point of view is, at bottom, a religious feeling, while- the point of view of the Jew is purely ethical. The Jews are not taking the ill treatment and oppression with peace and resignation. This is a point which should be well understood in considering their position. During the past 20 years their opposition, while unorganized and misdirected, has none the less been so strong and unquenchable that neither prison nor bodily suffering, nor the whips of the Cossacks, nor transportation to the farthest limits of Siberia, nor even the death penalty itself, has been able to keep them quiet. It is said bj^ many writers on this subject (Christians as well as Jews) that the Prus- sian Government, unable to cope with the question themselves, have been stirring up the minds of the uneducated masses against the Jews to an extent which has resulted in the unfortunate massacres at Kishineff and elsewhere. It is not asserted by reason- able men that the St. Petersburg Government had a hand in these massacres. What is meant is that the Government is trying to make it harder and harder for a Jew to- remain in Russia, and are prejudicing the people against the Jews to that end. When Boulyguin gave it out that the Jews were not to have representatives in the Douma, the entire Jewish population came out Avith so strong a protest that the Gov- ernment saw they must drop the matter for the time being at least. This shows con- clusively that the united voice of the Jews in Russia carries weight enough to change the plans of the Government in some respects — a state of affairs which would have been- considered absurd 20 or even 10 years ago. So it is possible to believe that the con- dition of the Jewish population, bad as it is, is also no worse than it has been, and it seems just to hope that the near future will bring the same betterment of conditions to them as it bids fair to bring to the Russian people generally. I have, etc., Spencer Eddy. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1300.) Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, September 19, 1906. Sir: In confirming my cablegram to the department of the 11th instant as follows: "Consul at Warsaw telegraphs that a disturbance exactly similar to the one at Bialystok is taking place at Siedletz. Details lacking as yet." I have the honor to inclose, for the further information of the department, a copy of a letter, dated the 14th instant, from the vice consul in charge at Warsaw, in which. 236 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. he gives details regarding the disturbances at Siedletz. In this connection I also inclose translation of a telegram, published in the local papers, dated Siedletz, Sep- tember 12, giving the official account of the occurrences. I have, etc., Spencer Eddy. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1311.) [Inelosure 1.] Vice Consul Fuchs to Charge Eddy. American Consular Service, Warsaw, September 14, 1906. Sir: I have the honor to confirm my wire of the 10th instant, reading: "Siedletz exact repetition of Bialystok." In supplement to this and to the general report of the "pogrom," as given by the press, I wish to add the following particulars: There can not be the least doubt but that the "pogrom" was premeditated and prepared by the troops, soldiers having been seen on the eve of the massacre to enter lodgings and instruct the Christian population to hang out devotional objects as preservatives against what was going to happen. There was no khooligans on the premises, it appears, to provoke or to take part in the massacre. I am informed from reliable quarters that the number of Jews killed amounts to 137 (corpses identified), the number of wounded about thrice as many. The Jewish shops and houses along the principal streets and the central market pillaged. Characteristic feature is that in opposition to the wholesale massacre of the Jewa and devastation of their homes was killed one Christian civilian and one soldier, another soldier being wounded. As to property, one Christian shop and one hotel plundered. On the other hand, however, it can not be denied that attempts upon the lives of the gendarmes, higher police officials, and military men had lately been numerous in Siedletz. I have, etc., Witold Fuchs, Vice Consul. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1311.) [Inelosure 2.— Press telegram. — Translation.] [Official.] details of the disorders at siedletz. Seidletz, August SO, 1906. In the afternoon of August 28 (Sept. 10) an officer was shot from the balcony of a house in Igorodnaia Street. Seven young men were arrested. The night of the 29th was quiet. On the 29th (Sept. 11), at daybreak, another officer was fired at in Slodolnaia Street. The troops opened fire against both houses. During the night of the 30th (Sept. 12) two shots were fired from the garden in front of the treasury. It is evident the sen- tinels were aimed at and they replied by firing eight shots. Up to the present six Jews and one Jewess have been registered as wounded at the Christian hospital. One Catholic was skilled and another died of fright. At the Hebrew hospital there are 17 Jews killed, 12 severely wounded, and 60 slightly wounded; 21 bodies have been buried at the Hebrew cemetery. Fifty -four persons , of whom 43 had used arms , were arrested . A dragoon accidentally killed himself. Twelve places were set on fire, but all of them were localized. Seven shots were fired from artillery, making breaches in two houses on Penknaia Street. The firing was concentrated on the houses in the center of the town. The furniture of several apartments was damaged. The merchandise in several shops was injured. Large quantities of goods were stolen. To-day the town is quiet. A military committee has arrived from Warsaw. The Jews continue to remove from the towns to neighboring villages. The reports published in Polish newspapers are intentionally false or exaggerated, in order to produce sensation. There have not been disorders in other parts of this government. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1312.) TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 237 Ambassador' Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, September 22, 1906. Sir: I have the honor to report that Baron Gunzburg, representing the Siedletz Jews, called upon M. Stolypin to urge against the trial of the prisoners by court-martial. The minister expressed his profound regrets for the excesses that had taken place and his determination to thoroughly investigate the facts and publicly distribute the responsibility, no matter upon whom it may fall. He also complied with the request of Baron Gunsburg notifying the governor general of Warsaw of the desirability of having recourse to the ordinary tribunals. The premier, in conclusion, expressed the hope that the Siedletz riots would con- stitute the very last ordeal for the Jews, and touching the question of Jewish dis- abilities, he stated he would shortly introduce a bill extending Jewish rights and leaving it to the Douma to bestow absolute equality. I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1312.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, November 1, 1906. Sir: I beg leave to report that at the sitting of the council of state last Saturday the question of according ordinary political rights to the Jews came up for discussion. Some divergency of opinion was manifested. It was finally decided by a vote of 28 to 16 not to deal separately with the Jewish problem, but to regard it as forming part of the general question of granting equal political rights to all nationalities in the Kussian Empire. I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, December 1, 1906. Sir: I beg leave to report that a semiofficial note, published this week, on the Jewish question states that the questions of permission for Jews to acquire land in all parts of Russia and the removal of the limits for Jewish settlement must be left to the Douma. While, however, such provisions would be at present premature, the three following measures will be carried out before the summoning of the Douma: The removal of the restrictive police regulations in 25 Governments lying within the Jewish pale; the promulgation of similar arrangements for Jews outside of the pale; and the removal of the restrictions under which Jews labor regarding trade. I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. American Embassy, St. Petersburg, December 31, 1906. Sir: 1 beg leave to report that, in a conversation with Baron Gunzbitrg, I learned today that it was definitely known that the Emperor had decided not to aflSx; his signa- ture to the bill presented by Stolypin granting certain privileges to the Jews, referred to in my dispatch of December 1, No. 705, namely: The removal of the restrictive police regulations in 25 governments lying within Jewish pale; the promulgation of gimilar arrangements for Jews outside the pale; and the removal of the restrictions under which the Jews labor regarding trade. It is understood that the Tsar stated that as the Duma was to meet within a few weeks it was better and wiser that no new legislation should be promulgated. 238 TEEMIFATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. # Ever since this bill has been laid before the Emperor by the prime minister the reactiomsts have been actiVe in their efforts to prevent the same bScZing a law It IS felt that the attempt on Dubassoff's life and the assassination of Count Sieff have assisted the opponents to the bill in affecting the Emperor's decision '"''^''^" ^^^^ y..!^^l believed by many that the Emperor is not necessarily opposed to this legislation 'hllS LTa£n t'hVSa!^ "^"^ '^'^'^ *^^^^^'^"^ theXpire he prefirs actL ^ ^^^^' ^*^-' G. V.L.Meyer. (Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) APPENDIX II. The Passport Question. [Reprint from the American Jewish Year Book 5672.] In April, 1832, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan was sent as United States Minister to Russia, charged with the duty of negotiating a treaty of commerce and navigation with that country. His life, by George Ticknor Curtis, and his recently edited correspondence, by John Bassett Moore, show that, with the exception of the distinguished Count Nesselrode, the Russian ministers were averse to the negotiation of such a treaty. It was due mainly to the favorable attitude of Nesselrode and the cautious and enlightened diplomacy displayed by Buchanan that, on December 18, 1832, the well-known treaty was signed by Buchanan and Nesselrode. Immediately transmitted to the Secretary of State, Edward Livingston, who had succeeded Martin Van Buren in that office, it was on February 22, 1833, forwarded by President Jackson to the Senate and on the same day referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Five days later it was reported back to the Senate by John Forsyth, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (later, from 1834 to 1841, Secretary of State), without amendment, and was agreed to by a unanimous vote, 40 Senators voting in favor of its ratification. It was ratified by President Jackson on April 8, 1833; ratifications were exchanged in Washington on May 11, 1833, and on the same day it was proclaimed, and has ever since constituted part of the supreme law of the land, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. It is safe to say that if those sturdy Americans, Andrew Jackson and James Buch- anan, had even remotely conceived a tithe of the humiliation and indignity which would be inflicted upon the honor of the United States by the flagrant violation of the specific terms of the first article of this treaty by the Russian Government for more than 40 years, in the very teeth of a continuing remonstrance on the part of the United States, they would never have participated in the creation of such a treaty. Until after 1865, no question arose between the United States and Russia as to the interpretation of the terms of the first article of the treaty; but by that time Russia's comparatively favorable attitude toward her Jewish subjects was altered, and with the change came the reading into the treaty of 1832 of ideas that not only were not in the minds of Count Nesselrode and James Buchanan when the treaty was negotiated, but which, under our Constitution and laws could not have been entertained for a moment by any President, Secretary of State, or diplomatic officer of the United States. Sporadic cases arising during the next 15 years gave our ministers to Russia and our Secretaries of State the opportunity to protest with indignation at the new and unwar- ranted interpretation put by Russia upon the terms of the treaty. But it was not until about 1880 that the question assumed a critical aspect. Russia's persistent and determined violation of the treaty from that time impelled James G. Blaine, while Secretary of State, to write his masterly dispatch of July 29, 1881, to which the Russian Government has never been able to make any effective reply. Secretary Blaine's presentation of the subject was so profound and comprehensive that his successors in office found but one point not touched upon, namely, the inquisition into the religious belief of American citizens bearing the passport of the United States, prac- ticed by the representatives of the Russan Government on American soil. This point was energetically pressed dm-ing the administrations of President Cleveland by Secre- taries Bayard and Olney and by our Minister to Russia, Cliftion R. Breckinridge. The Russian Government was informed in distinct terms that her practice of subjecting to a religious inquisition all American citizens bearing American passports and desiring to have those passports visaed, was one not to be tolerated by the genius of our institu- tions; that "the continuance in such a course, after our views had been clearly but considerately made known, may trench upon the just limits of consideration," and might lead to the withdrawal of the exequaturs of such consuls as continued this practice. 19831—11 ^16 239 240 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. The unanswerable presentation of the just and proper meaning of the treaty of 1832 made by Mr. Blaine, and the additional point made under the administration of Presi- dent Cleveland in 1892 to 1896, were adhered to by all succeeding Secretaries of State without sign of deviation until 1905. In the meantime, between 1879 and 1909, one or other branch of the Congress of the United States, in resolutions and in reports of Committees, notably the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives presented on April 6, 1892, clearly indicated that the protests of the Department of State voiced the senti- ments entertained by the adherents of all shades of public opinion in the United States. Following hard upon the death of Secretary of State John Hay, and the accession to office of Secretary of State Elihu Root, there ensued an apparent change of attitude toward this question by the Department of State, which was guided m its foreign negotiations by a Russophile policy — a condition which has not yet changed. In consequence, the i)assport question began to receive scant consideration, contrary to our national traditions, and in naarked contrast to the vigorous attitude maintained by the Department of State during the preceding 45 years through all changes of administration, irrespective of party. In pursuit of this determination to retire from the position maintained by his predecessors for nearly half a century, Mr. Secretary Root, on May 28, 1907, issued the folloAving circulars: CITIZENSHIP. Department of State, Washington, , 190-. Sir: The department is in receipt of an application for a passport of from which it appears that , born in . Your attention is invited to the inclosed notice to former subjects of Russia who contemplate returning to that country, from which you will perceive that it is a punishable offense under Russian law for a Russian subject to obtain naturalization in any other country with- out the consent of the Russian Government. While this Government dissents from this requirement, it can not encourage American citizens whom it is likely to affect to place themselves within the sphere of its operation. Upon receiving satisfactory information that not intend to go to Russian territory, or that permission from the Russian Government to return, the application for a passport will be reconsidered immediately. Returning the application, the certificate of naturalization, and the sum of $1 ( )' . I am, sir, your obedient servant. Chief, Bureau of Citizenship, Notice to American Citizens Formerly Subjects of Russia who Contemplate Return- ing to that Country. A Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another country without the consent of the Russian Government commits an offense against Russian law, for which he is liable to arrest and punishment, if he returns without previously obtaining the per- mission of the Russian Government. This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an American citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country places himself within the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect immunity from its operations. Jews, whether they were formerly Russian subjects or not, are not admitted to Russia unless they obtain special permission in advance from the Russian Govern- ment, and this department will not issue passports to former Russian subjects or to Jews who intend going to Russian territory, unless it has assurance that the Russian Government will consent to their admission. No one is admitted to Russia without a passport, which must be visaed or indorsed by a Russian diplomatic or consular representative. Elihu Root. Department of State, Washington, May 28, 1907. It was not until six months after these circulars were issued that their existence became known. The astonishment at this discovery gave way to earnest remon- TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 241 strance on the part of Louis Marshall, esq., and Edward Lauterbach, esq., on Febru- ary 1, 1908, acting for the American Jewish Committee, as follows: New York, February 1, 1908. Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Sir: In a circular letter, dated May 28, 1907, issued by the Department of State over your signature, appears the following paragraph: "Jews, whether they were formerly Russian subjects or not, are not admitted to Russia unless they obtain special permission in advance from the Russian Govern- ment, and this department will not issue passports to former Russian subjects, or to Jews who intend going into Russian territory, unless it has assurance that the Russian Government will consent to their admission." The meaning of this announcement can not be misunderstood. It segregates from the mass of American citizens those of the Jewish faith, whether naturalized or native bom, and withholds from them one of the privileges of citizenship if they harbor the intention of visiting Russia without having first secured the consent of the Russian Government. All other citizens, of whatever race or creed, are assured an unlimited passport and are guaranteed the absolute protection of our flag. They encounter no discrimination at the hands of our Government. They are subjected to no humili- ation. They are not compelled to submit to any inquisitorial intrusion into their private purposes, nor are they forced to conform to any religious test. Under the plain implication of this regulation, however, an American citizen applying to the State Department for a passport, who is suspected of being a Jew, is for the first time in our history obliged to disclose his faith and must, if he be a Jew, satisfy the department that he does not intend to avail himself of the privilege of going to Russia, secured to him, in common with all of his fellow citizens, under the treaty solemnized between the United States and Russia in 1832. Hitherto Russia alone has violated that treaty openly and notoriously. Hitherto our Government has consistently remonstrated against such breach and against the practice of Russian officials of making examinations into the religious faith of Ameri- can citizens. Heretofore our State Department has declared to Russia again and again the principle formulated in the following terms by Mr. Adee, in his note to the legation of St. Petersburg on July 5, 1895: "The Russian Government can not expect that its course in asserting inquisitorial authority in the United States over citizens of the United States, as to their religious or civil status, can ever be acceptable or even tolerable to such a Government as ours, and continuance in such a coiurse after our views have been clearly and consid- ■erately made known may trench upon the just limits of consideration." Now, however, there seems to have occurred a reversal of a time-honored policy and it is our Government that seeks to indulge in these inquisitorial practices ana to apply an unconstitutional religious test to upward of a million of our own citizens, not only naturalized but native born, thus practically justifying Russia in the viola- tion of her treaty obligations and condoning her contemptuous disregard of the Amer- ican passport. Believing that the promulgation to which your attention has been directed is the result of inadvertence, you are respectfully requested to reconsider the subject and to cause the circular letter to be withdrawn. Very truly, yoiirs, Louis Marshall. Edward Lauterbach. The matter was brought up in Congress by Representative Goldfogle on the 4th of the same month. In response to these criticisms, the offensive circular was with- drawn, and the following substituted: Notice to American Citizens Formerly Subjects of Russia who Contemplate Returning to that Country. Under Russian law a Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another country without the consent of the Russian Government is deemed to have committed an offense for which he is liable to arrest and punishment if he returns without previously obtaining the permission of the Russian Government. This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an American citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country places himself -within the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect immunity from its operations. No one is admitted to Russia unless his passport has been visaed or indorsed by a Russian diplomatic or consular representative. Elihu Root. Department of State, Washington, January 25, 1908. 242 TEEMIlSrATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. In communicating this action to Messrs. Marshall and I^auterbach, Mr. Secretary Root invited them to advise him if they saw anything objectionable in this circular. In response to this invitation they wrote the following: New York, February IS, 1908. Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: We are in receipt of yours of the 11th instant, inclosing a circular, bearing date January 25, 1908, issued by the Department of State as a substitute for the objectionable circular of May 28, 1907, which you inform us, to our great satis- faction, has been withdrawn. Availing ourselves of your courteous suggestion, that if we should see anything objectionable in the circular which is now in use you would be very glad to be advised of it, it occurs to us that the cautionary and humane objects of the circular would be fully subserved without at the same time militating against the historic policy of our Government, if the words "and can not expect immunity from its operations" were stricken from the second paragraph. You are, of course, thoroughly familiar with the provisions of chapter 249 of the act of July 27, 1868, which are embodied in sections 1999 to 2001 of the United States Revised Statutes, which we nevertheless deem it desirable to quote, in order to give point to our remarks in favor of the proposed amendment of the new circular. "Sec. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign States, owing all allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore any decla- ration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic. "Sec. 2000. All naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign countries, are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to native-born citizens. "Sec. 2001. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be commimicated by the President to Congress." These sections proclaim to all the world the American doctrine of the right of expatriation; the right of all naturalized citizens of the United States while in foreign countries to receive from our Government the same protection which is accorded to native-bom citizens; the duty of the President to demand the release of any American citizen unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign gov- ernment, in violation of the rights of American citizenship as defined in these sec- tions, and they denounce any declaration, instruction, or opinion by any officer of the United States which questions the right of expatriation, as inconsistent with the funda- mental principles of our Government. Although the circular of January 25, 1908, announces that our Government dissents, from the Russian claim, which denies the right of expatriation, it nevertheless adds that an American citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country can not expect immunity from the operation of the Russianlaw. This, it seems to us, is a declaration which questions the right of expatriation and which restricts the scope and meaning of sections 2000 and 2001 of the United States Revised Statutes. These sections clearly declare that any interference by a foreign government with the liberty of a naturalized citizen, based on his exercise of the right of expatriation, imposes upon our Government the obligation of securing to such citizen_ immunity from the operations of the law of a foreign government, which is "inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the P^epublic." To declare that immunity can not be expected by an American citizen formerly a subject of Russia, under these circumstances, is a tacit recognition of the contention of the Russian Government, which is at war with our fundamental principles, and is TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 243 an implied invitation to that Government not only to violate the rights of American citizenship but also to disregard the obligations of the treaty of 1832 solemnized between the United States and Russia. The least that our citizens can expect from our Government is, that it shall continue to assert the principles embodied in this statute, and that it shall not, directly or indirectly, give sanction to a contrary contention on the part of any foreign power, or relax to the slightest degree in the vigor of its assertion and protection of the rights of American citizenship as thus defined. Very truly, yours, Louis Marshall. Edward Lauterbach. This sharp but dignified presentation of the principles involved drew forth the announcement from Acting Secretary Bacon on February 18, 1908, that he had directed the objectionable words to be withdrawn and a new edition of the circular issued. (See American Jewish Year Book, 5669, p. 254.) In the meantime the executive committee of the American Jewish committee had under consideration for a long period the question of the best method of approaching this serious subject, and reached the determination that the methods of diplomacy thus far had failed. To the earnest, dignified, and forceful remonstrances of our Government, extending over nearly half a century, the Russian Government had replied first by begging the question, and then by resort to all its well-known methods of subterfuge and duplicity. Appreciating fully that the honor and dignity of the United States were at stake, the committee concluded that since the Russian Government could not be induced to change its attitude, there was no course left but to denounce existing treaties. The views of the committee were crystallized in the following letter addressed to President Roosevelt on May 18, 1908, by Judge Mayer Sulzberger, of Philadelphia, the president of the committee : New York, May 18, 1908. The President: I am directed by the American Jewish committee, of which I have the honor to be president, to present to you this communication and petition concerning a question of much importance to all citizens of the country, in which, however, Jewish citizens have an added and special interest. You are aware that for more than a quarter of a century the domestic policy of the Russian Empire has inflicted grievous hardships on its Jewish subjects. Whereas prior to the year 1881, there- were so few Russian Jews in "this country that the sight of one was a novelty, even to his coreligionists, in that year there began a steady immi- gration movement, which the most superficial observer at once recognized as being caused by pressure from within. By degrees the facts have gradually filtered through the dense mass of misrepre- sentation used to explain an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon. A body of 5,000,000 pious believers had been so harried that the humility and patience inculcated by their religion, their traditions, and their antecedents, had among a small proportion of the younger generation given way to the gospel of despair, and this inevitable result was made the occasion, not for a return to saner and more humane methods of government, but for more cruel jjersecution. The consequence has been that hundreds of thousands of these Russian subjects have been driven to our shores. The outraged feelings of the people of the United States have been expressed in no uncertain tones, but the Government of Russia has refused the request of our Government even to receive a memorial on the subject. As conditions in the Russian Empire so far as its Jewish subjects are concerned are in nowise improved, we feel ourselves justified in suggesting a mode whereby the Government of that country may be induced to take up the whole question and give it serious consideration. The Russian Government seems unable to realize that Jewish citizens of this country are, under our Constitution, laws, treaties, and actual practice, the equals of all other citizens. It seems to cherish the idea that its hostility to its own Jewish subjects may be obtruded upon our Government as a policy to be imitated with reference to the Jewish citizens of our country. This idea seems fixed and probably can not be altered save by direct and emphatic measures. The power to take these measures is lodged by the Constitution in the Executive. He it is who may "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," make treaties. This power may now, we suggest, be eflftciently used. In the communication of the Secretary of State under date of February 11, 1908, to Messrs. Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach, the statement was made that ' ' the department has been endeavor- 244" TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. ing and is endeavoring to secure from Russia a naturalization treaty which, will prac- tically dispose of this difficulty." Governments, like individuals, must study actual conditions, if practical results are to be obtained. One condition that may not be ignored is the view of the Russian Government that it has the "right" unilaterally to annul a treaty in whole or in part. It exercised that "right" in 1870 (during the Franco-German War) by declaring itself no longer bound by that part of the Treaty of Paris (1856) which had reference to the Black Sea. And though the signatory powers at a conference declared that "it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting powers by means of an amicable arrangement, ' ' yet the fact remains that Russia received as a concession the thing that had been declared to be wrong. The Government of Russia has exercised a similar "right" with reference to the first article of the treaty of commerce and navigation entered into between it and our Government in the year 1832. That treaty was intended to promote the freedom of commerce and navigation as respects the high contracting parties. The object is stated in full in the first article, which is as follows: "There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties, a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." Since the ratification of this treaty, our Government has faithfully and uniformly adhered to and performed all the provisions thereof. The Government of Russia, on the other hand, has uniformly refused, in at least one respect, to conform to the pro- visions of the first article. It is well known to all familiar with the diplomatic history of the country that Jewish citizens of the United States, as well native as foreign born, have been subjected by Russian officials, on oiu own soil, to an inquisition concerning their religious faith or racial antecedents which is totally foreign to the spirit of our Government and to the tenor of its Constitution and laws. Moreover, after such inquisition made, the right guaranteed to citizens of the United States under the first article of the treaty of 1832 has been uniformly withheld. For reasons of public policy, the Government of the United States has, through many administrations, preserved an attitude of respectful protest against Russia's violation of the first article of this treaty, though on one occasion (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1072-1074) it was intimated to Russia that unless her consuls desisted from their inquisitorial practice with respect to our Jewish citizens we might feel constrained to withdraw their exe- quaturs. What adds to the irritation produced by Russia's treatment of om* citizens of the Jewish faith is the fact that has become known to us that it is in contrast with that accorded to Jewish citizens of the German Empire whose passports for Russia are freely viseed, and this principle extends also to the JeAvish agents of German Jewish merchants who desire to visit the Russian Empire on business. Moreover, we have learned of this new thing: That while a Jewish citizen of the United States taking passage on a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now have his passport visaed without trouble by the Russian consul at New York, the ambassador's office at Washington distinctly refuses vise to Jewish applicants on the avowed ground of their Judaism. This remarkable disparity of conduct is explicable only on the theory that Russia's policy is to favor its own steamship traffic from the United States and to discourage that of other nations, including om- own. Ovir country is thus made an unwilling accomplice in the unfair treatment of citizens of countries with which we have treaties containing "the most favored nation" clause, and the best evidence is before us that in Russia's conduct there is involved no real principle except the'promotion of its shipping interests, without regard to human rights or treaty obligations. We beg to suggest that in the negotiation of a new treaty the first question to be seriously considered is whether a naturalization treaty will be thought useful by Russia. Its policy having been to declare its subjects incapable of throwing off their allegiance peaceably and lawfully, what guarantee can we have whether it has undergone a real and lasting change of opinion? And if it has not suffered such change, what reasonable prospect is there that the terms of such a treaty will be better observed than the terms of former treaties? Nations are subject to no effective coercion save the horrible pressure of war, which in 11 ordinary cases is inapplicable and ought to be reserved only for that last TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 245 extremity when duty, conscience, and the intei'ests of mankind unite to make it unavoidable and right. Keeping in mind the views held by the Russian Government, no doubt sincerely, in its interpretation of treaties that have become useless and injurious to its interests, we humbly suggest that with Russia no treaty bhould be made which does not contain articles of such a character that her own interest would urge grateful compliance with the obligations of the treaty. Of the treaties now in force between Russia and the United States there are but two which are of immediate concernment in this aspect. The first is the treaty of commerce and navigation of the year 1832, before alluded to, and the second is the extradition convention concluded March 28, 1887. The former is terminable at any time after a year's notice; the latter upon six months'. The treaty of 1887 gives to Russia advantages far greater than any we can enjoy under it. We do not believe that Russia would be sought as an asylum to any con- siderable extent by American criminals. On the other hand, in a country where murder seems to be established as a means of political persuasiveness, not only among sections of the population, but also in certain departments of the Government, the conditions are substantially different. Every asylum State constitutes a serious handicap to the efforts of the Russian Government in carr5dng out its domestic policy toward its freedom-loving subjects. Neither our traditions nor common humanity nor international comity can demand of us to maintain a sympathetic attitude toward Russian governmental policy in this respect. If, therefore, any new treaty is to be now negotiated, we ventm-e to suggest the propriety of incorporating into it the provisions of the treaties of 1832 and 1887 as well as those concerning other subjects which may be under discussion. And it would seem wise also, even if it should appear tautological, to insert the well-known principle of international law that "a treaty which has been broken by one of the parties to it is not binding upon the other through the fact itself of the breach and without any reference to any kind of tribunal." (Hall's International Law, 5th edition, p. 352.) As both the treaties of 1832 and 1887 can be made to expire on short notice, there is no practical difficulty in carryiiig out the suggestion. The commercial disadvantage to us of the expiry of the treaty of 1832 is not appalling. International trade, like all trade, is not in it§ bulk based on favoritism, but on mutual interest. We can not sell what Russia does not want, nor do we buy what we do not expect to use advantageously for ourselves. The laws of commerce will in the end prevail over mere fancies or momentary estrangements. But the promotion of commerce, though a high function of statesmanship, is not its exclusive duty. A point in international relations may be reached when a first-class power can better afford to lose a substantial advantage than tamely submit to the domination of a foreign power formidable for population and resources. Russia is such a first-class power. Its teeming millions will, one day, under an enlightened government, worthily represent the best results of civilization. Were it weak, we could afford still further patience and indulgence. But we also owe something to the dignity of our own country. Our Government, we fondly believe, is the greatest on earth with respect to freedom, equity, and justice. Other nations have their ideals, which we must view with respect, and, if possible, with sympathy. No nation can or ought to ask us to adopt its antithetical views and yield our own. And if a request so unreasonable be made, either in words or by a course of conduct, it is out duty energetically to refuse and repel it. Our prayer, therefore, is that due notice be given to Russia of the intended termina- tion of the two treaties aforesaid, and that no new treaty be made unless all the pro- visions covering both subjects, and such others as may be agreed upon, are contained in one instrument which shall likewise contain practical provisions to secure its enforcement by denying its further benefits to the party disregarding its obligations thereunder, or any of them. If our language in this paper be warmer than diplomatic usage would warrant, we beg you to remember that we are addressing the head of our own Government on a matter in which our sympathies are profoundly engaged, and are not unmindful of the difficulty of righting wrongs incrusted with age. Nevertheless, we devoutly hope and firmly believe that the_ Executive _ of the Nation will find a way to obtain what justice demands, by practically realizing the principle of the Constitution that treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, and that all citizens have an equal right to their benefits. We send herewith, as illustrative of one part of this paper, a copy of the Memoirs of Prince Urussov (Harper, New York, 1908). I have the honor to be, Your very humble servant, Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee. 246 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. To that letter the following reply was received . The White House, Washington, May 20, 1908. My Dear Sir: Your communication of the 18th instant has been received and called to the attention of the President, by whose direction it has been referred for the consideration of Secretary Root. Very truly, yours, Wm. Loeb, Jr., Secretary to the President, Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, 856 Second Avenue, New York, N. Y. The reference to the Secretary of State of this calm and judicial presentation of the important issues involved, embodying the recommendation of a method by which the enormity of the abuse inflicted by the Russian Government on the whole body of American citizenship could be rectified, drew forth only the following letter: Department of State, Washington, June 4, 1908, Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee, 356 Second Avenue, New York City. Sir: The department has received, by reference from the President, your letter of May 18, presenting certain views of your committee and urging action on the part of this Government with reference to the attitude of the Russian Government toward people of the Jewish faith. The letter will receive attentive consideration. You state that you have heard that Jewish citizens of the United States taking passage on a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now have their passports visaed by the Russian consul general at New York, but that the Russian Embassy at this Capital refuses to vis6 their passports. You are invited to furnish the department with a statement of the circumstances which support this statement. It is possible that the absence of the Russian ambassador, who sailed for Europe in April, may explain this rather singular difference between the two offices. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Elihu Root. In response thereto a letter was sent to the Secretary of State by the president of the American Jewish committee, in which, as may be seen, the questions of the Secre- tary of State are fully answered, and the request of the American Jewish committee reiterated in the following terms: New York, June 17, 1908. Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Sir: The American Jewish committee acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 4, 1908, wherein you acknowledge receipt of our communication to the President, dated May 18, referred by him to you, and state that it will receive attentive con- sideration. You also invite us to furnish the department with a statement of the circumstances which support our allegation that while a Jewish citizen of the United States taking passage in a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now have his passport visaed without trouble by the Russian consul at New York, the ambassador's office at Washington distinctly refuses the visa to Jewish applicants on the avowed ground of their Judaism. We assume that as to the latter portion of our statement no proof is necessary. The refusal of the Russian Government to perform its treaty obligations in this respect is established not only by the records of the State Department during the last 40 years, but has on two occasions been referred to by the President of the United States in the annual message to Congress, first by President Arthur in 1883, and then by President Cleveland in 1895. Moreover, the platforms of both parties, in the national conventions of 1904, prom- ised a redress of this grievance. "We pledge ourselves," said the Republican platform, "to insist upon the just and equal protection of all our citizens abroad.". And the Democratic platform was equally expHcit: "We demand that all over the world a duly authenticated passport issued by the Government of the United States to an American citizen shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen and shall entitle him to the treatment due him as such." Nevertheless, in order to comply with your request we detail the circumstances of Mr. Louis J. Horowitz's case. Mr. Louis J. Horowitz came to this countiy at the age of 15, about 18 years ago, and is a citizen of the United States. He is the vice president of the Thompson-Starret TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 247 Co., the corporation which built the great station of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. at Washington, D. C. During the past four years he has been actively connected with the said company and is now the virtual head of its business department. On March 30, 1908, being about to go to England on business, he determined to visit his birthplace in Russia, and at the same time to go to St. Petersburg for the purpose of investigating various matters connected with the proposed contract between the Russian Government and his company regarding the construction of a passenger depot. Having sailed for England on March 31, 1908, in a hurry, he requested the company's local manager at Washington to secure his passport and mail it to him. His representative learned that there were difficulties and therefore retained Messrs. Penfield & Penfield to attend to the securing and validating of the passport. On April 1, 1908, Judge Penfield presented the passport at the Russian Embassy at Washington, was asked whether Mr. Horowitz was a Jew, replied in the affirmative, and the vise was refused. In consequence of this refusal Mr. Horowitz returned home without visiting Russia. We do not think that the ambassador's subsequent departure for Russia is at all relevant. Nor would his previous departure have been. The embassy was, in Mr. Horowitz's case, consistently violating the treaty of 1832, as it had done for decades; certainly since 1866. The inquiry concerning the strange departure of the Russian consul at New York from the uniform practice concerning Jews seems to us equally irrelevant to the prayer of our petition. The circumstances are, however, interesting in another aspect. They show that the Russian Government, having gone into the business of carrying passengers from Libau to New York and from New York to Libau, purposes to make its commercial venture a success. A person who has bought his ticket to Libau will escape all inquisition as to his religion or race and will have his passport promptly visaed. Of course if he has not bought such a ticket the inquisition is put in force. The following are the facts in Bernstein's case: Mr. Herman Bernstein, a citizen of New York, desiring to visit Russia and aware of the uniform refusal of the Russian officials to vis6 American passports if the holder thereof happens to be a Jew, was advised that he would encounter no difficulty if he engaged passage in the Libau steamer, being part of the volunteer fleet belonging to the Russian Government. He accordingly purchased his ticket for Libau on the steamship St. Petersburg, and on May 13, 1908, went to the Russian consulate to have his passport visaed. On entering the consulate he was handed a paper and was asked by an official to fill it out. He wrote therein his name; the place of his birth — Scher- windt, Germany; his occupation — author and business representative. He was asked to state whether he was a citizen, which he answered in the affirmative. The line in which he was asked as to his religion, he left blank. A statement he was about to make was prevented by the official's declaration that he wanted the blanks filled, nothing more. The paper (with the religious blank unfilled) was handed to the official who asked: "Are you going on business or on a pleasure trip?" Bernstein answered that he was going as a business representative and was also interested in the emigration question, which he might describe. The official then took the blank and handed it to the vice consul, who kept it for about 10 minutes, then walked over to where Bernstein was, told him the fee was $1.20, and visaed the passport. We may be pardoned for calling attention to the fact that our Government has always faithfully performed its treaty obligations to Russia as to other States and that its insistence upon the rights of our citizens who hold its passport has always been clear and emphatic. Memorable correspondence on the subject of the protection afforded by our national passport not only with Russia, but with the Sublime Porte is on file in the Department of State. From this it will be seen that there have been places where and times when Christian citizens of our country were threatened with just such a denial of their rights as Jewish citizens are now subjected to. Our letter of May 18, to which we beg again to refer, suggested a lawful, peaceful, regular, practical, and practicable way by which Russia may be persuaded of the impolicy of continuing its unfriendly conduct. Such a course we think our Govern- ment ought to pursue, promptly and without allowing itself to be diverted from the consideration of the great and fundamental question to the discussion of side issues. We can only repeat our original prayer that due notice be given to Russia of the intended termination of the treaties of 1832 and 1887, and that no new treaty be made unless all the provisions covering both subjects and such others as may be agreed on are contained in one instrument which shall likewise contain practical provisions to secure its enforcement by denying its further benefits to the party disregarding its obligations thereunder or any of them. I have the honor to be. Your very humble servant, Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee. 248 TEEMIFATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. Inasmuch as the first communication had been originally addressed to the President, it was deemed proper to send a copy of this letter of Jime 17 to the President, which was done, with the following letter of transmittal: New York, June 30, 1908. The President: By direction of the American Jewish Committee I had the honor to address a letter to the President on May 18, 1908, protesting against the continued violation by the Eussian Government of the treaty of 1832 in refusing to permit Jewish citizens of the United States the right to visit Russia and transact their business there, and suggesting a method by which the Russian Government might be induced to change its course of action. This letter being referred to the Secretary of State was acknowledged by him in a letter calling for further information. The information called for was duly given in my reply of June 17, 1908, a copy of which I inclose for your information. The original mandate of the committee directing me to present the matter to the President himself applies, as I conceive, to the further correspondence, and for that rea- son I have deemed it my duty to send this communication. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee. No further response was received from the Department of State or President Roose- velt to indicate that the matter was receiving due and proper consideration. But on June 19, 1908, the following plank was adopted by the Republican National Convention: "We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect Ameri- can citizens in foreign lands, and pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and equal protection of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned duty of the Government to procure for all our citizens, without distinction, the rights of travel and sojourn in friendly countries, and we declare ourselves in favor of all proper efforts tending to that end." On July 4, the Democratic Party in its platform defined its position thus: "We pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and lawful protection of our citizens at home and abroad, and to use all proper methods to secure for them, whether native- born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of law and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them under our treaty; and if, under existing treaties, the right of travel and sojourn is denied to American citizens, or recognition is withheld from American passports by any countries on the ground of race or creed, we favor prompt negotiations with the Governments of such countries to secure the removal of these unjust discriminations. We demand that all over the world a duly authorized passport issued by the Government of the United States to an American citizens shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen and shall entitle him to the treatment due him as such." And on July 28 the Independence Party made the following declaration: "American citizens abroad, whether native-born or naturalized, and of whatever race or creed, must be secured in the enjoyment of all rights and privileges under our treaties, and wherever such rights are withheld by any country on the ground of race or religious faith, steps should be taken to secure the removal of such unjust dis- crimination." Thus, practically the whole body of American citizenship expressed itself upon the question in not uncertain terms. On July 17, 1908, the following letter was addressed to the Hon. William H. Taft, who had been nominated a month before as the candidate of the Republican Party for the Presidency: New York, July 17, 1908. Dear Sir: You are doubtless aware that for some decades the Russian Govern- ment has refused to permit Jewish citizens of the United States to enjoy the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the treaty of 1832, and that all representations hitherto made by our Government have been fruitless. The American Jewish committee directed me some months ago to address the President on the subject, and the communication was referred to the Secretary of State, with whom there was some further correspondence. The platforms of both parties of 1904 and 1908 contain declarations on the subject. The conduct of Russia in flouting the passport of the United States is naturally resented by the people more immediately concerned, though, when the matter is studied, the grievance to the whole Nation seems equally great. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 249 The committae feels that a more specific declaration of the eamestnes * of our Gov- ernment in pressing for redress would probably effect that which mere diplomatic writing has hitherto failed in. I inclose a copy of the correspondence above referred to and beg to suggest that a declaration on the subject by you in yoiur letter of acceptance would be of great advantage to the cause. While I have not the presumption to suppose that the declaration, if you conclude that it ought to be made, will be prepared by anybody but yoiu-self, I trust that you will forgive the suggestion that the inclosed memorandum contains an idea which we would like you to consider when studying the subject. i am, sir, your obedient servant, Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee. Hon. William Howard Taft, The Hermitage, Hot Springs, Va. [Memorandum accompanying letter to Mr. William H. Taft, July 17, 1908.J Our Government has borne from one or more foreign states the disregard of the rights of some of oxlt citizens guaranteed them by international law or by specific treaties in the belief that patience and magnanimity are the most potent means of procuring international justice. When these fail, it would seem timely to give notice of the termination of treaties thus violated or to modify diplomatic relations with ofiending governments. To that letter the following reply was received : Hot Springs, Va., July 22, 1908. My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 17th of July, together with the inclosure which you sent, which I shall read with interest. Very sincerely, yours, William H. Taft. Mayer Sulzberger, Esq., SS6 Second Avenue, Neiv York, N. Y. Within a week Mr. Taft made the following statement in his letter of acceptance: "The position which our country has won under Republican administrations before the world should inure to the benefit of everyone, even the humblest of those entitled to look to the American flag for protection, without regard to race, creed, or color, and whether he is a citizen of the United States or of any of our dependencies. In some countries with which we are on friendly terms, distinctions are made in respect to the treatment of oiu* citizens traveling abroad and having passports of our executive, based on considerations that are repugnant to the principles of our Government and civilization. The Republican Party and administration will continue to make every proper endeavor to secure the abolition of such distinctions, which in our eyes are both n'eedless and opprobious." Following the reference to the passport question in his letter of acceptance, Mr. Taft, on August 11, 1908, wrote as follows to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff : Hot Springs, Va., August 11, 1908. My Dear Mr. Schipf: I have your kind letter of August 3, and thank you for your congratulations upon my speech of acceptance. You can count on my giving special attention to the passport business should I be intrusted with the mandate of power. ******* Very sincerely, yours, Wm. H. Taft. Jacob H. Schiff, Esq., William and Pine Streets, New York, N. Y. The next step in relation to the passport question was the letter sent on October 19, 1908, to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff by Secretary of State Root, in which the follow- ing appeared: "The other matter relates to securing from the Russian Government equality of treatment of all American citizens who seek to enter Russia with passports, without regard to their creed or origin. "Our Government has never varied in its insistence upon such treatment, and this administration has repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the Russian Government and urged the making of a new treaty for the purpose of regulating the subject. 250 TEEMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. "We have but recently received an unfavorable reply to this proposal, and we have now comnaunicated to Russia an expression of the desire of this Government for a complete revision and amendment of the treaty of 1832, which provides for reciprocal rights of residence and travel on the part of the citizens of the two countries. We have expressed our views that such a coiu-se would be preferable to the complete termination of the treaty, subjecting both countries to the possibility of being left without any reciprocal rights whatever owing to the delay in the making of a new treaty. "The course which the administration is following in this respect is the one which appears to us to be best calculated to attain the end desired, an end as to which I beg to assure you the administration is in full and sympathetic agreement with you." This letter was by request given out to the newspapers and widely circulated throughout the United States. A week later, in a speech at Brooklyn, New York, Mr. Taft expressed himself as fol- lows: "No American passport should be subject to investigation beyond the certificate itself as to citizenship. I wish to say that nothing will appeal to me if I am elected more than the duty of devising ways and means to make an American passport cover «very American citizen the world over. But you must not misunderstand me. I promise to use every effort on my part. How far I can succeed depends upon the future. Every effort is being made now, and what I desire to emphasize is the sincerity of the promise in the Republican platform." Two weeks later, in a speech at Thalia Theater, New York, he pronounced his attitude as follows: "But that national prestige must be used not only for the benefit of the world at large, but for the benefit of our own citizenship, and therefore as we gain in inter- national prestige we ought to assert owe insistence that our passports certifying our citi- zenship should secure to every man, without regard to creed or race, the same treat- ment, the same equality of opportunity, in every nation on the globe. Now, this is not a matter with respect to which promises of immediate accomplishment can be made, but of this you can be certain — that if you commend the administration of Theo- dore Roosevelt by electing a Republican administration to succeed his, that adminis- tration will continue to press that question until the certificate contained in an Ameri- can passport shall have the effect that it ought to have." With the exception of the resolution introduced in Congress by Representative Henry M. Goldfogle on January 18, 1909 (see American Jewish Year Book, 5670, pp. 37-38), which was emasculated by the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the instance of Secretary of State Root, as shown by the report of February 15 of the same year (ibid., 38-39), nothing was done either by the President or Congress. But great hopes were entertained of energetic action by the administration of Presi- dent Taft, because of his expressed views, and of the following pronouncement in his inaugural address on March 4, 1909: "The policy of the United States in the Spanish War, and since, has given it a posi- tion of influence among the nations that it never had before, and should be constantly exerted to securing to its bona fide citizens, whether native or naturalized, respect for them as such in foreign countries. We should make every effort to prevent humiliat- ing and degrading prohibition against any of our citizens wishing temporarily to sojourn in foreign countries because of race or religion." Thus far our hopes have not been realized. The first indication that but little attention had been paid to the proposals of the American Jewish committee, as contained in their letters of May 18 and June 17, 1908, given above, came on May 6, 1909, when, at the instance of the new administration, the Senate ratified and made public an agreement between our country and Russia, concluded and signed at St. Petersburg on June 25-12, 1904, to regulate the position of corporations or stock companies and other commercial associations, industrial or financial. This was the only agreement of any consequence entered into between the United States and Russia in 22 years — the period during which the passport contro- versy was at its height. Remonstrances, therefore, to the proclamation of this treaty by the President wc "3 dispatched in the following terms on May 11, 1909: 1303 GiRARD Avenue, Philadelphia, May 11, 1909. . The Secretary of State. The American Jewish committee has just learned that on May 6, 1909, the Senate ratified and made public an agreement between oxu* coun- try and Russia, concluded and signed at St. Petersburg on June 25-12, 1904, to regu- late the position of corporations or stock companies and other commercial associations, industrial or financial. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 251 Presumably nothing is now needed to give this agreement full effect save its pro- mulgation by the President. The committee, as will appear from correspondence on file in your department^ is vitally interested in our treaty relations with Russia, because of the latter's refusal to recognize that the treaties made by our country are intended to assure to Jewish citizens equal rights with other citizens. In point of fact Russia has steadily refused to accord such rights to Jewish citizens of the United States. The committee has entertained the hope that the endeavor of our Government to make new treaty arrangements whereby Russia will change its attitude might prove successful. It fears, however, that the promulgation of this agreement of 1904 would tend rather to defeat than to promote these endeavors. According to Russian view, the benefits of the new agreement would be practically denied to American citizens of the Jewish faith, because corporations, stock companies, and other commercial associations can only work by means of individuals; indeed, in the last analysis, are merely individuals, who, if they happen to be Jews, may be held by the Russian authorities to be persons subject to exceptional and derogatory treatment and to denial of rights. Should the Government of Russia take such a stand, the present difficulties, how- ever great, will be enhanced. Its position would be strengthened and it might prefer to adhere to its old-time prejudiced policy. If in the end our Government, to preserve its dignity and the rights of its citizens, should be compelled to denounce all the treaties subsisting between the two contries, such denunciation would necessarily comprehend the agreement of 1904, just ratified. The committee hopes that the suggestions herein advanced may be duly consid- ered before the final promulgation of the agreement in question by the President. For the American Jewish Committee: Mayer Sxjlzberger, President. To this, the following response was received : Washington, May 18, 1909. Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, President of the American Jewish Committee, 1303 Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant in which you present the views of your committee respecting the action of the United States Senate in approving the agreement between the United States and Russia of June 25-12, 1904, relating to corporations, etc. In reply I have to say that careful consideration will be given to your communi- cation. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Huntington Wilson, Acting Secretary. The careful consideration promised in Acting Secretary Huntington Wilson's letter was shown by the proclamation of the agreement on June 15, 1909, without granting the American Jewish committee a further opportunity to present its views. The salient parts of this agreement are as follows: "1. Corporations or stock companies, and other industrial or financial commercial organizations, domiciled in one of the two countries, and on the condition that they have been regularly organized in conformity to the laws in force in that country, shall be recognized as having a legal existence in the other country, and shall have therein especially the right to appear before the courts, whether for the purpose of bringing an action or defending themselves against one. "2. In all cases the said corporations and companies shall enjoy in the other coun- try the same rights which are or may be granted to similar companies of other countries. "3. It is understood that the foregoing stipulation or agreement has no bearing upon the question whether a society or corporation organized in one of the two cotm- tnes will or will not be permitted to transact its business or industry in the other, this permission remaining always subject to the regulations in this respect existing in the latter country." The importance of this agreement is emphasized at this point because one of the pleas advanced at all times by those in high position against the abrogation of the treaty of 1832 is that such action would interfere with the great industrial and financial interests which a few Americans have established in Russia. A perusal of the pro- visions of this agreement demonstrates that it amply safeguards all those interests, which occasion so much concern, so far as any agreement with a govermnent like Russia may accomplish this. While Russia can not be expected to respect this new agreement with any better faith than she shows to the provisions of the treaty of 1832, yet since in this case it is apparently in her interest to do so it may reasonably be expected that no flagrant violation will occur in the immediate future. 252 TEEMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. . , The American Jewish committee, though greatly disappointed at the proclamation of this agreement, felt encouraged to hope for better things, because on June 1, 1909, announcement had been made that the experienced diplomat, Mr. W. W. Rockhill, then minister to China and previously an Assistant Secretary of State, had been ap- pointed ambassador to Russia. Advantage was taken of his presence in this country to arrange a conference with him, the President, and the Secretary of State, in August of that year. At this conference the American Jewish committee was represented by Judge Mayer Sulzberger and Dr. Cyrus Adler, and the whole passport situation was pre- sented to Mr. Rockhill in all its various phases, and the desires of the committee with respect to the termination of the treaty were enlarged upon. Assiuances were given by President Taft that Mr. Rockhill would be instructed to do everything possible to settle this vexatious question. The attitude of our Government toward Russia, in spite of the fact that that Govern- ment has persisted in the violation of the fundamental terms of the treaty of 1832, was shown further in the hasty granting to Russia on January 18, 1910, of the minimum tariff rates under the provisions of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. That this course should be adopted in disregard of the remonstrances of the American Jewish committee, on file in the Department of State, occasioned grave misgivings among the members of the committe as to whether its communications were in fact receiving consideration. Nevertheless, since Mr. Rockhill did not reach St. Petersburg until late in the summer of 1909, the American Jewish committee felt that justice to the new adminis- tration required that it be given abundant time to demonstrate its earnestness and its ability to deal with the question before the committee should institute further action. Hence it was not until February 24, 1910, that the committee again addressed the President. On that date the following letter, signed, as will be seen, by the entire executive committee of the American Jewish committee, was transmitted: New York, February 24, 1910. The President: On May 18, 1908, the American Jewish committee, through its President, addressed President Roosevelt with regard to the persistent violation by Russia of its treaty obligations to this country, in so far as the rights of Jewish citizens traveling or wishing to travel in Russia are concerned. The communication was referred to the Secretary of State, and while we are not informed that the negotiations with Russia have been concluded, we understand that they are being carried on with some hope of success. In the meanwhile we have learned that Germany, Austria, and France have all obtained concessions from Russia, which, though they do not cover the points for which we contend, at least assure to their Jewish citizens rights which are denied to citizens of our own country. The significance of the fact seems to be that when Russia believes it for her interest to abandon the strictness of her policy, she does not hesitate to do so. The treaty with the German Empire, originally negotiated in 1874, was supple- mented in 1894, in 1897, and 1904; the treaty with Austria was put in force in 1906, and the treaty with France, originally concluded in 1874, was modified in 1906. We append copies of the text and translation of these several treaties so far as they concern the subject in controversy. An examination of them shows that these States have all insisted on a clause specifically protecting Jews against the pretended power of Russia to interpret a treaty by its domestic ordinances. The German treaty expressly protects persons "of the Mosaic religion" — "Israelites." The Austrian does the same, while the French forbids any distinction by reason of the religion of the parties. According to our information, these concessions were obtained from Russia in con- nection with the exercise by those Governments of their power over minimum tariffs. It is pertinent to mention here that the ratification of these treaties by Russia has not resulted in her cheerful compliance therewith. We refer to an interesting debate in the French Chambers on December 27, 1909, wherein the grievances of the French Jews on this head were sharply resented. We are, as ever, firmly convinced that American Jews will not enjoy equal rights under Russian treaties until Russian interests shall coincide with Russia's good faith, and that this contingency will not happen until all present treaties shall have been abrogated and one new treaty be made which shall cover all our relations of every nature with that Empire, a treaty whose disregard by one of the parties thereto shall instantly entitle the other to declare it at an end. We do not wish to enlarge, because our views appear at length in owe letter to Presi- dent Roosevelt of May 18, 1908, a copy of which is sent herewith. We also send copies of the treaties referred to (so far as they concern the subject under discussion), as also a report of the debate in the French Chambers above alluded to. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 253 In conclusion we wish to urge that the removal of the disability complained of con- cerns all American citizens, since while it remains it is humiliating to our national dignity. We earnestly request that you grant us an interview at which we may personally present our views. If you could name any day prior to March 15 (except Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays), we shall deem it an honor to wait upon you. We have the honor to be, Your very humble servants. The Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee; Julian W. Mack, Chicago, vice president; Jacob H. Hollander, Baltimore, vice president; Isaac W. Bernheim, Louisville, treasurer; Cyrus Adler, Philadelphia, Pa.; Harry Cutler, Providence, R. I.; Samuel Dorf, New York, N. Y.; J; L. Magnes, New York, N. Y.; Louis Marshall New York, N. Y.; Julius Rosenwald, Chicago, 111.; Jacob H. Schiff, New York, N. Y.; Isador Sobel, Erie, Pa.; Cyrus L. Sulzberger, New York, N. Y.; Mayer Sulzberger, president. Appended: 1. Copy of the committee's letter to President Roosevelt; 2. Excerpts from Russian treaty with Germany (1904); 3. Excerpts from Russian treaty with Aus- tria (1906); 4. Excerpts from Russian treaty with France (1906); 5. Report of Debate in French Chambers, December 27, 1909. (See pp. 259-266, following.) To this the following response was received from the secretary to the President: The White House, Washington, February 26, 1910. My Dear Sir: The President has received your letter of February 24, with inclo- sures, in regard to the protection of Jewish citizens of the United States traveling in Russia and has referred all the papers to the Secretary of State. As soon as he hears from Secretary Knox the President will be glad to fix a time for an interview with your committee, as you suggest. Very truly, yours, Fred. W. Carpenter, Secretary to the President. Mr, Mayer Sulzberger, President American Jewish Committee, 356 Second Avenue, New York. On March 10, President Taft transmitted the following letter of Secretary of State Knox: Department of State, Washington, March 8, 1910. My Dear Mr. President: I have received Mr. Carpenter's letter of the 26th ultimo inclosing a communication addressed to you by the president of the American Jewish committee relative to the alleged violation by Russia of her treaty obligations in the treatment of American citizens of the Hebrew race who may desire to enter and sojourn in Russia. Mr. Sulzberger refers to the treaties concluded by Russia with Germany, France, andAustria, and states that "though they do not cover the points for which we contend, at least (they) assure to their Jewish citizens rights which are denied to citizens of our own country." It is true that Germany, France, and Austria have concluded with Russia arrange- ments permitting the entry and sojourn in Russia of Jewish commercial travelers, citizens of those countries. The treaties provide in brief that such commercial travel- ers may enter Russia after their passports are viseed by the nearest Russian consular officer and that they may remain for a period of six months. Their sojoiirn may also be extended for a fvu'ther period of six months upon application to the proper Russian bureau and the payment of certain prescribed fees. It will be noted, however, that in the agi'eement of 1874 with Germany the following proviso occurs: "It is mutually understood, however, that the above agreement shall not in any way interfere with the special laws, decrees, and ordinances, with respect to com- merce, trade, and police, which are in force or may be enacted in the country of either of the contracting parties, and are equally applicable to all foreigners." The department has been careful to ascertain from the American diplomatic officers at St. Petersburg that exactly the same treatment is accorded by Russia to American Jewish commercial travelers as is granted to Jewish commercial travelers who may be citizens or subjects of the countries mentioned above. Moreover, under the provisions of Articles I and XI of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia, American citizens are entitled to enter, sojourn, and reside in Russia with "the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and regulations in force concerning commerce." The 254 TEKMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. embassy at St. Petersburg also reports that under the most-favored clause of Article X the Russian Government accords to American Jewish commercial travelers exactly the same treatment as is accorded to those of France, Germany, and Austria. I quote for your information Articles I and XI of the treaty of 1832 with Russia: "Article T. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territo- ries of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend tO' their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force con- cerning commerce. "Art. XI. If either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in navigation or commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party freely where it is freely granted to such nation, or on yielding the same com- pensation when the grant is conditional." I may add that the department does not recall that there has been presented to it or to the American embassy at St. Petersburg a specific case showing that discrimination has been made by the Russian authorities in the treatment of American Jewish citissena as compared with that accorded to Jewish citizens of other countriss. Should such a case arise the department would immediately take the matter iip with the Russian Government. With reference to Mr. Sulzberger's suggestion that all treaties with Russia be abro- gated and a new one concluded which shall cover all relations of every nature with that Empire, I beg to say that some months ago this department suggested to the Russian foreign office the advisability of revising the treaty of 1832 and is still in correspondence with the embassy at St. Petersburg on the subject. I return herewith the papers transmitted with Mr. Carpenter's letter, and am, my dear Mr. President, Yours, very sincerely, P. C. Knox. This letter demonstrated an unwillingness on the part of Secretary of State Knox to deal with the question on the lines of the precedents established by all the Secre- taries of State who had held office during the preceding 45 years. It showed further his disinclination to treat the subject from the point of view of the insult to American citizenship involved, and convinced the members of the American Jewish Committee that results in accordance with their views were far from attainment. A letter drafted in reply to the Secretary's was not transmitted, as no effective results were to be expected so long as the attitude of the Secretary of State remains unaltered. Shortly thereafter Judge Mayer Sulzberger and Mr. Jacob H. Schiff had occasion to interview the President on other business. The President introduced the pass- port question, when the unchanged position of the American Jewish committee was stated anew, and as Ambassador Rockhill was expected to return to this country in May a conference between the President, the Secretary of State, Mr. Rockhill, Judge Mayer Sulzberger, Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, and Dr. Cyrus Adler was arranged, and took place on May 25, 1910. The matter was presented at large by the com- mittee's spokesmen, who were heard with attention, their understanding at the close being that the Cabinet would soon take up the question. On June 3 following a memorandum of the interview, with accompanying letter, was transmitted to the President, as follows: New York, June S, 1910. The President: The undersigned beg leave to submit herewith a memorandum ^ of the remarks concerning the American passport in Russia made by the parties to the interview of Wednesday, May 25, 1910, which the President was good enough to grant. Since this interview there has been held a meeting of the executive com- mittee of the American Jewish committee, the members of which are Jacob H. Schiff, Louis Marshall, Cyrus L. Sulzberger, Judah L. Magnes, and Samuel Dorf, of New York; Mayer Sulzberger and Cyrus Adler, of Philadelphia; Julian W. Mack and Julius Rosenwald, of Chicago; Isaac W. Bernheim, of Louisville, Ky.; Harry Cutler, of Providence, R. I.; Isador Sobel, of Erie, Pa.; and Jacob H. Hollander, of Baltimore, Md. As in duty bound, we presented a report of the interview and the executive committee unanimously approved the recommendations we had the honor to make, namely, that as a preliminary step our Government should insist upon the transfer of the negotiations from St. Petersburg to Washington, and that 1 The memorandum is not printed, as it is a uniform practice not to publish conversations had with the President. TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OP 1832. 255 failure either in accomplishing this or in achieving desired results therefrom should be followed by denunciation of treaties. The committee strongly recommends that all this should be done promptly as a vindication of earnestness on a subject which found a place not only in the platform of the Republican party, but of all other par- ties that presented candidates to the American people at the last election. This fact indicates that the subject is one not only of interest to the particular class of citizens involved, but that all the citizens of the United States of every party affilia- tion are concerned as a matter of national honor in the full recognition of the Ameri- can passport and resent the assumption of a right on the part of the embassy or con- suls of any foreign power to make inquisition into the religious affiliations of Ameri- can citizens and practice discriminations as a result of such inquisition. It is the view of the committee, as indeed it has been maintained for many yeara by our Department of State, that this action is in violation of our treaties with Russia and of our own national policj^, and that the reasons given by the Russian Government of "economic necessity" or "internal policy" are mere pretexts on the part of Russia for violating' a treaty that it suits her better not to observe. We hold that our Govern- ment owes It to itself as a vindication of its reputation for intelligence to insist that as treaties are international agreements entered into by responsible parties, all considera- tions of economic values and internal policies are presumed to have been weighed by each party before the promulgation of the treaties, and that so soon as the treaties are promulgated unilateral action is barred and no change can be made either in the word- ing or meaning save by the consent of both parties. We believe that the time has arrived to demonstrate the position of the United States, not by war nor by threats or hints of war, but by the most solemn national protest — denunciation of treaties — should our righteous demands not be granted. We also urge that a measure so vital to the United States should not be delayed or rejected because European nations may — possibly for reasons which affect their politi- cal relations with Russia — not wish to join us for the present. We believe, more- over, that it would be more in accordance with American policy that our Government should proceed upon its own initiative and upon the basis of its own treaties without seeking either the concurrence or assistance of European powers. If our Government after pursuing a proper policy should still fail to induce Russia to take the right and just course, it would have the glorious record of high moral endeavor. There are reasons, however, which warrant the conclusion that so soon as Russia realizes that our Government is in earnest not only in registering its views, but in following them up by successive steps, and that its efforts are not merely for popular consumption, Russia's attitude will change. We believe that the removal of the negotiations to Washington would be the most important factor in hastening such a realization. That such removal is not without precedent we are well advised. But even it it were, the attempt to create the precedent would be all the more important and all the more likely to produce a favorable issue to the negotiations. In the modern world, wherein there is a growing international conscience, the demonstration of national injustice or national bad faith is a powerful lever. Even Russia needs the support of a world opinion and in some measures realizes the fact. We stand prepared, should the President wish it, to demonstrate that we are pre- senting to the President views which have been held by our Government and from time to time presented to the Russian Government, without avail, for a period of 40 years; that we are making no new proposal, but pointing out as we believe the way which may prove effective for our Government to secure a successful result to negotiations which have hitherto failed. Deeply as we deplore the inhuman conduct of the Russian Government toward the Jews living in that Empire, and believing fully as we do that in view of the enforced migration to America resulting from this policy, our Government would be justified in protesting to Russia in its own behalf and in behalf of humanity, we nevertheless and with great effort suppress our natural senti- ments upon this point and confine ourselves solely to urging upon the President the securing of rights accorded us under our Constitution and laws and by the treaties which our own country has entered into. We urge that in the negotiations, which we hope will shortly be transferred to Washington, our Government confine itself to securing all rights accorded to its citizens under its treaties with Russia and that it hold the Russian Government to the same points of discussion, thus avoiding any claim that the internal policy of another Government is involved. We have the honor to be, Mr. President, [ Your most obedient servants, Mayer Sulzberger. Jacob H. Schtpp. Cyrus Adler. 19831—11 ^17 256 TEEMINATIOIsr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Mr. Rockhill retm-ned to his post, and though repeated interviews were had with the President by various members of the American Jewish committee, no communi- cation was received indicating that the administration had taken any of the action suggested in the letters of the committee and in the conferences had with President Taf t. The committee waited patientlj^ for favorable action until it reluctantly reached the conclusion that the only hope lay in an appeal to the people of the United States. Following this determination, ]\ir. Louis Marshall, a member of the executive coni- mittee of the American Jewish committee, upon the invitation of the Union of Ameri- can Hebrew Congregations at its twenty-second council, on January 19, 1911, delivered an address on "Russia and the American Passport." (See Appendix II.) Imme- diately after its delivery the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Council of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and was presented to Presi- dent Taft on January 27, 1911, by Bernhard Bettmann, of Cincinnati: "For more than a generation passports issued by our Government to American citizens have been openly and continually disregarded and discredited by Russia in violation of its treaty obligations and the usage of civilized nations. "During all that time administration after administration, irrespective of party, has protested against this insult and humiliation, and Congress has on repeated occasions given emi)hatic expression to its resentment of the stain imposed upon our national honor. Diplomacy has exhausted itself in ineffectual effort to bring relief, for which a new generation is impatiently waiting. "The citizenship of every American who loves his country has in consequence been subjected to degradation, and it has become a matter of such serious import to the people of the United States, as an entirety, that this condition can no longer be toler- ated: Be it therefore "Resolved, That it is the sense of this council, speaking not as a representative of Jews, but as a body of citizens having at heart the preservation of the honor of the Nation, joining in generous emulation with ail other citizens to elevate its moral and political standards and to stimulate an abiding consciousness of its ideal mission among the nations of the earth, that the President of the United States, the Depart- ment of State, and Congress be respectfully and earnestly urged to take immediate measures, in conformity with the express terms of the treaties now existing between the United States and Russia, and in accordance with the law of nations, to terminate such treaties, to the end that if treaty relations are to exist between the two nations it shall be upon such conditions and guaranties only as shall be consonant with the dignity of the American people." In the meantime Mr. Herbert Parsons, a Member of Congress from New York City, actuated by a patriotic and high-minded interest in the importance of the subject as affecting the integrity of American citizenship, had given it serious and earnest con- sideration and had used all of his powers to induce the President to adopt the views suggested by the American Jewish committee and embodied in the resolution of the Umon of American Hebrew Congregations. Having failed to carry his point, on February 10, 1911, he introduced in the House of Representatives the following resolution: "In the House op Representatives, "February 10, 1911. "Mr. Parsons introduced the following joint resolution, which was refeiTed to the Oommittee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed: "Joint resolution providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States of America and Russia concluded at St. Petersbtu-g, December 18, 1832. "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of this Government that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; that this Government concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to religious belief; that this Government will not negotiate nor be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is construed to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of religious belief; that the Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States of America and Russia concluded at St. Peters- btu:^, December 18, 1832, by construing that part of Article I thereto which says that the inhabitants of the respective States 'shall be at liberty to sojom'n and reside in all ' parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there pre- vailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce,' to mean that American citizens of Jewish faith are subject in Russia to the same class_ restric- tions that Russia imposes upon Russian inhabitants of Jewish faith, by declining to TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 257 permit American citizens of Jewish faith to sojom-n and reside in Russia in order to attend to their affairs and to enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as non-Jewish native Russians, and by refusing to honor American passports issued to Amer- ican citizens of Jewish faith; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time and be no longer in force; and that to this end the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give notice to the Government of Russia that the treaty aforesaid will terminate and be of no force and effect upon the exphation of the year which shall commence after the date of such notification." Thereupon the President invited the following gentlemen to a luncheon and con- ference at the White House on February 15, 1911: Judge Mayer Sulzberger, Jacob H, Schiff, and Louis Marshall, representing the American Jewish committee; J. Walter Freiberg, Bernhard Bettmann, and Simon Wolf, representing the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; and Adolf Kraus, Philip Stein, and Jacob Furth, representing the Independent Order B'nai B'rith. Judge Sulzberger was prevented from attending by reason of indisposition. The conferees presented anew the arguments in support 01 the contention that the treaty of 1832 be abrogated, dealing as fully as practicable with the issues involved. Hitherto there has been no result. On February 16 and 22, 1911, hearings took place before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Parsons resolution, at which Representatives Parsons, Harrison, and Graham and Mr. Louis Marshall made earnest pleas for the abrogation of the treaty of 1832, and Representative Goldfogle recounted his previous activities. (See Ap- pendix IIL) On February 26 Senator Culberson of Texas introduced a resolution providing for the abrogation of the treaty in the following terms: "Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the treaty of eighteen hundred and thirty-two between the United States and Russia should be abrogated because of the discrimination by Russia between American citizens in the administration of the treaty." No action was taken by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs because of the lateness of the session, nor was consideration given to Senator Culberson's resolution. But upon the reassembling of Congress in extra session resolutions similar to the Parsons resolutions, providing for the termination of the treaty, were immediately introduced by Representatives William R. Calder, Francis Burton Harrison, Hemy M. Goldfogle, and William Sulzer, of New York; Alfred G. Allen, of Ohio; and Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee; and in the Senate by Senator Culberson. Mr. Sulzer 's resolution is as follows: "In the House of Representatives, ''April 6, 1911. "Mr. Sulzer introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. "Joint resolution providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States of America and Russia concluded at Saint Petersbiurg, December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two. "Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of the United States assert as a fundamental prin- ciple that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of race or religion; that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or religion; that the Government of the United States will not be a party to any treaty which dis- criminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of race or religion; that the Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States and Russia concluded at Saint Petersburg, December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, refusing to honor American passports duly issued to American citizens on account of race and religion; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; and that to this end the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give the usual notice to the Government of Russia that the treaty aforesaid shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the expira- tion of the year which shall commence after the date of such notification." By reason of the fact that the extra session of Congress was called to consider a specific measure, no action on the resolutions to terminate the treaty could be had. But there is every reason to expect that Mr. Sulzer, who is chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the other Representatives who have introduced resolution^ together with Senator Culberson, will energetically advocate the proposal to abrogate the treaty at the session of Congress which is to convene in December, 1911. 258 TEKMIISTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. We have cited above the facts with respect to the negotiations carried on with Presidents Roosevelt and Taft. There is no evidence at this writing of any change in the situation. Citizens of the United States who under the Constitution are guar- anteed all the rights and privileges of that Constitution are denied them by the acts of a power with which we are in friendly relations. Under these circumstances the Jews of the United States are warranted in assum- ing that the only likelihood of a redress of their grievances is through an appeal to the intelligence, the patriotism, and the sense of justice of the American people to support the resolutions now pending in Congress, to the end that the rights which are theirs under the Constitution may no longer be denied them, and that the integrity of Ameri- can citizenship may be maintained. That Russia's attitude on the passport question and her flagrant violation of the treaty of 1832 are in line with a policy actuated by self-interest and guided by no considerations of the appreciation of the solemnity of treaty obligations is shown in her support of the Russia-American Line of steamships, which is part of the Russian volunteer fleet. Its agency in this country on March 16, 1911, issued a circular containing the following statement: "passports for RUSSIANS. "The Imperial Russian consul has an office in our building at 27 Broadway, where frontier passports can be secured for 80 cents fee. "The passenger must be in possession of his ordinary Wolostnoi passport, Mesczan- ski passport, or birth certificate, or any paper from a priest or rabbi, showing that the passenger is a Russian subject, stating his native city, and that he or she has been a member of their church or congregation." This notice is an excellent specimen of Russian diplomacy. It appears to demand that the passenger referred to shall acknowledge himself to be a Russian subject. In . point of fact he need do no such thing. In Mr. Bernstein's case above cited (and the instances can be multiplied), the consul had before him the fact that Mr. Bernstein was not a Russian subject, had never been one, and was then a citizen of the United States. The real requirement was and is buying a ticket on Russia's steamboat line. Then the vis6 follows without demur. The interest which this question has aroused is indicated by an address delivered by the Hon. Rufus B. Smith, president of the Bar Association of Cincinnati, at the Temple Club of Congregation B'nai Israel of that city on Aprils, 1911 (see Appendix IV), as also by a series of articles in the New York Evening Mail, beginning on June 22 of this year. The State legislatures of Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have also passed resolutions favoring the abrogation of the treaty. Our diplomatic history is not without precedents that should serve as a guide in emergencies like the present. "^Tien in 1876 the Government of Great Britain attempt- ed to restrict the application of the extradition provisions of the treaty of 1842 between the United States and that nation by seeking to control its interpretation by the pro- visions of an act of Parliament passed in 1870, President Grant and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish protested energetically. President Grant declared it to be intolerable that a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament passed in 1870 could qualify or restrict the application of an international agreement entered into in 1842, and faith- fully observed by both parties to it without dissent for almost a generation. When long-continued and patient remonstrance had no effect, President Grant on June 20, 1876, sent a special message to Congress in which he recited the facts at issue and added that pending Great Britain's refusal to execute the existing treaty, he would not take any action without an expression of the wish of Congress that he should do so, either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under that treaty. He further asked Congress, in its wisdom, to determine whether the particular article in question should be any longer regarded as obligatory on the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. This was equivalent to a notice to Great Britain that unless Congress directed otherwise. President Grant would suspend the operation of the extradition clause of the treaty of 1842 because of the violation of its terms by the Government of Great Britain. The unqualified stand taken by President Grant that one of the parties to a treaty could not change or alter its terms or construction or attach new conditions to its execution without the assent of the other, resulted in the withdrawal by Great Britain of her contention, and on December 23, 1876, President Grant was able to announce to Congress that Great Britain was prepared to observe the extradition clause of the treaty in accordance with the interpretation put upon it by the United States. TEKMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 259 In this case the question at issue affected merely the extradition of fugitive criminals, yet President Grant deemed it of sufficient importance practically to suspend the opera- tion of a clause of a treaty when he considered that its terms had been violated. The question at issue between the United States and Russia involves, not a mere matter of the extradition of criminals, but a fundamental right of American citizenship. In the two case involving, on the one hand, the extradition provisions of the treaty of 1842 with Great Britain and, on the other hand, the travel and sojourn provisions of the treaty of 1832 with Russia, the points at issue are almost precisely similar. Great Britain, after observing the treaty for nearly 30 years, attempted, by an act of municipal legislation, to limit or change the rights which were conceded to the United States by treaty; Russia, after a similar period of faithful observance of the treaty of 1832, has for a generation persistently violated the letter and spirit of the treaty on a like pretext. We have seen what action President Grant took in 1876. In 1911 the treaty with Russia is still permitted to remain in force. It is apparent that relief must be sought otherwise than through diplomatic channels Congress possesses plenary, if not exclusive power, to act in the premises, and to it American citizenship must appeal for the protection and preservation of its rights. To use the language of the Declaration of Independence: "We have petitioned for redress. * * * Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. ' ' Satisfied that the righteousness of our cause will appeal to it, we submit these "facts * * * to a candid world." Appendix 1. [Translation.] Consular treaty between the German Empire and Russia of December 8 {November 28), 1874. (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1875, p. 145.) Treaty of commerce and navigation between Germany and Russia of February 10 (January 29), 1894, including such part of the final protocol of February 9, 1897, relating thereto as modified bv the additional treaty and protocol of July 28 (15), 1904. (Main treaty, Reichsgetzblatt, 1894, p. 153. Final protocol, Deutscher Reichsan- zeiger, February 10, 1897. Additional treaty, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1905, p. 35.) TREATY. Article 1. The subjects of the two contracting parties who have established them- selves, or who temporarily sojourn in the territory of the other, shall, in the pursuit of commerce or trade, enjoy the same rights as, and be subject to no higher or other taxes than, the inhabitants of the respective countries. The subjects of each party shall reciprocally enjoy in the territory of the other tha same rights, privileges, liberties, benefits, and immunities as the subjects of the most favored nation. It is mutually understood, however, that the above agreement shall not in any way interfere with the special laws, decrees, and ordinances with respect to com- merce, trade, and police which are in force or may be enacted in the country of either of the contracting parties and are equally applicable to all foreigners. Art. 12. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders who show by the possession of trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) issued by the authorities of their country that they are authorized to engage in trade in the state in which they reside shall have the right, personally or through travelers in their service, to make purchases or to solicit orders and also to bring irx samples in the territory of the other contract- ing party. The said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders or commercial travelers shall reciprocally, with respect to passports and the taxes levied for carry- ing on commerce, be accorded the same treatment as the subjects of the most favored nation. FINAL protocol, PART I, TO THE TEXT OF THE TREATY. To arts. 1 and 12: In regard to passports, the subjects of both parties shall be treated as those of the most favored nation. The term during which the vis6 of a passport shall be valid is fixed in Russia at a period of six months.- This provision applies also to the passport vis6s of German commercial travelers of the Hebrew faith. 260 TEEMiisrATioisr of the treaty of 1832. The date of the crossing of the boundary shall in the future be noted by the Russian and the German authorities on the licenses (scheine) according to the Russian as well as the German calendar. The licenses (scheine) shall also in the future, as at present, be issued as well to Israelites as to Christians. To art. 12. In the issuance of licenses to trade and in the amount of the tax therefor no distinction shall be made between persons of the Christian religion and those of the Hebrew religion. [Translation.] Treaty oj Commerce and Navigation between Austria-Hungary and Russia, oj February 2 (15), 1906. In force since February 16 (March 1), 1906. (Treaty, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1906, No, 49, pp. 493-494, 520.) Art. 12. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders of either of the contracting parties who show, by producing trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) issued by the proper authorities of the home country that they are authorized to engage there in commerce and industry and that they pay there all lawful taxes and imposts, shall have the right, either personally or through travelers in their service, to make purchases or to solicit orders in the territory of the other contracting party. In order to enjoy in Russia the right provided foi- in the first paragraph of this article, the said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders must be provided with special trade licenses, for which the fee levied for the benefit of the state shall not exceed 150 rubles for a whole year or 75 rubles for the second half of the year. Their commercial travelers must each be provided, in addition, with a personal trade license, for which the fee, levied for the benefit of the state, shall not exceed 50 rubles for a whole year or 25 rubles for the second half of the year. The licenses provided for in the second paragraph of this article may be issued in the names of the persons who actually repair to Russia, in which case these persons shall not be required to provide themselves with additional personal licenses. As regards the issue of the licenses and the amount of the fee therefor, no distinction shall be made on account of the religious affiliations of the merchants, manufacturers, traders, or commercial travelers. Also, with respect to the term during which the visa of the passports shall be valid, which is fixed for Russia at a period of six months, the religion of the parties in interest makes no difference. The trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) shall be drawn up in accordance with a form agreed upon between the two high contracting parties. The two contracting parties shall reciprocally make known to each other who are the authorities competent to issue trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte), and the rules and regulations governing the business of the bearers of such credentials. (Eight additional paragraphs to this article.) FINAL PROTOCOL. To articles 1 and 12: In regard to passports, the subjects of the contracting parties, except as regards visas of passports, shall be treated as those of the most favored nation. The term during which the visa of a passport shall be valid is fixed in Russia at a period of six months. This stipulation applies also to the passport visas of Austrian and Hungarian com- mercial travelers of the Hebrew faith. Licenses shall also be issued in the future, as at present, to Israeli ties as well as to Christians. [Translation.] Treaty of commerce and navigation between France and Russia of March 20 (April 1), 1874, with modifications by the commercial convention of September 16 (29), 1905. (Ratifications exchanged Feb. 7 (20), 1906.) (Treaty, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 65, p. 225 et seq. Commercial con- vention. Official Journal de la Republique Francaise, Feb. 25, 1906, p. 1273 et seq.; also in Archives Diplomatiques, 1906, Vol. II, Nos. 4 and 5, p. 256.) Art. 4. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders of either of the two countries who show, by the production of trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle), issued by the authorities of their country, that they are authorized to engage there in commerce or industry, and that they pay their all lawful taxes and imposts, shall have TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 261 the right personally, or through travelers in their service, to make purchases or to solicit orders in the territory of the other contracting party. In ord-er to enjoy in Russia the right provided for in the first paragraph of this article, the said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders must be provided with special licenses, for which the charge, collected for the benefit of the State, shall not exceed 150 rubles for a whole year and 75 rubles for the second half of the year. Their commercial travelers must each be provided, in addition, with a personal license, for which the charge, collected for the benefit of the ^tate, shall not exceed 50 rubles for a whole year or 25 rubles for the second half of the year. The licenses provided for in the second paragraph of this article may be issued in the names of the persons who actually repair to Russia, in which case these persons shall not be required to provide themselves with additional personal licenses. In the issue of licenses and the amount of the tax therefor no distinction shall be made by reason of the religious affiliation of the said merchants, manufacturers, traders, or commercial travelers. Also, there shall be no distinction made by reason of the religion of the parties in interest respecting the term for which the visa of the passports shall be valid, which is fixed at a period of six months in Russia. The trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle) shall be drawn up in accordance with a form agreed upon between the two high contracting parties. The two contracting parties shall reciprocally make known to each other who are the competent authorities to issue trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle) and the rules and regulations governing the business of the bearers of such credentials. (Eight other paragraphs to this article.) Translation and summary of a debate in the French Chamber of Deputies, December 27, 1909. [Journal Officiel, Dec. 28, 1909.] The President. M. Hippolyte Laroche has the floor to speak upon his interpella- tion respecting the enforcement of the treaties of March 20 (April 1), 1874, and 16 (19) September, 1905, with Russia. M. Hippolyte Laroche. Gentlemen, on two occasions the Russian Government has made treaties of commerce with France, the fundamental intent of which it has later totally declined to regard. I refer to that which invests our citizens with the right freely to enter Russia. In the presance of the minister of foreign affairs I shall call the attention of the chamber to the disregard of obligations involving acts which this chamber has approved — a disregard in consequence of which the interests and rights of numerous French travelers are sacrificed by an interpretation unacceptable to us. The matter is simple and does not require extensive explanation. In 1874 a treaty was contracted between Russia and us, 8 or 10 lines of which I will read you: "Article I. The French in Russia and Russians in France may respectively, upon conforming to the laws of the country, have the liberty to enter, travel, and sojourn in all parts of the territory and possessions of the respective parties in order to attend to their affairs. * * * "The preceding provisions do not in any particular nulify the laws, ordinances, and special regulations respecting commerce, industry, and police in each of the two countries, and generally applicable to all foreigners." These provisions do not permit any equivocation; they concern and embrace all the citizens of the two Sta.tes, and do not permit of any distinction to the detriment of any class of citizens. Not one word permits France to exclude from their benefits any subjects of the Czar, and she has never dreamed of it. Not one word permits the Russian Government to exclude from the benefit of these pro^dsions any of our inhabitants if they are French citizens and their citizenship is not contested. Nevertheless, the treaty once concluded, the Russian Government draws a dis- tinction between different classes of the French people to whom it undertakes to close its frontiers, namely, members of the clergy, freethinkers, and Jews. They are not more inclusive. These infringements of the common rights created by the treaty have not failed to occasion much uneasiness. Also, France took advantage in the negotiation of a new agreement in 1905 to account to the Government of the Czar the ill effect of the re- strictions put upon the admission of our citizens visiting Russian territory. Our friendly representations were received in good part at St. Petersburg; and we cher- ished the illusion of believing that we had obtained what we had wished for. No attempt was made to modify the terms of the treaty of 1874; * * * But theinten- tion to break with the practices of the past was manifested anew in the drawing up of article 4 of the new convention. Up to that time the tax imposed on travelers in 262 TERMINATION OF THE TKEATY OF 1832. Russia was triple for the Jews and duration of their sojourn in Russian territory was reduced by half. Article 4 of the convention of 1905 abolished this inequality and formulated a definite rule: "No distinction shall be made, whatever be the religion." The promise to let all travelers sojourn an equal length of time, implied of course, that of allowing them first to enter Russia; and far from seeing a snare in this article 4, far from recognizing a greater deception, it was not imagined that Russia, in deny- ing the duration of the validity of a passport, reserved the right to do worse, to repulse the bearer and not even to let him enter her territory. The intent, which we must attribute to the adoption of the new act, was empha- sized with striking force on the 14th of December, 1905, from the same tribune from which I now have the honor to speak. The chamber discussed its ratification; the president of the customs' commissions, at that time our former colleague, M. Noel, now senator, gave utterance to these words reported in the Journal Officiel, and I beg you to impress them on your minds: ' ' We have gained the point that no account will be taken of religion; and we have declared that France will never put her signature at the bottom of a treaty which makes any difference of treatment among her travelers." M. Noel, as well as my friend, M. Lauraine, whom I call upon as witness, had just taken part at St. Petersburg as delegate from the ministry of commerce in the draw- ing up of the new treaty, article by article. From the mouth of the Russian negotia- tors he had received adherence to "the French idea. He believed their word and com- municated it with a confidence that received currency. And the chamber approved, convinced that every misunderstanding had ceased between the Republic and her ally. It amounted to nothing. The misunderstanding has not ceased. The difference of treatment, proclaimed by M. Noel thenceforth impossible, the Government of the Czar persists in making. In spite of the text which prohibits it, it has done so pub- licly, officially, systematically, in daily practice, in a manner prejudicial and vexa- tious to the Jews, the freethinkers, and the French priests. It refuses to receive them in Russia unless by virtue of authority, exceptionally accorded as a favor, often at the personal intercession of our ambassador or our minister of foreign affairs. We make acknowledgement to the minister in such cases, for his obliging intercession; but it must be understood that we are not satisfied with obtaining as a precarious favor what we demand by right * * *. Moreover, how many travelers are in position to resort to the minister hiniself and to his good offices? Most of the time an introduction is lacking, sufficient to reach him. An intermediary is not at hand to plead their cause, if they live far from Paris; and their sole recourse is to proceed regularly; that is to say, in the following manner: The formality of passports, suppressed almost everywhere, exists and is of great importance in Russia. A Frenchman, desiring to visit Russia, requests a passport at the prefecture of his Department. Until last year, it was given to him for what it was worth, without any inquisition being made into his religion; but for some months past the Russian police has obtained from our prefects a strange cooperation; our prefects themselves inquire as to the religion of the applicant and affix upon the passport of the freethinker or the Jew the damaging statement which subjects him to the ill will of the imperial authorities. * * * The Russian consuls often demand a baptismal certificate. M. Francis db Pressense. You know that there are two circulars, one of the 22d December, 1908, the other of the 2f)th April, 1909, which precisely fixes what you now complain of. * * * This is not m.erely the act of the prefects. It is the act of M. Clemenceau. M. HiPPOLYTE Laroche. This is not the spontaneous act of the prefects. I dis- avow their responsibility; they obey the orders of their chief. Perhaps it is appropriate to recall that formerly when the quinquennial census of our population was taken, the religious affiliation of each head of a family was inquired into. This information was only sought for purely statistical purposes and never eerved as a pretext for inquisitorial investigations into personal beliefs. Later, this was given up and does not appear in the enumerations of the last quarter of a century. How can you reconcile this scrupulous care, this precedent with the instructions ordering that the religious affiliation of the bearer shall appear upon the passports which the prefects issxie when it is placed there not for any statistical interest, but in this instance to serve only religious intolerance, or at least with the known purpose of subjecting our fellow citizens to religious intolerance in the East. As Russia does not keep her engagements, we do not refer to it, capitulate and bow with easy resignation. The instructions of the president of the council of the 22d December, 1908, and 26th April last, charge the prefects to inform the interested parties that they can not count upon the guarantees written in the treaties. Are you a freethinker? Then the Russian consuls "may refuse their vis6 to the passport borne TERMIISrATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 263 by one who does not belong to any positive religion." These are the terms of the circular of the 26th April, 1909. * * * . Are you a Jew? If so, you will not be admitted, "unless exceptionally to enter Russia; " and if you are admitted, the duration of the validity of your French passport, which is six months for Christians, will be for you "for only three months." "^Tiat becomes of article 4 of the convention of 1905? Above all, if the prefects omit to take note of the religion "this statement is essential." I extract these citations from the circular of 22 December, 1908. * * * I can not refrain from noting the contrast between the attitude of the French Govern- ment and that of the small States, which have not deemed it expedient to lend them- selves to illegal requirements. A Jewish merchant of my acquaintance, knowing to what he was exposed by the mention of his religious faith, upon his passport, if he undertook to go to Moscow, and passing through the Kingdom of Bavaria, asked of the Bavarian Government if a passport to Russia would be delivered to him at Munich without mentioning this fact. Here follows the reply within eight days, which was sent to him by the minister of state: "The minister of state and of foreign affairs has decided that the religion of the holders of passports destined for Russia need not be indicated by the Bavarian authorities. I so advise you in reply to your inquiry of the 23d of July." Without doubt, Russia is free to govern her native Jews and freethinkers by excep- tional laws; she is free to pen them within certain defined territories, to prevent them from entering numerous professions, from becoming landowners, to prevent four- fifths of their children having access to schools, etc. When she legalizes these acts, they are of interest only to Russian subjects within the Empire; we have not the right right to object, and we keep our opinion to ourselves. Russia can equally impose upon strangers enjoying her hospitality many a disagreeable obligation, such as pre- senting oneself on certain days at the police office and of paying enormous taxes, either for remaining in the city, or for going from one city to another, etc. Russia, in one word, may prescribe a thousand measures that please her and apply them to French travelers i^roviding these measures are equally applicable to all strangers. But the treaties of 1874 and 1905 do not permit that the length of residence of certain of our fellow citizens be reduced nor allow her to prohibit them entrance under the pretext that their religious faith is not that of the Russian people, or that the French point of view, so far as concerns these points, is unpleasing in the eyes of the Govern- ment of the Czar. If one admits that Russia, in the execution of the treaties of 1874 and 1905, is free to make differences between Frenchmen on account of creed^ it would be necessary also to admit that she is free to differentiate among them on account of their political opinions and to close her doors to members of one party, the Republican party, for example, whose attitude of mind seems to be far removed from the Russian. In times gone by, without doubt, before the days of treaties, the Russian Govern- ment had full power to act in this way and to consult her own convenience, but since it has a treaty with us it is bound by its engagements. Now, the first article of the treaty of 1874 is absolute. All Frenchmen may enter Russia on condition, well under- stood, on conforming to the laws of the country. It is self-evident that they can not conform to the laws of the country before they enter. Consequently, they must first enter, since the treaty of 1874 gives full right, when it says, "the French may enter Russia and attend to their affairs there with full liberty." The phrase is clear and if it does not mean what it says we will have to give up trying to understand the lan- guage of Voltaire, famous for its clearness. * * * Putting aside all possible quibbles, this remains above all contradiction: That the Parliament, when these treaties were submitted for consideration, read them with candor, without seeking for a secret cryptograph, without discovering it in them, without even suspecting in them any hidden sense contrary to its plain and evident intent. It is incontrovertible that when the act of 1905 was approved, after having heard M. Noel, just returned from Russia, making the declaration which you remember the chamber believed that every distinction on account of religion had been aban- doned by Russia in the reception to be accorded our travelers. * * * Why did we not open negotiations with Russia for the purpose of fixing the inter- pretation of the fundamental provision of our treaties of commerce? In fact, while Russia has preserved for herself reactionary laws, she sees rising about her borders the flood of more modern ideas and she has not failed at times to support them among neighboring nations. Did she not at the same time as France sign the great treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878, recognizing and establishing the independ- ence of Roumania? Did not the Russian plenipotentiaries collaborate in draw- ing up article 44 of that treaty, which is as follows: "The citizens of all powers, mer- chants or others, shall be treated in Roumania without distinction as to religion, upon a footing of perfect equality?" 264 TERMINATIOJSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. _ When we suggest to Russia to apply in the treatment of French travelers the prin- ciples and the maxims which she has had the wisdom to recognize, and helped to impose on others, she will have difficulty; in saying no to us. The United States is carrying on negotiations to the same end. In his first message Mr. Taft announced that the matter would engage his attention. (After quoting the resolution adopted by Congress in March, 1909, M. Laroche proceeded.) Gentlemen, from two sides of the Atlantic the identical demand is made. It is the voice of the twentieth century speaking. * * * The United States will not be content with partial and incomplete concessions. They persist in demanding all or nothing. The time is ripe for us to give standing to our own. It will be a pity to let another power take fi'om us the lead in the crusade for the triumph of the great ideas of humanity so ably defended by France in the past. (After an account of the nego- tiations with certain Cantons of Switzerland which put restrictions upon the right of foreign Jews to enter such Cantons and the successful efforts of the French Government to have the rights of French citizens irrespective of religion recognized in Switzerland, he continued.) It is under these conditions that the Franco-Swiss Convention of June 30, 1864, was concluded, fixing thenceforth that all Frenchmen would be put upon the same footing and treated in equal manner throughout the 22 Cantons. The federation has honored its signatm-e and has executed with fidelity for 45 years all clauses of the treaty which she subscribed. The Government of the Czar, signatory of the treaties conceived by us in the same spirit and containing similar clauses, evades them by excluding from their benefits French Jews, priests, and freethinkers. * * * I hope that the Government of the Republic will know how to effect with the Russian ministers the half of what Napoleon III accomplished with the Swiss Federa- tion, and that she will impose on oiu ally no new engagements, but the simple execu- tion of those which it seemed to renew or make four years ago and which were the sine qua non of the ratification of the last treaty by the chambers. The minister of foreign affairs, in his reply, quoted the treaty of April 1, 1874, which is in effect the same as Article 1 of the treaty between the United States and Russia of December 18, 1832. And he quoted in support of the ministerial interpreta- tion of the meaning of the treaty the opinion of M. Louis Renault to the effect that the treaty, by its clause rendering travelers subject to the prevailing laws and ordinances of Russia, in a large measure gave Russia the right to determane who shall cross her borders. If police regulations take account of the religion of individuals, the French must submit, and can not expect their own laws, which do not take account of religion, to pi-evail and to determine the rights of citizens traveling in Russia. This is an inter- nal matter and the treaty only provides against any differential treatment among foreigners. The treaty of 1905 does not contain any clause to the effect that the pass- ports must be visaed no matter what the religion of the applicant The minister of foreign affairs added that it had only been since his attention had been called to the matter by M. Laroche that he had taken up this question, since he had never had any complaint on the subject; that he understood that commercial travelers had freely received passports to enter Russia. He had had an investigation made at the Chamber of Commerce in Paris and elsewhere and there was no complaint by commercial travelers there or at the ministry of foreign affairs on the subject. To this M. Laroche replied that the complaints had been addressed to the president of the Council of the League of the Rights of Man. The minister of foreign affairs defended the circular referred to by M. Laroche on the ground that it prevented delay in procuring vis^s of passports by Russian consular authorities. Since whenever the information desired by the Russian authorities was not provided, inquiries are made which delay delivery of the passport. The circulars mentioned were issued in order to avoid these inconveniences. As for the demand that France take steps to have the Russian Government admit all Frenchmen without exception, the minister of foreigia affairs said he would accept this, but he feared that he would be on poor ground if he had to undertake to discuss an interpretation of the clause of the treaty with the Russian Government. Because whatever were the declarations made from the platform during the discussion of the treaty of 1905, the text of the treaty shows the French Government was not in a good position to obtain the satisfaction which was so legiti- mately demanded . He did not admit the right to demand that the religion of the appli- cant should appear on the passport, but it was simply a matter for finding a practical means to allow French citizens to enter Russia with as little difficulty as possible. As for the action of the Bavarian Government, it had effected nothing. France had a right to decline to state on the passport the religion of the holder, but inconveniences, delays, and inquiries would result, and it was to avoid these difficulties that it was preferred to answer all questions. France replied as did Bavaria, but we refer to TEEMIlSrATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 265 what the United States has done, and Russia's reply, "T\Tiat about your laws respect- ing Chinese immigration?" * * * To these M. Laroche replied that the United States had no treaty with China. The minister of foreign affairs admitted the cases were not similar, but he added that all countries could, by police regulations, control the entry of certain foreigners. To which Mr. Lacrohe answered provided there were not treaties that prevented it. The minister of foreign affairs stated that the United States had received no satisfaction from the Russian Government, but that he was ready to undertake to take steps with the Russian Government to have the matter in dispute remedied. Further, he would willingly undertake these steps at the same time as the Government of the United States to relieve the situation com- plained of. * * * M. Francis de Pressens^, in speaking to the question, disputed the interpretation which M. Louis Renault put upon the terms of the treaties of 1874 and 1905 and held that there was ample authority for the view that the treaties do not permit of any distinction being drawn by Russia between the citizens of France who have entered Russian territory. * * * He demanded that France take immediate steps to do everything possible at St. Petersburg that the differential treatment be not maintained, and that the obnoxious French circulars of December, 1908, and April, 1909, which put France in the position of being a party in a measure to the differential treatment Imposed by Russia, be withdrawn. He drew attention to the fact that this was not the first time that a question of this kind was considered by the French Parliament. It was up frequently under the July monarchy, when Switzerland and Saxony were involved in the controversy, and France, in 1835, through the Duke de Broglie, adopted a very strong attitude. King Louis Phillipe himself, in an audience which he granted- to M. Cremieux, president of the Central Consistory of the Jews, declared that it was not only the interest but the duty of France to obtain respect for the fundamental principles of her constitution. At that time the question concerned an analogous occurrence which had happened in Switzerland, and M. Carnot, son of the great Carnot and father of the President of the Republic, expounded clearly the principles which should control. M. Beaumont, the friend of de Tocqueville, took part in the discussion, and M. Cremieux expounded the law which has application in the present instance. France had stipulated that French citizens should receive the same treatment in Switzerland as Swiss citizens. Switzerland had replied, "You do receive the same treatment as Swiss citizens, but there are Swiss citizens and Swiss Jews. The French Jews receive the same treatment as Swiss Jews." M. Guizot, the minister of foreign affairs, had declared that he regretted this interpretation, but he could not contest it. M. Cremieux, on the other hand, demonstrated by strong arguments that France demanded of Switzerland that all French citizens, without regard to religion, creed, or opinion, should enjoy the same rights as Swiss citizens; that Switzerland might have Jews who were debarred from the right of citizenship, but that she had no right on that account to deprive a single French citizen of the rights belonging to Swiss citizens. * * * He regretted that the Government had not undertaken negotiations if these were necessary to obtain the change in the treaty of 1905. He particularly regretted it, not because It was a question of inconvenience which might be caused to a Frenchman who wished to enter Russian territory, but because it put France la the position of seeming to connive at the differential treat- ment of French citizens of one creed as agamst those of another. The reply that the question as to one's religion was asked of the applicant for the passport in order to prevent the prohibition of entry into Prussia was not sufficient to prevent the Bavarian Government from insisting that it would not be a party to such a view and that it would not make such an inquisition. * * * He criticized severely the issuance of the circulars referred to above by the French Governm.ent. He drew attention t the fact that In 1815, just after the Congress of Vienna, Turkey had made a treaty with Austria by the terms of which Tmrkish subjects were to receive in Austria the same treatment as Austrian subjects. Austria undertook to treat Ottoman Jews differently from other Ottoman subjects because she treated her own Jews differently from her ither subjects. The Sublime Porte protested that she could not permit of the slightest difference being made between any Turkish subjects no matter what their creed, and in September, 1815, M. de Metternich gave Turkey satisfaction, and thenceforward all Turkish subjects were treated alike. He referred to the negotiations between the United States and Russia on the pass- port question, mentioned earlier in the debate, and that the immigration legislation of the United States had been made to serve the purpose of a tuquoque, but nevertheless the United Stateshadnotfailed to demand that its point of view be upheld, and he recited various steps which the United States had taken. In conclusion, he demanded that France return to the position adopted under the July Monarchy, and that she speak to Russia in the same language that the Duke de 266 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Broglie adopted in 1835, and that not only the advantages said to be obtained by the United States be secured, but that France secure the same recognition from Russia that Turkey acquired from Austria under Mettemich in 1815. The minister for foreign affairs, in concluding the debate, stated that the circulars that had been referred to had been issued only to avoid the difl&culties met with at the frontier on the part of French travelers who neglected to conform to the interpretation of the treaty which Russia put upon it; that as soon as his attention was drawn to the objections raised he had written to the minister of the interior that, owing to the delicacy of the question, Government officials should only advise applicants for passports that they would be subjected to inconvenience if they would not answer the question as to their religion, but to make the entry only with the consent of the applicant. He added that, much to his regret, France was not in a position to demand that French laws be applied in Russian territory, just as Russia is not in a position to demand that Russian laws be applied in French territory; since the treaty was in existence respect- ing the issuance of passports, and the convention of 1905 fixed the conditions under which the passports were to be visaed, the French Government had to conform to the provisions adopted by her when this treaty was agreed to. But he was prepared to renew negotiations with the Russian Government to procure an interpretation of the treaty which would give satisfaction. At the conclusion of the debate the following was passed: "The chamber, considering that Russia does not respect the provisions of the treaty of 1874 and of the convention of 1905 as equally applicable to the citizens of the two States, without regard to religion, and confident that the Government will undertake negotiations to establish the interpretation of these treaties, passes to the order of the day." Appendix 2. russia and the american passport.* The character of a nation is the reflex of the character of its citizens. If they are virtuous, virile, and self-respecting, the nation will of necessity possess the same qualities. If they have no pride in the honor and dignity of their citizenship, it inevitably follows that the national sense of honor is lacking, or falls below the ideal standard which should prevail. Whenever the citizens of a country as a mass fail to thrill in response to great achievements, or to resent a national insult, it must be due either to lack of information or to a want of that spirit by which great commonwealths have been created and preserved. Rome became a world power when, with con- scious pride, its sons gloried in the declaration, "civis Romanus sum." It fell when the members of the State ceased to respond to that magic phrase. American citizenship has hitherto been regarded as a priceless treasure. Men have gladly given for it their lives and all their material possessions. It has meant to them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has been to theni a badge of honor and distinction, and the richest guerdon of all their hopes and aspii-ations. It has peopled the wilderness and lighted the torch of progress and civilization. It has challenged universal respect, and has gained for itself the good will of well nigh all the peoples of the earth. And yet there rests a stain on the honor of our Nation and on the integrity of Ameri- can citizenship; for the passport issued by the State Department of the Uiiited States, bearing the great seal of our country, and which vouches for the citizenship of him_ to whom it is issued, is dishonored, rejected, and arbitrarily disregarded by the Russian Government whenever the citizen by whom it is presented happens to be a Jew. It matters not if he be able to trace his ancestry to those who landed with Columbus, to those who were among the settlers who came to New York in 1655, to those who fought in the War of Independence. It matters not that none of their kith or kin ever was a subject of Russia. All are denied the privilege of entering its domain, though pano- plied with the armor and the shield of American citizenship. For more than 30 years this has been the declared policy of the Russian Govern- ment. Its discrimination against our citizens has been persistently and constantly avowed and acted upon. Men of every class have suffered the same ignominy and contumely. No man within the hearing of my voice who professes_ to_ be a Jew, however eloquent in true Americanism his life has been, can venture within the walls which Russia has erected against the outside world, even though accredited by a pass- port from our Government, without having his credentials figuratively torn into shreds and cast defiantly into his face. 1 Address by Louis Marshall, Esq., before the 22d council of Union of American Hebrew congregations in New York, Jan. 19, 1911. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 267 As a Jew he might look down upon his persecutors with pity and contempt, and suffer in silence as his ancestors did for centuries. But he is now more than a Jew — he is also an American citizen, and the hand that smites him inflicts a stain on his citizenship. It is not the Jew who is insulted; it is the American people. And the finding of a proper remedy against this degradation is not a Jewish, but an American question. The discussion of it has no proper part in the proceedings of this conven- tion, except for the purpose of calling to the attention of the American people the facts which can not have been sufficiently impressed upon their minds, else they would have long since clamored for redress. What has been apparently overlooked or at least has not been fully appreciated, is the prime consideration that, ever since 1832, Russia has been under treaty obliga- tion to accord to all of our citizens, without distinction, the liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts of her territory and to guarantee to them security and protection. The first article of this treaty reads thus: " There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." On the very face of this article are written the two important underlying theories of every treaty, that it evidences a contractual relation, a compact between the nations entering into it, and that the obligations and rights created by it are reciprocal. The two nations are spoken of as "the high contracting parties," the liberty of commerce and navigation is referred to as "reciprocal," and the inhabitants of the several States are "mutually" to have the liberties which are defined in unequivocal and unam- biguous terms. As was said by Mr. Justice Miller in the Head Money cases (112 U. S., 598): "A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the Governments which are parties to it." In its construction the same rules which govern other compacts properly apply. (United States v. Reynes, 9 How., 127.) There is no rule of interpretation applica- ble to treaties or to private contracts which would authorize either of the parties to make exceptions by construction, where the parties have not thought proper to make them. (Society for Propagation of Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat., 464, 488, 489; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 722.) As indicative of the accepted rule of interpretation of treaties, the language of Mr. Justice Field in Geofroy v. Riggs (133 U. S., 271) is significant: " It is a general principle of construction with respect to treaties that they shall be liberally construed, so as to carry out the apparent intention of the parties to secure equality and reciprocity between them. As they are contracts between independ- ent nations, in their construction words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning, as understood in the public law of nations, and not in any artificial or special sense impressed upon them by local law, unless such restricted sense is clearly intended. And it has been held by this court that where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive of rights that may be claimed under it and the other favorable to them, the latter is to be preferred." There is no exception, express or implied, in the first or any other article of the treaty of 1832. Its terms are of universal application. They include, not some but all of the inhabitants of the high contracting parties. They give the liberty to sojourn and reside within the territories of the respective nations, not to some, but to all of their citizens. There is no distinction of race or color, creed or sex. No discrimination is contemplated or permitted. All Russians are to be admitted here. All Americans are to be admitted there. If it were suggested by our Government that no Russian subject who is a resident of St. Petersbiirg or of Moscow, or a member of the Greek Catholic Church, should be accorded the rights and privileges secured by this treaty, we would be regarded as guilty of a gross violation of its letter and its spirit. If Russia should declare that no citizens of the United States residing west of the Mississippi or south of the Ohio should receive the benefits of this treaty, not only the South and West, but our entire country, would stand aghast at the dishonor inflicted on the entire Nation. If Russia should announce that it would not honor the passport of the United States when held by an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, a Methodist, or a Roman Catholic, our coimtry would 268 TEltMlNATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. not look upon this breach of treaty obligation as a mere insult to the Episcopalians or the Presbyterians, the Methodists, or the Roman Catholics of this coimtry, but would justly treat it as a blow inflicted upon every man who holds dear the title of American citizen. Though this proposition is so plain that discussion and illustration are alike unneces- sary, Russia has persisted in the practice of requiring its consuls within the jiu-isdic- tion of the United States to interrogate American citizens as to their race and religious faith, and upon ajfcertainment thereof to deny to Jews authentication of passports or legal documents for use in Russia. The existence of this practice was denoimced by President Cleveland in the very words which have just been used, in his annual message to Congress in 1895; yet in spite of this protest this practice has continued ever since, and not only Russian consuls, but Russian Ambassadors, have refused to vise passports after ascertaining, as a result of inquiry, that the bearer, though an American citizen, is also a Jew. The Russian Government has thus broken its compact, flouted its obligations, and ignored a series of continued protests voiced by every President of the United States since the administration of President Hayes. In the meantime the United States has sacredly observed the obligation of this treaty. Its highest com't has, at the instance of the Russian Government, enforced it most drastically and under conditions when, by strict construction, Russia might well have been denied that which it demanded as of right, under the terms of this very treaty whose obligations it has thus deliberately disregarded. It will be instructive by way of contrast to consider the facts and the decision in Tucker v. Alexandroff (183 U. S., 424). Alexandroff was a conscript in the Russian naval service. He was assigned to the duties of an assistant physician. In 1899 he was detailed, with 53 others, to Philadelphia, to take possession of and man the cruiser Variag, then under construction by Cramp & Sons under a contract with the Russan Government. While the vessel was still under construction, and before its acceptance by the Russian Government, Alexandroff deserted, went to New York, where he renounced his allegi- ance to the Czar of Russia, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. At the instance of the Russian vice consul, Alexandroff was arrested on the charge of desertion, in accordance with the terms of Article IX of the treaty of 1832. This provided that the consuls, vice consuls, and commercial agents of the two con- tracting parties "are authorized to require the assistance of the local authorities, for the search, an'est, detention, and imprisonment of the deserters from the ships of war and merchant vessels of their country. * * * Such deserters, when an*ested, shall be placed at the disposal of the said consuls, vice consuls, or commercial agents, and may be confined in the public prisons, at the request and cost of those who shall claim them, in order to be detained until the time when they shall be restored to the vessels to which they belonged, or sent back to their own country by a vessel of the same nation or any other vessel whatsoever." It was contended on behalf of Alexandroff that when he arrived at Philadelphia the cruiser was not a ship, that at the time of his desertion she had not been accepted by the Russian Government, had neither equipment nor armament, had not received on board her crew, nor had she been commissioned for active service, and was not therefore a ship of war. Notwithstanding the facts upon which stress was thus laid, the Supreme Court held that on a liberal interpretation of the treaty the Variag was a ship of war, and Alexandroff, having been detailed to her service, was, from the time she became a ship, a part of her crew. Alexandroff was therefore surrendered to the Russian Gov- ernment, without a quibble, without an effort to do violence to the language of the treaty, without seeking to implant upon it exceptions which it did not contain, and in spite of the fact that on the strict interpretation that would have been given to a criminal or penal statute of our own country he would doubtless have been discharged. The reason for this adjudication is to be found in the words of Mr. Justice Brown, which, when compared with the interpretation which Russia has given to the first articles of this same treaty, emphasizes the astonishment evoked in any well-consti- tuted mind at the wanton disregard by Russia of the sanctity of its national honor. Says the distinguished jurist, in tenns that reflect credit upon our jurisprudence: "We think, then, that the rights of the parties must be determined by the treaty, but that this particular convention being operative upon both powers and intended for their mutual protection, shotild be interpreted in a spirit of uberrima fides, and in a manner to carry out its manifest purpose. (Taylor on International Law, sec. 383.) As treaties are solemn engagements entered into between independent nations for the common advancement of their interests and the interests of civilization, and as their main object is not only to avoid war and secure a lasting and perpetual peace, but to promote a friendly feeling between the people of the two countries, they should TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 269 be interpreted in that broad and liberal spirit which is calculated to make for the existence of a perpetual amity, so far as it can be done without the sacrifice of indi- vidual rights or those principles of personal liberty which lie at the foundation of our jurisprudence.' It is said by Chancellor Kent in his "Commentaries' ' (Vol. I, p. 174): 'Treaties of every kind are to receive a fair and liberal interpretation according to the intention of the contracting parties, and are to be kept with the most scrupulous good faith. Their meaning is to be ascertained by the same rules of construction and course of reasoning which we apply to the interpretation of private contracts.' " This decision was rendered just nine years ago, and one would have believed that, with such an exalted example of the faith ful performance on the part of our Govern- ment and all of its departments of the behests of this treaty, Russia would have hearkened to the representations of our Government, demanding that it should recognize its reciprocal obligations and give full faith and credit to its own treaty obligations. It has, however, remained deaf to the oft-repeated and earnest expostula- tions which our Government has addressed to it. It has drawn the lines of discrimina- tion more harshly. It has excluded great American merchants and manufacturers and builders from its territory. As a crowning insult, it has but recently issued a special edict offering to an American ambassador the privilege of entering its territory, "notwithstanding that he was one of the Jewish persuasion." By a special act of grace, an accredited representative of the Government of the United States was tendered absolution for the crime of being a Jew, a favor which this experienced diplo- mat happily declined to accept. From the standpoint of the Nation's honor, however, the refusal to admit even an ambassador of this country would have been no greater wrong than the refusal to honor the passport of the humblest of our citizens. For more than thii'ty years this condition, described in many of om* diplomatic dispatches to Russia as intolerable, has nevertheless been tolerated. Every four years, when the national conventions meet, planks have been placed in the platforms of the great parties, giving assurance of relief. On June 22, 1904, the Republican National Convention declared : "We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect American citizens in foreign lands and pledge oiuselves to insist upon the just and equal protec- tion of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned duty of the Government to pro- ern-e for all our citizens, without distinction, the rights of travel and sojourn in friendly countries, and we declare ourselves in favor of all efforts tending to that end." On July 8, 1904, the national convention of the Democratic Party declared: "We pledge ourselves to insist iipon the just and lawful protection of our citizens at home and abroad, and to use all proper measures to secure for them, whether native- born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of our laws and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them under the cove- nants of our treaties of friendship and commerce ; and if under existing treaties the right of travel and sojourn is denied to American citizens, or recognition is withheld from American passports by any cotm tries on the ground of race or creed, we favor the be- ginning of negotiations with the Governments of such countries to secure by treaties the removal of these unjust discriminations. We demand that all over the world a duly authenticated passport issued by the Government of the United States to an American citizen shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen, and shall en- title him to the treatment due him as such . ' ' At the Republican National Convention heldon June 19, 1908, there was a reiteration in exact words of the declaration contained in the platform of 1904, and in the platform adopted by the Democratic National Convention of July 9, 1908, there was a similar repetition of the pledge contained in its platform of four years before. In his speech of acceptance, delivered at Cincinnati on July 28, 1908, Mr. Taft said: "The position which our country has won under Republican administrations before the world should inure to the benefit of every one, even the humblest of those entitled to look to the American flag for protection, without regard to race, creed, or color, and whether he is a citizen of the United States or of one of our dependencies. In some countries with which we are on friendly terms, distinctions are made in respect to the treatment of our citizens traveling abroad, and having passports of our Executive, based on considerations that are repugnant to the principles of our Government and civilization. The Republican Party and Administration will continue to make every proper endeavor to secure the abolition of such distinctions which, in our eyes, are both needless and opprobrious." In a speech delivered by Mr. Taft at Brooklyn on October 26, 1908, he said: "It seems to me that we ought to give the traveling American citizen the broad significance that Roman citizens had in the days of Rome. Therefore, we should progress to the point where, no matter in what part of the world an American citizen may be found, his certificate of citizenship shall be all that is required to insure him 270 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. respect and good treatment. Nothing, if I am elected President, will give me greater pleasure than to devise ways and means to make the American passport respected the world over. Do not misunderstand me. What I am promising is, that every effort shall be made to this end. ' ' In a speech delivered by Mr. Taft at the Thalia Theater, in this city, on October 28, 1908, he said: ' 'But that national prestige must be used, not only for the benefit of the world at large, but for the benefit of our own citizenship; and, therefore, as we gain in inter- national prestige, we ought to assert our insistence that our passport, certifying our citizenship, should secure to every man, without regard to creed or race, the same treatment, the same equality of opportunity in every nation of the globe. Now, this is not a matter with respect to which promises of immediate accomplishment can be made, but of this you can be certain, that if you commend the administration of Theodore Roosevelt by electing a Republican administration to succeed his, that administration will continue to press that question until the certificate contained in an American passport shall have the effect that it ought to have. " In a letter addressed by Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff on October 19, 1908, after giving the reasons for acting favorably upon the applica- tion for the reopening of the Pouren case, that great statesman said: ' 'The other matter relates to securing from the Russian Government equality of treatment for all American citizens who seek to enter Russia with passports, without regard to their creed or origin. Our Government has never varied in its insistence upon such treatment, and this administration has repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the Russian Government and urged the making of a new treaty for the purpose of regulating the subject. We have but very recently received an unfavorable reply to this proposal, and we have now communicated to Russia an expression of the desire of this Government for the complete revision and amendment of the treaty of 1832, which provides for reciprocal rights of residence and travel on the part of the citizens of the two countries. We have expressed our views that such a course would be preferable to the complete termination of the treaty, subjecting both countries to the possibility of being left without any reciprocal rights whatever, owing to the delay in the making of a new treaty. " These authoritative expressions indicate, beyond peradventure, that the attitude of Russia toward the American passport is regarded, as it must be, exclusively an American question, one which concerns the Nation as an entirety. During the past two years there has been an abundance of well-directed effort to induce Russia, by the ordinary diplomatic channels, to recognize the obligations of its contract. Congress has passed resolutions indicative of the same desire, and of a like recognition of the broad scope of the question at issue. Apparently we are to-day as far from a solution of this problem, which goes home to every American citizen, as we were 30 years ago. The painfully slow methods of diplomacy have failed. We, a Nation of 100,000,000 Americans, stand at the door of Russia, hat in hand, pleading with it that it shall recognize and perform its contract. With sardonic smile Russia answers: "Not yet." A nation is but an individual written large. Imagine the patience of a creditor who for 30 years waits upon his debtor and pleads with him at his home for the payment of his debt. The average man would be tempted, under such circumstances, long before the lapse of 30 years, to take such proceedings as would reverse the process and lead his debtor not only to ask for leniency, but to make ample amends. Does this mean that we should go to war with Russia? Certainly not. War is abhorrent to us. It is brutal, inhuman, cruel. Its horrors fall upon the innocent. Its effects are felt by the entire universe. The mission of America, as well as of Israel, is peace. But there is a simpler, an easier, and an equally effective method of dealing with a nation that insults another; the same method to which a self-respecting civil- ized man resorts when he is insulted. He does not shoot. He does not commit an assault. He merely ceases to have further relations with the individual who has disregarded the amenities of life. And so with nations. It is within the power of a country situated as ours is, to isolate Russia and to terminate all treaty relations with a Government which fails to recognize the solemnity and the sanctity of its treaty obligations, and that is exactly what should be done without further delay. As long ago as on September 14, 1908, this very plan was advocated in an editorial which appeared in the Cincinnati Times-Star, in which it was said: "The Republican Party is thus pledged to grant relief from the intolerable condi- tions which now prevail, which prove a constant soiuce of irritation, which involve the infliction of a perpetual insult upon every self-respecting American citizen, which lead to a disregard of that comity which we have always extended to other nations, and which can not do otherwise than result in injurious discrimination against TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 271 our commerce and the impairment of our national dignity. What can be done to remedy these evils is a question which has been frequently asked. If Russia con- tinues to avail herself of the benefits of the treaty of 1832, and of the extradition treaty between the two countries, it is a matter worth earnest consideration whether our Government should not denounce both of the existing treaties, as it has the right to do, because of Russia's disregard of the American passport. Conditions in Russia are such that she would hardly regard with indifference such action by a Government which is a world power. The time would seem at hand for insistence. American citizenship can no longer be held so cheap that it can at will be disregarded or ignored. The Republican Party has pledged itself to this principle, and it may be safely relied upon to redeem its promises." Can the remedy thus indicated be pursued? There is nothing in the law of nations to prevent it. By the express terms of Article XII of the treaty of 1832 it is provided: "The present treaty * * * shall continue in force until the 1st day of January in the year of our Lord 1839, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting parties shall not have announced to the other by an official notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof, this treaty shall remain obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the expiration of the year, which shall commence after the date of a similar notification." In other words, the treaty is terminable on one year's notice. So long as this com- pact is treated by Russia as devoid of mutuality; so long as it denies to it the element of reciprocity, which is written all over it, we might as well be without a treaty as to be subjected to the constant humiliation, irritation, and exasperation attendant upon its continuous violation. This treaty has become both a farce and a tragedy. Let the note be sounded: "La comedia e finita." There is another treaty between the United States and Russia — the extradition convention concluded March 23, 1887, and proclaimed June 5, 1893. Under this Russia has sought from time to time to extradite political offenders — Pouren and Rudowitz among others. All of the benefits of this treaty rest Avith Russia. It may well be doubted whether there has been any time when our country has had occasion to avail itself of its terms. This treaty also makes provision for its termination. "It shall remain in force for six months after notice of its termination shall have been given by either of the contracting parties." Independently of these express provisions admitting of the cessation of treaty rela- tions between the two countries, it is a recognized doctrine of international law that, under conditions precisely like those which have been described, the abrogation of a treaty, even though it contains no provision for its termination, is justifiable. In Hall on International Law (4th ed., pp. 367-369) the author says: "It is obviously an implied condition of the obligatory force of every international contract that it shall be observed by both of the parties to it. In organized communi- ties it is settled by municipal law whether a contract which has been broken shall be enforced or annulled; but internationally, as no superior coercive power exists, and as enforcement is not always convenient or practicable to the injured party, the individ- ual State must be allowed in all cases to enforce or annul for itself as it may choose. The general rule, then, is clear, that a treaty which has been broken by one of the parties to it is not binding upon the other, through the fact itself of the breach, and without reference to any kind of tribunal. * * * Some authorities hold that the stipulations of a treaty are inseparable, and consequently that they stand and fall together; others distinguish between principal and secondary articles, regarding infractions of the principal articles only as destructive of the binding force of a treaty. Both views are open to objection." "It may be urged against the former that there are many treaties of which slight infractions may take place without any essential part being touched; that some of their stipulations which were originally important may cease to be so owing to the altera- tion in circumstances, and that to allow States to repudiate the entirety of a contract upon the ground of such infringements is to give an advantage to those who may be inclined to play fast and loose with their serious engagements. On the other hand, it is true that every promise made by one party in a treaty may go to make up the con- sideration in return for which essential parts of an agreement are conceded or under- taken, and that it is not for one contracting party to determine what is or is not essential in the eyes of the other. * * * All that can be done is to try to find a test which shall enable a candid man to judge whether the right of repudiating a treaty has arisen in a given case. Such a test may be found in the main object of a treaty. There can be no question that the breach of a stipulation which is material to the main object, or if there are several, to one of the main objects, liberates the party other than that committing the breach from the obligations of the contract." The article of the treaty of 1832 which has been violated by Russia is the one which was the main object of that treaty — the clause which was given precedence over all 21270—11 18 272 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OP 1832. others, the very basis and foundation on which all other provisions contained in the document rest. It is not necessary, therefore, to resort to fine distinctions or to indulge in close analysis for the purpose of ascertaining whether the test laid down in this and other authorities has been met. The stipulation which has been broken is not only material to the main object, but was and is the main object of the treaty. But it may be argued that the suspension of commercial relations between the two countries may hurt our trade. I have a higher opinion of the American people than to believe that they are so destitute of ideahsm, so devoid of a sense of honor, as to regard a matter of this supreme importance with the eyes and souls of mere shopkeep- ers. However extensive our trade with Russia might be, we could well afford to jeopardize it rather than to have it said that our country rates the dollar higher than it does the man; that it esteems the volume of its trade more than its national dignity. After all, the export trade of the United States with Russia does not much exceed $18,000,000 per annum. What is that to a nation the products of whose soil during the past year amounted to nearly 19,000,000,000? Should we then lose all of this com- merce, om- national prosperity would not be perceptibly affected. It may also be said that Russia is about to engage in large undertakings which will enlist American capital, the development of mines, the construction of storehouses for grain, the building of railroads, and that we are imperiling such enterprises by denouncing our existing treaties mth Russia. But what of that? Is it not better that we may know in advance what the attitude of Russia is to be toward American citizens before they invest their capital for the development of the resources of Rus- sia than to lodge complaints after the capital has been invested and promises have been broken? And after all there are still opportunities in the United States for the profitable employment of adequate capital for the promotion of our own industries, and Central and South America still offer promising fields for the investor. There are others who will prate of the historic friendship of Russia for America, and the tale will be retold of what Russia did for us during the Revolutionary War and during the Civil War. That fable has been thoroughly analyzed and the real facts have been demonstrated. But assuming that in the past we may have profited from Russia's attitude, who is so credulous as to believe that the land of the Czars, the country of absolutism, has been so enamored of freedom, of constitutional gov- ernment, of democracy or of republicanism, as to have acted either from love of us or of our institutions? Whenever Russia has acted, it has been simply and solely for political expediency. But let us assume that Russia has from any motive whatsoever extended to us offices of friendship. Have we not fully requited all of its kindnesses? Was it not through the intervention of President Roosevelt that Russia was extricated from one of the bloodiest and most disastrous wars known to history? The account between the two countries has been fully balanced so far as political favors are concerned. But there still remains a long account against Russia of broken promises, of violated obligations, of a compact contemned and disregarded, of dishonor inflicted upon our country and its citizens, and unless the virtue of manhood has deserted this Republic its citizens will no longer patiently witness the mockery of diplomatic procedure, tout will insist on a complete abrogation of every treaty now existing between the Ujaited States and Russia. Appendix 3. -teemination op treaty between the united states and russia. Committee on Foreign Affairs, Thursday, February 16, 1911. The committee this day met, Hon. David J. Foster (chairman), presiding. The Chairman. Although we have not a quorum, Mr. Parsons, unless you have ■some objection, we will proceed, as the hearing will be printed. Mr. Parsons. I shall be very glad to proceed at once. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT PARSONS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Mr. Parsons. I appear in behalf of House joint resolution No. 284, introduced by me, providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States of American and Russia, concluded at St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832. I will read the reso- lution: '^ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That it is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of TBEMIKATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 273 this Government that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; that this Government concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to religious belief; that this Government will not negotiate nor be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is construed to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of religious belief; that the Government of Russia has violated the treaty between the United States of American and Russia concluded at Saint Petersburg, December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, by construing that part of Article I thereof which says that the inhabitants of the respective States 'shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regu- lations in force concerning commerce,' to mean" — That is, Russia has violated the treaty by construing that clause to mean — "that American citizens of Jewish faith are subject in Russia to the same class restric- tions that Russia imposes upon Russian inhabitants of Jewish faith, by declining to permit American citizens of Jewish faith to sojourn and reside in Russia in order to attend to their affairs and to enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as non-Jewish native Russians, and by refusing to honor American passports issued to American citizens of Jewish faith; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time and be no longer in force; and that to this end the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give notice to the Government of Russia that the treaty aforesaid will terminate and be of no force and effect upon the expiration of the year which shall commence after the date of such notification." This treaty is a treaty of commerce and navigation with Russia, and it is to be found in the recent publication. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, and Agreements, Volume II, on page 1514 and following. ******* The two substantial treaties we have are this treaty of commerce and navigation agreed to in 1832 and the treaty of extradition agreed to in 1887. Of the other treaties, the first was a convention as to the Pacific Ocean and northwest coast of America; then came the treaty of 1832; then in 1854 there was a convention as to rights of neutrals at sea, which I think was the same convention as was entered into with other nations; then in 1867 there was the convention ceding Alaska; then in 1868 an addi- tional article to the treaty of commerce of 1832, concerning trade-marks; then in 1874 a trade-mark declaration; then in 1884 a declaration concerning the admeasurement of vessels; then comes the extradition convention of 1887; then in 1894 an agreement for a modus vivendi in relation to the fur-seal fisheries in Bering Sea and the North Pacific Ocean; than in 1900 a claims protocol; then in 1904 an agreement regulating the position of corporations and other commercial associations; and then in 1906 an agreement by letter in regard to the protection of trade-marks in China. So that the only substantial treaties are this treaty of commerce and navigation and the extradition treaty, and possibly this agreement of 1904 in regard to the position of corporations and other commercial associations. ******* This treatjr of 1832 was made at a time when our merchant marine amounted to more than it does in these days, and therefore a great many of its provisions are practically obsolete. Article I is the article referred to in the resolution, and that is the article that gives freedom of commerce and navigation and protects the rights of the inhab- itants of the respective States to sojourn in other States. Article X relates to the estates of deceased persons and has been claimed by some to be of some importance. The treaty also contains the most-favored-nation clause, but I take it that even if the treaty was abrogated we would not lose the benefits of the most-favored-nation clause, because we still have the maximum provision of the Payne law to hold over Russia in case Russia should want to claim that we were not entitled to them. Mr. Hitchcock. Suppose this treaty should be abrogated, what injurious effect would it have on Russia? Mr. Parsons. Absolutely none. We are a liberal, civilized Nation. We have no laws which discriminate against any Russian coming here, sojoiUTiing, and traveling. Russia would lose nothing by the abrogation of the treaty. I also think that we would lose nothing. We stand by principle if we abrogate it, and in view of the way in which Russia has construed the treaty we lose nothing, because Russia has construed the treaty practically to mean that Russia can pass any law she wants in regard to who can travel and who can sojoiu-n in Russia. Therefore she could pass a law saying 274 TERMIIsrATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. that Members of the House of Representatives of the United States of America could not travel in Russia. ******* Russia has placed two constructions on the treaty, first, under the last clause of Article I, which says: "The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign com- merce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts what- soever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." Russia claimed, under that part of Article I, that American Jews, German Jews, and English Jews were subject in Russia to the class restrictions imposed by the Russian laws upon Russian Jews, and formerly there was a law in Russia that if a Jew belonged to the first guild, which means the business which pays the highest tax or made the highest payment for licenses to do business, then he could do business and foreign Jews could do business; but Russia no longer takes that position, which you see would admit American Jews into Russia. Now, Russia takes the position practically that a Jew can not go in under any treaty rights. I will read from the letter of Mr. Eddy, charge d'affaires, to the Secretary of State, dated September 15, 1908, which will be found on page 1301 of Part II, Foreign Relations of 1906. He is giving a statement about the situation of the Jews in Russia: "Foreign Jews: Those who are not Russian subjects are not permitted to enter the Russian Empire and there become naturalized. The right of temporary sojourning in Russia can only be granted by the minister of the interior or by the Russian embas- sies, legations, and consulates. (Law of Mar. 14, 1S91.) It is hardly necessary to add that Russian representatives abroad never actually give permission to foreign Jews to enter the Empire, even for a short time, and that such permission must be obtained through the ministry of the interior." The practical effect of that is that no American Jews can go to Russia. The State Department advises them that it is willing to give them a passport, but it advises them that the passport is no good unless the Russian consul will vise it, and he does not do so. "WTiether he says out and out that he will not vise, I do not know. He may say, "Come back several months hence," but the practical efiect is that you can not get it visaed. Mr. Strunsky, one of the editorial writers of the New York Evening Post, a man of great learning and education, sought a passport last year to go to Russia, and the State Department wqs willing to aid him, I think gave him a passport, but he could not get it Adseed. Mr. Bennet. I applied several times at the behest of American Jews to the embassy here to have passports visaed, but in every instance they refused and gave the Russian law as the reason. Mr. Flood. Is it your idea to have this treaty abrogated whether or not Russia has put the wrong construction upon it, or is it upon the ground that Russia has put the wrong construction upon the treaty? Mr. Parsons. I wish to have it abrogated because Russia by word and by deed has put the wrong construction upon it. This is nothing new, and I will call attention to the resolutions that have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate for many years in regard to it. Mr. Bennet. Is my colleague aware of the fact that this is not entirely a Jewish question, even in a limited sense, and that Russia refuses to extend to Catholic and Protestant missionaries in Russia the rights which are extended to the missionaries of the Russian Greek Chmch in the United States, and that there is pending before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization a resolution introduced by Mr. Shep- pard of Texas, based on that violation of the treaty? Mr. Parsons. I did not know that there was any recent communication on that subject, but in 1884 there was a case, which is found on page 110, Vol. IV of Moore's International Digest, where the American minister at Teheran, Persia, reported that the Russian minister there had refused to vise the passport of James Bassett, a citizen of the United States, who was about to leave Persia for America, on the ground that a Russian ordinance prohibited the vis6 of the passports of clericals imless permission was first obtained from St. Petersburg. Later on he did give the vis6. The American legation at St. Petersburg was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of the Russian Government, and to say that, whatever ground might exist for the establish- ment of such an ordinance as that described with respect to the citizens or subjects of other powers, it was conceived that the spirit of the treaty arrangements of the United States with Russia would be violated by applying it in the case of American citizens, TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 275 either clergymen or laymen , whether residing in Russia or passing throiigh that country, so long as they did not render themselves obnoxious to good order. "All citizens of the United States, whatever their occupations, are," said the Depart- ment of State, "equal before the law of this country, and are entitled to the imdis- criminating protection of Russia, imder our treaty obligations, as such, for the treaty makes no distinction. If our citizens can sojoiu"n in Russia, it would seem that a fortiori they can pass through the country without hindrance, if provided with the passport of their Government. Resolutions ^ have passed one or the other branch of Congress. The first was passed on June 11, 1879, and it was a joint resolution. * * * * * -X- * The next resolution was one introduced by Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, which was reported favorably and passed the House of Representatives on June 30, 1882. Mr. Flood (interposing). If you will allow me to interrupt you, since I have been on this committee this question has been considered quite frequently, and I believe the entire committee is in sympathy with taking some action to protect the rights of gentlemen of the Jewish faith in Russia, if we can do it. What good will this par- ticular resolution accomplish in that line? Mr. Parsons. I will come to that now, if the committee does not desire to go back into the history of this matter. Mr. Flood. Of course, I am just speaking for myself, but we have considered this matter frequently, and I believe the whole committee is in sympathy with the pur- pose of doing something to relieve these gentlemen traveling in Russia or who have to sojourn there . Mr. Parsons. There are two reasons for abrogating this treaty. We have not accomplished anything by what has been done in the past. Various resolutions have passed one or the other branch of Congress and the State Department has pounded away at the matter for years and years. Of course, just what the situation is with Russia you would have to learn from the State Department, but I have followed this matter as closely as I can and I have been allowed to see about all the recent corre- spondence in the State Department. I have been through all the past correspondence published in the volumes on foreign relations, and I say that to-day there is absolutely no prospect of getting Prussia to do anything through diplomatic channels. Now, if we continue just parleying on the matter as we have, nothing will be accomplished, but we have never yet said that we are in dead earnest about it, and when we say to Russia that this is a matter of such vital importance to us, to a large element of our people and to our fundamental principles, that we are going to get rid of your treaty if you will not change it, then we will show Ptussia that we mean busi- ness. I do not say that it will lead immediately to any relief, but I believe that if, when Secretary Evarts and Secretary Blaine stated the fundamental principles on this matter as they did 30 years ago and more, if then we had abrogated the treaty, we would have a new treaty now, and I say that you will make one step forward toward a better situation by terminating the treaty than if you simply go along parley- ing about it. That is one reason. Mr. Hitchcock. How can we abrogate the treaty? Mr. Parsons. By a joint resolution directing the President to abrogate it. Mr. Hitchcock. I understand you to say, however, that the treaty is obsolete, so far as any benefits are concerned? Mr. Parsons. There may be a difference of opinion. I meant in regard to some of its provisions. I have not heard any discussion, and I have not been able to come across any material which would show whether so far as it relates to navigation it is a treaty of any importance. Of course, what this treaty, like all these treaties, pro- vides, except so far as special privileges are concerned, is international law in civ- ilized countries. Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. Supposing this resolution should be passed and become a law and the President and Secretary of State should notify Russia and abrogate this treaty, what would be the effect upon the diplomatic relations with Russia, generally speaking? Mr. Parsons. None. There would not be a particle of difference. If Russia chooses now to pass a law saying that Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania can not go into Russia and travel there, Russia can do it according to what she claims to be her rights. While we have this treaty, as a matter of fact, whether we get anything under it depends on whether Russia has chosen by her own legislation relating to her own internal affairs to allow us to get anything under it. Of course, Russia 1 For the resolutions referred to by Mr. Parsons see The American Jewish Yearbook for 5670, pp. 21-37. 276 TBEMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, miglit say if we abrogated the treaty that she did not want Americana to travel there; but I hardly think Russia would want to take that position before the civilized world. Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. The treaty is in existence and some claim it ia violated. What is the use of abrogating the treaty with the idea of getting any new treaty if we have one already that does not accomplish the purpose? Is it a ques- tion of enforcing the treaty? Mr. Parsons. You can not enforce it. Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. How could you enforce any other treaty? Mr. Parsons. Of course, you can not enforce it; you have to rely upon the honor of the other side. I admit that the honor of the other side has not been much in evi- dence in connection with this treaty; but this is a new situation before us, a situation which probably was not before President Andrew Jackson when the treaty was con- summated, in 1832. The new treaty would not be ambiguous on this point, and Russia would know, if she agreed to a new treaty, just what she was bound to do, and therefore we could rely on her agreeing to follow out the terms of the new treaty. Mr. Flood. If we abrogate this treaty, do you think there would be a new treaty on the subject? Mr. Parsons. I do not know. Frankly, I doubt whether there would be imme- diately, but I think there will be sooner if you abrogate the treaty than if you just continue in the way you have, which has accomplished nothing, and there is not any- thing new that we can do except to abrogate the treaty. Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. If we had no treaty, in what condition would it leave the other citizens outside of those of the Jewish faith; would we have any treaty or diplomatic relations whatever that could be enforced, in regard to any other citizens? Mr. Parsons. We would be in the situation then that we are in as to any country with which we have no treaty as to travel. No citizen of any other country needs a treaty to enable him to travel in the United States, and Russia is almost the only country as to which you have to have a passport to enter it. Now Russia can honor her passport or not, in the future, treaty or no treaty, just as she has a mind to. The Chairman. Your idea is that Russia would dislike very much to have us abro- gate this treaty on the ground that we believed that she had broken the treaty? Mr. Parsons. Yes, sn*; and Russia would realize that our protest in the matter was not vain words, and if she wanted to remain on friendly terms — that is, the best terms with us — then, she would have to have a treaty with us, and that treaty would have to be in harmony with fundamental American principles; and that brings me to the second reason, the incontrovertible reason, in my opinion, for the abrogation of this treaty. What is the mission of the United States, unless it is to stand for certain fundamen- tal doctrines among mankind and in the civilized world — such as the right of freedom of religious belief? In the Constitution we provided first, in paragraph 3 of Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the membei's of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. " Then, the first amendment to the Constitution provided that — "Cong .'ess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, those extracts indicate some of our fundamental principles, namely, the right of freedom of religious belief and the right of American citizens to be dealt with with- out regard to then religious belief. Here we have a treaty, an agreement, which we never supposed meant that American citizens should be discriminated against on the ground of their religious belief, but which the other party thereto uses as a justification for discriminating against Ameri- cans on the ground of their religious belief. If we believe in the principle I have referred to do we show our belief when we remain tied to a treaty, the practical work- ing construction of which is in direct contravention of the principle? Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask whether or not the Jewish people of England and Germany are discriminated against the same as the Jewish people of the United States, or whether the United States is singled out for different treatment? Mr. Parsons. No; the United States is not singled out for different treatment, so far as the general matter of passports is concerned. England unsuccessfully protested against the construction put upon its treaty. I wish to call your attention to one thing to show what Congress did on an analogous matter, the matter of expatriation. Russia never has agreed to the principle of expa- triation — that is, that a Russian subject could come over here and become a natm-al- TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 277 - ized American citizen without the consent of his own Government — and we passed an act of Congress, July 27, 1868, in which we set forth the fundamental principles about the right of expatriation, and we incorporated those in sections 1999 to 2001 of the Revised Statues, and I will just read those because I think they show that in that matter we acted and would not allow any interference with our principles. Section 1999 of the Revised Statutes says: "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the piusuit of happi- ness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship ; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign States, owing allegiance to the Governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disallowed: Therefore, any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decisionof any oflficer of the United States, which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the funda- mental principles of the Republic. "Sec. 2000. All naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign countries, are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to native-born citizens. "Sec. 2001. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign Government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that Government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrong- ful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen; and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall, as soon as practicable, be communicated by the President to Congress." We can pass a law, and this joint resolution would be a law, that embodied the principle involved in this matter in the law, just as we passed the law which embodied the principle of the right of expatriation in the law. Those are the two reasons. As long as we remain tied, then we are faithless to the proposition that all American citizens are to be treated everywhere without regard to their religious beliefs. Now, this is an American question, not a Jewish question. Of course, we hear about it from our Jewish brethern, because it is their Americanism which first feels the insult; but it is an insult also to the Americanism of every one of us. Suppose, for instance, that this discrimination was against Presbyterians, such as Brother Bennet and I are, do you suppose that the Presbyterians of this country would stand for a treaty which allowed discrimination against them on the ground of their religious belief? I think our Jewish brethern have been exceedingly patient and long-suffer- ing in this matter, and it is our blame, our shame, that nothing has been done; and therefore I introduced this resolution, believing that we could do something new, could do something affirmative, and that to speak by action where words had failed would pave the way to accomplishing something, and consequently that we could only be true to our fundamental principles of the right of American citizens to equal treatment at home and abroad without regard to their religious beliefs by getting rid of a treaty to which we were tied and which the other side said entitled it to discrimi- nate against American citizens on the ground of their religious belief. Now, I wish to submit, if I may, as a part of my remarks the resolution which was unanimously adopted at the meeting of the Council of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, held at the Hotel Astor in the city of New York on January 19, 1911, and referred to the executive board for transmission to the President of the United States and to Congress. (See p. 54, supra.) In that connection I ask to have printed as a part of the hearing the address deliv- ered by Mr. Louis Marshall on "Russia and the American Passport," before the Council of American Hebrew Congregations in New York, on Thursday, January 19, 1911, and I asked Mr. Marshall, who was one of those invited to the White House yesterday by the President, to forego his appointments in New York to-day and to appear before the committee and state his views on that matter. I know from the standing which Mr. Marshall has as a citizen, as a lawyer, and as a Jew, that whatever he says, speaking for the Jews and speaking for Americans, can be taken at its face value . Mr. Hitchcock. You favor the passage of this resolution even though it deprives Russia of no benefits whatever, and it deprives the United States of some benefits now derived under the existing treaty? Mr. Parsons. I would. I think it is a question of the rights of man against any other rights that may be involved here, and they would be only commercial rights, and 278 TEKMINATIOlSr OF THE TEBATY OF 1832. I think this is a test whether we are going to be true to our best traditions or whether we are not. Mr. Hitchcock. I take it from what you say that you think the effect will only be a moral effect and that Russia will not really lose anything by the abrogation of this treaty? Mr. Parsons. But in the course of time, as civilization advances and as liberalism grows in Russia, there is bound to be a new condition of affairs. The time will cer- tainly come when American Jews will be allowed to travel in Russia. It will come sooner if we make the demand, and make it by saying that we will not be a party to any treaty which does not entitle them to equal treatment. Mr. Flood. How long have the Jewish people been discriminated against? Mr. Marshall. Thirty years. Mr. Parsons. It is longer than that. Secretary Blaine, in an elaborate letter that he wrote to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, on July 29, 1881, said: "From this time down," he gives a history of the attitude of Russia toward the Jews, showing that in the reign of Catherine the Jews were invited to come into Russia.. "From this time down," he refers to the time from 1817 down to 1860, "I can find no trace of the enforce- ment, especially against American citizens, of the restrictions against Jewish travel and residence which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia was signed." Russia has claimed that she had restrictions against the Jews in 1832, when the treaty was signed. Secretary Blaine goes on: "It is a significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private international law, writing during this period upon the legislation of all Europe as affecting the persons and rights of aliens, make no reference to such disabilities." Then he goes on and calls attention to the case of Theodore Rosenstrauss, which started by a letter from Mr. Jewell, our minister to Russia, December 15, 1873; so the controversy dates back to then. I would like to read just what Secretary of State Blaine said: "I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties with foreign states for the equal protection of all classes of Ameri- can citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination between thein, whatever be their origin or creed." And he says, quoting the President — he is writing this letter to Mr. Foster, our minister: "That if, after a frank comparison of the views of the two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest desire to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations between the United States and Russia are found insufficient to determine questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two countries that these stipulations should be made sufficient m these regards; and that we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which Russia professes toward us than a frank dec- laration of her readiness to come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and generous spirit." That was written very nearly 30 years ago, and he says further: "You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their religious faith." I will be glad to answer any further questions which may suggest themselves, if I am able to. Mr. Ames. Do you know whether other countries have similar treaties with Russia, alons: the same lines that we have? Mr. Parsons. In our diplomatic correspondence it is stated in one place that this same Article I exists in Russia's treaties with Germany and England, and in another place the correspondence says that their treaty stipulations are not as favorable on the subject as ours are. I have heard it suggested, but about this I am not sure, that to-day Russia allows rich German Jewish bankers to go into Russia, but as to whether that is so or not I can not speak with any authority. I inquired at the State Department and was told that they did not know that to be a fact. Mr. LowDEN. The charge is that they do not simply discriminate against people of the Jewish faith who were once their subjects, but also against people who were never their subjects? Mr. Parsons. Exactly. Herman Rosenstrauss, whose case arose in 1882, was a native of Wurttemberg, and so I suppose was his brother, whose case arosein 1873. It does not make any difference where they come from, they are all discriminated against. Mr. LowDEN. That is a clear violation of the treaty? TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 279 Mr. Parsons. Yes, sir. , Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. They stop them at the frontier? Mr. Parsons. Yes, sir; they stop them at the frontier. Of course you can not go into Russia unless your passport is viseed before you reach the frontier, and you can not get your passport viseed. The result is that when you get to the frontier you come back, if you are foolish enough to start. There is one instance in the cor- respondence where they expelled an American Jew from St. Petersburg and he tried to get out of Russia, and they said that while he was expelled from St. Petersburg he could not get out of Russia unless his passport was viseed. Mr. LowDEN. Of course, the Russian Government has never admitted the right of expatriation? Mr. Parsons. That is an interesting matter. I understand that the situation in regard to that in Russia is that in the new penal code which was enacted in 1903 expatriation is no longer treated as a crime, but that no edict of the Czar has yet been promulgated which brings into effect that portion of the new code. Now, I do not know just how they do things there, but a Russian lawyer, now an American citi- zen, who follows those things very closely, gave me the foregoing as the facts. Thus Russia has not yet acknowledged the right of expatriation, but has come very close to it. The document on citizenship published a few years ago by the State Depart- ment said that Russia did not recognize the right of expatriation. STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS MARSHALL, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. Marshall. First of all, I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Parsons for what he has done in this matter. It is a fine exhibition of American citizenship, and I am sure that the members of the committee, when they come to consider the question in its entirety, the history of it, and what it means — not to the Jews, but to the entire American people — will be rejoiced at the fact that Mr. Par- sons has had the patriotism to present this resolution for their consideration. I am a Jew by religion. I am one of 2,000,000 Jews who live in this country, but I would not raise my voice for an instant in the Halls of Congress for the purpose of asking any special favors to the Jewish people. My only reason for coming here is because I am an American citizen, and because I glory in that citizenship, I desire that there shall be no taint or stain inflicted upon its integrity. Mr. Parsons has well said that this is not a Jewish question; it is an American ques- tion. I should deplore the day when there should ever arise a Jewish, a Catholic, or a Protestant question in the United States. We can never suffer any questions here concerning individual rights but such as relate to the entire American people. The resolutions which have been read here were adopted at the council of the union of American Hebrew congregations held in the city of New York in January last. They sound no Jewish note. They were not passed because the members of the council spokeas representatives of the Jews, but because, gathered as they were as a body of American citizens, they sought merely to call attention to a grievance which had been inflicted, not upon them, but upon the entire American people. Let us see what the situation is. In 1832 our Government, then not so powerful as it is to-day, entered into a treaty with the Russian Government, a treaty of com- merce and navigation, a treaty which was intended to give a mutuality of rights to the people of the two countries in each other's territory. That treaty was a contract; it was not a unilateral contract, but throughout its provisions, and especially in the first article, there breathes but one thought — that of the mutuality of obligation and of right. The two nations are spoken of as the "high contracting parties." There can be no such thing as a contract except one based upon the mutuality of right and of consideration. In that clause occurs also the expression which has now become music to our ears — the idea of reciprocity. It is stated to be a reciprocal binding agreement between the two nations. It is inconceivable that the United States of America should have entered into a contract with another nation upon the theory that it was giving everything and receiving nothing; that it was giving to Russian citizens the right to travel and sojourn in United States territory, whereas American citizens were to have that right minus; that they were to .have that right with respect to a certain portion of the American people but not as to all; that the right was to be conferred upon those who were of one faith, but not upon those who were of other faiths. It is impossible to believe that an exception was written into that treaty by the hand of James Buchanan, who was then the minister plenipotentiary at the court of St. Petersburg, who negotiated it, or that it was adopted by the Senate of the United States, that the rights conferred should exist in favor of all citizens of the United States except its citizens of the Jewish faith. If such a proposition were made to-day- — were a new treaty to be entered 280 TEKMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. into with Russia — there is not one Member of the Senate who would not stand aghast at the suggestion, nor would there be a single Member of the House whose blood would not boil with indignation at the very thought. Mr. Hitchcock. May I submit a question? Mr. Marshall. Certainly. Mr. Hitchcock. Suppose Manchuria should become a part of Russia and the citizens of Manchuria should become Russian citizens, what right would we have to exclude them? Mr. Marshall. We would have no right to exclude the citizens of Manchuria who were to come to this country for temporary travel and sojourn. Mr. Hitchcock. Although Mongolians? Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. TJnder our treaty with China we recognize the right of merchants to come to this country to trade and conduct business, those who come with {)assports. Our Chinese-exclusion act only relates to those who come to this country or the purpose of making it their home. Mr. Cooper. We discriminate against them because of their different race. This is a different religion. Our Constitution says nothing about the race, but we can not make any discrimination against different religions. Mr. Marshall. I wish to say in that connection that there are some Jews who say they are Jews because of race. I am not one of those to whom the racial idea is of importance. I do not know what "race" means, and I defy anybody to tell me what is the accurate meaning of "race." The modern writers on ethnology have subdi- vided the people of the earth into some 70 different races. The old idea of Blumen- bach that there are only five races has been long since exploded. But my brethren are all Jews by religion. This exclusion from Russia of American Jews, as stated in a recent dispatch, is based entirely on the theory of a religious test, not of a racial test. Mr. Parsons. May I suggest that they ask the question, "What is your religion?" Mr. Marshall. And not "What is your race?" Mr. Bennet. And an American-born Jew has many less rights in Russia than a Chinese merchant has in the United States. Mr. Marshall. Certainly. Mr. Bennet. He can not eriter the door. Mr. Marshall. If you want instances, I can multiply instances which will satisfy you on that point. Mr. Parsons. May I suggest, in answer to the question by Mr. Hitchcock, that this question of the right to travel should not be* confounded with the question of the right of immigration? Mr. Marshall. Not at all. Mr. Parsons. We admit that every country has the right to say who shall come there to live, but all civilized countries admit those who are travelers to come and travel in their country. Mr. Marshall. That only relates to temporary sojourn. It does not refer to resi- dence, not to the right of permanent immigration. That is entirely beside this ques- tion. This is wholly a question of our rights under a treaty which makes no exception of any class of people based on race or creed or religion to travel and sojourn in Russia, the exclusion of these people being frankly stated by Russia to be on the ground of religion. I do not like to consider personal matters, but will nevertheless do so for purposes of illustration. I was born in this country, my wife was bom here, her mother was bom here; my children were bom in this country. My parents and my wife's father were bom in Germany. None of us, so far as I have any trace, has ever placed a foot on Russian soil. If my children should desire to-morrow, for purposes of business or for any other legitimate object, to visit Russia they would go to the State Department of the United States and there receive a passport, bearing the great seal of the United States, certi- fying to their citizenship and to. their equality before the law of the United States. Yet they would be warned that "even though this passport is extended to you, and the flag of our country is supposed to be your aegis of protection, you must first secure the vise to this passport from the Russian ambassador or from some Russian consul." If my sons should then call on the Russian representative, the first question that would be asked of them would be, "What is your religion?" If they should answer, as I hope they and their descendants may for generations to come, "I am a Jew by religion," they would be told : ' ' You can not enter Russia, although the United States of America certifies to your loyalty as a citizen, although your parents for two generations have been Americans and have sought to do their duty to their country, you can not enter the door of Russia." And if my son should point to this treaty, the Government of the United States would say, as it is bound to say, and as has been said by the lips of some of the greatest statesmen who have been in charge of its affairs of state: " It is true that this treaty makes no exception which excludes you from its benefits. It is true that TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 281 Russia has made a contract with us which is mutual and reciprocal in its obligations and which gives the right of sojourn and travel in Russia to any and all American citizens, yet we are powerless to act. While this treaty that gives you this right has been broken and flouted and dishonored by Russia, we must nevertheless swallow the insult, and you, with thousands of others who have gone before you, and who will follow you, who have asked the unqualified enjoyment of the rights held by you in common with all American citizens, must continue to bear the sufferings which it has been the fate of your people to bear from generation to generation. Russia's insults must be borne in patience. We must rely on its magnanimity." Although it is of no possible importance, still it can be shown that Russia's attitude affects our country commercially, if it is proper to discuss commerce in this connec- tion. _ Mr. Horowitz is president of the Thompson-Starrett Co., one of the greatest building companies in the United States. At the age of 35 years, by his energy and intelligence, he has attained that high position. That company, under his super- vision, built the magnificent Pennsylvania Station, which is an ornament to this city. A few years ago, learning that the Russian Government was about to build a similar station ia St. Petersburg, his company thought that it might be desirable for him to go to Russia to make an investigation in order, if possible, to obtain the contract. He applied to the State Departnient for a passport and received it. He then asked Judge Penfield, one of the distinguished lawyers of this city, to procure the approval of that passport from the Russian ambassador at Washington, it being necessary for him in the meantime to go to England to attend to business which he had there. The representative of the Russian Government, although he learned of the purpose of Mr. Horowitz, set his face against the granting of the passport, with the consequence that American trade and industry was indirectly affected by the exclusion of this estimable gentleman. I could poiat out for a day similar instances, but I prefer to plant myself upon the higher considerations which affect this question — on the senti- mental considerations. It "would be a sorry day for this country if wholesome senti- ment should cease to control in matters of this kind, and when we would have to regard the right of citizenship from the hard, material, commercial side or from the standpoint of mere expediency. There has been but one interpretation placed upon this treaty by the United States from the beginning. It is impossible to give it any interpretation other than that which we have given to it, namely, that there can be no discrimination as against any class of American citizens, nor, in fact, any classification of citizens. It cannot be done without a serious reflection upon the honor of our country and without involv- ing the great charge that the Government of the United States, in permitting or regard- ing such discrimination with equanimity, becomes a party to an unconstitutional agreement — one based on a distinction as to creed; one based upon a religious test, and I shudder at the thought that such a consideration should ever enter the mind of any member of our Government. The general rules of interpretation applicable to treaties are well known and are settled bv the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Justice Field, in Geofro-v v. Riggs (133 U. S., 271), says: _ "It is a general principle of construction with respect to treaties that they shall be liberally construed, so as to carry out the apparent intention of the parties to secure equality and reciprocity between them. As they are contracts between independent nations, in their construction words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning as understood in the public law of nations, and not in any artificial or special sense impressed upon them by local law unless such restricted sense is clearly intended. And it has been held by this court that where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive of rights that may be claimed under it and the other favorable to them, the latter is to be preferred." Treaties, as said also by the Supreme Court of the United States in Tucker v. Alexan- droff (183 U. S., 424), are to be considered as governed by the doctrine of uberrima fides, as proceeding on the utmost good faith and as based on the honor of the contract- ing parties. We of the United States look at this treaty with our eyes and not with Russian eyes. We are to construe it as we must have understood it and should understand it. We must read it without implanting upon it an exception which would involve disgrace upon our country. We must give to it that favorable interpretation which the Consti- tution requires that all members of the State must be treated alike without any excep- tions in favor or against any of them. That interpretation of the courts has been the interpretation placed by both of the great political parties of this country upon this very treaty. They have spoken upon it time and again in their platforms, which rec- ognize the existence of a great grievance — one of sufficient importance to challenge the attention of the voters of the Nation. The only occasion for writing these clauses into 282 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. the two platforms of the great political parties, both in 1904 and 1908, was this mooted question of the Russian disregard of its treaty — -of the stain placed by it on American citizenship. * ■ * * * * * * When both political parties are in accord on this question and have both recognized the necessity of action to heal this one sore spot in the relations of our Nation with other countries, it is time for the House of Representatives to speak upon that subject in no uncertain tone. It ceases to be a question affecting the Jews of this country, because when one citizen is insulted by a foreign nation each of the 90,000,000 of our people is equally insulted . The insult is not reflected on individuals, but it is imposed on every member of the Nation. If your wife or your son is insulted, you consider the insult as aimed and leveled at you. If your State, if your country, if your city is insulted, you take umbrage at it, not personally, but as a citizen of the community to which you belong. And so I say that if discrimination is indulged in against any members of the State on account of their faith, the real injury is an injury inflicted upon American citizenship and not upon the individual, he sinks into insignificance. Mr. Parsons has well said that if this question related to an insult to a Presbyterian, you would simply feel that an insult had been inflicted not upon the Presbyterian as such, but upon him as a representative, as a part, of the American people. The same would be true with regard to a Catholic, or a Methodist, or an Episcopalian, a man of any other faith, or a man of no faith. In fact, Russia is now disregarding the passports of Catholic priests who are citizens of the United States. If in the United States we should discriminate against a Greek Catholic who is a citizen of Russia, the wrong would be inflicted upon the Russian people. If Russia should say that no ma^n who is a resident of the State of Virginia, or of the State of New York, or who resides east of the Mississippi or west of the Mississippi, or north or south of the Ohio River, should be admitted into Russia, we would not consider such action as affecting the East or the West, the North or the South. We would treat it as an insult inflicted upon the entire body of American citizens. I do not suppose, therefore, that any Member of the House of Representatives would for a moment consider this as a subject which especially concerns the Jew. He must deal with it as one which concerns every part and every section of our body politic. Shall this state of affairs continue? Shall we allow this treaty to be disregarded in the future as it has been in the past? Shall the House of Representatives say, "We will continue to make diplomatic representations to Russia; possibly something may come of it?" Why, these diplomatic negotiations have been going on actively for the last 30 years. Even in the days when Grover Cleveland was President of the United States, in one of his messages to Congress he declared that the conditions which then existed were intolerable; and yet we continue to tolerate them. Mr. Blaine, in 1881, used the language which has been read by Mr. Parsons, and in that same note, which he addressed to Mr. Foster, he said: "From the time when the Treaty of 1832 was signed, down to a very recent period, there has been nothing in our relations with Russia to lead to a supposition that our flag did not carry with it equal protection to every American citizen within the domain of the Empire." That forceful statesman then said that we must take immediate action to prevent the continuance of the abuse, which was then about to assume an acute form. He was followed by Mr. Olney on the same lines, and he in turn was followed by one statesman after another, who reiterated the same proposition; and thus for 30 years these negotiations have been going on, and we have not advanced one step. Adminis- tration follows administration in the thorny path of diplomacy. They all begin with the earnest desire of securing relief, but they are speedily sidetracked. Russia is persistent in setting its face against a recognition of this treaty, and in the meantime is working up a statute of limitations in favor of itself. It is beginning to argue, ' ' You have been silent for so many years. Rights have in the meantime accrued under this treaty as construed by us. It is now too late to make a change without endangering certain interests." A statute of limitations against the honor of American citizenship. Well, we have tried and we have tried negotiations of a diplomatic nature, and those negotiations will proceed until the crack of doom, and no impression will be made upon the impervious cuticle of the Russian statesmen who have these negotiations in charge. I prophesy that we will continue these negotiations interminably, and that with each year the conscience of America on this subject will grow fainter and fainter, until gradually we will read into this treaty an acquiescence in the Russian doctrine of discrimination among citizens and of a discrimination against men by reason of their faith. The only remedy lies in the abrogation of the treaty. Mi'. Cooper of Wisconsin. Mr. Marshall, let me ask you one question. As I under- stand it, yom* desire is now that this treaty be by Congress immediately abrogated? TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 283 Mr. Marshall. Instantly; that is, according to the terms of the treaty, that notice be given. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. One year's notice? Mr. Marshall. One year's notice. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Then after that has happened do you desire that nego- tiations shall be undertaken? Mr. Marshall. I shall be very glad to see the department negotiate a new treaty. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Is it your hope that this protest, attracting, as it would, world-wide attention to what is considei'ed in civilized countries everywhere to-day an outrage, would arouse a world-wide public opinion? Mr. Marshall. It would inevitably do so. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. And the greatest force in the world to-day is Mr. Marshall. Public opinion. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Public opinion? Mr. Marshall. Yes; precisely — public opinion. We feel that if the voice of America is once more raised in favor of human rights, of equality of all men before the law, then it will become known that American public opinion can not be Rus- sianized, and that Russia will have to respond to that call as much as any nation in the world. Mr. Ames. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Marshall a question. Do you feel that in abrogating this treaty we would pierce the epidermis of the Russian states- men at all? Mr. Marshall. Morally, yes; because even Russia can not withstand the public opinion of the world when directed against her. Mr. Ames. As a practical proposition, do you not think it would be more efficacious if there were a rider attached to the maximum and minimum clause of our tariff, if that could be done, making that a matter of commercial interest to Russia, and that they would be more likely to feel that pressure than to feel the pressure of public opinion? Mr. Marshall. That may be another step. Mr. Parsons and I disagree in one particular. I have asked from time to time, and I have asked in this address which has been read into your record, that every treaty with Russia should instantly cease, both the treaty of 1832 and the treaty of 1887, with reference to extradition, under which treaty JRussia certainly reaps benefits while we have a comparatively small interest in it. Under the treaty of 1887 Russia has been reaching out its hand across the water for the purpose of seizing political offendecgand taking them to Russia. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Let me suggest right herelhat the proposition advanced by Mr. Ames, if it v/ere adopted, would amount to saying to the world this: "You now exclude men because of their religious faith. If you keep on doing that, we will put up a high tariff against you." Mr. Marshall. Yes. Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. And Russia will say, "All right; put up your high tariff. We will keep on excluding them." Then it amounts to this, that we are willing to place ourselves in the position of putting the dollar above the man. Mr. Marshall. I am very glad to hear that expression, because Mr. Parsons. May I just make an answer to that, too, which will cover the question as to what the effect will be? Our principal imports from Russia are furs, and they come in — a large measure of our impo/ts come in — free of duty. I am afraid that we would be biting off our noses to spite oiu" faces if we put a clause in the tariff to seek to reach the object in that way. If you wish, I can just briefly give you some figures as to what the effect would be. Incidentally, I would say that Russia would be harmed commercially by the abroga- tion of the treaty, if she interpreted that to mean that thereby we had lost the most- favored-nation rights, because then the retaliatory clause of the Payne law would come into effect, and her $9,000,000 of free imports — that is what they amounted to in 1909— would have to pay a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, and the $2,000,000 of her dutiable imports would have to pay an additional daty of 25 per cent ad valorem. Mr. Ames. Would it not create a class of men in Russia who would be anxious to see the treaty lived up to? As it is, who is there in Russia who is primarily interested in seeing that the provisions are lived up to? Mr. Parsons. Well, there is a great liberal element in Russia at the present time, somewhat submerged, but bound to have its voice heard some time, and Russia can not withstand the pressure of public opinion from a great country like the United States on a matter which involves human rights, because the pressure from within would become dangerous. Mr. Bennet. After the massacre of Bialystock this Congress, on a resolution intro- duced by the late Senator McLaurin, and put through the Congress, deplored the fact 284 TEEMIISTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. of the massacres of Bialystock and Sedlitz, and I am not sure that there has ever been a major pogrom in Russia since. The British Parliament also followed that, and I think the highest legislative body of one other European Government; so that there is a liberal sentiment in Russia which is reached by actions such as this. Mr. Marshall. Not only that, but there is selfish interest on the part of Russia in that respect. Russia does not wish to be isolated from the rest of the world. Mr. Parsons. If you wish to realize the spirit that pervades a large element of the Russian people — the non-Jewish element — ^in favor of more liberal treatment of the Jews, read a very remarkable book — ^remarkable when you consider the surround- ings — that came out a few years ago, called "The Memoirs of a Russian Governor," in which this member of the nobility sent down to Bessarabia, Prince Urussof , gives an account of what took place there, and he tells everything except what the Czar said to him before he went down, and there is not much difficulty in implying from the context what the Czar did say to him. Now, that is an illustration of the kind of people there are, and of what the Government there has to tolerate from public opin- ion within her borders, and she is always in danger of being criticised and having trouble made by such people, and of course they are ready to respond the instant they get any encomagement from the outside on the part of a nation which is asserting the rights of men as applied to its own citizens. ******* Mr. Marshall. The question, therefore — the practical question — comes down to this, as I was about to say, that while I should like to see all treaties between Russia and America abrogated, that which Russia wishes most — the extradition treaty, as well as the treaty of 1832 — shall we not at least give notice of the termination of the treaty of 1832? Although nobody can say what would happen as a result of such action, and pos- sibly nothing might happen, still there is ground for belief that before that treaty is finally terminated advances would be made by Russia to meet us in solving the problem in which we are so greatly concerned by recognizing, in so many words, so that there will be no room for misinterpretation by Russia, that every citizen of the United States is to be placed on a basis of equality. But whether immediate results follow or not, one thing is certian, that Russia will not be willing to stand in a posi- tion of isolation, based as our action would be on the noble sentiments expressed in the pending resolution. It is not founded on considerations of business or of com- merce. It is not on any question which relates to the dollar, but, as has been well said by one of your number, the man is placed above the dollar, and this country not only raises its voice in protest, but it also raises its hand against a treaty which has been so interpreted by Russia as to put a taint upon American citizenship. If this treaty is abrogated we are not losing anything in consequence of that abro- gation. I do not believe that Russia will turn out anybody whom it now admits who is armed with an American passport because the treaty has been abrogated. If it does, then let us know it. Then there will be time for retaliation in other respects. Then we can begin to consider what we can do in the direction of reprisals. I hope the time will never come when that shall become necessary. I would rather have this country stand in tha position of saying, "Let every Russian come to the United States no matter who he may be, no matter what his faith, even though Russia does not receive a single American within its boundaries; but we shall not tolerate the idea of being a party to a treaty, and of recognizing as if in force a treaty which carries with it the imputation that we recognize any such vicious principle as Russia insists upon reading into it." It is in that recognition that the harm exists. We are therefore ten times better off, a hundr-^dfold better off, without any treaty with Russia than we would be with a treaty which Russia has been consistently disregarding for over 30 years, and which not only is being disregarded by Russia, but which is insidiously undermining our American consciousness and the public appraisal of the value of American citizenship. * * * There is much more to be said on this subject. Mr. Parsons has kindly had my address put into your minutes, which I greatly appre- ciate. In that address I try dispassionately, and from the standpoint of an American citizen, to consider the treaty — its provisions, its interpretations, its history — and use arguments, some of which I have enlarged upon here, as to the consequences of an abrogation of the treaty. I would consider it a proud day, not for the Jews alone — ■ I eliminate them entirely from consideration here — but a proud day for American citizenship, if Congress should adopt in the words in which it has been framed, this resolution of Mr. Parsons. The world would once more be informed that there is some- thing in America which is higher than materialism; that we are still true to the ideals of the fathers of the Republic, and that the rights of man, as they are the foundation of our Government, are also the proudest jewel in its crown. TEBMIIsrATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 285 Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman, I think that all the information that the committee can want has been furnished. I have no doubt that there are a number of Members of the House who would be glad to appear and speak in behalf of the resolution, and I have also received notice from some societies that they would like to be heard; but it is toward the end of the session, and I do not want to trespass on the time of the committee. If the committee, however, needs any more enlightenment we will have plenty to furnish them. On February 22, 1911, Hon. Francis Burton Harrison, of New York, appeared before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and made the following statement: Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear in favor of the Parsons resolution calling for a denunciation of the treaty of comity and com- merce with Russia of 1832. Gentlemen who have been on this committee in a previous Congress are aware that it is not a perfectly new subject, that in a resolution offered by Mr. Goldfogle, of New York, in the Sixtieth Congress, section 2 of that resolution called for a denunciation of the treaty with Russia, if it were to appear upon further representations by the President to Russia that we would no longer tolerate the dis- crimination between American citizens on the ground of religious faith, if it were to appear after such announcement by the President that this discrimination still con- tinued, thereupon the President was requested to denounce the treaty with Russia. I understand that the Parsons resolution calls in unqualified terms for the denuncia- tion of this treaty. * * * I am in favor of Mr. Parsons's resolution, that the treaty of 1832 provided that the reciprocal rights given to the subjects of Russia and to citizens of the United States permitted all citizens of the United States while in Russia to enjoy the same rights and privileges that the subjects of Russia had. At that time, I think it is fair to say, there was no considerable body of Jews in the United States, and also it is fair to say that there were practically no persecutions of the Jews in Russia. In other words, the Jewish question was not a live one in 1832. It is evident to me from studying the history of these negotiations that the Jewish question was not in the minds of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty of 1832. Had it been in their minds, I am confident that any Secretary of State who negotiated a treaty which per- mitted even a misconstruction of this nature by Russia would, with his administration, have been driven from power with the contumely and scorn of the whole United States. The Russians have invented this pretext, based upon their construction of this treaty. According to this pretext they have the right to discriminate between American citizens because American citizens are to have only the same rights that Jewish sub- jects have, but we had not any such situation as that in mind when the treaty was negotiated, and from the beginning have uniformly denied the right of Russia to make this discrimination, have denied the correctness of that interpretation of the treaty of 1832, and have maintained that all American citizens must be treated alike, without regard to their religious faith. Mr. Garner. May I interrupt you? Mr. Harrison. Certainly. Mr. Garner. What can be done by the denunciation of the treaty any more than the mere suggestion that we do not agree that there should be any discrimination against American citizens? Mr. Harrison. The negotiation of a new treaty would be the result of that step, and in that new treaty the rights of American citizens would be properly protected, and it is on that account that I respectfully urge upon this committee the passage of the Parsons resolution. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK. Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Harrison very correctly remarked that this question is not new either to this committee or to Congress. In 1902 I introduced a resolution calling upon the Secretary of State to Inform the House whether such discriminations as have been stated to this com- mittee to exist actually existed and wliether Russia refused to honor the passports of American citizens on account of religious faith. The resolution passed. The Secretary of State replied. He officially appeared to Congress that Russia refused to honor or recognize American passports when presented at her gate by Jewish American citizens. In 1904 I introduced another resolution calling on the President of the United States to renew negotiations with Russia to the end that projxer treaty stipulations 286 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. - miglit be obtained from her so that passports would be uniformly honored without regard to the race, religious faith, or creed of the holder. In August, 1904, in accord- ance with the resolution that had passed the House some months before, Secretary Hay communicated with Mr. McCormick, our ambassador at St. Petersburg. The correspondence that passed between the Secretary of State and Mr. McCormick and between Mr. McCormick and the imperial minister of the Czar in Russia appears in the papers relating to foreign relations of 1904. I would like to have them, with the consent of this committee, printed in the record. I do, however, desire to read one passage from the letter of Mr. McCormick conveying the text of the resolution to the Russian Government. The ambassador says : "This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle which lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the ques- tion has been, is, and always will be a live question with us and liable to become acute and be brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the friendly relations which have always existed between Russia and the United States." ******* Mr. Flood. You have delivered several addresses in the House of Representatives which, I tljink, throw a good deal of light on this subject and, with your consent, I would be glad if you would incorporate those addresses in this hearing. Mr. GoLDPOGLE. I thank Mr. Flood for that very kind suggestion, and will submit, if it meets with the views of the committee, some of the remarks that I have made in the House on the subject we are now considering. The addresses to which Mr. Flood has referred contain extracts from letters of Mr. Evarts, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Gresham, and, I think, some other of our former Secretaries of State, interpreting the treaty of 1832. As Mr. Harrison has stated, Russia does not agree with our interpretation, and therein lies the difficulty. Now, to continue the history of congressional action on this subject: In 1909 the matter was again brought before Congress when the joint resolution was introduced by me. It is the one referred to by my colleague, Mr. Harrison. I desire that the House joint resolution be printed in the hearings. (See American Jewish Year- book, 5670, p. 37.) The Committee on Foreign Affairs considered that joint resolution and reported it with an amendment. I observe from the printed hearings thus far on this subject that an error in stating the joint resolution and an omission as to its passage in both Houses has occurred. It was stated in the addenda to the remarks of Mr. Parsons that the joint resolution had passed the House of Representatives, leaving the infer- ence that the resolution had not passed the Senate nor been approved by the President. That is a mistake. The resolution, without any preamble, passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by the President on the 4th day of March, 1909. I submit, BO it may be printed in the record, a copy of the joint resolution as it passed Congress. (Ibid., p. 38.) Mr. Bennet. As I understand, my colleague has had the honor of having all the resolutions he has introduced on this subject reported and passed, except as to the last one, where the second section was stricken out? Mr. GoLDFOGLE. Yes, sir; and the second section of the joint resolution of 1909, as it was introduced, read: "That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the Russian Government with such demand and insistence, and that upon the failure of the Russian Government to abide by its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States and to comply with said demand the President of the United States shall give notice under and pursuant to article 12 of the treaty between the United States and the Emperor of all the Russias, ratified on the 11th day of May, in the year 1832, of the intention of the United States to arrest the operation of said treaty, and thereupon, pursuant to such official notificatiun and at the period fixed after giving such official notification under said article 12, the said treaty and convention between the United States and Russia shall be deemed ended and determined." The President has, I understand, taken the matter up and is proceeding under the joint resolution. It is deplorable that Russia dishonors the American passport when its holder is a Jew. It matters not to Russia whether the holder of the passport be a native or a naturalized citizen of our country; in either case Russia refuses to vise the passport, however eminent or respectable our citizen may be, basing her refusal upon the ground of the religious faith of the holder. This is an affront, not to the citizen alone who holds the passport, but to our Government who issues it. The persistency of Russia in declining to heed the repeated requests of our Government to do away with her discriminatory treatment of our citizens calls upon us as a self-respecting Nation to take such action as will tend to compel Russia to respect the integrity of a passport TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 287 issued by our Government to a law-abiding citizen regardless of his religious faith or creed. ^ The question is an American question. It involves the upholding of American principles. When a subject of Russia comes to our country we make no inquiry as to his religious convictions, and, regardless of his creed, whatever it be, we afford him the hospitable shelter of our land and the protection of our laws. Yet, when an American citizen, armed with a passport, bearing the seal of our Government, presents that passport to the Russian authorities he is subjected to an inquiry or inquisition as to his religion, and recognition of our passport is refused when it is found that its holder is an Isrealite. Such a condition has become intolerable; it calls for decided action. It is not only irritating to the very large class of citizens it affects directly, but also to every fair- minded American, who believes, as I do, that the integrity of the American passport must be preserved and upheld. It would not be fair at this time, when each one of us is anxious to go over to the House to attend to the pressing business there, for me to detain the committee longer or to further enlarge upon the subject the resolution before us involves. I shall avail myself of the kind suggestion made by Mr. Flood to insert in the record eome of the remarks that were made by me in the House on various of the resolutions which were passed on. They will give, fully and fairly, my views upon the subject. I thank the committee for its kind attention and consideration. Mr. Bennet. I understand that you favor the Parsons resolution now pending before the committee? Mr. GoLDFOGLE. Yes; I favor the taking of such action as will give Russia dis- tinctly and emphatically to understand that America will no longer tolerate her imfair and unjust discrimination. Mr. Bennet. You think that the treaty should be abrogated? Mr. GoLDPOGLE. I think the treaty ought to be terminated if the President finds, after continuing his negotiations, that he can not succeed in getting Russia to uni- formly recognize the American passport. I want to say in justice of President Taft that I believe he has acted earnestly and energetically under the joint resolution that was passed in 1909. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. GRAHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, I think it a great blot on our national reputation that we should have, with any nation, a pact which recognizes a distinction between our citizens on the grounds of religion or race. It seems to me to be rare inconsistency. Our Constitution recognizes the equality of all our citizens before the law and prohibits Congress from enacting any laws preferring one religion to another. But in this treaty with Russia the Government claims the treaty of 1832 means that American Jews shall have only such rights in Russia as are accorded by that Government to its own citizens of that faith. The result of this interpretation is that American citizens of the Jewish faith are practically prohibited from visiting or traveling in that country at all. American Secretaries of State and diplomats have repeatedly endeavored to induce the Russian Government to abandon this construction of the treaty, but without avail. Indeed, it seems useless to longer hope for any change in the attitude of that Govern- ment. What, then, should this Government do in the premises? Should we continue as a willing party to a treaty which, as the other party interprets it, is a repudiation of our own fundamental law? Shall we, by assisting to its continued enforcement, put ourselves in the absurd position of consenting to a discrimination against some of our citizens by a foreign Government because of their religious opinions? Surely we can not afford to do that. And since we are unable to get Russia to give the treaty a construction which will make it conform to the Constitution, we can at least save our self-respect and our respect for the Constitution by terminating the treaty altogether. We can not longer afford to be put in the discreditable position of assenting to the view that some American citizens, because of their religious opinions, are not entitled to the protection of the Constitution. _ If we can not induce Russia to consent to grant to American Jews an equality of rights with other American citizens who sojourn in that country, we can at least with- draw from the treaty arrangement and reduce the rights of all our citizens who desire to visit Russia to the same level. It is quite unnecessary, and indeed quite beside the question, to remind you that men of the Jewish faith constitute a very important element of our population, and reach 21270—11 19 288 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. the highest eminence in business, in law, in medicine — -indeed in all lines of activity — for it is not alone the prominent and successful that the Constitution was ordained to protect. It reaches the poorest and the lowliest as well as the richest and most power- ful, and that it should be a reality, a living, vital force should be the determination of every American. Some day the proud boast of the Roman will be realized in America, and the man who can say, " I am an American citizen," will have a respectful consideration of his rights in any civilized land. The arrival of that day will be hastened by the termination of this shameful pact. Appendix 4. the united states passport and russia.^ It is the practice throughout the civilized world of one who contemplates leaving his country temporarily, either for business or pleasure, to sectue from his government a passport which, giving a description of the bearer, declares him to be a citizen of the country whose passport he bears and entitled to all the rights of such a citizen. It will doubtless be sm'prising to many to learn that when an American citizen makes application to our State Department for a passport to Russia he receives in reply a printed cu'cular which contains the following statement: "The laws of Russia also exclude fi'om Russian territory, except by special permis- sion, all people of the Jewish faith, and while this Government has been endeavoring for years to secure a relaxation of this restriction, it is only proper to warn those who are in the category to which they refer that it has not been able to secure from the Russian Government uniform treatment for all American travelers in Russia without regard to their religious faith or place of birth." If put on inquiry by this timely warning the Jewish holder of a passport seeks to secure the special permission of the Russian Government to enter Russia by having his passport viseed by a Russian consul, or by some other representative in this coun- try of the Russian Empke, his application is either at once denied or action upon it is postponed from time to time, resulting, if insisted upon, in a denial to grant the permission desired. There are some minor exceptions to this rule. If the holder of the passport be a banker or the head of a commercial house traveling exclusively on commercial busi- ness, he may have his passport visaed on condition that he enters only certain limits of Russian territory and remains for a certain limited period. And in other rare and exceptional cases, after considerable time has elapsed and much humiliation has been endm-ed, he may be permitted for a brief period to enter certain restricted territory. The general rule, however, is that the American passport in the hands of Jewish citizens is not recognized as of any force. In every other nation in the world the American passport is taken at its face value. In Russia, in the hands of a Jewish citizen, it is dishonored paper. It is a principle of international law that as a general rule each nation has the right to determine for itself whom it will admit within its borders, as an individual has the right to determine whom he will admit into his house. In all intercourse between nations, the two nations concerned must settle the terms upon which such intercourse will be permitted. One nation can not force another nation into a treaty of commerce with it any more than one man can force another man into a contract with him. (Woolsey's International Law, sec. 25.) In determining the question, therefore, as to whether Russia, in refusing to admit the American Jew into her territory, is violating any legal obligation, we must examine the treaties between the two countries, and determine from those treaties what the obligation on the part of Russia is with respect to the American passport. Has Russia by treaty agreed to recognize such passports? If she has not, then she is not bound to recognize them. If she has so agreed, then she has broken her obliga- tion and the only remaining question for America to determine is one of remedy. There are a number (perhaps 12) of treaties between this cotmtry and Russia, but the question 1 am examining this evening turns upon the construction of the treaty of 1832, and more particularly upon Article I of that treaty. That article reads as follows: "There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn I A paper by Hon. Rulus B. Smitli read before the Temple Club of Congregation B'nai Israel, Cincin- nati, Apr. 5, 1911. TEBMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 289 and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning com- merce." In determining the construction of this article it is well to bear in mind the rule of construction of treaties declared by the Supreme Coiurt of the United States. ^ ******* It is important, too, to bear in mind in this connection the familiar rule that the language of a contract is to be construed with reference to the smrrounding circum- stances at the time of its execution. We tiu-n now to an inquii-y as to what intention the high contracting parties had in mind to express when Article I, of the treaty of 1832, was drawn. In view of the nature of our Government, the letter of our Constitution, and the spirit of our institutions, it is impossible to doubt for a moment that by Article I, of the treaty of 1832, America intended that the rights granted by that article should extend equally to every citizen of America, without discrimination on account of race, creed, or religion. Absolute freedom of religious belief is one of the corner stones of our Republic. Among the great rights which the people of this Nation possess it ranks among the first; and the spirit of religious freedom has written into our National Constitution two great principles, viz: (1) No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any ofhce or public trust under the United States, and (2) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or permitting the free exercise thereof. It is then simply impossible to believe that in 1832, when the treaty was negotiated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States, that either the President or Senate for a moment entertained the idea that the treaty ga\ e a right to Russia to discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of its religious belief. Every Secretary of State since 1860, when this question first came up for discussion, including Mr. Evarts, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Bayard, and Mr. Olney, have repudiated any such supposed intention upon the part of the United States in executing the treaty of 1832, and have emphatically insisted that it was the intention of the United States in signing the treaty that all citizens of the United States should receive equal treatment under it. In one case, that of Mr. Adolph Kutner, concerning whose religious faith, among other things, the Russian Government made inquiry, Mr. Blaine said: " In reply, the representative of the United States was instructed that in convey ing the inquiry of the imperial office to Mr. Kutner the Department of State found itself un- able to interrogate him as to the religion professed by him, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States prohibits the application of any religious test whatever in respect to our citizens. In dealing with all this class of cases the department has scrupulously abstained from taking official cognizance of the religious faith of any citizen. It can not inquire into it as a fact, and it can neither affirm or deny that an individual holds a particular creed." Neither at the time the treaty was signed nor for a period of nearly 30 years afterwards was the United States ever put upon inquiry as to whether Russia might not give a construction to the treaty different from that given to it by the United States. As is shown in a letter written by Mr. Blaine as Secretary to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, in which he reviews historically the Russian legislation and policy with respect to foreigners entering Russia, the United States had no reason to suspect that a construction would ever be put upon the treaty by Russia by which American citizens of a certain religious belief would be excluded from the protection of the treaty. Furthermore, our own acts under the treaty by which we have granted to every Russian coming into this country all the rights stipulated for in the treaty, irrespective of any creed or religion, are the highest evidence of our construction of the treaty and of our intention in entering into it. Let us examine the treaty now from the Russian point of view. The Russian contention is based mainly upon the language of the latter part of Article I, and the contention is that the inhabitants of each country have only those rights in the other country that the natives of such other country enjoy, and that therefore, as by the laws of Russia the Russian Jews are confined to certain limited territories and certain occupations, and subject to many inquisitorial and persecuting enactments, that an American Jew who goes to Russia is entitled to only these limited rights to which the native Jew is entitled. 1 Judge Smith here quotes the Supreme Court decisions already given in Mr. Marshall's address, ante, p. 78. 290 - TEEMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. In seeking the proper construction of this treaty, in addition to the principles of construction declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, to which I have previously referred, viz, that treaties are to be given a liberal and not a narrow con- struction, and that they should be construed in a spirit of uberrima fides, I wish to direct attention to two other principles of construction applicable to all written instruments: 1. A written instrument must be so construed as to give force and effect to all its parts, so that the instrument when finally read shall be a consistent whole; and 2. An instrument is not to be given a certain construction simply because its lan- guage may be susceptible of such a construction. The true construction of an instru- ment is one that, taking into consideration the language of the instrument, the object in view, and the surrounding circumstances, gives effect to the intention of the parties. In examining Russia's construction of the treaty, it is important to bear in mind the language of Article I. * * . * * * * * The first clause of the article, then, declares that "There shall be between the terri- tories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and naviga- tion." The reciprocal liberty here stipulated for necessarily means that liberty of commerce and navigation are given alike to both parties; and that citizens of the United States have the same liberty of commerce and navigation with respect to Russia that citizens of Russia have"with respect to the United States; and unless modified in other parts of the article or treaty that liberty is necessarily free and with- out restriction. Then follow the two remaining clauses of the article, which undoTibtedlywere intended to make certain the rights granted in the first clause by a more particular definition of them. The first of these two remaining clauses grants to the citizens of each territory the right to enter the territory of the other, and the last clause define their rights in the territory when it has been entered. In the first of these clauses it is declared that "The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have lib- ertv to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted." Here undoubtedly is granted beyond question, without distinction and without discrimination, the right to every citizen of the one territory to enter the territory of the other "wherever foreign commerce is perniitted." Upon what ground then can Russia refuse admission into its territory of citizens of the United States according to any religious test which it may arbitrarily select? Its refusal to allow American citizens of Jewish faith to enter its territory is clearly in violation of the express language of this clause of the treaty. Unable to find any support for its position in the two clauses of Article I, to which I have referred, the" Russian diplomats have made their last stand on the last clause of the article. * * * It will be observed that this clause has no reference to the right of entry into the country; that right is guaranteed in the two precedingclauses. It relates only to the rights of the person after entry has been made. If this clause is taken bv itself, and adherence given to the mere letter of it, aside from the purpose in view when it was drawn, and the permissible intent of our Government, aside from the other and the controlling clauses in the article, aside from the surrounding cir- cumstances at the time the treaty was executed, and aside from the practical con- struction put upon the clause by both parties for a period of 30 years, it might be ar- gued that the clause is susceptible of the construction which Russia puts upon it. But it is impossible to so construe this instrument ignoring the other consideration to which I have just referred and ignoring the rules of construction of written instru- ments and especially of treaties to which I have called attention. The meaning of this clause is perfectly plain. Clauses of similar import are, as a rule, found in all treaties which provide for reciprocal intercourse between countries. They are intended to make the laws of the respective countries applicable in a general way to all who enter the country. The foreigner is not to be above the law of the country into which he may come. If murder or larceny is a crime in such country and he commits murder or larceny, he is a criminal. Contracts made in Russia may be governed bv the Russian law, and the commercial customs and usages of the coiin- try would be applicable. Ordinary health laws or police regulations, so long as they do not interfere with fundamental rights, would be enforceable. Many other illus- trations could be given of this principle, but they are unnecessary ._ But it is a well- settled principle of international law that a local law can not override the obligation of a treaty. If it does, then the treaty is necessarily void, for it is impossible to carry out its provisions. In 1S81 Mr. Blaine, in his letter to Mr. Foster, said: "It would be, in the judgment of this Government, absolutely inadmissible that a domestic law restraining native Hebrews from residence in certain parts of the Empire might operate to hinder an American citizen, whether alleged or known to profess the Hebrew faith, from disposing of his property or taking possession thereof TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 291 for himself (subject only to the laws of alien inheritance), or being heard in person by the courts which, under Russian law, may be called upon to decide matters to which he is necessarily a party. The case would clearly be one in which the obli- gation of a treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it can not be limited by the operation of domestic law without a serious breach of good faith which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional engage- ment in favor of the citizens of another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable." It never could have been the intention of either Eussia or America in the treaty of 1832 that local laws could be passed which by force of the last clause of Article I entirely nullified the first two clauses of th3 same article, and as Russia in 1832 under- stood the great principle of our Government, of the separation of church and state, and the President and Senate could not have forgotten that principle, it is impos- sible to suppose that either contracting party to the treaty of 1832 supposed that either party could deny the privileges of the treaty to the citizens of either country on the ground that their religious faith did not meet the approval of the country into which they sought entrance. * * * Furthermore, it is impossible to reconcile the Russian construction of the last clause of Article I, with the two preceding clauses of the same article. How can there be "reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation" between the territories of the high contracting parties if a large part of the American public, solely on the ground of religious faith, are not permitted to enter the country. And how can this latter clause be used to nullify the American passport on the ground of the religious faith of the holder when the preceding clause expressly declares that "the inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each other, wherever foreign commerce is per- mitted " ? Mr. Blaine in his letter of 1881 to Mr. Foster, the American Minister to Russia, to which I will again refer, has shown, too, that in 1832 the policy of Russia was to invite foreigners into that country, and that policy must have been one of the surrounding circumstances which it is presumed was in the mind of both of the contracting parties at the time the treaty was signed. It is a familiar principle of law that where an ambiguity arises in the terms of a contract the practical construction the parties have put upon the contract carried out continuously for a period of time, beginning with the time of its execution, affords the highest evidence of the intention of the parties at the time it was executed and makes clear a term of the contract, which in the absence of a practical operation under it might be subject to the charge of ambiguity. From 1832 up to 1860, a period of nearly 30 years, no question was raised as to the validity of American passports in Russia. In his letter to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, in 1881, Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, speaking of a period many years prior to 1832, declared that— "From this time (1817) down to 1860 I can find no trace of the enforcement, espe- cially against American citizens, of the construction against Jewish travel and resi- dence which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia Avas signed. It is a significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private international law, writing during this period upon the legislation of all Europe as affecting the persons and rights of aliens, make no reference to such disabilities." Is not this practical construction of the treaty put upon it by both parties for nearly 30 years the very highest evidence as to the intention of those who framed it? The conclusion I have reached as to the proper construction of this treaty is sup- ported by the conclusion reached by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in 1892. In its report on" this question to the House of Representa- tives in 1892, that committee, among other things, said: "Our Government can make no distinction based on creeds or birthplaces of its citi- zens, nor can it permit such distinction to be made by foreign powers. Not the reli- gion nor race of a person but his American citizenship is the grand test of the treatment he shall receive and the rights he shall enjoy in other countries. * * * "This treaty stipulation between civilized nations would seem to have but one meaning, and to admit of no discrimination in favor of some and against other citizens of either of the high contracting parties, but what claim Russia may make under the clause in regard to 'security and protection' and the 'condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulation in force concerning commerce' is the question. "Is the 'security and protection' accorded to a native Russian Jew the 'security and protection' to be accorded to an American citizen of Jewish faith? Are the 292 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. restrictions placed on the Russian Jew as to commerce part of the 'laws and ordinances ' to be submitted to and to be regarded under the treaty as 'regulations in force concern- ing c'ommerce'? These are problems of serious concern to the American Jews, who, as men of commercial pursuits, feel that all avenues of trade should be open to them and as American citizens that they should stand abroad as they do at home on an exact equality with other children of the Repubhc. "The committee are certain that a discrimination can not legally be made against them, and that if it is made, practically it would be a violation of the treaty and an unfriendly act toward the United States on the part of Russia." As the refusal of Russia to recognize the American passport is a violation of the treaty of 1832, the remaining question is one of remedy. What action should the United States take in the matter? It is true that the discrimination is not against America only, but is also enforced against other countries, as, for instance, France and England. But America is in a different position from the European powers. The complications of European politics and diplomacy make it almost impossible for any European nationality to make an issue -with Russia upon this question. For the last 20 years France has had a political alliance with Russia of great advantage to her, insuring her against the other powers of Europe, and England finds it necessary to expend her energy and diplomatic resources in preventing the encroachment of Russia in the Far East. But the United States is not hampered by the complicated nature of European politics. There is no reason except a purely commercial one which prevents the assertion of our rights and an insistance upon the vindication of American principles. If the violation of the treaty were in a minor matter or in a matter not of great impor- tance or not involving the violation of one of the great principles of this Nation, such violation, as in that of any other contract, might be overlooked in view of the greater benefits which followed the continuance of the treaty. But to continue with the treaty of 1832, accepting Russia's construction of the treaty is equivalent to executing a treaty which contained in it a provision such as Russia by construction reads into the treaty of 1832 ; and a treaty which by its terms expressly excluded from its benefits persons of certain religious faiths would be contrary to one of the great fundamental principles of the United States, which recognizes as between its citizens no discrimination based solely on religious grounds. By such a treaty, too, the United States becomes a party to a convention which places a stigma upon a large part of its citizens, however honorable and reputable they may be. The construction, therefore, which Russia puts upon the treaty is necessarily an affront to American citizenship. For as citizens of this great Republic we stand alike before the law, and an affront to a part is an affront to all. In contemplation of law we are one people. Unless we are willing to abandon that principle let us stand or fall together. To the suggestion that the United States should dhect the attention of Russia to its violation oi the treaty, before abrogating it, in the hope that such diplomatic action may result in the adoption by Russia of a different construction, it is sufficient to say that the Department of State has repeatedly made such protests, but without avail. The construction contended for by the United States was insisted upon as far back as 1867, by Mr. Cassius M. Clay, our minister to Russia, and protests have been made by Secretaries Blaine, Evarts, Bayard, and Olney. In the Rosenstrauss case in 1867, Mr. Clay in addressing the Russian authorities said: "That he admits Mr. Rosenstrauss is a Jew, but as all religions are alike tolerated in the United States, they claim equal protection for all their citizens without regard to religious principles." In 1880 Mr. Evarts, in letters to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, intended for presentation to the Russian Government, among other things, said: "In reply, I have to observe that in the presence of this fact, that an American citizen has 'been ordered to leave Russia on no other ground than that he is the pro- fessor of a particular creed, or the holder of certain religious views, it becomes the duty 01 the Government of the United States, which impartially seeks to protect all its citizens, of whatever origin or faith, solemnly, but with all respect to the Government of his Majesty, to protest. * * * "Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not fail to look upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia on the simple grouiid of his religious ideas or convictions, except as a grievance akin to that which Russia would doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own citizens from the United States on the ground of his attachment to the faith of his fathers." In 1881, in another letter to Mr. Foster, he said: "I have observed, however, that in some of your conversations and writmgs with the foreign office you give prominence to the natural American sympathy with op- pressed Jews elsewhere as a motive for our solicitude as to the treatment of Jews in TERMHSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 293 "Such solicitude might very properly exist; but iu your presentation of the facts you should be careful to impress that we ask treaty treatment for our aggrieved citizens, not because they are Jews, but because they are Americans. Russia's treat- ment of her own Jews, or of other foreign Jews resorting thither, may, in determinate cases, attract the sympathy of the American people, but the aim of the Government of the United States is the specific one of protecting its OAvn citizens. If the hardships to which Russian and foreign Jews are subjected involves our citizens, we think we have just ground for remonstrance and expectancy of better treatment. "This Government does not know, or inquire, the religion of the American citizens it protects. It can not take cognizance of the methods by which the Russian authori- ties may arrive at the conclusion or conjecture that any given American citizen pro- fesses the Israeli tish faith." In the same year, Mr. Blaine in a letter to our minister to Russia, said: "You can further advise him (the Russian minister of foreign affairs) that we can make no new treaty with Russia, nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their religious faith." In 1886 Secretary of State Bayard said: "The Government of the Czar is fully aware that we do not admit the principle of discriminating against any American citizens because of their religious tenets." In 1896 Secretary Olney, in a report to President Cleveland, said: "The published correspondence for a number of years back has shown the persist- ence of the United States in endeavoring to obtain for its citizens, whether native or naturalized, and irrespective of their faith, the equality of privilege and treatment stipulated for all American citizens in Russia by existing treaties. Holding to the old doctrine of perpetual allegiance; refusing to lessen its authority by concluding any treaty recognizing the naturalization of a Russian subject without prior imperial consent; asserting the extreme right to punish a naturalized R,ussian on return to his native jurisdiction, not merely for unauthorized emigration, but also specifically for the unpermitted acquisition of a foreign citizenship; and sedulously applying at home and through the official act of its agents abroad, to all persons of the Jewish belief, the stern restrictions enjoined by Russian law, the Government of Russia takes ground not admitting of acquiescence by the United States, because at variance with the character of our institutions, the sentiments of our people, the provisions of our stat- utes, and the tendencies of modern international comity." Resolutions have been passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate, or both, in 1882, 1883, 1884, 1890, 1902, 1904, and 1909. The resolution of 1909, passed by both Houses of Congress and approved by the President, is typical of these resolu- tions. It reads as follows : "Whereas it is alleged that the Government of Russia has continued up to the present time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities, issued by the American Government to American citizens, on the groimd that the holders thereof were of the Jewish faith: Therefore be it '■'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to seciu'e, by treaty or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojoiu'n in such country without regard to race, creed, or religious faith, including a provision that the honoring or viseing of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United States shall not be withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious faith of their holders." Both the Republican and Democratic Parties in their national conventions have insisted upon the equal treatment of all Americans under owe treaties, having in mind the violation of the treaty of 1832, ******* "The present treaty shall continue in force until the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty -nine, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting parties shall not have announced to the other by an official notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof, this treaty shall remain obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the expiration of the year, which shall commence after the date of a similar notification." In other words, the treaty can be abrogated upon giving one year's notice. This notice should be given; and if, as a result of such notice, Russia refuses to negotiate a supplemental treaty by which the rights of all American citizens are recognized, without discrimination, upon religious grounds, the treaty should be terminated. When this policy is advocated inquiry is at once made as to where it would leave this country in its relations with Russia. How much will it cost us to do what is right? 294 TERMiisrATioisr of the treaty of 1832. How much will it cost us to adhere to the principles of the Republic? Neither com- mercial nor diplomatic relations between nations are dependent upon the existence of a treaty between them. With tTie abrogation of the treaty we would go back to the position we occupied in 1832, before the treaty was executed. It is true a liberal treaty tends to foster commercial relations between tAvo countries, and an illiberal treaty to interfere with them; and a properly framed treaty undoubtedly removes many artificial barriers to trade, whose technical interference in the absence of a treaty is annoying, and if you will, in a measure obstructive of commerce. But no one can doubt that if we have anything to sell which Russia "tvants, she will buy from us; and that if she has anything to sell which we are willing to buy, she will sell it to us. Compared to our vast commerce of imports and exports those with Russia are comparatively insignificant. The total imports are about $18,000,000, and the exports about $17,000,000. These figures, of course, do not represent profits. They merely represent the aggregate of purchase and sales. The profits in all probability would not exceed 10 per cent of the aggregate amount, which would be about $3,500,000. We have, too, in the maximum clause of the Payne tariff law, which will compel Russia's imports of $18,000,000 to pay an extra duty of 25 per cent, a weapon to be considered. Our imports consist mostly of hides, furs, leather, and raw materials, and our exports of agricultural machinery, sewing machines, and other manufactiu-ed articles. A number of American trusts are now operating in Russia and are engaged in carrying on manufactories there, as I am informed, under Russian charters. Among these trusts are the Harvester Trust, the Singer Sewing Machine Co., and the West- inghouse Co. I do not believe their operations would be interfered with, as they are carrying on business under the protection of charters granted by the Russian Government. Whenever Russia admitted within her boundaries any American citizen, it would owe protection to him and his property. A violation of his rights in that regard would be a proper ground for intervention by our Government. That right does not depend upon a treaty. But the question involved, as I have stated, is a much greater one than any business question. The question is whether we propose to be true to one of the great principles of this Government, or whether we are to barter it away for a mess of pottage. Are we to place the dollar above the man? Are we to consent to a stigma' being placed on American citizenship if only we can make a few dollars out of it, or are we to say to the world that every citizen of honest character and good report shall receive equal treatment at the hands of foreign nations, and that an insult to one class is an insult to all? Every great movement in the world has been led by some man or men or by some people or nation who placed principle above material considerations. This very nation grew out of a revolution which refused to pay a small stanip tax because its payment involved a great principle. Emerson has somewhere said that in the course of time the whole world moves around to the man who stands true. If this aphorism is true of men it is true of nations, which are but aggregations of men. But whether true or not, let us be true to ourselves and our principles, and true to those among us upon whom it is sought to place an undeserved stigma, and let the conse- quences take care of themselves. The passport question to Russia is generally regarded as a Jewish question, but it is not entirely so. For not only the Jew, but also Catholic priests and Protestant missionaries are excluded from Russia. But as I have endeavored to point out, it is not a Jewish or a Catholic or a Protestant question, but a cfuestion pi American citizenship that is involved. If, however, it were solely a Jewish question, I should not shrink from meeting it, nor would my attitude in regard to it be in the least changed. For as I have said a discrimination in a treaty against a part of our people on religious grounds is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of our Govern- ment. If in this case it happens to be the Jew, to-morrow it may be the Catholic, and tfi'«tday after the Protestant, and the day after that some other class. We can not admit such a discrimination without being false to American citizenship. The sanctity and integrity of that Citizenship must be preserved at whatever cost. The day of compulsion, by whatever peaceful means it may seek to accomplish its purpose in forcing men to alaandon their religious views, and the day of discrimina- tion against men because of a difference in religious opinion is passing away in civil- ized countries as certainly as the rack and thumbscrew of other days have passed away. A wider tolerance in religious matters marks the steady advance of a higher justice and a more enlightened public opinion. Let the treaty with Russia be abrogated. No other course is open to the United States. If such a course is followed, its moral effect can not be calculated, for in the end no nation can afford to affront the enlightened moral sentiment of the world. And if this Russian passport question has become a Jewish question, let it be so, and let those of us who are not Jews show that American citizenship when it covers the Jew is as sacred as when it covers the Christian. APPENDIX 111. BRIEF ON TERMINATION OF TREATIES. By Herbert Friedenwald, Ph. D.,^ Secretary of the American Jewish Committee, New York City. The Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2, provides that the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-tWds of the Senators present concur," and in Article VI, section 2, that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." But the Constitution is silent as to the authority in whom is lodged the power to terminate, abrogate, or repeal treaties. Under the terms of the Constitution, many treaties have been negotiated by the President, ratified by the Senate, and duly proclaimed. They have thus become part of the supreme law of the land and as such appear among the United States statutes. The earlier treaties contained no provisions for their termination, but since 1826 it has been the custom to include such provisions, the time of notice varying from six months to two years. According to Wharton, treaties "may be modified or abrogated under the following circumstances: "(1) When the parties mutually consent. " (2) When continuance is conditioned upon terms which no longer exist. " (3) When either party refuses to perform a material stipulation. "(4) When all the material stipulations have been performed. " (5) When a party having the option elects to withdraw. *' (6) When performance becomes physically or morally impossible. "(7) When a state of things which was the basis of the treaty and one of its tacit conditions no longer exists. "^ HOW treaties are terminated by the united states. I. By act of Congress. II. By joint resolution authorizing or requesting the President to give notice. III. By joint resolution at the request or suggestion of the President. IV. By resolution of the Senate authorizing the President to give notice. V. By notice from the President subsequently "adopted and ratified" by a joint resolution. VI. By notice from the President without any prior or subsequent act or resolution of Congress. VII. By a new treaty superseding one of prior date. I. By act of Congress. In this connection the following by John Jay, in No. 64 of the Federalist, is of interest: "They who make laws may without doubt amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them." ^ 1 See Crandall, Treaties, their making and enforcement. Columbia University, Nev/ York, 1904. 2 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. V, p. 3, 9. 5 Lodge's Federalist, p. 400. 295 296 TEEMINATIOJSr OF THE TREATY OP 1832. And the following extract from a letter of Madison is pertinent:^ _ "Treaties, as I understand the Constitution, are made supreme over the constitu- tions and laws of the particular States, and, like a subsequent law of the United States, over preexisting laws of the United States; provided, however, that the treaty be within the prerogative of making treaties, which, no doubt, has certain limits. _ "That the contracting parties can annul the treaty, can not, I presume, be ques- tioned, the same authority precisely being exercised in annulling as in making a treaty. "That a breach on one side (even of a single article, each being considered as a condition of every other article) discharge the other, is as little questionable; but with this reservation, that the other side is at liberty to take advantage or not of the breach, as dissolving the treaty. Hence, I infer that the treaty with Great Britain, which has not been annulled by mutual consent, must be regarded as in full force by all on whom its execution in the United States depends, until it shall be declared by the party to whom a right has accrued by the breach of the other party to declare, that advantage is taken of the breach and the treaty is annulled accordingly. In case it should be adAdsable to take advantage of the adverse breach, a question may perhaps be started ,_ whether the power vested by the Constitution with respect to treaties in the President and Senate makes them the competent judges, or whether as the treaty is alaw, the whole legislature are to judge of its annulment, or whether, in case the President and Senate be competent in ordinary treaties, the legislative authority be requisite to annul a treaty of peace, as being equivalent to a declaration of war, to which that authority alone, by our Constitution, is competent." Also Judge Iredell, in 1796, when it was "argued that the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain of 1783 was to be considered by the courts as suspended or abrogated by Great Britain's failure to execute certain parts of it, said:^ "It is a part of the law of nations that if a treaty be violated by one .party, it is at the option of the other party, if innocent, to declare, in consequence of the breach, that the treaty is void. If Congress, therefore (who I conceive alone have such author- ity under the Government), shall make such a declaration * * * I shall deem it my duty to regard the treaty as void, * * * But the same law of nations tells me that until that declaration is made, I must regard it (in the language of the law) valid and obligatory. " Similarly, when the question of abrogating the treaty of 1798 with France was under discussion in Congress,^ Albert Gallatin said he knew of no precedent of a legislature repealing a treaty, and as it was a peculiar act it must be justified by a pre- amble, as it is not sufficient to say merely that a treaty is abrogated because it has been violated. Legislative abrogation or termination has been accomplished by four methods, as follows: "First. Either by a formal resolution or act of Congress approved by the President, or, in case of his refusal to approve it, passed over his veto by two-thirds of both Houses, in which case it becomes the latest expression of the legislative department of the Government, and therefore the supreme law of the land, and the executive department is bound to carry out the wishes of the legislative in express terms.* "Second. By legislation, not abrogating the treaty in terms, but terminating the relations existing thereunder, or rendering them impossible of continuance, by enact- ing legislation hostile thereto, or conflicting therewith, and which may supersede the treaty as to the special stipulations affected, or in effect abrogate it altogether.^ "Third. By legislation which, while it does not directly in terms abrogate the treaty in whole or in part, * * * so conflicts therewith that the doctrine of repeal by implication applies thereto. * * *6 "Fourth. By a declaration of war.''" 1 Mr. Madison to Mr. Pendleton, Jan. 2, 1791. VI Hunt's Madison, pp. 23-24. 2 Moore's Digest, Vol. V, p. 320, quoting Ware v. Hylton (1796), 3 Dallas, 199, 261. 3 Annals of Congress, 1797-99, pp. 2120, 23, 26. < Refers to statutes of 1789 and 1883, abrogating treaties with France and Great Britain. 5 Chinese-exclusion laws best examples of statutes of this class. 6 Refers to Chinese-exclusion cases. ' Treaty-making powers of the United States, C. H. Butler. Banks Law Pub. Co., 21 Murray Street, N. Y., 1902. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 297 The only instance in our history of the abrogation of a treaty by special act of Con- gress was m July, 1798, when the treaty with France was abrogated in the following terms : ' "Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government; and the just claims of the United States for the reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused, and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all com plaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and whereas, under authority of the French Government, there is yet pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence, infracting the said treaties and hostile to the laws of a free and independent nation: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That the United States are of right freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties and of the consular convention heretofore concluded between the United States and France; and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States. "Approved, July, 1798." As France refused to regard this act as valid and declined to recognize any claims aiising under it, the United States "in the end purchased a release from the obliga- tions of the treaties with the relinquishment of the claims of its citizens, for the pay- ment of which it thus became liable." ^ These formed the famous French spoliation claims. But there are in our history many instances of what is known as "implied revocation or repeal" by the termination of treaties by later statutes and of statutes by later treaties. (Moore, V, 364-370.) Of the former, the Head Money cases, the Chinese- exclusion cases, and the tariff acts are the most significant examples. In this con- nection, the remarks of the present Secretary of State, in 1901, when Attorney General, are pertinent: "A treaty duly ratified is as much the supreme law of the land as a statute. The latter expression of the lawgivers will replace preceding law if inconsistent or repug- nant, even if there is not an express repeal. While repeals by implication are not favored where a later law entirely substitutes new provisions for the scheme of the earlier law, it is displaced by the later statute. (Knox, At. Gen., Oct. 10, 1901, 23 Op., 545, aflarming 21 Op., 347, and holding that Art. II of the convention with China of Dec. 8, 1894, repealed a part of sec. 7 of the act of Dec. 13, 1888, 25 Stat., 476, assum- ing that the act was in force — a question reserved in Li Sing v. United States, 180 U. S., 486, 488, 490, where it was held that, without regard to the question whether the act ever became effective, sec. 12 could not be considered as in force.) " Judge Story (sec. 1838) also states that treaties — "May be canceled or abrogated by the nation upon * * * suitable occasions; * * ■* they are subject to the legislative process, and may be repealed, like other laws, at its pleasure." And in connection with the termination of the treaty with Denmark of 1826, Buchanan, in 1848, when Secretary of State, said: "It is probable that two years might elapse before the existing convention could be terminated, as an act must first pass Congress to enable the President to give the required notice, after which a year must expire before it could be rendered effectual. " There is therefore no doubt of the full authority and power of Congi-ess to abrogate, repeal, or terminate a treaty in such manner as it deems fitting and necessary. II. By joint resolution authorizing or 'requesting the President to act. This is the more usual method of terminating treaties and has been resorted to on three instances, as follows: 1. The termination of the reciprocity treaty with Great Britain of June 5, 1854, by a joint resolution of January 18, 1865:^ "JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the termination of tlie reciprocity treaty of fiftli June, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, between the United States and Great Britain.'' "Whereas it is provided in the reciprocity treaty concluded at Washington the fifth of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, between the United States of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of the other part, that this treaty 'shall remain in force for ten years from the date at which it may come into 1 1 Stat. L., 578. 3 13 Stat. L., 56fi. 2 Moore, 5, 357-8. « 38th Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 18, 1865, resolution 6. 298 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832, operation, and, further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,' and; whereas it appears by a proclamation of the President of the United States, bearing date sixteenth of March, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, that the treaty came into operation on that day; and whereas further, it is no longer for the inter- ests of the United States to continue the same in force; therefore "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of the reciprocity treaty, according to the provisions therein contained for the termination of the same ; and the President of the United States is hereby charged with the commimication of such notice to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "Approved January 18, 1865." 2. The termination of the treaty of July 17, 1858, with Belgium, by joint resolution of June 17, 1874, as follows: ^ "Joint Resolution Providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States and J3is Majesty the King of the Belgians, concluded at Washington, July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight. "Whereas, it is provided by the seventeenth article of the treaty between the United States of America, on the one part, and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, on the other part, concluded at Washington on the seventeenth day of July anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, that ' the present treaty shall be m force dm-ing ten years from the date of the exchange of ratifications, and until the expira- tion of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall have announced to the other its intention to terminate the operation thereof, each party reserving to itself the right of making such declaration to the other at the end of the ten years above mentioned, and it is agreed that, after the expiration of the twelve months' prolongation accorded on both sides, this treaty and all its stipula- tions shall cease to be of force, ' and ^'Whereas, it is no longer for the interest of the United States to continue the said treaty, in force: Therefore, "Resolved by theJSenate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of said treaty, according to the provisions of the said seventeenth article thereof for such termination, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to communicate such notice to the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium. "Approved June 17, 1874." 3. And the termination of certain provisions of the treaty of Washington of 1871 with Great Britain by joint resolution of March 3, 1883, which took effect July 1, 1885: ^ ^'JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the termination of articles numbered eighteen to twenty-five, inclusive, and article numbered thirty of the treaty between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, concluded at Washington, May eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-one. " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. That in the judgment of Congress the provision of articles numbered eighteen to twenty-five, inclusive, and of article thirty of the treaty between the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, for an amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, concluded at Washington on the eighth day of May, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; and be no longer in force; and to this end the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give notice to the Government of her Britannic Majesty that the provisions of each and every of the articles aforesaid will terminate and be of no force on the expiration of two years next after the time of giving such notice. " Sec 2. That the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give or communicate to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty such notice of such termination on the first day of July, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, or as soon there- after as may be. " Sec. 3. That on and after the expiration of the two years' time required by said treaty, each and every of said articles shall be deemed and held to have expired and be of no force and effect, and that every department of the Government of the United States shall execute the laws of the United States (in the premises) in the same manner and to the same effect as if said articles had never been in force; and the Act of Con- 1 XVIII Stat. L. 287, 43d Cong., 1st sess., resolution 10, June 17, 1874. 2 22 Stat. L., 641. TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 299 gress approved March, first, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and seventy-three, entitled ' An act to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain,' signed in the city of Washington, the eighth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, relating to the fisheries so far as it relates to the article of said treaty so to be terminated shall be and stand repealed and be of no force on and after the time of the expiration of said two years. "Approved March 3, 1883." III. By joint resolution at the request or suggestion of the President. ,J!>The unsatisfactory results following the joint occupation of Oregon by the United States and Great Britain led President Polk in his message of December 2, 1845 ^ to recjuest Congress to give him the power, by appropriate legislation, to give Great Bri- tain the one year's notice of a desire to terminate the treaty as required by the pro- visions of that treaty. Accordingly, Congress passed the following resolution, ap- proved April 27, 1846: JOINT RESOLUTION Concerning Oregon Territory.^ Whereas, by the convention concluded the twentieth day of October, eighteen hundred and eighteen, between the United States of America and the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the period of ten years, and afterwards indefinitely extended and continued in force by another convention of the same parties, concluded the sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty -seven, it was agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, now commonly called the Oregon Territory, should, together with its harbors, bays, creeks and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be "free and open" to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two parties; but without prejudice to any claim which either of the parties might have to any part of said country; and with this further provision, in the second article of said convention of the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, that either party might abrogate and annul said convention on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party; 'And whereas, it it has now become desirable that the respective claims of the United States and Great Britain should be definitely settled, and that said territory may no longer than need be remain subject to the evil consequences of the divided allegiance of its American and British population, and of the confusion and conflict of national jurisdictions, dangerous to the cherished peace and good understanding of the two countries; "With a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the abrogation of the said convention of the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, in the mode prescribed in its second article, and that the attention of the Governments of both countries may be the more earnestly directed to the adoption of all proper measures for a speedy and amicable adjustment of the differences and disputes in regard to said territory ; Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice re- quired by the second article of the said convention of the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, for the abrogation of the same. "Approved April 27, 1846." IV. By resolution of the Senate, authorizing the President to give notice. In his annual message of December 4, 1854, President Pierce referred to the unsatis- factory situation respecting the Danish Sound dues and intimated his wish for author- ity to give notice to terminate the treaty.^ Though this was a message to Congress and not to the Senate alone, the Senate in executive session on March 3, 1855, unanimously passed such a resolution.* Acting under this authority, the President on April 14, 1855, gave notice to Denmark of the desire to terminate the treaty. This action of the President, under authority of a Senate resolution alone, gave rise to a notable debate in the Senate in the spring of 1856. Charles Sumner, on February 28 of that year, introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Foreign Relations to consider the expediency of some act of legislation "having the concurrence of both 1 Richardson's Messages, IV, p. 395. s Richardson's Messages, IX, 430. 2 IX U. S. Stat. L., 109. < Ex. Journal, IX, 430. 300 TERMIlSrATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. Houses of Congress by which the treaty with Denmark, regulating the payment of sound dues, may be effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of 'the supreme law of the land' and in conformity with the practice of the Government in such cases; and especially to consider if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to supply a defect in the notice of the purpose of the United States to abrogate the said treaty, which the President has undertaken to give to Denmark, without the authority of an act of Congress and in disregard of the function of the House of Representatives, in the abrogation of all existing laws." ^ On March 6, 1856, Sumner called up this resolution ^ and made a speech in which he argued that this act of the President, based on the resolution of the Senate, was "uncon- stitutional and usurpative." Under the Constitution treaties are made by the Presi- dent by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Constitution does not say treaties may be so terminated. Treaties under the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, therefore no one but Congress may abrogate them — not the President alone, nor the President and Senate alone, but the President, Senate, and House of Representatives acting jointly. Congress alone can declare war. The President and the Senate can not do this, and, therefore, as the abrogation of a treaty may lead to war the President has no power under the Constitution to take any action Avhich may lead to it. Sumner then quoted Story and Judge Iredell, as already given (pp. 3, 6, supra). Senator James Mason, of Virginia,^ chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, supported the right of the President and Senate to give notice as provided by the treaty, and drew a distinction between abrogation and repeal and the termination of a treaty by notice. From his point of view, the President alone might terminate a treaty upon notice. Sumner's views were upheld by Senators Seward of New York, Fessenden of Maine, Crittenden of Kentucky, and Steward of Michigan. Senator Toucey, of Connecticut,* said that the treaty-making power of the Federal Government can not abrogate a treaty without assent of the foreign Government with which the treaty is made, though with the consent of the foreign Government it can abrogate any treaty by the substitution of a new one for the old. He held that the President and Senate can terminate on notice, but that it required an act of Congress to abrogate a. treaty. "Contracting party," the words used in the treaty, meant the President and Senate, and in this case the treaty was terminated, not abrogated. Senator Col- lamer, of Vermont,^ said that the treaty, in relation to the foreign Government, is a contract, but in relation to the United States it is a law. If we abrogate a treaty, we are not absolved from the possible damages arising thereunder. There are only two methods of terminating a treaty, viz., first, by substituting an old one by a new one, and second, by act of Congress. All treaties must therefore be terminated or abrogated by Congress. Senator Toucey, speaking again, ^ held that the treaty-making power could give notice; the President alone could not terminate on notice, but such, notice must have the sanction of the Senate. Sumner's resolution went to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Senator Mason was chairman, and on April 7, 1856, that committee reported a resolution that the notice given by the President, pursuant to the resolution of the Senate, was sufficient.'' A month later. May 8, 1856,^ Sumner made another speech in sup- port of his original attitude, and there was considerable further discussion, partici- pated in. among others, by Judah P. Benjamin, who made a brief but effective speech in support of Sumner's argument.** Senator Mason made numerous efforts to have his resolution considered, and July 22, 1856, his motion to proceed to the consideration of his resolution and report was defeated by a vote of 16 to 20 , ^ ° and the resolution was never heard from again . Though no determination of this question was reached by the Senate, the arguments advanced proved so conclusively that the Senate alone has not the power to repeal or abrogate a treaty, or even to authorize its termination on notice, that there is no record of any subsequent resolution by the Senate alone authorizing the President to give notice of the termination of a treaty. V. By notice from the President, subsequently '^adopted and ratified" by joint resolution. It is not surprising to find that during the period of the Civil War, when executive power was so much extended, notice of the desire to terminate a treaty was given by the President without any previous action by Congress. On November 23, 1864, 1 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., 1st ses., pp. 577-8, Feb. 28, 1856. 6 lb., 604. 2 Ibid., 599, et seq. . 'lb., 826. 3 lb., 601. 8 lb., 1146-1158. 4 lb., 602. ' Eib., 1156. 6 lb., 603. "^Ib., 1700. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 301 notice was given to Great Britain of tlie desire to terminate the agreement of 1817, relative to vessels of war on the Great Lakes, at the expiration of the six months stipu- lated in the treaty for its termination on notice. By a joint resolution, approved February 9, 1865, Congress "adopted and ratified" this notice "as if the same had been authorized by Congress." Before the six months had elapsed, however, the notice was withdrawn by the President, and the arrangement since the date of with- drawal has been recognized as of full force and effect. The act of February 9, 1865, follows: ^ "JOINT RESOLUTION To terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the naval force on the Lakes. "Whereas the United States of the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the other part, by a treaty bearing date April, eighteen hundred and seventeen, here regulates the naval force upon the Lakes, and it is further pointed out that ' if either party shall hereafter be desirous of annulling this stipulation and should give notice to that effect to the other party it shall cease to be binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice ' ; and "Whereas the peace of our frontier is now endangered by hostile expedition against the commerce of the Lakes, and by other acts of lawless persons, which the naval .force of the two countries allowed by the existing treaty may be insufficient to prevent; and "Whereas, further, the President of the United States has proceeded to give the notice required for the termination of the treaty by a communication which took effect on the twenty-third day of November, eighteen hundred and sixty -four ; therefore, "Be it resolved by theSenate and House of Representatives of the Zhiited Statesin Congress assembled, That the notice given by the President of the United States to the Govern- ment of Great Britain and Ireland to terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the naval force upon the Lakes, is hereby adopted and ratified as if the same had been authorized by Congress." Approved, February 9, 1865. VI. By notice from the President, without any prior or subsequent act of Congress.^ In addition to the case just cited, there is the case of the notice given to the Swiss Government on March 23, 1899, of the intention to ternflnate articles 8 to 12 of the treaty of November 25, 1850. This is the sole instance so far discovered of action by the President without previous or subsequent act by one or other of the Houses of Congress. VII. By a new treaty superseding one of prior date. This method of repealing a treaty is so commonly resorted to as to require no com- ment, other than that clauses are usually inserted in the new treaty to the effect that the previous treaties or parts of treaties iij conflict with the provisions of the new treaty are superseded thereby. (See Moore's Digest.) Our diplomatic history is not without precedents that should serve as a guide in emergencies like the present. When in 1876 the Government of Great Britain attempted to restrict the application of the extradition provisions of the treaty of 1842 between the United States and that nation by seeking to control its interpretation by the provisions of an act of Parliament passed in 1870. President Grant and Secre- tary of State Hamilton Fish protested energetically. President Grant declared it to be intolerable that a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament passed in 1870 could qualify or restrict the application of an international agreement entered into in 1842 and faithfully observed by both parties to it without dissent for almost a generation. When long continued and patient remonstrance had no effect, President Grant, on June 20, 1876, sent a special message to Congress, in which he recited the facts at issue and added that pending Great Britain's refusal to execute the existing treaty, he would not take any action, without an expression of the wish of Congress that he should do so, either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under that treaty. He further asked Congress in its wisdom to determine whether the particular article in question should be any longer regarded as obligatory on the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. This was equivalent to a notice to Great Britain that unless Congress directed otherwise. President Grant would suspend the operation of the extradition clause of the treaty of 1842 because of the violation of its terms by the Government of Great Britain. 1 United States Stat. L., vol. 13, Pt. II, p. 568. 2 Moore's Digest, V, 283-285, and Foreign Relations, 1899, 753-757. 302 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. The unqualified stand taken by President Grant that one of the parties to a treaty could not change or alter its terms or construction or attach new conditions to its exe- cution without the assent of the other, resulted in the withdrawal by Great Britain of her contention, and on December 23, 1876, President Grant was able to announce to Congress that Great Britain was prepared to observe the extradition clause of the treaty in accordance with the interpretation put upon it by the United States. In this case, the question at issue affected merely the extradition of fugitive crimi- nals, yet President Grant deemed it of sufficient importance practically to suspend the operation of a clause of a treaty when he considered that its terms had been violated. The question at issue between the United States and Russia in vol ves not a mere matter of the extradition of criminals but a fundamental right of American citizenship. In the two cases involving, on the one hand, the extradition provisions of the treaty of 1842 with Great Britain, and, on the other hand, the travel and sojourn provisions of the treaty of 1832 with Russia, the points at issue are almost precisely similar. Great Britain, after observing the treaty for nearly 30 years, attempted by an act of munici- pal legislation to Limit or change the rights which were conceded to the United Slates by treaty; Russia, after a similar period of faithful observance of the treaty of 1832, his for a generation persistently violated the letter and spirit of the treaty on a like pretext. We have seen what action President Grant took in 1876. In 1911 the treaty with Rus- sia is still permitted to remain in force. Following are the salient parts of the messages: [Extract, Message;ofiJunei20, 1876.Ii It appears from the correspondence that the British Government bases its refusal to surrender the fugitive and its demand for stipulations or assurances from this Govern- ment on the requirements of a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament, passed in the year 1870. The act was brought to the notice of this Government shortly after its enactment, and Her Majesty's Government was advised that the United States understood it as giving continued effect to the existing engagements under the treaty of 1842 for the extradition of criminals, and with this knowledge on its part, and without dissent from the declared views of the United States as to the unchanged nature of the recipro- cal rights and obligations of the two powers under the treaty. Great Britain has con- tinued to make requisitionsj&nd to grant surrenders in numerous instances, without suggestion that it was contemplated to depart from the practice under the treaty which has been obtained for more than 30 years, until now, for the first time, in this case of Winslow, it is assumed that under this act of Parliament Her Majesty may require a stipulation or agreement not provided for in the treaty as a condition to the observance to Her Government of its treaty obligations toward this country. This I have felt it my duty emphatically to repel. * • • • * « • The position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, can not but be regarded as the abrogation or annulment of the article of the treaty on extradition. Under these circumstances it will not, in my judgment, comport with the dignity or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from that Government under the treaty. It will be a cause of great regret if a treaty which has been thus far beneficial in its practical operation, which has worked so well and so efficiently, and which, notwith- Btandtng the exciting and at times violent political distu.rbances of which both countries have been the scene during its existence, has given rise to no complaints on the part of either Government against either its spirit or its provisions, should be abruptly terminated. It has tended to the protection of society and to general interests of both countries. Its violation or annulment would be a retrograde step in international intercourse. I have been anxious and have made the first effort to enlarge its scope and to make a new treaty which would be a still more efficient agent for the punishment and pre- vention of crime. At the same time I have felt it my duty to decline to entertain a proposition made by Great Britain, pending its refusal to execute the existing treaty, to amend it by practically conceding by treaty the identical conditions which that Government demands under its act of Parliament. In addition to the_ impossi- bility of the United States entering upon negotiations under the menace of an intended violation or a refusal to execute the terms of an existing treaty, I deemed it inadvisable to treat of only the one amendment proposed by Great Britain while the United States 1 Richardson, Messages, Vol. VII, p. 371. TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, 303 desires an enlargement of the list of crimes for which extradition may be asked and other improvements which experience has shown might be embodied in a new treaty. It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article of the treaty relating to extradition is to be any longer obligatory on the Government of the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of Congress that I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for title surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842. [Extract, message of December 23, 1876.] i Article XI of the treaty of 1842 provided that "the tenth article [that relating to extradition] should continue in force until one or the other of the parties should signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer. " In view, however, of the great importance of an extradition treaty, especially between two States as intimately connected in commercial and social relations as are the United States and Great Britain, and in the hope that Her Majesty's Government might yet reach a different decision from that then attained, I abstained from recom- mending any action by Congress terminating the extradition article of the treaty. I have, however, declined to take any steps under the treaty toward extradition. It is with great satisfaction that I am able now to announce to Congress and to the country that by the voluntary act of Her Majesty's Government the obstacles which had been interposed to the execution of the extradition article of the treaty have been removed. ' Richardson, Messages, Vol. VII, p. 415. 19831—11 20 APPENDIX IV.i THE PASSPORT QUESTION IN CONGRESS, 1879-1909. The American Jewish Year Book for the year 5665, pages 283-305, contains an article on the American passport in Russia. This consisted in the main of extracts from the Foreign Relations of the United States and disclosed the firm stand which our Depart- ment of State has always taken respecting the recognition in Russia of the American passport. In that article, however, reference was made to only two resolutions of Congress upon this question, than which none is of more importance to the Jews in this country. It has seemed well, therefore, to supplement the valuable article referred to by giving in the following pages all the resolutions introduced into or passed by either branch of Congress upon this subject, and a few other documents pertinent thereto. The first instance recorded is that growing out of the case of a natm-alized citizen, Theodore Rosenstraus, whose name appears frequently in the diplomatic correspond- ence from 1873 to 1879. The resolution reads as follows: "[H. Res. 77. Forty-sixth Congress, first session, June 11, 1879.] "JOINT RESOLUTION In relation to treaty negotiations with Russia as to American citizens. "Whereas it is alleged that by the laws of the Russian Government no Hebrew can hold real estate, which unjust discrimination is enforced against Hebrew citizens of the United States resident in Russia; and "Whereas the Russian Government has discriminated against one T. Rosenstraus, a naturalized citizen of the United States, by prohibiting him from holding real estate, after his pm-chasing and paying for the same, because of his being an Israelite; and "Whereas such disabilities are antagonistic to the enlightened spirit of our insti- tutions and age, which demand free exercise of religious belief and no disabilities therefrom; and "Whereas the Secretary of State, under date of April 28, 1879, expresses doubt of his ability to grant the relief required under existing treaty stipulations : Therefore "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the rights of the citizens of the United States should not be impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; and that if existing treaties between the United States and Russia be found, as is alleged, to discriminate in this or any other particular as to any other classes of our citizens the President is requested to take immediate action to have the treaties so amended as to remedy this grievance." Passed the House of Representatives, June 10, 1879. The next resolution was introduced by Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, and appears to have been brought about by the threatened expulsion from St. Petersburg of James G. Moses: "[Jan. 26, 1882.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- patible with the public service, be requested to communicate to this House all corre- spondence between the Department of State and the United States minister at St. Petersburg relative to the expulsion of American Israelites from Russia and the per- secution of the Jews in the Russian Empire." Reported back favorably and passed January 30, 1882. It was in response to this resolution that President Arthur, on May 2, 1882, trans- mitted the diplomatic correspondence with Russia in reference to Jews which had passed between 1872 and 1882. (47th Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. No. 192.) Mr. Cox introduced further resolutions as follows: "[July 31, 1882.] Whereas the Government of the United States should exercise its influence with the Government of Russia to stay the spirit of persecution as directed against the Jews, and protect the citizens of the United States resident in Russia, and seek redress for injuries already inflicted, as well as to secure by wise and enlightened 1 Reprint from the American Jewish Year Book, 5670. 304 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 305 administration the Hebrew subjects of Russia and the Hebrew citizens of the United States resident in Russia against the reciu-rence of wrongs: Therefore ^'■Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incompatible with the public service, report to this House any fiu-ther correspondence in relation to the Jews in Russia not already communicated to this House." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On February 19, 1883, he submitted the same resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and reported back favorably on February 23, 1883, and passed. "[Jan. 8, 1884.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- patible with the public service, communicate to this House all communications between the Government of Russia and that of the United States, not heretofore communicated, with respect to the condition and treatment of Hebrews by the Government of Russia, especially with reference to Hebrew citizens of the United States." Reported back favorably, and adopted on February 25, 1884. "[Dec. 20, 1886.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- patible with the public service, communicate to this House all correspondence in the Department of State between that department and our minister to Russia, or between the minister and the Russian Government, in relation to the conduct of the said Russian Government in the treatment and expulsion of S. Michelbacher, an American citizen who was expelled from Russia on account of his being a Hebrew; and further, if not incompatible with the public service, to communicate all other correspondence in the department between our Government and that of Russia, in relation to the condition or expulsion of Hebrews who are Americans from the territory of Russia." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. For six years Congress took no further action until Mr. J. Logan Chipman, of Michi- gan, introduced the following: " [H. Res. No. 94. Fifty-second Congress, first session, Feb. 29, 1892.] "To inquire into the operation of the anti-Jewish laws of Russia on American citizens. ^^ Resolved, By the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States is directed to inform Congress, whether by the laws and regulations of the Empire of Russia, concerning Jews, any American citizen of that faith is subject to restrictions as to residence and business in said Empire, which violate the provisions of article 1 of the treaty of 1832, between the United States and said Empire, and whether said laws and regulations are held by the Government of Russia to supersede, so far as American citizens of the Jewish faith are concerned, the provisions of the said treaty, permitting sojourn and residence of inhabitants of the United States in all parts whatsoever of the territories of Russia, in order to attend to their own affairs." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and reported on April 6, 1892, as follows: " [H. Report No. 1000. Fifty-second Congress, first session.] "The subject of the resolution is of great concern to the people of the United States. It seeks to ascertain the status of American citizens of Jewish faith in the Empire of Russia. Every citizen of the Republic is entitled at home and abroad to the exact treatment and protection which are the full right of citizenship under the Constitution and our treaties with foreign powers. Our Government can make no distinction based on creeds or birthplaces of its citizens, nor can it permit such distinction to be made by foreign powers. Not the religion nor race of a ]Derson but his American citizenship is the grand test of the treatment he shall receive and the rights he shall enjoy in other countries. "The peculiar laws and ordinances of the Empke of Russia have created great uneasiness among Ainerican citizens of Jewish faith. Whatever we may think of those laws and ordinances as part of the domestic policy for the government of the Russian Jews, we can not tolerate their application to any American citizens of any religious faith or race. As between Russia and the United States they are simply inadmissible, if they are designed to control the conduct and to define the rights of any of our people who resort to that Empire for the peaceful purposes of commerce or, for any other purpose recognized by civilized nations ; but when laws are aimed at a sect, a religious belief, or, what is the same thing, at the people who profess that belief, it is apparent that the reasons which prompt such action may extend to and embrace foreigners of the same belief, and of the same people. 306 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. "The apprehensions of American citizens in this respect, if not founded on certainty, are at least natural. The laws oi Russia regarding Jews engaged in commercial pursuits are of a character which is inimical to fair and free intercourse between that people and other peoples of the Empire. They restrict the places of residence, the pursuits to be followed, the cities to be resorted to, and prescribe regulations as to time of residence and membership of local guilds which would practically exclude American Jews from enjoying the benefit of the treaty provisions between this country and Russia if they are applied to citizens of the United States. The joint resolution under consideration seeks a solution of the question by inquiries directed to the executive branch of the Government. In order to understand the true state of the question, it is well to refer to article 1 of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia. It prescribes: "There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of these respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, or rivers of the territories of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country where they reside on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." This treaty stipulation between civilized nations would seem to have but one meaning and to admit of no discrimination in favor of some and against other citizens of either of the high contracting parties; but what claim Russia may make under the clause in regard to "security and protection" and the "condition of their sub- mitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regu- lations in force concerning commerce," is the question. Is the "security and protection" accorded to a native Russian Jew the "security and protection" to be accorded to an American citizen of Jewish faith? Are the restrictions placed on the Russian Jew as to commerce part of the "laws and ordi- nances" to be submitted to and to be regarded under the treaty as "regulations in force concerning commerce?" These are problems of serious concern to the American Jews, who, as men of commercial pursuits, feel that all avenues of trade should be open to them and, as American citizens, that they should stand abroad, as they do at home, on an exact equality with other children of the Republic. The committee are certain that a discrimination can not legally be made against them, and that if it is made practically it would be a violation of the treaty and an unfriendly act toward the United States on the part of Russia. They are not pre- pared to believe that that nation will assume this attitude, but they deem it wise to have the matter authoritatively settled by an inquiry of the executive branch of the Government of the United States. This much is due to the commercial greatness, the usefulness, and patriotism of the American Jews. Their apprehensions may be ill-founded, and Russia may not make the monstrous claim that her laws relating to Jews are applicable to a citizen of this country, but it is well to know what the fact is and to ascertain the position of our own Government in the premises. On June 10, 1892, Mr. Irvine Dungan, of Ohio, introduced the following joint resolution: "[H. Res. 140. Fifty-second Congress, first session.] " Directing tlie severance of diplomatic relations with Russia. '^Resolved, By the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States is hereby directed to sever our diplomatic relations with the Russian Government till such, time as that Government shall cease discrimination against the Hebrews because of their religious faith, and remove the arbitrary and brutal restrictions now imposed upon them against the protest of the civilized world." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In the next year Mr. Isidor Rayner, of Maryland, introduced the following: " [H. Res. 184. Fifty-second Congress, second session. May 28, 1894.] "Relating to the Russian treaty. "Whereas in the treaties and conventions now existing between the United States of America and the Government of Russia it is provided that the inhabitants of each country shall mutually have the liberty to enter, sojourn, and reside in the respective TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 307 territories of eacli other, and to that effect shall enjoy the same security and protec- tion as natives of the country wherein they reside ; and "MTiereas the Government of Russia has singled out a certain class of citizens and inhabitants of the United States and forbidden them from sojourning or residing in or entering into the territory or dominions of Russia on account of their religious faith; and " Whereas the severest penalties are visited upon those who in any manner violate this edict of the Russian Government so that an American citizen of the prescribed faith, with an American passport, who should cross the borders of Russian territory would, under the penal code of Russia, be subjected to the most cruel punishment without the privilege of trial by jury; and "Whereas the Government of Russia has lately refused, in any manner, to modify its policy in this respect, and has, through its minister and representatives, refused to an eminent citizen of the United States the right to enter upon its territory, for a peaceful purpose and upon a mission of mercy, because he came under the ban of religious exclusion, hereinbefore referred to, and for no other reason; and "Whereas such action, persistently pursued by the Government of Russia, is in violation of the law of nations, and in direct breach of the treaties, conventions, and stipulations that now exist between this Government and the Government of Russia : Therefore ''Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to make a demand upon the Government of Russia, that citizens of the United States shall have the same right of entry, travel, and sojourn in the territory of Russia that citizens of Russia have in the territory of the United States, and that no citizen of the United States shall be deprived of that right by reason of his religious faith. That the President is further directed to call the atten- tion of the Government of Russia to its continued violation of the treaty rights between said Government and the Government of the United States, by its refusal to allow citizens of this country the same rights of entry, travel, and sojourn that Russian citi- zens are allowed in our territory. "Sec. 2. That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by the President, with said demand and modification, and that upon a failure upon the part of the Russian Government to comply with said demand and abide by its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States, the President of the United States shall there- upon give notice to the Government of Russia of the termination of all treaties between the Government of Russia and the Government of the United States, and from and after said notice all treaties and conventions between said Governments shall be abrogated and determined." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Nearly three years later Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Boston, submitted the following: " [Res, 25. Fif ty-flfth Congress, first session, Mar. 31, 1897.] "Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to demand from the Russian Government that the same rights be given to Hebrew American citizens in the matter of passports as now are accorded to all other classes of American citizens, and also inform the House of Representatives whether any American citizens have been ordered to be expelled from Russia or forbidden the exercise of the ordinary privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants, because of their religion." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On December 4, 1899 (56th Cong., 1st sess.), Mr. Fitzgerald submitted a resolution (H. Res. No. 4) worded exactly as the above. In 1897, when the Russian charge refused to vise the passport of Adolph Kutner, a California banker, for the reason that he was a Jew, Senator J. C. Perkins introduced the following, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations : " [S. Res. 109. Fifty-fifth Congress, first session, May 25, 1897.] "Whereas a refusal by the charge d'affaires of the Russian legation to vise a pass- port, duly issued by the Department of State to an American citizen, has raised the question of invidious distinction by the Russian Government against certain Ameri- cans who are among the most useful, intelligent, and patriotic of the people of the United States; and "Whereas Prince Lobanow, imperial minister of foreign affairs, under date of August 12, 1895, informed the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg that the 'Imperial Government, having already many millions of Jewish subjects, only admits their cogeners of foreign allegiance when they seem to present a guaranty that they 308 TERMIIMATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. will not be a charge and a parasite element in the State, but will be able, on the con- trary, to be useful to the internal development of the country'; and "Whereas the citizen refused admission to Russia is one of the wealthiest and most progressive and most public-spirited of the residents of California, and in no way liable to become a charge upon the Russian Government, but able, if a resident, to be useful to the internal development of that country; and "^Vhereas said citizen simply desired to visit Russia for the purpose of seeing relatives and not for the purpose of permanent residence; and "Whereas refusal to vise his passport seems to have been based on the single fact that he professes the Jewish and not a Christian faith, which is contrary to the defini- tions given by the imperial minister of foreign affairs to the class of persons who are prohibited from entering the Russian dominions; and "Whereas the apparent contradictions between the theory and the practice of the Russian Government give rise to the suspicion that a certain class of our citizens are excluded from the benefits of travel and temporary sojourn in Russia, simply because of their religious belief ; and "Whereas such distinction would be abhorrent to all people who believe in the right of men to worship according to the dictates of conscience: Therefore "Resolved, That this Government request the Imperial Government of Russia to specifically declare whether American citizens are excluded from Russia on account of their religious faith; and if so, that said Imperial Government of Russia be requested to remove such prohibition and to permit Americans of whatever religious faith to visit Russia, if they are not liable to become a charge upon the Empire by reason of poverty or an inability to support themselves by honest labor." This was followed by a resolution introduced by Mr. Cm:tice H. Castle, of California, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: " [H. Res. 12G. Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, December 9, 1897.] "Whereas the Imperial Government of Russia forbids American citizens of the Hebrew faith the ordinary privileges enjoyed by other American citizens, of travel or residence within the confines of the Russian Empire: Therefore "Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to demand of the Russian Gov- ernment that it accord the same rights and privileges to said citizens as to other Ameri- can citizens." In 1902 Representative Henry M. Goldfogle introduced the first of his important resolutions on this subject: " [H. Res. 183. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, March 28, 1902.] "Resolved hy the House of Representatives of the United States, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, respectfully requested to inform this House whether American citizens of the Jewish religious faith, holding passports issued bj^ this Government, are barred or excluded from entering the territory of the Empire of Russia, and whether the Russian Government has made, or is making, any discrimi- nation between citizens of the United States of different religious faiths or persuasions, visiting or attempting to visit Russia, provided with American passports; and whether the Russian Government has made regulations restricting or specially applying to American citizens, whether native or naturalized, of the Jewish religious denomi- nation, holding United States passports, and if so, to report the facts in relation thereto, and what action concerning such exclusion, discrimination or restriction, if any, has been taken by any department of the Government of the United States." Amended by adding the words "if not incompatible with the public interest" after the word "House" on the third line. Debated and passed, April 30, 1902. (See American Jewish Year Book 5665, pp. 302-303.) On June 27, 1902, Senator E. W. Pettus, of Alabama, submitted the following resolution : "[S. Res. 284. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. June 27, 1902.] "Whereas it is asserted that American citizens, holding American passports, have been and are excluded by the Russian Government from its territory, solely because of their religious belief, contrary to treaty stipulations: Therefore "Resolved, That the President of the United States is requested, if not incom- patible with the public interest, to inform the Senate as to the attitude of the Russian Government toward American citizens attempting to enter its territory with American passports." Debated and passed. TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 309 In 1904 Mr. Goldfogle renewed his efforts, and introduced the following: "[H. Res. 113. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, January 4, 1904.] "Resolved, That it is the sense of the people of the United States that uniform treatment and lorotection should be accorded to every American citizen, regardless of race or creed, when traveling or sojourning abroad, and that every earnest effort should be made by the executive department of this Government to secure from the Imperial Government of Russia such uniformity of treatment and protection, especially in the recognition and honoring of the passports held by our citizens, to the end that there be no discrimination made by the Government of Russia between American citizens on the ground of their religious belief or faith; and the President of the United States is hereby respectfully requested to take such steps and cause such diplomatic negotiations to be set on foot as may tend to secure, through means of treaty or other- wise, the honoring and the uniform recognition by the Russian Government and its authorities of American passports, irrespective of the religious faith or denomination of their holders, to the end that every law-abiding citizen provided with a passport duly issued by this Government shall, regardless of what may be his race, creed, or religious faith, have freedom in traveling and sojourn in the territory of Russia, subject to such provisions in any treaty between the United States and Russia as are not consistent with the spirit and intent of this resolution." This resolution was discussed by Messrs. Martin Emerich of Illinois, H. M. Goldfogle and F. Burton Harrison of New York, and Alfred Lucking of Michigan. On February 18 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs granted a hearing on the resolution and on April 16 reported the followijig substitute, which was unanimously adopted on the 21st: "[H. Res. 113. Rept. No. 2531. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, Apr. 16, 1904.] ^^ Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the govern- ments of colmtries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the ground of religious faith or belief, to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries, without regard to race, creed, or reUgious faith." In conformity with the terms of this resolution the following dispatches passed between Secretary of State Hay, Ambassador McCormick, and Count Lamsdorff: [Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormicli:.] Department op State, Washington, July 1, 1904. Sir: On the 21st of April last the House of Representatives of the United States adopted a resolution in the following words: [Here follows the resolution just given.] The subject to which this resolution relates has heretofore been the occasion of friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that of the United States. The instructions on file in your office 8.nd the correspondence had by your predecessors with the imperial foreign office leave no doubt as to the feeling of the Government of the United States in regard to what it has constantly believed to be a needlessly repressive treatment of many of the most reputable and honored citizens of the United States. Similar views have been expressed, by my predecessors as well as by myself, in conferences with the representatives of Russia at this capital. That these friendly representations have not hitherto produced the results so befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more than a century and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual regard, is not in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience. I have therefore to instruct you to inform Count Lamsdorff that the text of the fore- going resolution has been sent to you for your information and for your guidance in interpreting this expression of the feeling of the perople of this country, through their direct representatives, as to the treatment of the citizens in question. You will make known to his excellency the views of this Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such discriminations between different classes of American citizens on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themsleves of the common privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or travel. That such discriminatory treatment is naturally a matter of much concern to this Government is a proposition which his excellency wilL readily comprehend without dissent. In no other country in the world is a class discrimination applied to our visiting citizens. That the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to counter- balance the inconveniences involved is open to question from the practical stand- point. 310 TERMIISrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, In the \dew of the President it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business, whose character and position in life are such as to afford in most cases a guaranty against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and entitle them to win for themselves abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own land. I have, etc., John Hay. (Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 790.) [Mr. MeConnick to Count Lamsdorfl.] American Embassy, St. Petersburg, August 22, 1904. Your Excellency: Under instructions from my Government which I found await- ing me on my return from Carlsbad, I have the honor to bring before you for consider- ation at this time a subject which has been the occasion from time to time of friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that of the United States. The feeling of the people of the United States, which is deep and widespread with reference to this subject, found expression in a resolution adopted on the 21st of April last by the House of Representatives. I assume that your excellency's attention was called to this resolution at the time of its adoption, by His Excellency Count Cassini, His Imperial Majesty's ambassador in Washington, and that a copy of the resolution was*tran3mitted to you for your information. As your excellency doubtless noted at the time, this resolution is con- ceived in a temperate spirit and expressed in moderate terms, such as to recommend its reception in a similar spirit as well as the consideration of the subject which it brings forward. The text of this resolution was sent to me for my information in interpreting this expression of the feeling of the Anaerican people as to the treatment of the citizens in question, and I here beg to insert the resolution as placing that expression on record, although, as above indicated, a copy of the resolution has already been transmitted to you by Count Cassini (see above). This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle which lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the question has been, is, and always will be a live question with us and liable to become acute and be brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the friendly rela- tions which have always existed between Russia and the United States. . Aside from the belief that the treatment accorded by Russia to manj; of our most reputable and honored citizens is needlessly repressive, public opinion, as your excellency knows, plays a large part in the foreign relations as well as domestic affairs with us, and when underneath this public opinion there lies an important principle, as is the case in the United States, it can not be left out of account by those who have maintained the close relations which it is desired by my Government to see main- tained with this great Empire and her august ruler. "That friendly representations," as is set forth in my instructions, "have not hitherto produced results befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more than a century, and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual regard, is not, in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience." Moreover, in no other country in the world is class discrimination applied to our visiting citizens, nor can it be seen, from the practical standpoint, that the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to coimterbalance the inconvenience involved. In the view of the President, "it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business whose character and position in life are such as to offer in most cases a guarantee against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia, and whose intelligence and sterling moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and to win for themselves abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy m their own land.'' It seems to me that there are higher grounds to which to appeal, and to which it is opportune to appeal at this time, than those of expedience and reciprocal convenience, evidences of the influences of which have manifested themselves in steps already taken toward the alleviation of the condition of the representatives of the race referred to within the Empire. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 311 At this time, too, when the world is extending its congratulations to His Majesty on an event which has brought happiness to himself and gratification to his friends; when he is extending the Imperial clemency to some, justly under the ban of the law, it would seem fitting to take under consideration this larger question, a solution of which would not only tend to draw closer the relations between this great Empire and the United States, but also to arouse a responsive feeling of good will throughout the world. The railway and the telegraph are breaking down the barriers of distance which have until now kept apart the peoples of the various nations of the earth; Russia has made a notable contribution to this object in the great system of railways constructed within the Empire, which are operated in close connection and harmony with those of the outside world. To throw this great railway system open more fully to those who would avail them- selves of it for legitimate purposes, is but to dedicate it to a use which would be of the greatest good to the Empire and the world at large. Events have proven that no artificial barrier can keep out those who come with hostile intent or who, from without, seek to circulate ideas of hostile character. Is there any reason, therefore, why at least serious consideration should not now be given to the views of my Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such discriminations as now exist in Russia between different classes of American citizens on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or for travel? In transmitting the views of my Government at this length, and personally adding some reasons for favorable action which seem to me to be cogent, I have been actuated by the desire, as your excellency will appreciate, to contribute something toward those friendly relations which have marked the past and which I value. For this reason I lend myself most earnestly to the work of carrying out my Government's instructions, in the hope that the result will be such as to contribute to the removal of one question of disturbing character from the realm of discussion by a mutually satisfactory understanding concerning it. I take this occasion to renew to your excellency the assurance of my high considera- tion. (Foreign Relations 1904, p. 791.) Robert S. McCormick. [Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay.] Americak Embassy, St. Petersburg, October 7, 1904. Sir; I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note received from Count Lamsdorff, imperial minister for foreign affairs, in reply to mine of August 22 last, relating to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the United States on April 21 last, concerning "the freedom of travel and sojourn in Russia, without regard to race, creed, or religious faith," of all American citizens, which was transmitted to me in your dispatch No. 127, of July 1 last. I have, etc. Robert S. McCormick. [Count Lamsdorff to Mr. McCormick.] Ministry for Foreign Affairs, St. Petersburg, October 4, 1904. Mr. Ambassador: It is with special interest that I have become acquainted with the consideration expressed by your excellency in your note of the 9/22d of August, relative to certain facilities to be granted to American citizens of Hebrew faith with regard to their entry into Russia. In this connection I have the honor to inform you that a special commission has been instituted by supreme order on December 17, 1903, with the ministry of the interior, in view of generally revising the passport regulations actually in force. The imperial ministry of foreign affairs having appointed a representative with this, commission, I shall not fail to bring, through his intermediary, to the knowledge of that commission your views on the subject and the desire of the Federal Government of which your excellency has been the interpreter. I avail, etc. Lamsdorff. (Foreign Relations 1904, p. 793.) 312 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Nothing further was done in Congress until 1908, when Mr. Goldfogle introduced the following: " [H. Res. 223. Sixtieth Congress, first session, Feb. 4, 1908.] "Resolved, That the Secretary of State be, and he hereby is, requested to communi- cate to this House, if not incompatible with the public interests, the corresiDondence relating to negotiations with the Russian Government concerning American passports since the adoption of the resolution by the House of Representatives relating to that subject on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred and four; and also a copy of the circular letter issued by the Department of State to American citizens advising them that upon the Department receiving satisfactory information that they did not intend to go to Russian territory, or that they had permission from the Russian Govern- ment to return, their application for passport would be reconsidered; and also a copy of the notice accompanying such letter issued by the Department of State, dated May twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and seven." This was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported on February 11, through Mr. A. B. Capron, of Rhode Island. It was discussed by Representatives F. B. Harrison, of New York, who favored its passage, and by Representative F. _0. Lowclen, of Illinois, who opposed it, and by a vote of 120 yeas to 101 nays the resolution was, on motion made by Mr. Capron, laid on the table. This action was taken at the instance of Secretary of State Root, who, on February 8, had written to Mr. Capron, "it is not deemed compatible with the best public interests at this time to communi- cate the subsequent correspondence." On January 18, 1909, Mr. Goldfogle introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed: [H. J. Res. 235. Sixtieth Congress, second session.] " Concerning and relating to the treaty between the United States and Russia. "Whereas in the treaty between the United States of America and the Govern- ment of Russia it is provided that the inhabitants of the respective countries shall mutually have the liberty of entering, sojourning, and residing in all ports of the respective territories of each other, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside; and "Whereas the Government of Russia refused from time to time to recognize or honor the passports of the United States issued to and held by American citizens, on account that such citizens were of Je-vinsh faith, and refused to permit the holders of such passports to sojourn or enter in the temtory or the domain of the Russian Government solely on account of and because of their said religious faith; and "\\Tiereas after the Government of Russia persistently_ refused to vise American passports held by law-abiding American citizens, placing its refusal upon the ground that the holders "of such passports were of Jewish faith, the House of Representatives of the United States of America, on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred and four, adopted a resolution in the following words: " 'Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations withthe Gov- ernments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the ground of religious faith or belief to secure, by treaty or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries without regard to race, creed, or religious faith'; and "WTiereas after the passage of such resolution, and in the year nineteen hundred and fom-, this Government duly communicated such resolution to the Russian Gov- ernment, and then sought to secure from the Government of Russia such action as would end the discrimination made by Russia between different classes of American citizens on account of their religious faith in the honoring of American passports, to the end that all American citizens holding our passports should have equal freedom of travel and sojom-n without regard to race, creed, or religious faith; and "Whereas the Government of Russia has persistently continued up to the present time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities issued by the American Government to American citizens on the ground that the holders thereof were of the Jewish faith: Therefore be it "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to secure, by treaty or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all TEBMIlsrATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 313 American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojom-n in such country without regard to race, creed, or religious faith, and to demand and insist that the honoring or viseing of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United States shall not be withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious faith of their holders. "Sec. 2. That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the Russian Govern- ment with such demand and insistence, and that upon the failure of the Russian Government to abide by its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States, and to comply with said demand, the President of the United States shall give notice under and pursuant to article twelve of the treaty between the United States and the Emperor of all the Russias, ratified on the eleventh day of May, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three, of the intention of the United States to arrest the operation of said treaty, and thereupon, pursuant to such official noti- fication and at the period fixed after giving such official notification under said article twelve, the said treaty and convention between the United States and Russia shall be deemed ended and determined." This resolution was amended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to read as follows : "Whereas it is alleged that the Government of Russia has continued up to the present time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities issued by the American Government to American citizens on the ground that the holders thereof were of the JcAvish faith: Therefore be it "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to secure, by treaty or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in such country without regard to race, creed, or religious faith, including a provision that the honor- ing or viseing of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United States shall not be withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious faith of their holders." It was reported to the House on February 15, and on February 27 Representative A. J. Sabath, of Illinois, made a speech favoring the passage of the resolution as origi- nally introduced. On March 1 the resolution, as amended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, was discussed by Messrs. Goldfogle, Harrison, and Parsons, of New York, and Hitchcock, of Nebraska, and passed. It passed the Senate on March 3 and was signed by the President on the next day.^ Though the additional data given below do not come strictly within the purview of this article, they are of significance as showing the trend of American opinion on the subject, and are therefore inserted in order to complete the record. In September, 1905, at the conclusion of the peace negotiations between Japan and Russia, President Roosevelt wrote to Count Witte as follows: Oyster Bay, N. Y., September 10, 1905. My Dear Mr. Witte: I beg you to accept the accompanying photograph with my hearty regards. ^ •, I thank you heartily for the message you gave liie from His Majesty announcing his generous purpose of interpreting the most-favored-nation clause hereafter so that America shall stand on an equality with other powers in this regard. Will you, I pray, present to His Majesty my warm acknowledgments for this act? In furtherance of our conversation of last evening I beg you to consider the question of granting passports to reputable American citizens of Jewish faith. I feel that if this could be done it would remove the last cause of irritation between the two nations whose historic friendship for one another I wish to do my best to maintain. You could always refuse to give a passport to any American citizen, Jew or Gentile, unless you were thoroughly satisfied that no detriment would come to Russia in granting it. But if your Government could only see its way clear to allowing reputable American citizens of Jewish faith, as to whose intentions they are satisfied, to come to Russia, just as you do reputable American Christians, I feel that it would be from every stand- point most fortunate. Again assuring you of my high regard, and renewing my congratulations to you and to your country upon the peace that has been obtained, believe me. Sincerely, yours, Theodore Roosevelt. 1 For resolutions of 1911 see pp. 256-257 supra. 314 TEKMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. Inteenatioxal Law and the Discriminations Practiced by Russia Under the Treaty of 1832, by Arthur K. Kuhn.^ Article I of the treaty with Russia, concluded December 18, 1832, pro\dde3: "There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and na^'igation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have Liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and "reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the ■coimtry wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- nances' there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning com- merce." (U. S. Treaties in Force, 1904,' p. 660.) The Government of Russia has taken the position that a treaty of commerce and intercourse, such as that of 1832 with the United States, grants no greater rights to citizens of the United States than is accorded to Russian citizens of the same "class" in Russia. Accordingly, a citizen, whether native born or naturalized, professing the Jewish faith, is denied a right of entry upon the sole ground that Russian subjects of the same faith are likewise denied the pri^^.lege of free ingress, egress, and residence in Russia. The most meager reflection leads inevitably to the conclusion that if this contention were permitted to prevail as a guiding principle of international relations, not a single treaty in force with reference to the protection of the rights of citizens of one country within the territory of another could be deemed any longer the source of any definite rights or privileges. However definite might be the right or pri\dlege granted by treaty to the citizens of a foreign state, it could be rendered nugatory simply by deny- ing the right or pri\ilege to native citizens. The acceptance of any such principle would revolutionize the relations of states upon the basis of conventions, and would extend the class distinctions made in one nation, beyond the borders of that nation, to the territory of every other nation with which it had treaty relations affecting aliens. Russia fijst asserted the theory in 1862 in its diplomatic correspondence with Lord RusseU, representing the British foreign department. No report of this corre- spondence is to be foimd in the published record of British State Papers, but it is referred to, however, in the correspondence which passed in 1880 with reference to the case of Lewisohn, a British subject of Jewish faith, who was expelled simply by reason of the creed which he professed. Lord Granville at first took a \igorous stand against any discrimination, writing to the British ambassador that "The treaty between this country (Great Britain) and Russia of the 12th January, 1859, applies to -all Her Majesty's subjects alike, \vithout distinction of creed." (British State Papers, vol. 73, p. 833.) For some reason, which does not clearly appear. Lord Granville afterwards surren- dered his position in the matter and followed the precedent of 1862 and insisted only that British subjects should be placed on the same footing as Russian subjects of the game "class." He did not admit the correctness of the principle as a guide for the interpretation of the treaty; he simply did not desire to overrule his predecessor. Indeed, he clearly enunciated the choice of principle which was involved, for he says: "The treaty is no doubt open tcr-two possible constructions: The one, that it only assures to British subjects ot any particular creed the same pri\ileges as are enjoyed by Russian subjects of the same' creed; the other, that the pri\'ileges are accorded to aU alike without regard to the rehgious body to which they belong." (British State Papers, vol. 73, p. 845.) It has since become apparent that diplomatic considerations induced Great Britain to refrain from insisting on the construction of the treaty which she herself deemed correct. In striking contrast to the weak position finally taken by the British Government upon this question, prompted probably by considerations of policy and expediency rather than of international legal justice, was the attitude taken at the same time by the United States with reference to the same contention. The reporter of the British State Papers has included in the report of the correspondence in the Lewisohn case an abstract of the correspondence passing between our Secretary of State, William M. Evarts, and Minister John W. Foster, in 1880, with reference to the attempted expul- sion of Henry Pinkos, an American citizen of Jewish faith. In Mr. Evarts's letter of June 28, 1880, he said: 1 Prepared by request for the board of delegates on civil rights of the Union of American Hebrew Congre- gations and the Independent Order B'nai B'rith. Mr. Kuhm is a member of the New York bar, is translator of Meili's International Civil and Commercial Law, and American editor of Burge's Colonial and Foreign Law, and sometime lecturer on private international law at Columbia University, New York. TERMINATION OP THE TEEATT OF 1832. 315 " In reply I have to observe that in the presence of this fact, that an American citizen has been ordered to leave Russia on no other ground than that he is the professor of a particular creed, or the holder of certain religious \ieArs, it becomes the duty of the Government of the United States, which impartially seeks to protect all its citizens of whatever origin or faith, solemnly, but with all respect to the Government of His Majesty, to protest. As this order of expulsion applies to all foreign Jews, in certain towns or localities, at least, of Russia, it is of course apparent that the same is not directed especially against the Government of which Mr. Pinkos is a citizen, and, indeed, the long-standing amity which has united the interests of Russia with those of this Government would of itself forbid a remote supposition that such might be the case. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not fail to look upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia, on the simple ground of his religious ideas or couAictions, except as a grievance, akin to that which Russia would doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own citizens from the United States on the ground of his attachment to the faith of his fathers." (Foreien Relations of the United States, 1880, p. 876.) "^Tiile the correspondence with reference to the attempted expulsion of Pinkos was proceeding, Pinkos left Russia with his family, because '"he had made up his mind that Russia was no place for one of his creed, and that he proposed to establish himself in Liverpool or return to the United States." Xotwithstanding this fact, ^Ir. Evarts had determined not to let the matter rest. No true American can read his final letter of instructions, dated September 4, 1880, without strong sentiments of pride and satis- faction at the brave, as well as just, position assumed by our Secretary-. The letter so clearly sets forth the true interests and traditional policy of the United States with reference to the protection of its citizens in foreign countries that it will be well to the purpose to quote his letter in full (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1880, p. 880): Department of State, Washington, September 4, 1880. Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23 of the 11th ultimo in the Pinkos case. Notwithstanding the tenor of your No. 9 and of your note to the department of July 24th last, as to the inexpediency of presently appealing to the Government of the Czar in the sense of the instruction of June 28th last, touching the expulsion of citi- zens of the United States from Russia (or certain cities thereof) by reason of their reli- gious convictions, the stat<^ments of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23, of August 11th last, are such that the Government of the United States would seem indifferent to the cause of its citizens in Russia did it neglect to make immediate remonstrance as set forth in said instruction of June 28th. Mr. Hoffman's inference from the facts connected with Mr. Pinkos' departure from Russia is that Mr. Pinkos had made up his mind that Russia "was no place for one of his creed." If the meaning of this is that a citizen of the United States has been broken up in his business at St. Petersburg simply for the reason that he is a Jew rather than a believer in any other creed, then it is certainly time for this Government to express itself as set forth in the instruction above mentioned. It should be made clear to the Government of Russia that in the view of this Government the religion professed by one of its citizens has no relation whatever to that citizen's right to the protection of the United States, and that in the eye of this Government an injury- officially dealt to Mr. Pinkos in St. Petersburg on the sole ground that he is a Jew presents the same aspect that an injury officially done to a citizen of Russia in New York for the reason that he attends any particular church there would to the vtiew of His Majesty's Gov- ernment. It is evident that the losses incurred by the abandonment of his business in St. Petersburg will afford Mr. Pinkos ground for reclamation, if no other cause can be shown for the official breaking up of his said business than the religious views he entertained. The direct application to have ^Ir. Pinkos indemnified, however, may be deferred vmtil he shall make it appear what those losses were. I am, sir, etc., "Wm. M. Evarts. The policy thus established was ably supported and reasserted by Mr. Blaine. In a letter dated July 29, 1881, to ^Ir. Foster, he reviewed the treatment of alien Jews in Russia since the reign of the Empress Catherine and disposed of the contention made by Russia in the following terms (Foreign Relation of the United States, 1881, p. 1033): 316 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. "These question of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it can not be limited by the operation of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conven- tional engagement in favor of the citizens of another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable." The State Department has consistently refused to accept the principle now con- tended for by Russia, not only in our diplomatic relations with that country, but also with other countries as well. Prior to the constitution of Switzerland of 1874, under which religious equality is now guaranteed as effectually as in the United States, subjects of Jewish faith were prohibited from establishing themselves in certain Cantons and were under heavy disabilities in others. Representations were made to Switzerland by several Euro- pean countries, as well as by the United States, in reply to which these Cantons maintained the right to impose the same disabilities on subjects of foreign nations with which Switzerland had concluded treaties of friendship, commerce, and inter- course as were imposed on natives of the same class in Switzerland. In opposition to this contention, Mr. Seward, our Secretary of State, entered into a voluminous corre- spondence with Mr. Fay, the American representative in Switzerland, instructing him to insist upon the rights of American Jews notwithstanding the disabilities under which the particular Cantons had placed Jews of Swiss origin. It must be recalled that the treaty under which the Swiss Cantons had maintained their contention was couched in language much more favorable to their position than anything contained in the treaty of 1832 with Russia. The treaty with Switzerland of 1855 had been, at the time of its adoption by the Senate, the subject of opposition by iPresident Fillmore. In his message transmitting the treaty to the Senate, he objected seriously to the form in which it was presented and said : "On account of the tenor of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, Christians alone are entitled to the enjoyment of the privileges guaranteed by the present article in the Swiss Cantons. But said Cantons are not prohibited from extending the same privileges to citizens of the United States of other religious persuasions. " It is quite certain that neither by law, nor by treaty, nor by any other official pro- ceeding is it competent for the Goverimaent of the United States to establish any dis- tinction between its citizens founded on differences in religious beliefs. Any benefit or privilege conferred by law or treaty on one must be common to all, and we are not at liberty, on a questionof such vital interest and plain constitutional duty, to consider whether the particular case is one in which substantial inconvenience or_ injustice might ensue. It is enough that an inequality would be sanctioned hostile to the institutions of the United States and inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. " Nor can the Government of the United States rely on the individual Cantons of Switzerland for extending the same privileges to other citizens of the United States as this article extends to Christians. It is indispensable not only that every privilege granted to any of the citizens of the United States should be granted to all, but also that the grant of such privilege should stand upon the same stipulation and assurance by the whole Swiss Confederation as those of other articles of the convention." (Rich- ardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. V, p. 98.) In the form in which Article I of the treaty was finally ratified the objection of President Fillmore was only partially met. It reads as follows: "The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal equality in the two countries, where such admission and treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal of the contracting parties." Then follow the provisions relating to free establishment, exercise of commerce, etc. (United States Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 769.) Mr. Fay, under instructions from the Secretary of State, left no stone unturned to obtain for American citizens of the Jewish faith the same rights and privileges as were accorded to American citizens generally, and personally prepared a petition addressed to the various Cantons of Switzerland in behalf of his contention. This petition was translated into French and German and widely circulated throughout Switzerland. It was reported as an executive document. (No. 76, 36th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 12, p. 67.) It is not necessary to refer to it at length inasmuch as Mr. Fay was prevented from relying upon the strictly legal rights of the United States because of the peculiar limitations which it contained. The entire incident is m^ade the subject of aspecial paper read before the American Jewish Historical Society by Mr. S. M. Strook in 1903, ' "Switzerland and the American Jews." (Publications of the American Jewish His- torical Society, 1903, p. 7.) TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 317 It is sufficient to say that Mr. Seward continued throughout to demand the removal of discriminations made on account of religious faith, notwithstanding the unfavorable language of the treaty of 1855. He continued his instructions along this line to Mr. Fay's successor, Mr. Fogg, who cooperated with the French Government. France at that time was particularly energetic in demanding full treaty rights to its citizens of Jewish faith. In 1851 Louis Napoleon, through the French minister at Berne, sent a note in which he stated that France would expel all Swiss citizens established in France in case the two Cantons (Basle city and county) would insist on carrying out their law prohibiting the establishment of French citizens of the Jewish faith on their territory. (AUgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Dec. 15, 1851; Jan. 1, 1852; S. M. Strook, op. cit., pp. 12-13.) The matter was finally referred to a commission of the Senate of the Second Empire and in 1864 a report was made through the chairman of the commission, Ferdinand de Lesseps, in the following terms: "No distinction may be recognized in the enjoyment of civil and political rights between a French Jew and a French Catholic or Protestant. This equality of rights must also follow a citizen beyond the frontier; and the principles of our Constitution do not authorize the Government to protect its subjects in a different manner according to which faith he professes." (See Debats Parlementaires, 1909, p. 3779.) As a result of this movement, the French Government finally repudiated the prior treaties which were unsatisfactory in failing to guarantee equal treatment to all French citizens, and a new treaty was obtained from Switzerland in which such a guaranty was expressly made by recognizing "the right of French subjects, without distinction of faith or worship, to travel, sojourn, and transact all lawful business, as freely as Swiss Christian residents of other Cantons may do. " (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1864, p. 401.) The victory which French diplomacy had won over the ilHberalism of the Swiss Cantons solved the problem of the United States Government as well. In reporting upon the result of the ratification of the French treaty, the United States minister, Mr. Fogg, wrote to Mr. Seward, as follows: "The treaty just ratified secures, it is true, only the rights of French Jews, but it will be followed by treaties with other powers, and must, in the end, enfranchise the whole race, since the Swiss authorities having taken the first step in a movement so obviously just, and so imperatively demanded by the spirit of the age and their own position as the vanguard of liberty in Europe, they can not recede, but must go for- ward." (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1864, p. 402.) The correspondence of the Department of State with other countries besides Russia discloses a consistent policy against permitting local discriminations in foreign coun- tries to operate unfavorably upon our citizens because of religious belief. Thus, in 1897, an application was addressed by the United States consul at Jerusalem to the Turkish officials in charge of the land department there for permission on behalf of one Lowenstein, a United States citizen, to purchase a small property consisting of a house and some land. The application was denied on the ground that Lowenstein was a Jew, and, under Ottoman law, prohibited from holding land. Under the sanction of Mr. Sherman, United States Secretary of State, a remonstrance was addressed to the Sublime Porte and a nullification of the order was demanded : "If an American citizen be denied the right to acquire real estate in this Empire on the ground that he is alleged to be of a certain religious faith, the duty of the minister to his Government would require him to protest against such discrimination as inad- missible. Equal rights under reaties are claimed for all American citizens, regardless of the faith they profess." (Mr. Angell, United States minister, to Turkish minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1898, p. 1104.) The action of Mr. Angell was approved by the Department of State, and Mr. Sher- man afterwards expressed his gratification at the result of the remonstrance. (Ibid.) The United States has heretofore insisted upon the treaty rights of its citizens, irrespective of discriminations in foreign countries made not only on account of reli- gion, but also on account of race or color. Thus, in June, 1882, Mr. Freliaghuysen , our Secretary of State, in writing to Mr. Hamlin, minister to Spain, called attention to the fact that the Spanish consul general at New York had refused to vise the Ameri- can passport of a colored citizen oif the United States on the ground of his color. It seems that the refusal to vise was arbitrary, and the vise was ordered to be granted by the Spanish Government. The Secretary of State nevertheless took occasion to remark that there would be no good reason why a negro resorting to Cuba bearing a passport as an American citizen should be refused admission or be met by legal prohibitive measures such as depositing large sums as a guaranty. He afterwards stated that if a case should be brought to his notice the department would remon- strate against it "as imposiag a race discrimination not affected by treaty or recog- nizable under the amended Constitution." (Moore, International Law Digest, vol. 4, p. 109, quoting from MSS. Inst. Spain XIX, p. 139.) 318 TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. The normal relation of states, especially under conditions of modern life, even in the absence of treaty, is one of free intercourse. This was recognized by Vattel as early as the seventeenth century, when he contrasts the condition of China and Japan with that of Europe, where "the access is everywhere free to every person who is not an enemy of the state." (Droit des Gens, 1, ii, c. viii, s. 100.) We would not wish to be understood as denying the theory of international law that in the absence of treaty each State has the right to exclude aliens from its soU. This right is commonly spoken of as one of the essential attributes of sovereignty. However, when rights of entry or residence have been extended by treaty to the subjects of a foreign nation, all the subjects of that nation are entitled to the benefit of the treaty, even though incidentally they receive greater privileges under it than native subjects. There is not lacking substantial Eiu*opean authority for the principle that religious liberty may be predicated in favor of aliens on the basis of treaties. G. F. von Martens, the great German publicist and diplomatist, who made the law of treaties his special study, says (translating from his Precis du droit des gens, 2d ed., 1864, vol. 1, p. 121): "The degree of liberty accorded to other religions than those of the particular state differs according to the fundamental laws and treaties in effect with foreign powers and, in default of them, it depends upon the will of each state guided by principles of a wise tolerance. This is true also with regard to the tolerance accorded religious sects which have no connection with the religion of the country, such as the Socinians, the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, etc., and rarely any question arises in the foreign relations of European countries as to their rights, as well as those of the Jews.'' Even Russian authority is in substantial accord. Prof. F. de Martens, late presi- dent of The Hague Peace Congress, and probably the most distinguished Russian authority of our generation on international law, seems to have been in substantial accord, although he may have been unwilling to effectuate the principle by applica- tion in practice. In his Traits de droit international (translated from the Russian into French by A. Leo, 1883, vol. 1, p. 447) he asserts that the state has complete power over aliens in its territory and the conditions on which it will admit them. It may not place them, however, beyond the protection of law, nor subject them to gen- eral expulsion. Any nation guilty of this would take itself outside of the community of nations. With this exception,* even though the provisions be vexatious orcom- pletely different fa'om those prevailing in any other state or countries, or inconsistent with a sane or wise political administration, "aliens must nevertheless conform to them, unless the provisions respecting them are in opposition to international trea- ties." In a footnote he points to the action of Lord Granville in refusing to insist upon greater rights for a British subject than accorded to Russian Jews in Russia, to which we have already referred at length. He naturally is well satisfied with the Brit- ish submission to the Russian contention, though it is difficult to see how the footnote in any way illustrates the text. He seems to have considered it a clear departure and exception to the principle which he himself enunciates. In concluding this branch of his discussion he says (translating): "In reality each Government is free totake all measures against aliens which it deems convenient, provided thay do not violate its treaties and are not absolutely contrary to international relations." As a matter of strict legal right, then, each nation may, in the absence of treaty, exclude aliens from its territory or prescribe the conditions upon which it -will admit them. But as a matter of comity, friendly intercourse and good faith between nations of the international community, the situation is different. Hall well says (Interna- tional Law, 5th ed., p. 214): "For the reason also that a State may do what it chooses within its own territory so long as its conduct is not actively injurious to other States, it must be granted that in strict law a country can refuse the hospitality of its soil to any, or all, foreigners; but the exercise of the right is necessarily tempered by the facts of modem civilization. For a State to exclude all foreigners would be to with- draw from the brotherhood of civilized peoples; to exclude any without reasonable or at least plausible cause is regarded as so vexatious and oppressive that a govern- ment is thought to have the right of interfering in favor of its subjects in cases where sufficient cause does not, in its judgment, exist." Hannis Taylor has said that while no State can be compelled to open its doors to the citizens of another State, its power of refusing hospitality is subject: "To such retaliatory measures as an abuse of the excluding or expelling power may provoke.' (International Public Law, p. 231.) If such be the trend of modern international law even in the absence of treaty, then surely the Russian treaty should be liberally and not strictly construed. Russia pur- sues a policy and practice of general exclusion against particular classes of United States citizens solelv on account of their religious beliefs, no matter how high their TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 319 character and reputation may be and irrespective of whether they are by any reason- able construction detrimental to the interests of Russia, In the Ught of the tendencies of modern international relations, this constitutes a clear indication that the treaty of 1832 is not being construed by Russia according to that standard of ubberima fides which one friendly nation owes to another in the performance of its conventions. It ia sometimes suggested that the policy of the United States in excluding the Chinese constitutes an argument in opposition to the position which we are here urging. Without wishing at this time to discuss the justice or expediency of the Chinese exclusion acts in their present state, it ife sufficient for the pmrpose of the pres- ent discussion to recall that the exclusion acts required a modification of our treaty relations with the Chinese Empire on more than one occasion. Twice did Congress attempt to pass bills which under a fair interpretation might have been deemed inconsistent with the obligations imder the treaty and twice were such bills vetoed by the President. President Hayes vetoed the bill of 1879 as in contravention of the provisions of the Buriingame treaty, and President Arthur likewise vetoed the bill of 1882 which he termed "a breach of our international faith," because in violation of the treaty of 1880. (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII, p. 514; Vol. VIII, p. 112.) Since that time successive acts have been accompanied by such new diplomatic arrangements with China as were necessary in order to protect the faith of the United States, notably among which was the treaty of December 8, 1894, by which China consented to the absolute exclusion of Chinese laborers. The denunciation of a treaty is justified where one of the parties has been guilty of a substantial breach, or has so interpreted it that the rights and privileges granted under it are enjoyed by one side, while the complete performance of its obligations is rendered only by the other. (Hall, International Law, p. 352.) Even if we con- cede the legal contention made by Russia, the treaty should nevertheless be denounced by the one year's notice provided for in the treaty itself (Art. XII). At the time it was passed, Russia's attitude toward native as well as alien Jews was favorable and very different from that of the past half century. The treaty was not drawn in con- templation of any of the discriminations which are now practiced under it. If the treaty does wan-ant the interpretations now placed upon its language by Russia (which we earnestly deny), it commits the United States to a doctrine which is expressly prohibited under its Constitution, its statutes, its fundamental institutions, and its historic diplomatic policy. Furthemore, if distinctions of race or creed are permitted to enter into the status of our citizenship in foreign countries in respect of rights and privileges, it is inevitable that distinctions will likewise arise on the side of duties and obligations. The rela- tionship of allegiance between the citizen and state is a mutual one. Thus, for example, a treaty of amity and friendship between two nations is binding upon all citizens and no distinctions among them ought to be or is permissible. Any citizen who violates his duty of neutrality subjects himself not only to the loss of his right to protection, but also to afiirmative penalties. The Supreme Court has said, in Kennett V. Chambers (14 How., 38): "For, as sovereigntj^ resides in the people, every citizen is a portion of it * * * and when that authority has plighted its faith to another nation that there shall be pea<:e and friendship between the citizens of the two countries, every citizen of the United States is equally and personally pledged." If every citizen is to be "equally and personally" pledged to abide by a treaty of amity and friendship, every citizen should likewise be "equally and personally" benefited without discrimination under treaties relating to the citizens of his country. The treaty thus involves fundamental danger to the equality involved in republi- can institutions. It is for that reason that France is likewise awake to the distinction which Russia has endeavored to import into French citizenship upon the basis of the treaty of 1874 between France and Russia, notwithstanding the plain terms of the convention of 1905, which provides that "no distinction shall be made, whatever be the religion." On December 27, 1909, a full discussion of these discriminations practiced by Russia took place in the French Chamber of Deputies. Mention was made of the incident between France and Switzerland during the Second Empire, to which we have already referred, as well as to a precedent which occurred shortly after the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Austria undertook to treat Ottoman Jews dif- ferently from other Ottoman subjects because she treated her own Jews differently from her other subjects. The Sublime Porte protested that she could not permit of the slightest difference being made between any Turkish subjects, no matter what then- creed, and in September, 1815, M. de Metternich gave Turkey satisfaction, and thenceforward all Turkish subjects were treated alike. 19831—11 21 320 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. At the conclusion of the debate, the Chamber of Deputies called upon the admin- istration to undertake negotiations with Russia for an interpretation which would definitely set aside the objectionable discriminations. (Debats parlementaires, 1909, pp. 3763-3780; Am. Jewish Year Book for 1911, pp. 66-76.) It is dangerous to temporize in respect of legal principle with class, race, or religious discriminations. The United States, after a along and bitter struggle, has happily extirpated from the body of its organic law all such discriminations affecting its citizens. Such discriminations should not be permitted to enter by the back door, as it were, through weakness or vacillation in the enforcement of the rights of citizens in Interna- tional relations. INDEX. Abrogation. (See aZso Termination; Treaty of 1832.) Page. Best solution of problem (Straus) 72 Committee almost unanimously in favor of (Sulzer) 96 No knowledge that financial interests oppose (Straus) 72 Powers of President and Congress, discussed 41-50 Adler, Dr. Cyrus: Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 Conferred with Ambassador Rockhill 252 Letter to President 253 Memorandum to President Taft 255 Affidavits, Russian consul general required, substantiating statements (Cutler). . 52 Agreement between United States and Russia — relating to corporations, June 15, 1909, remonstrance against 250-251 Agreement of 1904-1909, salient points of 251 Alabama, resolution of legislature 258 Alexandroff, case of, cited to 268 Allen, Hon. Alfred G., resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 American ambassador at St. Petersburg, 1904, efforts to have Russia honor pass- ports (Goldfogle) 94 American ambassador to Turkey: Action in behalf of missionaries (Straus) 70, 71 Invited to Russia (Straus) 71 Not refused admission to Russia 71, 72 American citizen, wherever he goes the power of Nation should go and stand behind him (Noland) 77 American citizens, divided into two classes, Americans and Jews. Responsi- sibility for this rests upon Congress (Marshall) 41 American consul in China denied entrance to consulate by Russian soldiers (Difenderfer) 104 American consuls, criticised (Difenderfer) 87 American-Hebrew congregations: Address of Louis Marshall before 266-272 Board of delegates on civil rights, indorse Sulzer resolutions (Marshall) ... 79 American-Jewish committee: Disinclination of Secretary Knox to treat passport question from standpoint of 254 Its deliberations and conclusions 243 Letter of executive committee to President Taft 252-253 Little attention paid to proposals of 250 Meniorandum of, embodying remarks at conference, May 25, 1910 254 President Sulzberger recommends to Roosevelt termination of treaty of 1832 243,247 Remonstrance against agreement of 1904-1909 unavailing 251 Remonstrance against proclamation of agreement of 1904-1909 with Russia 250-251 Remonstrances disregarded 252 Represented at conference with Ambassador Rockhill 252 Represented at White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 Request interview with President Taft 253 American JeAvs, status in Russia if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 American question (Noland) 77 American question, not a Jewish or Russian question (Cutler) 55 American rabbis, central conference of, objects and work given by (Foster).. 76 Americans: Treatment of, when passports not visaed (Goldfogle) 95 Two million, daily insulted by Russia (Silverman) 65 321 322 iimEX. Appeal to people, American Jewish committee concludes that only hope lay in an 256 Article 1, treaty of 1832, reference to (Sulzberger) 32 Article 10, treaty of 1832, reference to (Sulzberger) 32-36 Article 10, treaty of 1832, if it means what Russia claims then no treaty covering rights of nonexpatriated Russians (Sulzberger) 36 Arthur, Chester A., President of United States, message (1883) on refusal of Russia to perform treaty obligations (Sulzberger) 246 Austria-Hungary and Russia, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 Austrian Government, reply of Secretary Bayard to, in Keily case, referred to (Straus) , 68 Bacon, Robert, Acting Secretary of State: Letter of, concerning offensive circular, referred to 61 Announces withdrawal of offensive circulars 243 Baptist missionaries. {See Discriminations.) Bayard, Secretary of State: Letter of expatriation (Marshall) 89-90 Reply of, to Austrian Government in Keily case, referred to (Straus) 68 Belgium: Termination of treaty with (Marshall) 48 Treaty with, denounced (Harrison) J03 Beliefs: Curiosity about beliefs of people when emigrating by a southern route (Sulzberger) 36 Bennet, Hon. Wm. S., remarks of 27 Bernstein, Bernard, case of 105 Bernstein, Herman: Case of, referred to 258 Newspaper article by, referred to (Marshall) 50 Passport visaed at New York, applicant sailed via Russian steamer to Libau (Sulzberger) 247 Bernheim, Isaac W., treasurer American-Jewish committee, letter to President. . 253 Berry, Bishop, Methodist Episcopal Church, advocated abrogation (Smith) ... 97 Bettmann, Bernhard: Attended White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 Presents resolution of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations to President 256 Bielostok, disorders at, official communication on 225-227 Blaine, James G., Secretary of State: Dispatch to Minister Foster 129-133 Dispatch of 1881 quoted (Marshall) 82 Dispatch of 1881, historical references in (Marshall) 81 Russian Government unable to make effective reply to 239 Brennan, A. J. , secretary, letter of (Marshall) 78 British subjects. {See English subjects.) Buchanan, James, negotiated treaty of 1832 239 Buffalo, mass meeting at (Smith) 96 Bureaucracy of Russia construed treaty of 1832 as giAdng right to discriminate based on creed and religion (Straus) 68 Bureaucrats, dealing with a small clique of (Harrison) 103 Burlingame treaty: Article 1 quoted (Marshall) 84 Effect of amendment of 1880 (Marshall) 85 Referred to (Marshall) 85 Butler, Charles Henry, reporter. United States Supreme Court, quoted on power to abrogate treaty (Marshall) ... — 42-43 Byrns, Hon. Jos. W. , resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 Calder, Hon. Wm. M., a Representative from New York, address of 27 Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 California, resolution of legislature 258 " Caraime " Jews — their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 Carnegie Hall mass meeting: Action taken at, represents American feeling (McAdoo) 4 Not confined to Jews (McAdoo) 3 Report of proceedings 5-31 Resolutions adopted at (McAdoo) 3-4 Speiakers at (McAdoo) 4 INDEX. 323 Page. Carpenter, Fred W., Secretary to President, letter of, to Mayer Sulzberger 253 Case, Rev. Carl D., advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 Catholics. (See Discriminations.) Censorship, Russian (Harrison) 103 Certificate from rabbi vis^d for 80 cents (Sulzberger) 36 "Chestnut" — Passport question in same condition at end of. every administra- tion (Schiff) 67 Chile, treaty with, denounced (Harrison) 103 Chinese immigration (see also Burlingame Treaty): Convention of 1894, provisions of, quoted (Marshall) 85-86 Legislation on subject of, with express consent of Chinese Government (Marshall) 84 No parallel between, and Jews going to Russia (Marshall) 84 Christian converted to Judaism, Russia would refuse to recognize passport of (Goldfogle) 95 Circular of Department of State, issued May 28, 1907 (Marshall) 59 Issued by Secretary Root 240 Concerning passports (Cutler) 54 Opposition of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Goldfogle to 93 Protest against (Goldfogle) 60 Withdrawn by Secretary Root 241-242 Circular of January 25, 1908 54 Republished, then "withdrawn " (Marshall) 61 Substituted for circulars of May 28, 1907 241 Circular, Russian-American Line of steamships, March 16, 1911 258 Circulars of May 28, 1907: Not discovered for 6 months 240 Protest against (Marshall and Lauterbach) 241 Circulars, State Department: History of (Marshall) 61 Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach, concerning 242-243 "Citizen" — term should be used instead of "inhabitant" (Cooper) 86 Citizens, interested only so far as they are concerned (Marshall) 83 ' ' Citizens ;' ' term ' ' inhabitants " broader (Marshall) 83 Citizenship, agitation of passport question will give clearer interpretation of (Foster). _ 77 Citizenship circular issued by Secretary Root 240 Civil disabilities, real point is whether Congress will continue to permit a large section of American people to remain under (Marshall) 50 Clark, Hon. Champ, Speaker of the House of Representatives, address of 16 Class of citizens, unthinkable that United States would agree to except any (Marshall) 83 Clergymen. (See Discriminations.) Cleveland, Grover, President of United States: Message (1895) on refusal of Russia to perform treaty obligations (Sulzberger) 246 Protest of administration against Russian religious inquisition 239 Cline, C. , a representative from Indiana, question asked by 88 Cloak makers. New York City, 90 per cent Jews (Marshall) 87 Colorado, resolution of legislature 258 Colton, Right Rev. Charles H., Catholic Bishop of I3uffalo, advocated abroga- tion (Smith) 97 Commerce: Congress should not sell birthright of citizens for mess of pottage (Sanders) 74 Effect upon, by abrogation of treaty of 1832, discussed (Sulzberger) 38 Commercial relations : • Amply safeguarded by agreement of 1904-1909 251 Between United States and Russia, discussed (Marshall) 87 Commerce, United States and Russia, 1 per cent of foreign commerce of the United States (Sulzberger) 38 Commissions ceased to deal with subject (Marshall) 40 Committee on Foreign Affairs: Hearings before, on Parsons resolution 272-294 Hearings before, February 16 and 22, 1911 257 Report of, April 6, 1892 240 324 INDEX. Page. Conference of May 25, 1910: Between President, Secretary Knox, Mr. Rockhill, Judge Sulzberger, Mr. Schiff, and Dr. Adler 254 Remarks made at, embodied in memorandum of June 3, 1910 254 Congress : Abrogation by, of all treaties with France (Marshall) 46 Joint resolution, March 4, 1909, for renewal of negotiations (Goldfogle) 94 Power to abrogate the treaty rests in (Marshall) 42 Powers of with reference to abrogation of treaty (McAdoo) 5 Powers of, in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 Said to have plenary power to settle passport question 259 Should take firm stand on question (McAdoo) 4 Recognized as real power for abrogation of treaty (Marshall) 49 Termination of treaty with Belgium by joint resolution of (Marshall) 48 Termination of treaty with Great Britain by joint resolution (Marshall) ... 48 Would be quick to act if discriminations were against Americans other than Jews (Marshall) 51 Connecticut, resolution of legislature 258 Constitution of United States quoted (Cooper) ^ 44 Consular practices described (Sulzberger) 35-36 Consular Service criticized (Difenderfer) 87 Consular treaty between Germany and Russia 259 Consul general, office of Russian, in New York not Russian territory (Sulz- berger) ; 36 Cooper, Hon. Henry A., a Representative from Wisconsin, questions asked by 43-44, 51, 60-61, 83, 86 Correspondence, diplomatic (Appendix I) 105-238 Cox, Hon. S. S., calls State Department's attention to expulsion of Hebrews 139 Craus, Adolph, mentioned (Marshall) 79 Creed and religion: Basis of discrimination by Russian bureaucracy against Americans 68 No power in United States to discriminate on basis of (Straus) 68 Creelman, James, Carnegie Hall mass meeting, resolutions read by 5 Culberson, Hon. Charles A.: Energetic advocate of abrogation 257 Resolution for abrogation of treaty of 1832 257 Cutler, Hon. Harry: Letter to President 253 Statement of 51-56 Curley, Hon. James M., a Representative from Massachiisetts : Letter of 30-31 Questions asked by 50 Day, Mr. Justice, Supreme Court of United States, quoted on power to abro- gate a treaty (Marshall) 42 Declaration of Independence quoted 259 Democratic platform, 1904, demanded recognition of passport 246 Democratic platform, 1908, plank on protection of Americans abroad . .* 248 Department of State, circular issued by (Goldfogle) 93 Difenderfer, R. E., a Representative from Pennsylvania: Question asked by 79, 95 Incident in China related by 104 Diplomacy, 40 years of, unavailing (Sanders) ^ 74 Diplomatic correspondence (Appendix I) 105-238 Diplomatic negotiations looked upon as a joke (Dorf) 75 Discrimination: Against Americans, based on creed and religion (Straus) -68 Against United States, abrogation of treaty will call Russia's attention to (Marshall) 58 Greater, against United States than England (Kamaiky) - - 58 On basis of creed and religion, no power in United States to make (Straus) . 68 Catholic bishop of Scran ton, Pa., prohibited from entering Russia (Marshall) . 78 Exclusion of Protestant missionaries from Russia (Marshall) 78 Prof. Hyvernot, Catholic priest, excluded from Russia (Adler) 80 Russia makes, against Jews, clergymen. Catholics, missionaries (Straus) 68 Russian, against Catholics, etc . (Chairman) 65 Those practiced by Russia practiced by other countries many years ago (Elkus) - II Turkey follows Russian example in making illustration (Straus), oy INDEX. 325 Page. Dispatches, copies of, between State Department and Russia, referred to (Mar- shall) 39 Distinction. {See Religion.) Divorces, Russian law on Jewish 219 "Dollar above the man." {See "Man ahead of the dollar.") Domicile of Jews, imperial ukase concerning 151 Dorf, Samuel: President Order of B'rith Abraham, statement of 74-76 Letter to President 253 Dudley, Wesley C. , advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 Duma: Established in 1895, a mere subterfuge (Sulzberger) 34 First and second, excluded from participation in Government of Russia (Marshall) 40-41 Measures granting certain privileges to Jews, referred to 237-238 Scapegoat of passport question (Marshall) 41 Unable to assert own rights, much less those of Americans (Harrison) 102 Durnovo commission: Never considered American passport question (Harrison) 102 Stated in oflScial communications to be studying passport question when actually nonexistent (Marshall) 40 Eddy, Spencer, letter of, showing number of Jews in Russia, their different classes, laws governing, etc 228-235 Elizabethgrad, massacre of 1882 at, referred to (Cutler) 53 Elkus, Abraham I., statement of 73 Emigration from Russia. {See Expatriation.) Emigration of Jews from Russia : Correspondence concerning 151-155, 176-178 Translation of law regarding 164-166 Emperor of Russia knows very little of foreign questions (Harrison) 103 England : Adopted expatriation policy of United States (Marshall) 92 Citizens of, discriminated against (Elkus) 73 Treaty relations of, with Russia (Marshall) 80 English subjects protected in Turkey by action of American ambassador (Straus) . 70 Executive committee, American Jewish Committee: Letter of, to President Taft 252-253 {See American Jewish Committee.) Expatriation {see also Russia) : Buchanan's ideas on, quoted (Marshall) 89 Declaration of the American doctrine concerning (Marshall) 59-60 Policy of United States concerning, adopted by England (Marshall) 92 Principle embodied in statutes should be written into new treaty (Mar- shall) 92 Right of, guaranteed by Congress (Cutler) 55 United States takes same view with regard to Russia as of every other civil- ized country (Marshall) 92 Views of Secretary Bayard on (Marshall) 89-91 Expatriation laws, liability of naturalized citizens under 212 Expulsion, concerning expulsion of Hebrews holding foreign passports, cor- respondence 139-149 Extradition convention, March 28, 1887, termination recommended (Sulz- berger) 245-247 Extradition treaty of 1842 with Great Britain, attempt to restrict provisions protested against 258 FanueilHall, mass meeting at (Murray) 100 Federation of churches; favor abrogation of treaty (Marshall) 78 Field, Justice United States Supreme Court, quoted (Marshall) 44 Financial aspect. {See Commercial relations.) Financial interests, no knowledge that they are opposing abrogation (Straus) . . 72 Fish, Hamilton, Secretary of State, protests in proposed restriction provisions, treaty of 1832 258 Flood, Hon. Henry D., a Representative from Virginia, questions asked by.. . 50, 58, 81, 82 Florida, resolution of legislature 258 Foreign Affairs {see Committee on) 257 326 INDEX. Page. Foreign Jews : Sketch of the laws of Russia relative to 126-128 Their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 Foster, Hon. David J., a Representative from Vermont, questions asked by.. 50, 55, 58 Foster, Rabbi Solomon, corresponding secretary Central Conference of Amer- ican Rabbis, statement of 76-77 France: Act of Congress abrogating treaties with (Marshall) 46 Citizens of, discriminated against (Elkus) 73 Compelled withdrawal of discriminating treaty with England (Elkus) .... 73 Declared doctrine of equal religious rights (Elkus) 73 Financial relations with Russia (Marshall) 81 Treaty with, denounced (Harrison) 103 France and Russia, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 Freiberg, J. Walter, attended White House conference February 15, 1911 257 Frelinghuysen Hon. F. T., Secretary of State, letter of, on treatment of Jews in Russia 137 French Chamber of Deputies, translation and summary of debate in 261-266 Friedenwald, Herbert: Brief by, on termination of treaties 295-303 Referred to (Cutler) 52-53 Furth, Jacob, attended White House conference 257 Garner, Hon. John M., a Representative from Texas, questions asked by 5, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 58 Geary Act referred to 86 Georgia, resolution of legislature 258 German Empire and Russia, consular treaty between 259 Germans favor abrogation (Marshall) 79 Germany, waiting example of Congress (Marshall) 80 Ginzberg, Simon, alias John, case of. 191, 206, 211, 212 Glowacki, Joseph, case of 161, 163 Goldberg, Benjamin, case of 105 Goldfogle, Hon. Henry M., a Representative from New York: Address of _ 27-30 Criticizes offensive circulars 241 Questions asked by 56 Pleads for abrogation 257 Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 Statement of 92-96, 285-287 Goldfogle resolution, January 18, 1909: Emasculated by Committee on Foreign Affairs 250 Authority of President under , 45 Concerning discriminations, reference to (Goldfogle) 94 Transmitted to Count Lamsdorff by Ambassador McCormick 220-221 Goldstein, Jacob, case of 155-160, 162 Goodwin, Hon. W. S., a Representative from Arkansas, questions asked by.. 58, 102 Graham, Hon. James M. : Statement of 287-288 Pleads for abrogation (Marshall) - - - - 257 Grant, U. S., President, protest against proposed restriction of extradition treaty of 1842 258 Great Britain: Attempt of, in 1876, to restrict extradition provisions, treaty of 1842, pro- tested against 258 Attempts by legislation to limit rights conceded to United States, frustrated . 259 Termination of treaty of June 5, 1854, with (Marshall) 47 Termination of treaty of Washington, 1871, with (Marshall) 48 Great seal of United States attached to passport ought to be honored (Nolan). 77 Green, Henry, general director National Citizens' Committee; organized Car- negie Hall mass meeting - 31 Grenz, Frederick G., case of 208-211 Greer, Right Rev. David H., bishop of the Protestant Episcopal diocese of New York, address of 14 Hammerstein, Oscar, case of (Marshall) 79 Harmon, Gov. Judson, of Ohio, letter of , 30 INDEX. 327 Page. Harrison, Hon. Francis Burton, a Representative from New York: Address of 26 Pleads for abrogation 257 Protest of, against circular of May 28, 1907 (Goldfogle) 60 Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 Statement of - 101-104, 285 Hay, John, Secretary of State, following death of, came apparent change of attitude _. _ 240 Hearings (see Committee on Foreign Affairs) : On Parsons resolution 272-294 Hearst, Wm. Randolph, address of 13-14 Hebrew commercial travelers : Austrian 260 Hungarian passport visaed 260 Hebrew congregations, board of delegates on civil rights of treatise prepared on on international law covering passports presented (Elkus) 73 Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Alumni Association of (Foster) 76 Hebrews, expulsion of, holding foreign passports 139-149 Hirsch, Baron, project of, for emigration of Jews, Russian law regarding 164-166 Hoban, bishop of Scranton, Pa. , case of T 78 Hoffman, Wickham, letters to Mr. Blaine 133, 134 Hollander, Jacob H., vice president American Jewish committee, letter to President 253 Horowitz, Louis J., case of vise of j)assport refused (Sulzberger) 247 House of Representatives, cooperation of, necessary to abrogate a treaty (Mar- shall) 49 House joint resolution No. 166 3 House resolution of Apr. 21, 1904 220 Hyvernot, Prof., case of (Adler) 80 niinois, resolution of legislature 258 Immigration. (See Chinese immigration.) Imperial ukase concerning domicile of Jews 151 Imports and exports. United States and Russia (Marshall) 87 Inaugural address of President Taf t on passport question 250 Independence Party platform, 1908, plank on protection of Americans abroad . . . 248 Independent Order B'nai B'rith: Favor Sulzer resolutions (Marshall) 79 Represented at White House conference, Feb. 15, 1911 257 Treatise on international law covering passports prepared by, presented (Elkus) 73 Independent Order of B'rith Abraham: Has 632 lodges (Sanders) 74 In favor of Sulzer resolutions (Sanders) 74 ' ' Inhabitants " : The term, dangerous (Sulzer) 86 Term might mean citizens of other countries (Cooper) 83 Term broader than "citizens " (Marshall) 83 Under treaty of 1883 any inhabitant of Russia could come here (Cooper) 86 Inheritances: Article 10 of treaty of 1832 quoted on, subject of (Marshall) 88 Diplomatic correspondence concerning (Marshall) 89-91 Interview. (See also Conference of May 25, 1910.) Interview with President: By Judge Sulzberger and Mr. Schiff 254 Requested in letter of executive committee, American Jewish Committee. . 253 Israelites, licenses issued to German-Russian consul, treaty 260 Jackson, Andrew, treaty of 1832 negotiated during term of 239 Jew, converted Christian treated as, by Russia (Goldfogle) '. 95 Jewish Colonization Society, functions of 164 Jewish divorces, Russian law on 219 Jewish population of United States: Now 2,000,000 (Sulzberger) 32 Relatively small when treaty of 1832 negotiated (Sulzberger) 32 Jewish question: Abrogation of treaty of 1832 not a "Je\vish but an American question" (Cutler) 55 This is not a (Straus) 68 828 INDEX. Page. Jews : {See also Israelites, Hebrew.) American and foreign, in Russia, letter of Minister Foster concerning 123 Compose 90 per cent of cloak makers in New York City (Marshall) 87 Emigration of, from Russia, correspondence 151-155, 176-178 Emigration from Russia, translation of law regarding 164-166 Exclusion from Russia by treaty would remove ground of complaint (Marshall) 84 Imperial ukase, concerning domicile of 151 In Kishenef , condition of 216-219 Tn Russia Condition of (Marshall) 50 Czar withholds certain privileges to, and refers matter to Duma 237 History of, since 1890, reference to (Sulzberger) 35 Industrial and professional occupations, property owned by, educa- tion of, military laws governing, etc. (Eddy) 229-235 Letter of Hon. Andrew D. White concerning 169-176 Rights of, outside pale of settlement limited (Marshall) 81 Their number, classes, laws governing, etc. (Eddy) 228-235 Those having right of permanent domicile (Eddy) 228 Those having right to travel and temporary residence (Eddy) 229 Treatment of 223-227 "When treaty of 1832 negotiated, enjoyed religious freedom (Marshall). . 81 Would be better off if treaty abrogated; reasons (Dorf) 75 Laws of Russia relative to foreign 126-128 Massacre of i 223 Native and naturalized citizens of United States should never have had relations with Russia; difficult for them to get passports (Sulzberger) ... 36 Naturalized, passport does not protect (Dorf) 76 Notice of State Department to (May 28, 1907 ; Root) 240 Of United States, only redress of grievances through an appeal to American people 258 Passports, refusal to vise (Goldfogle) 93 Persecution of, correspondence relating to 138 Refusal of Russian consul to vise passports of, correspondence 178-192 Religious freedom denied to 222 Russia could prohibit immigration (Marshall) 84 Russian edict of 1824 against entry (Marshall) 82 Russian feeling toward, if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 58 Russian legislation against (Marshall) 82 Russia's interpretation of treaty discriminates against (Straus) 68 Russia's possible excuse for excluding (Marshall) 82 Status of American, in Russia if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 Treatment of, in Russia, letter of Secretary Frelinghuysen on 137 Vise of passports withheld from (McAdoo) 4 Whether formerly Russian subjects or not included in original State De- partment circular (Marshall) 59 Joint resolution: For termination of treaty of 1832 (Parsons) 256 For termination of treaty of 1832 (Sulzer) 257 Kamaiky, Leon, publisher Jewish Daily News, statement of (Cutler) 56-58 Keily case, referred to (Straus) 68 Kendall, Hon. N. E., Representative from Iowa: Address of 21-24 Comment on Geary Act (Goodwin) 86- Questions asked by 51, 59, 61, 79, 80, 92 Kishenef: Condition of Jews in 216-219 Massacre of Jews, 1903; reference to (Sulzberger) 35 Knox, Philander, Secretary of State: Letter of, to President Taft, March 8, 1910 253 Attitude of, toward precedents 254 Conference with, May 25, 1910 - 254 Disinclination to treat passport question from standpoint of American Jew- ish Committee 254 Kosta, Martin, case of, referred to (ilarshall) 50 INDEX. 329 Page. Kraus, Adolph, attended White House conference 257 Kuhn, Arthur K.: Paper prepared on International Law and the Discriminations Practiced by Russia under the Treaty of 1832 314-320 Landau, Dr. J. H., address of (Smith) 97 Lauterbach, Edward: Letter of, concerning State Department circulars 242-243 Letter of, objecting to offensive circulars 241 \Vord "Jews" stricken from State Department circular at instance of (Mar- shall) 59 Laws: Of other countries. Provisions for observance of ordinary term in treaties (Marshall) - . - " 83 Of Russia relative to foreign Jews, Minister Foster on 134 Legare, Hon. Geo. S., a Representative from South Carolina, cjuestions asked by 50, 70, 71, 72, 75, 95 Legislation, Russian, against Jews (Marshall) 82 Lerin, Mrs. Minnie, case of 167, 168, 170 Levy, Hon. J. M., a Representative from New York, questions asked by 45, 70 Levy, Rev. J. Leonard, case of (Marshall) 59 Lewinsohn, British subject, case of 135 Libau: Jewish citizens en route to, on Russian steamer, exceptidU in favor of 244 Russian steamer to, Jews sailing on — State Department desires proof of exceptions favoring 246 Proof furnished T 247 Linthicum, Hon. J. Charles, a Representative from Maryland, letter of 31 London Standard, article from, on condition of Jews in Kishenef 217-219 Lothrop, Minister to Russia, letter of Secretary Bayard to, on expatriation (Mar- shall) 91 Luncheon. {See Conference ) McAdoo, Wm. G.: Chairman Carnegie Hall mass meeting, address of 6 President of the Hudson Tunnels, statement of 3-5 McDougal, Elliott C: Address of 99 Spoke favoring abrogation (Smith) 96 McLeod, Rev. Donald C: Stated : "Not a Jewish question ; Equally a Presbyterian question " (Straus) . 69 Statement of 63-65 Mack, Julian W. , vice president American Jewish Committee, letter to President . 253 Magnes, J. L., letter to President 253 "Man against the dollar " (Marshall) 58 "Man ahead of the dollar. " Question of giving up 1 per cent of commerce in behalf of citizenship (Garner) 50-51 Margolin, Giovanni J. , case of 212-216 Marks, Harry, case of 207, 208 Marshall, Louis: Address of, on Russia and American passport 266-272 Address of, on "Russia and American passport, " referred to 256 Attended conference at White House February 15, 1911 257 Letter of, concerning State Department circulars 242-243 Letter of, objecting to offensive circulars 241 Letter to President 253 Statements of 39-51, 58-62, 78-92, 279-285 ^lassachusetts, citizens of, favor abrogation (Murray) 100 Massachusetts Legislature, resolutions of (Murray) 100 Massacres of Jews in Russia, official notification of 223-227 Massacres, letter of Minister Foster, describing 125 Mass meeting. {See Carnegie Hall mass meeting.) May laws of ignative passed of 1882 (Marshall) 82 Memorandum June 3, 1910; not printed 254 To President Taft (executive committee, American Jewish Committee). . 254-255 Methods for terminating treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 Military laws, liability of naturalized citizens under 212 Miller, Justice, United States Supreme Court quoted (Marshall) 44 330 INDEX. Page. MiDimum tariff rates granted to Russia 252 Missionaries. {See Discriminations.) Montana, resolution of legislature 258 Moses, James G., case of 135 Murray, Hon. Wm. F., Representative from Massachusetts, statement of 99-101 Nathan, Marks, case of 207 National Citizens' Committee: Carnegie mass meeting held under auspices of 5 Favors abrogation of treaty, work of (Noland) 77 National German-American Alliance, resolution of, favoring abrogation (Mar- shall) 79 National Jewish Fraternal Congress: Membership nearly half a million, representing nine-tenths Jewish citizens (Sanders) 74 In favor of Sulzer resolutions (Sanders) 74 Naturalization no protection to Jew with passport (Dorf) 76 Naturalization treaty, first question to be considered in making new treaty (Sulzberger) 244 Naturalized citizens: Liability of, under military and expatriation laws 212 Should be a treaty negotiated concerning those from Russia (Sulzberger). . 37 Negotiations; Citizenship reflected upon by not closing (Straus) 68 Congress authorized renewal of, on passport question (Goldfogle) 94 Renewal, on passport question, under House resolution of Apr. 21, 1904. . . 220 Those on passport question a joke (Dorf) 75 Transfer of, from St. Petersburg to Washington recommended (American Jewish Committee) 254-255 Nellany, Michael, capitalist, advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 Nesselrode, Co^mt: Negotiated treaty of 1832, on part of Russia 239 Treaty of 1832 negotiated on part of Russia by (Sulzberger) S3 Nevada, resolution of legislature 258 New treaty with Russia, what it should contain (Sulzberger) 245-247 New York Evening Mail, series of articles in, referred to 258 New York, resolution of legislature 258 New York Times, article in, by Herman Bernstein, referred to (Marshall) 50 Nolan, Bernard, secretary National Citizens' Committee, statement of 77 Nonexpatriated Russians, if no treaty concerning, then there should be one {see also Art. 10, treaty of 1832) (Sulzberger) 37 Nonreligious organizations. {See Religion.) Notice of abrogation, when effective (Marshall) 58 Notice to American citizens contemplating return to Russia (Root) 240 Notice to American Jews issued by State Department 212 O 'Brien, Wm., president Boston Central Labor Union, statement of 100 O'Gorman, Hon. James A., a Senator from New York, address of 12-13 Order B'rith Abraham: Membership 74,000 (Dorf) 74 Objects of, stated (Dorf) 74 Pale of settlement: Condition of Jews living outside of 152 Rights of Jews outside of, limited (Marshall) 81 Panama Canal, suppose Russian steamer denied passage through (Schiff) 67 Parsons, Hon. Herbert, of New York: ' 'Abrogate now " 24 Joint resolution introduced by 256 Pleads for abrogation ^ - . - 257 Parsons resolution, hearings before Committee on Foreign Affairs • 257, 272-294 sport: American citizen holding, entitled to entrance into Russia (Goldfogle) 93 Conditions under which obtained and used 212 Copy of, received from State Department (Cutler) 56 Denied because not visaed (Cutler) 55 Dishonored by Russia on religious grounds (Goldfogle) 95 Explanation of why viseed at London and in United States (Marshall) 58 Grounds for refusal of Russian consul general to vise (Cutler) 52-54 INDEX. 331 Page. Passport — Continued. Of no value, notwithstanding agreement with Russia (Marshall) S3 Visas, Austrian and Hungarian commercial travelers, stipulation concern- ing 260 Vis6of, exception in favor of Jewish citizen if passage by Russian steamer. 244, 247 Visaed by Russian consul at London; reasons (Kamaiky) 57 Passport question: A "chestnut," always in same condition at end of every administration (Schiff) 67 Arose in 1867 or 1868 (Marshall) 82 Congress and people of United States aroused concerning (Marshall) 41 In Congress, 1879-1909 304-320 Involves not only extradition of criminals, but fundamental right of citi- zenship 259 Public not acquainted with, until recently (Cutler) 54 Recommendations of American Jewish committee to President Taft con- cerning - 254-255 Renewal of negotiations under House resolution, April 21, 1907 220 Reprint from American Jewish Yearbook 5672 (Appendix II) 239 Scant consideration of, by State Department, since 1905 240 Sincerity of Russian Government on (Sulzberger) 35-36 Taft on 249-250 Passports : Difficult of procuring by native and naturalized Jews in United States (Sulzberger) _ 36 Expulsion from Russia of Jews holding foreign; correspondence 139, 149 For Russia's steamships, circular of March 16, 1911 258 Issued to Jews, refusal of Russian consul to vis6; correspondence 178-192 Letter of Hon. Elihu Root concerning (Schiff) 66 Necessary to be visaed (Goldfogle) 95 Refusal to vis6 those of Jews ^Goldfogle) 93 Russian commissions do nothing to recognize (Goldfogle) 94 Penrose, Hon. Boise, a Senator from Pennsylvania, letter of 30 People: American Jewish committee decides to appeal to 256 Only redress through an appeal to 258 Persecution of Jews, correspondence relating to ; 138 Pinkos, Henry, case of 108-113,113-122,124,129 Planks from party platforms, 1908, on protection of Americans abroad 248 Platforms (1904), those of both parties promised redress (Sulzberger) 246 Polish Jews, their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 Political movement, nonpartisan (Harrison) 101-102 Political parties, promised redress in 1904 (Sulzberger) 246 Polk, President James K., requests power of Congress to terminate treaty (Marshall) 49 Pouren case, referred to (Schiff) 66 Precedent, Russia's action fvu-nishes, for other countries (Straus) 70 Precedents as to power of President and Congress to terminate treaties (Mar- shall)... 41-50 Precedents, attitude of Secretary Knox toward 254 Presbyterian question, illustration (Straus) 69 President of United States: Abrogation of treaties by Congress requested or suggested by (Marshall) ... 49 Doubt as to power to abrogate treaty (Marshall) 45 Negotiated proceedings terminating treaty of 1817 only case (Marshall) 48 Power to abrogate a treaty discussed 41 Power to abrogate treaty, ought he to have it, discussed 44 Powers in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 Requested to renew negotiations on passport question 220 Should report to Congress failure of negotiations (Dorf) 75 President Taft, interview with, requested by American Jewish committee 253 Property. {See Inheritances.) Prussia, treaty of 1828 with, how construed (Marshall) 91 Queen Catharine issued ukase inviting Jews into Russia (Marshall) 81 Rabbinist Jews, their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 Recommendations, executive committee, American Jewish committee, em- bodied in memorandum to President Taft 254 Religion, (/See a?so Creed and religion.) 332 INDEX. Religion: Page. American citizens interrogated regarding (Mc Adoo) 4 Citizens classified by (Goldfogle) 93 France recognized equality of; citizens of different beliefs (Elkus) 73 No distinction on account of any treaty between France and Russia 261 No distinction on account of any treaty between Austria-Hungary and Russia 260 Nonreligious organizations' attitude toward abrogation (Marshall) 79 Passport dishonored on religious grounds (Goldfogie) 95 Passport not viseed on account of (Kamaiky) 57 Statement of, required by applicant for vise (Cutler) 52 Religious freedom, ukase of Czar of Russia, granting, except to Jews 222 Religious inquisition, protest of United States against 239 Republican platform of 1904, promised equal protection abroad for all citizens. 246 Republican platform of 1908, plank on protection to Americans abroad 248 Resolution of House of Representatives, April 21, 1904 220 Resolution of Union of American Hebrew Congregations 256 Resolutions adopted by Carnegie Hall mass meeting 5-6 Revised Statutes of United States, sections 1999, 2000, 2001, cited (Marshall). . 59-60, 92, 242, 277 Rhode Island: First State to pass resolution for amelioration of conditions (Cutler) 54 Resolution of legislature 258 Riots : Anti-Jewish, correspondence relating to 138 At Warsaw, account of 136 In Russia, correspondence concerning 235-237 Robert College, Constantinople, president of, referred to (Straus) 70 Rockhill, Hon. W. W., Ambassador to Russia: Conference with 252 Instructed to do all possible to settle passport question 252 Conference with. May 25, 1910 254 Returns to post 256 Roosevelt, Theodore, President of United States: Correspondence with Secretary Root furnished (Sulzberger) 248 Letter of Judge Mayer Sulzberger to, May 18, 1908 243 Reference to correspondence with 252 Root, Elihu, Secretary of State: Asks proof of exceptions favoring Jews sailing by Pvussian steamer 246 Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 Change of policy under 240 Copy of notice to American citizens formerly subjects of Russia (Cutler)... 54 Goldfogle resolution, emasculated at instance of 250 Letter of, quoted (Schiff) 66 Letter of, to Mr. Schiff 249 Substitutes circular of January 25, 1908, for those of May 28, 1907 241 Rosenstraus Bros., cases of (Marshall) 62 Rosenstraus, H., case of 106-107, 129 Resenstraus, Theodore and Herman, cases of, referred to 278 Rosenwald, Julius, letter to President 253 Russia- American Line of steamships: Circular, March 16, 1911 258 Office of Imperial Russian consul in building of 258 Russia's support of _. 258 Russia and Austria-Hungary, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 Russia and France, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 Russia and Germany, consular treaty between 259 " Russia and the American passport," address of Louis Marshall on 256, 266, 272 Russia : Abrogation of treaty would increase respect for Jews in (Dorf) , 75 Ambassador Straus did not ask permission to enter (Straus) 71 American people not hostile against (McAdoo) 4 Applies rigid test to Americans seeking to enter (McAdoo) 4 Attitude toward Jews altered after 1865 239 Attitude toward Jews changed about 1867 or 1868 (Marshall) 81 Began to make discriminations against Jews of United States about 40 years ago (Sulzberger) 32 INDEX. 333 Russia— Continued. Page. Can not be compelled to open its doors (Marshall) 50 C'ondition of Jews in (Marshall) 50 Difficult to understand who governs (Harrison) 102 Discriminates against Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians (chairman) 65 Disregarded plain treaty stipulations (McAdoo) 4 Example of, imitated by Turkey (Straus) 69-70 Excuse for excluding Jews, her argument (Marshall) 82 Expatriated citizen, rights of (Sulzberger) .-•••■-. ^^ Failure to close negotiations with, reflects upon our citizenship (Straus)... 68 Good country to be expatriated from (Sulzberger) 36 Granted minimum tariff rates .--.-•- ^^^ If Americans other than Jews with passports were asked as to their religious beliefs by (Cooper, Marshall) .""... 51 If treaty between United States and, provided for exclusion of Jews from Russia we could not complain (Marshall) 84 Interprets treaty of 1832 against Jews, clergymen, etc. (Straus) 68 Its system of underground information (Harrison) 103 Jews in, their number, classes, laws governing, etc. (Spencer Eddy) 228-235 Laws of, relative to foreign Jews 126-128 Letter and spirit of treaty of 1832 violated by 259 Military and expatriation laws, liability under 212 No such thing as public opinion in (Harrison) 102 Not anxious for quarrel (Sulzberger) 38 Revision of treaty of 1832 suggested to (Knox) 254 Status of American Jews in, if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 The most she can claim (Sulzberger) -. 3 Treaty of 1832 between, and United States, joint resolution to terminate. . 637 Two million Americans insulted by, daily (Silverman) 65 LTnited States does not want and ought not to regulate interior affairs of (Sulzberger) _. 34 Would have right to prohibit immigration of Jews into Russia (Marshall). . 84 Russian ambassador, refusal to "vdse passports (Goldfogle) 93 Russian border, "No thoroughfare" to Americans of Jewish parentage (Schiff). 67 Russian Embassv, the only one piece of Russian sovereignty in United States ^ (Sulzberger) . .' 36 Russian censorship (Harrison) 103 Russian consul: Office of, in building of Russia-American Line of steamships 258 Will vise passports of Jewish applicants taking passage on Russian steamer. 244, 247 Russian consul general in New York: Asks regarding religion of applicants for passports (McAdoo) 4 Difficulties in obtaining vise from (Cutler) 52-53 Secretary Root asks proof that he favors Jews sailing by Russian steamer. . 246 Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 Russian diplomacy, United States tool of (Harrison) 101 Russian feeling toward Jews, effect of abrogation of treaty on (Marshall) 58 Russian law on Jewish divorces 219 Russian steamer to Libau: Jewish citizens favored if sailing by 244, 247 Jews sailing on, may have passports viseed — department wants proof 246 Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 Russian territory, consul general's office, New York, not (Sulzberger) 36 Russian volunteer fleet 258 Russians: Circular on passports for 258 Like to stand well in society (Sulzberger) 38 Russophile policy, said to have been that of State Department since 1905 240 Ryan, John T.: Address of 98 Advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 Sanders, Judge Leon, statement of 73-74 Schiff, Hon. Jacob H.: Statement of 66-67 Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 Attended conference at White House February 15, 1911 257 Interview \vith President 254 Judge Taft's promise to 249 334 INDEX. Schiff, Hon. Jacob H. — Continued. Page. Letter to President 253 Memorandum to President Taft 255 Secretary Root's letter to 249-250 Schlippenbacli, Baron, requires statement of religion by applicant for vise (Cutler) _. 52 Scnurman, Dr. Jacob Gould, President Cornell University, address of 17-21 Secretaries of State: Adhered to position of Blaine and Cleveland until 1905 240 Attention of all called to United States statutes on expatriation (Marshall). 60 Senate: No right alone to abrogate a treaty (Marshall) 49 Powers in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 Senate resolution authorizing President to give notice of termination of treaty (Marshall) 49 Sharp, Hon. Wm. G., a Representative fi'om Ohio, address of. . 24-26, 61, 62, 72, 76, 94 Silverman, Rev. Joseph, statement of 65 Smith, Hon. Charles B., RepresentatiA^e from New York, statement of 96-99 Smith, Hon. Rufus B.: Address of, refen'ed to 258 Paper by, on United States passport and Russia 288-294 Smith, Rev. H. Lester, advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 State Department: Ambassadors urged by, to change Russia's attitude (Goldfogle) 93-94 Attention called to Russia's violation of expatriation law (Marshall) 59-60 Change of policy since 1905 240 State Department Circular May 28, 1907 (Marshall) (see also Circular) 59 State Department Circular: May 28, 1907 240 January 25, 1908, substituted for offensive circulars 241 Existence of, not known for six months 240 State Department, negotiations by, with Russia unavailing, reasons (Marshall). 40 State legislatures, resolutions of, favoring abrogation - 258 States, list of, asking for abrogation of treaty of 1832 (Cutler) 54 Statistics of commerce between United States and Russia (Marshall) 87 Stein, Philip, attended White House conference 257 Straus, Hon. Oscar S.: Statement of '- -. 67-73 American ambassador to Turkey recites experiences 72 Sobel, Isador, letter to President 253 Solomons, A. S., reference to lOJ Sulzberger, Cyrus L. , letter to President 253 Sulzberger, Hon. Mayer, president judge of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, Philadelphia: Statement of 31-39 Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 Conferred with Ambassador Rockhill 252 Interview with President 254 Letter of June 17, 1908, to Secretary Root. ^^^"^^J Letter of President's secretary to 253 Letter to Judge Taft ^^^"^S Letter to President 253 Letter to Roosevelt, referred to Secretary Root 246 Memorandum to President Taft •.-■-; -, ^^^ President, American Jewish Committee, recommends termination of treaty of 1832 -. ^^^'Itl Reply of Secretary Knox to letter of 253 Second letter to President Roosevelt June 30, 1908 248 Sulzer, Hon. William (a Representative from New York): Joint resolution introduced by, for termination of treaty of 1832 between United States and Russia - .- '^ Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, energetic advocate of abrogation. . 257 Questions asked by - 72, 75, 76 Sulzer resolution: _„ April 6, 1911 -■-- ^5; To abrogate treaty of 1832 ^^^ Committee justified in reporting (Smith") ^^ Principles prompting introduction (Murray) -^^" INDEX. 335 Sumner, Charles, resolution b^ , on power to abrogate treaties referred to (Mar- Page, shall) -■_ .- ^- 49 Switzerland, discriminated against some of its cantons (Elkus) 73 Taft, Wm. H., President of United States: Conference with. May 25, 1910 254 Inaugural address, 1909 250 Instructed Ambassador Rockhill to do all possible to settle passport ques- tion 252 Interview of Judge Sulzberger and Mr. Schiff with 254 Letter of Executive Committee American Jewish Committee, to 252-253 Memorandum to, embodying remarks at conference May 25, 1910 254 Resolution of Union of American Hebrew Congregations, presented to 256 Speeches on passport question 250 Passport question treated in letter accepting presidential nomination 249 Promises Mr. Schiff, if elected, to give passport question special attention. 249 Republican candidate for President, letter of Mayer Sulzberger to 248-249 Temple Beth El mass meeting held at Buffalo (Smith) 96 Termination. (See also Treaty of 1832.) Termination of treaty of 1832, delay in, emphasizes American acquiescence in Russia's interpretation (Straus) 68 Travel and sojourn provisions. (See Treaty of 1832.) Townsend, E. W., a Representative from New Jersey, question asked by 65, 80 Treaties : Abrogation by Congress requested or suggested by President, instances of (Marshall) ' 49 Abrogation of, power to abrogate discussed 41-50 Abrogated by act of Congress (Marshall) 46-47 Brief on termination of (Friedenwald) 295-303 Can not afford to have with any power unless every American receiA'es full benefit and protection of (McAdoo) 4 How terminated (Friedenwald) 295 of France, Belgium, and Chile, United States did not hesitate to denounce (Harrison) ] 03 Provisions in for observance of law, an ordinary term (Marshall) 83 Terminated in Congress by notice given in accordance with the terms of the treaty (Marshall) 46 Why made (Sulzberger) 34 Treaty: No understanding can be imputed to it that is not written in it (Sulzberger) . 34 (See also Agreement.) Treaty of commerce and navigation : Between Austria-Hungary and Russia 260 Between France and Russia 260 Treaty with Russia (new): What it should contain (Sulzberger) 245, 247 When written should express principle embodied in statutes (Marshall) . . 92 Treaty of 1832: Abrogation best solution of problem (Straus) 72 Antiquated relic of the past (Marshall) 92 Arguments for abrogation of, presented anew 257 Chronological history of negotiations 239 Com-mercial advantages not all on side of United States (Sulzberger) 37-38 Construed by "bureaucracy" of Russia as giving right to discriminate (Straus) 68 Culberson resolution to abrogate 257 Delay in terminating emphasizes American acquiescence in Russia's interpretation (Straus) 68 Diplomatic correspondence shows Russia's violation of treaty for 40 years without remedy (Marshall) 40 Effect of abrogation upon commerce discussed (Sulzberger) 38 Financial interests' opposition to abrogation, no knowledge of (Straus) 72 Great advance in relations between Russia and United States (Sulzberger) . 32 Hearings on Parsons resolution to terminate 272-294 If abrogated, modern treaty probably result (Marshall) 80 ' ' Inhabitant " of the United States entitled to benefit of (Sulzberger) 35 Interpretation of first and tenth sections (Sulzberger) 32-33 Interpretation of article 1, no question arose over until 1865 239 19831—11 22 336 INDEX. Treaty of 1832— Continued. Jewish population small when negotiated (Sulzberger) 32 Joint resolution to terminate (Parsons) 256 Joint resolution to terminate (Sulzer) 3 Judge Sulzberger recommends its termination 243, 247 Letter and spirit of, violated by Russia ' 259 Must be considered as between two parties (Marshall) 82 Must be terminated (Goldfogle) 95 No question of expatriation arose when made (Sulzberger) 37 Not a word in, as to religious beliefs (Sulzberger) " 32 Notice of abrogation ; when effective (Marshall) 58 Not in conflict with fundamental principles (Straus) 67-68 Only two sections bearing on passport question (Sulzberger) 32 Parsons resolution to abrogate, hearings on 257 Relations between United States and Russia growing out of an old ques- tion (Marshall) 39 Relations of the powers necessary to an understanding of (Sulzberger) 32-34 Resolutions to terminate 257 Russia's duty under (Goldfogle) 93 Russia's Interpretation of (Straus) 68 State Department suggests advisability of revising ( Knox) 254 State legislatures favoring abrogation of 258 Travel and sojourn provisions similar to extradition provisions treaty of 1842 with Great Britain 259 Treaty of 1842. (See Great Britain.) Treaty of 1887, termination recommended (Sulzberger) 244, 247 Turkey: American educators and missionaries protected in (Straus) '. 70 Discriminations by (Elkus) 73 Union of the American-Hebrew Congregations: Address of Louis Marshall to, referred to 256 Letter of Secretary of State concerning Jews in Russia 107-108 Represented at White House conference , 257 Resolution of ' 256 United States: Has strictly observed treaty obligations (Mc Adoo) 4 More necessary to Russia than Russia is to them (Curley, Marshall) 50 Protests against discrimination (McAdooj 4 Russian embassy only Russian piece of sovereignty in (Sulzberger) 36 Treaty relations with Russia cai^ stand severance of (Marshall) 92 Views on expatriation same toward Russia as other countries (Marshall) ... 92 Passport and Russia, paper on (Smith) 288-294 Vis6 {see also Passports) : Conditions under which granted (Goldfogle) 95 Difficulties in obtaining, from Russian consul general (Cutler) 52-53 Form of application for (Cutler) .■ 52 Necessary in all cases (Goldfogle j 95 No trouble to obtain, from Russian consul at New York if passage by Rus- sian steamer 244, 247 Refusal of Russian consul to vis6 passports of Jews, correspondence 178-192 Jews refused, by Russian consul general in New York (McAdoo) 4 Real requirement to obtain, from Russian consul 258 Waix, Maior, case of 181-182 Waldenberg, D . , case of 143 Waldenberg, David and Jacob, cases of 161-162 Warsaw, account of riots at 136 Washington, resolution of legislature 258 Wilczynski, Marx, case of 113-122, 124 White, Hon. Andrew D., former ambassador to Russia, president of the National Citizens' Committee: Address of _ 7-12 Letter of, concerning condition of Jews in Russia 169-176 Wilson, Gov. Woodrow, of New Jersey, address of 15 Wolf, Simon: Attended White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 Mentioned (Marshall) 79 Reference to 1*^7 o