FOOTNOTES:

Legation of the United States,St. Petersburg, July 6, 1893.(Received July 27.)

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 not only of 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, 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 some years past has been drawn back from the frontier about forty miles, under the necessity, as it is claimed, imposed by the tendency of the Israelites in that region to conduct 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 ofquasiright in the case of certain classes, such as Israelites who have been admitted to the learned professions, or have taken a university degree, or have received the rights of merchants of 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 integrity 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 moderate 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 expiration 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 this Empire more than one thousand decrees and statutes relating to them, beside innumerable circulars, open or secret, regulations, restrictions, extensions, and temporary arrangements, 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 certain 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 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 whichthey have been subjected may be found in the report made by Mr. J. B. Weber and his associate commissioners entitled, "Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the Causes which incite Immigration 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, over-colored, 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 on 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 classes find it more and more difficult to re-enter Russia, and this fact will explain the case of Mrs. Minnie Levin, referred to in Mr. Wharton's dispatch No: 60 as being refused a visa at the Russian Consulate-General in New York, and it will also throw light on various cases we have had in which the legation has been able to secure mitigation of 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 over-zealous local authorities.

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; but 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 forty years ago, when, as an attaché of this legation, I was for seven days and nights on the outside of a post coach between St. Petersburgh and Warsaw—there being then no railway to the frontier—I had an 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 body and soul together. Even the best of them were then 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 enclosure in front of the posthouse to look at the coach in which I was, lashed with a coach whip anddriven out of the enclosure 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 8000 or 10,000 inhabitants had recently received into its population nearly 6000 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 even been, 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 workmen, but these are understood to be not now in force. They are relics of the old legislation 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 how their race has been recognized as having a peculiar aptitude for medicine and surgery. As a rule, also, they are debarred from discharging 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.

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 population, they can not hold more than one-third 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, 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 race, but no matter how gifted a young Israelite may be, his chances of receiving an education 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. Petersburgh and Moscow only 3 per cent. Out of the seventy-five young Israelites who applied for admission to the University of Dorpat in 1887 only seven 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 who 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 universities remote from the 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 the one hand great powers are given to the 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 co-religionists and to give their regulations 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 technicalbranches 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 theological 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 the 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 the charge of orthodox priests, this statement having been brought to my notice especially 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 trustworthy 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 certain 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 a much higher rate than Jews have ever ventured to do; while it is allowed that 100 per cent a year has not unfrequently 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 the recent report of a Russian official to Mr. Sagonof; and a leading journal of St. Petersburg, published under strict censorship, has recently given cases with names and dates where a rate higher than the highest above named was paid by Russian peasants to Christian money lenders.

Those inclined to lenity towards the Jews point to the fact that none of them would dare take any such rates of interest as Christians may freely demand; that to do so would raise 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 Russiatends 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, that 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. Mackenzie 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 persecutions 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 part of the Empire which they most inhabit, to buy it or even to farm it, and that 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 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 fully equal 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 promotion, and when he retires after service, he is, as a rule, subject to the same restrictions as others of his race. 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, wherever 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, these qualities are rarely, if ever, mentioned among them.

It is also urged against the Israelites in Russia that they are not patriotic, but in view of the policy pursued regarding them the wonder is that any human being should expect them to be patriotic.

There is also frequent complaint against Jewish fanaticism, and recently collections of extracts from the Talmud have been published here as in western Europe, and even in the UnitedStates, to show that Israelites are educated in bitter and undying hate of Christians, and taught not only to despise but to despoil them; and it is insisted that the vast majority of the Israelites in Russia have, by ages of this kind of instruction and by the simple laws of heredity, been made beasts of prey with claws and teeth especially sharp, and that the peasant must be protected from them.

Lately this charge has been strongly reiterated, a book having appeared here in which the original Hebrew of the worst Talmudic passages, with translations of them, are placed in parallel columns. It seems to be forgotten that the Israelites would be more than human if such passages did not occur in their sacred writings. While some of these passages antedate the establishment of Christianity, most of them have been the result of fervor under oppression and of the appeal to the vengeance of Jehovah in times of persecution; and it would be but just to set against them the more kindly passages, especially the broadly and beautifully humane teachings which are so frequent in the same writings.

An eminently practical course would be to consider the development of Judaism in the United States, Great Britain, and other countries where undeniably those darker features of of the Talmud have been more and more blotted out from Jewish teaching, and the unfortunate side of Talmudic influence more and more weakened.

But this charge of Talmudic fanaticism is constantly made, and Russians, to show that there is no hatred of Israelites, as such, point to the fact that the Karaites, who are non-Talmudic, have always been treated with especial kindness.

To this the answer would seem to be that the Karaites are free from fanaticism because they have been so long kindly treated, and that this same freedom and kindness which has made them unobjectionable to Russian patriotism would, in time, probably render the great mass of Israelites equally so.

There is no need of argument, either in the light of history or of common sense, to prove that these millions of Israelites in Russia are not to be rendered less fanatical by the treatment to which they are subjected.

To prove that the more bitter utterances in the Talmud complained of do not necessarily lead Israelites to hate Christians, and indeed to show that the teachings which the Israelites receive in countries where they have more freedom lead to a broad philanthropy of the highest type, I have been accustomed, in discussing the subject with Russians, to point to such examples of the truest love for human kind as those shown by Judah Touro in the United States, Sir Moses Montefiore in England, Nathan de Rothschild in Austria, James de Rothschildand Baron Hirsch in France, and multitudes of other cases, citing especially the fact of the extensive charities carried on by Israelites in all countries, and the significant circumstance that the first considerable contribution from the United States to the Russian famine fund came from a Jewish synagogue in California, with the request that in the use of it no discrimination should be made between Jews and Christians. Cases like these would seem to do away effectually with the idea, that Jewish teachings necessarily inculcate hostility to people of other religious beliefs.

There is also a charge closely connected wtth the foregoing which undoubtedly has much to do with the present severe reaction. It is constantly repeated that, in spite of the fact that the late Emperor Alexander II had shown himself more kindly toward the Israelites than had any of his predecessors—relaxing the old rules as to residence, occupation, education, and the like, and was sure, had he lived, to go much farther in the same direction, probably as far as breaking down a mass of the existing barriers, and throwing open vast regions never before accessible to them—the proportion of Israelites implicated in the various movements against him, especially in the Nihilistic movement, and in the final plot which led to his assassination, was far beyond the numerical proportion of their race in Russia to the entire population. This feeling was certainly at the bottom of the cruel persecutions of the Israelites by the peasants just after the death of the late Emperor, and has no less certainly much to do with the prejudices of various personages of high influence as well as of the vast mass of the people which still exist.

The remarkable reaction now dominant in Russia is undoubtedly in great measure, if not entirely, the result of the assassination of Alexander II; it is a mere truism to say that this event was the most unfortunate in its effects on well-ordered progress that has occurred in this Empire; but, so far as the Israelites are concerned, the facts at the bottom of this charge against them can be accounted for, without imputing anything to the race at large, by the mass of bitterness stored up during ages of oppression, not only in Russia, but elsewhere. The matter complained of must certainly be considered as exceptional, for it cannot hide the greater fact that the Jews have always shown themselves especially grateful to such rulers as have mitigated their condition or even shown a kindly regard for them.

I was myself, as minister at Berlin, cognizant of innumerable evidences of gratitude and love shown by the entire Jewish population toward the Crown Prince, afterwards the Emperor Frederick III, who, when Jew-baiting was in fashion, andpatronized by many persons in high positions, set himself quietly but firmly against it. And this reminiscence leads me to another in regard to the oft-repeated charge that the Israelite is incapable of patriotism, is a mere beast of prey, and makes common cause with those of his race engaged in sucking out the substance of the nation where he happens to be. It was my good fortune to know personally several Israelites at Berlin, who as members of the Imperial Parliament showed their patriotism by casting away all hopes of political advancement and resisting certain financial claims in which some of their co-religionists, as well as some leading and very influential Christians, were deeply engaged. There is nothing nobler in recent parliamentary history than the career of such Israelites as Lasker and Bamberger during that period, and at this moment no sane man in Germany hesitates to ascribe to the Israelite Simson all the higher qualities required in his great office, that of chief justice in the highest court of the German Empire.

The same broad and humane characteristics have been shown among the vast majority of Israelites eminent in science, philosophy, literature and the arts. Long before the Israelite Spinoza wrought his own ideal life into the history of philosophy, this was noted, and it has continued to be noted in Russia. During my former residence here there were two eminent representatives of the proscribed race in the highest scientific circles, and they were especially patriotic and broad in their sympathies; and to-day the greatest of Russian sculptors, Antokolski, an Israelite, has thrown into his work not only more genius, but also more of profound patriotic Russian feeling, than has any other sculptor of this period. He has revived more evidently than has any other sculptor the devotion of Russians to their greatest men in times past, and whenever the project of erecting at St. Petersburg a worthy monument to the late Emperor shall be carried out, there is no competent judge who will not acknowledge that he is the man in all Russia to embody in marble or bronze the gratitude of the nation. This is no mere personal opinion of my own, for when recently a critic based an article against Antokolski's works, evidently upon grounds of race antipathy, a brilliant young author, of one of the oldest and most thoroughly Russian families in the Empire, Prince Sergius Wolkonsky, wrote a most cogent refutation of the attack. It is also charged that in Russia, and, indeed, throughout Europe, an undue proportion of Jews have been prominent in movements generally known as "socialistic," and such men as Ferdinand Lasalle and Karl Marx are referred to.

When this statement has been made in my hearing I havemet it by the counter statement of a fact that seems to me to result from the freedom allowed in the United States, namely, the fact that at a meeting of the American Social Science Association in 1891, in which a discussion took place involving the very basis of the existing social system, and in which the leading representatives of both sides in the United States were most fully represented, the argument which was generally agreed to be the most effective against the revolutionary and anti-social forces was made by a young Israelite, Prof. Seligman, of Columbia University, in the city of New York. Here, again, results are mistaken for causes; the attitude complained of in the Israelites is clearly the result of the oppression of their race.

But there is one charge which it is perhaps my duty to say that I have never heard made against Israelites even by Russians most opposed to them—the charge that they are to be found in undue or even in any considerable proportion among inebriates or criminals. The simplest reason for this exception in their favor is found in the official statistics which show that in the Governments where they are most numerous diseases and crimes resulting from the consumption of alcoholic drinks are least numerous, and that where the number of Israelites is greatest the consumption of spirits is least. It is also well known, as a matter of general observation, that the Russian Israelites are, as a rule, sober, and that crimes among them are comparatively infrequent.

Yet, if in any country we might expect alcoholism to be greatly developed among them it would be in this Empire, where their misery is so great and the temptation to drown it in intoxicating beverages so constant; and if we might expect crime to be developed largely among them it would be in this Empire, where, crowded together as they are, the struggle for existence is so bitter. Their survival under it can only be accounted for by their superior thrift and sobriety.

It would be a mistake to suppose that religious hatred or even deeply religious feeling is a main factor in this question. The average Russian believes that all outside the orthodox Greek Church are lost; but he does not hate them on that account, and though there has been of late years, during the present reaction, an increase of pressure upon various Christian organizations outside the established church, this has been undeniably from political rather than religious reasons; it has been part of the "Russifying process," which is at present the temporary fashion. The rule in Russia has always been toleration, though limited by an arrangement which seems to a stranger very peculiar. In St. Petersburg, for example, there are churches for nearly all the recognized forms of Christian belief, as well as synagogues for Hebrews, and at least one Mohammedanmosque; but the only proselytism allowed is that between themselves and from them to the established church; in other words, the Greek church may proselyte from any of them, and, within certain limits, each one may proselyte from its orthodox neighbors, but none of them can make converts from the Greek Church.

This regulation seems rather, the result, on the whole, of organized indifference than of zeal, its main purpose being undoubtedly to keep down any troublesome religious fervor. The great body of the Russian peasantry, when left to themselves, seem to be remarkably free from any spirit of fanatical hostility toward religious systems differing from their own, and even from the desire to make proselytes. Mr. Mackenzie Wallace, in his admirable book, after showing that the orthodox Russian and the Mahommedan Tartar live in various communities in perfect peace with each other, details a conversation with a Russian peasant, in which the latter told him that just as God gave the Tartar a darker skin, so he gave him a different religion; and this feeling of indifference, when the peasants are not excited by zealots on one side or the other, seems to prevail toward the Roman Catholics in Poland and the Protestants in the Baltic provinces and Finland. While some priests have undoubtedly done much to create a more zealous feeling, it was especially noted during the fierce persecution of the Jews early in the present reign that in several cases the orthodox village priests not only gave shelter to Israelites seeking to escape harm, but exerted themselves to put an end to the persecutions. So, too, during the past few days the papers have contained a statement that a priest very widely known and highly esteemed, to whom miraculous powers are quite generally attributed, Father John, of Cronstadt, has sent some of the charity money, of which he is almoner, to certain Jewish orphanages under the control of Israelites.

The whole present condition of things is rather the outcome of a great complicated mass of causes, involving racial antipathies, remembrances of financial servitude, vague inherited prejudices, with myths and legends like those of the Middle Ages.

But, whatever may be the origin of the feeling toward the Israelites the practical fact remains that the present policy regarding them is driving them out of the country in great masses. The German papers speak of large numbers as seeking the United States and the Argentine Republic—but especially the former—through the northern ports of that Empire, and, as I write, the Russian papers state that eight steamers loaded with them are just about leaving Libau for America.

It is, of course, said in regard to these emigrants that theyhave not been ordered out of the country, that they can stay in Russia if they like, and that Russia has simply exercised her right to manage her own internal affairs in her own way; but it is none the less true that the increasing severity in the enforcement of the regulations regarding the Israelites is the main, if not the only, cause of this exodus. In order that this question may be understood in its relations to the present condition of political opinion in the Empire, there is need to make some additional statement.

There has never been a time, probably, when such a feeling of isolation from the rest of the world, and aversion to foreign influence of every sort, have prevailed in Russia as at present; it is shared by the great majority from the highest to the lowest, and it is echoed in the press. Russia has been, during the last ten years, in a great reactionary period, which now seems to be culminating in the attempted "Russification" of the Empire, involving such measures as increasing pressure upon Poland, increasing interference with the Baltic provinces and the German colonies, in the talk of constitutional changes in Finland, in the substitution of Russian for German names of various western towns, in the steadily increasing provisions for strengthening the orthodox Russian Church against all other religious organizations, in the outcry made by various papers in favor of such proposals as that for transferring the university at Dorpat into the Muscovite regions of the interior, for changing the name of St. Petersburg, and for every sort of Russifying process which the most imaginative can devise.

In this present reaction, connected as it is with bitter disappointment over the defeat of Russian aspirations in the Berlin treaty and since, reforms which were formerly universally considered honorable and desirable for Russia are now regarded with aversion; the controlling feeling is for "Russification."

Peter the Great is now very largely regarded by Russians as having taken a wrong road, and, while monuments are erected to Alexander II, his services as emancipator of the serfs are rarely alluded to, and the day formerly observed in remembrance of the emancipation has ceased to be publicly noticed. This reaction shows itself in general literature, in paintings, in sculpture, in architecture, in everything. Any discussion regarding a change in the present condition of things is met by the reply that strangers do not understand Russian questions, and that these questions are complicated historically, politically, economically and socially to such a degree that none but those having personal experience can understand them. If the matter is still further pressed and the good effects of a different policy in the United States, Great Britain, and elsewhere arereferred to, it is answered that in those countries a totally different state of things exists, and that no arguments can be made from them to Russia. Any continuance of the discussion is generally met by the statement that Russian questions are largely misrepresented by the press of western Europe; that there is a systematic propaganda against Russia in England, Germany, Austria, and Italy; that England does or allows worse things in her Irish evictions and in her opium traffic, and the United States in lynch law proceedings and treatment of the Chinese, than any done or allowed in Russia; that, in short, Russia is competent to take charge of her own internal policy, and that other powers will do well to mind their own business. This feeling is closely akin to that which was shown sometimes in the United States before the civil war toward foreign comments upon our own "peculiar institution," when representations by such philanthropists as the Duchess of Sutherland, George Thompson, M. P., and others were indignantly repelled.

This condition of opinion and the actions resulting from it are so extreme that it naturally occurs to one who has observed Russian history that a reaction cannot be long deferred.

The progress of Russia thus far has been mainly by a series of reactions. These have sometimes come with surprising suddenness. In view of that which took place when the transition was made from the policy of restriction followed by the Emperor Nicholas to the broadly liberal policy adopted by Alexander II, of which, being connected with this legation at that time, I was a witness, a reaction at present seems by no means impossible or even improbable. It is by no means necessary that a change of reign should take place. A transition might be occasioned as others have been, by the rise of some strong personality bringing to bear upon the dominant opinion the undoubted fact that the present system of repression toward the Israelite is from every point of view a failure, and that it is doing incalculable harm to Russia.

This dispatch ought not, perhaps, to close without an apology for its length; the subject is one of great importance, and it has seemed to me a duty to furnish the Department, in answer to the Secretary's question, with a full report regarding the present stage in the evolution of the matter concerned as my opportunities have enabled me to make.

I am, etc.,Andrew D. White.

Note:—The attitude of our Government with regard to the general question here involved has repeatedly been manifested through our State Department. On the occasion of the Mohammedan outrages against the Jews in 1840, and under date of August 19th of that year, Secretary of State John Forsyth addressed to our Minister to Turkey, David Porter, a dispatch as follows:

Sir: In common with the people of the United States, the President has learned with profound feelings of surprise and pain, the atrocious cruelties which have been practised upon the Jews of Damascus and Rhodes in consequence of charges, extravagant and strikingly similar to those, which in less enlightened ages, were made pretexts for the persecution and spoliation of these unfortunate people. As the scenes of these barbarities are in the Mohammedan dominions, and as such inhuman practises are not of infrequent occurrence in the East, the President has directed me to instruct you to do everything in your power with the Government of his Imperial Highness, the Sultan, to whom you are accredited, consistent with discretion and your diplomatic character, to prevent or mitigate these horrors, the bare recital of which has caused a shudder throughout the civilized world, and in an especial manner to direct your philanthropic efforts against the employment of torture in order to compel the confession of imputed guilt. The President is of opinion that from no one can such generous endeavors proceed with so much propriety and effect as from the Representative of a friendly power whose institutions, political and civil, place upon the same footing the worshipers of God, of every faith and form, acknowledging no distinction between the Mohammedan, the Jew and the Christian. Should you in carrying out these instructions find it necessary or proper to address yourself to any of the Turkish authorities, you will refer to this distinctive characteristic of our government, as investing with a peculiar propriety and right the interposition of your good offices in behalf of an oppressed and persecuted race among whose kindred are found some of the most worthy and patriotic of our citizens. In communicating to you the wishes of the President I do not think it advisable to give you more explicit and minute instructions, but earnestly commend to your zeal and discretion a subject which appeals so strongly to the universal sentiments of justice and humanity.I am, Sir,Your obedient servant,J. Forsyth.

I am, Sir,Your obedient servant,J. Forsyth.

In 1870, when the persecution of the Roumanian Jews, which had been started in 1868, was growing from bad to worse, our government, at the instance of the Order of B'nai B'rith, (as noted on page428), established a diplomatic agency atBucharest. On this occasion President Grant furnished Consul-General Peixotto with a special authorization, as follows:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C.,December 8th, 1870.The bearer of this letter, Mr. Benjamin F. Peixotto, who has accepted the important, though unremunerative, position of United States Consul to Roumania, is commended to the good offices of all representatives of this Government abroad.Mr. Peixotto has undertaken the duties of his present office more as a missionary work for the benefit of the people he represents than for any benefit to accrue to himself—a work in which all citizens will wish him the greatest success. The United States, knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion or nativity, naturally believes in a civilization, the world over, which will secure the same universal views.U. S. Grant.

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C.,December 8th, 1870.

The bearer of this letter, Mr. Benjamin F. Peixotto, who has accepted the important, though unremunerative, position of United States Consul to Roumania, is commended to the good offices of all representatives of this Government abroad.

Mr. Peixotto has undertaken the duties of his present office more as a missionary work for the benefit of the people he represents than for any benefit to accrue to himself—a work in which all citizens will wish him the greatest success. The United States, knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion or nativity, naturally believes in a civilization, the world over, which will secure the same universal views.

U. S. Grant.

President Grant's interest in the subject was furthermore evinced when, in 1871, at the earnest request of Hon. Simon Wolf, he called a special Cabinet meeting to consider the reported expulsion of the Jews of Russian Bessarabia. This meeting resulted in the sending of a cable dispatch to Minister Andrew G. Curtin at St. Petersburg, protesting against the ukase of banishment. The protest was heeded by the Czar and the ukase was rescinded.

As a further indication of the position taken by our Government in regard to the matter, we quote the following dispatch from Secretary of State Hamilton Fish to Consul General Peixotto:

Department of State,Washington, D. C., April 10, 1872.Sir:—Among the large number of Israelites in this country there are probably few whose sympathies have not been intensely excited by the recent intelligence of the grievous persecutions of their co-religionists in Roumania. This feeling has naturally been augmented by the contrast presented by the position of members of that persuasion here, who are equals with all others before the law, which sternly forbids any oppression on account of religion. Indeed, it may be said that the people of this country universally abhor persecution anywhere for that cause, and deprecate the trials of which, according to your dispatches, the Israelites of Roumania have been victims.This Government heartily sympathizes with the popular instinct upon the subject, and while it has no disposition or intention to give offence by interfering in the internal affairs of Roumania, it is deemedto be due to humanity to remonstrate against any license or impunity which may have attended the outrages in that country.You are consequently authorized to address a note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Principality in which you will embody the views herein expressed, and you will also do anything which you can do discreetly, with a reasonable prospect of success, toward preventing a recurrence or continuance of the persecutions adverted to.I am, Sir, etc., etc.,Hamilton Fish.

Department of State,Washington, D. C., April 10, 1872.

Sir:—Among the large number of Israelites in this country there are probably few whose sympathies have not been intensely excited by the recent intelligence of the grievous persecutions of their co-religionists in Roumania. This feeling has naturally been augmented by the contrast presented by the position of members of that persuasion here, who are equals with all others before the law, which sternly forbids any oppression on account of religion. Indeed, it may be said that the people of this country universally abhor persecution anywhere for that cause, and deprecate the trials of which, according to your dispatches, the Israelites of Roumania have been victims.

This Government heartily sympathizes with the popular instinct upon the subject, and while it has no disposition or intention to give offence by interfering in the internal affairs of Roumania, it is deemedto be due to humanity to remonstrate against any license or impunity which may have attended the outrages in that country.

You are consequently authorized to address a note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Principality in which you will embody the views herein expressed, and you will also do anything which you can do discreetly, with a reasonable prospect of success, toward preventing a recurrence or continuance of the persecutions adverted to.

I am, Sir, etc., etc.,Hamilton Fish.

As a plain and unmistakable summary of the attitude of the American people with regard to the brutalities deliberately perpetrated by Russia, we close these citations with that of the Resolution of Congress, introduced by Representative Amos J. Cummings of New York, December 19th, 1890, and adopted unanimously by the House.

Resolved, etc.: "That the members of the House of Representatives of the United States have heard with profound sorrow and feelings akin to horror the reports of the persecutions of the Jews in Russia, reflecting the barbarism of past ages, disgracing humanity and impeding the progress of civilization; that our sorrow is intensified by the fact that such occurrences should happen in a country which has been, and is now, the firm friend of the United States, and in a nation that clothed itself with glory, not long since, by the emancipation of its serfs and by its defence of helpless Christians from the oppression of the Turks; that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Secretary of State with a request that he send it to the American Minister at St. Petersburg and that said Minister be directed to present the same to His Imperial Majesty Alexander III, Czar of all the Russias."

FOOTNOTES:[120]This Commission was appointed, under direction of the President, by Secretary of the Treasury Charles Foster, by virtue of authority of the act of Congress (Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill) of March 3, 1891, and its Report was transmitted by the Secretary to Congress, February 25, 1892. The Commission consisted of Hon. John B. Weber, Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York, Chairman, and the following named special immigrant inspectors: Judson N. Cross, of Minnesota; Walter Kempster, M. D., of Wisconsin; Joseph Powderly, of Pennsylvania, and Herman J. Schultheis, of Washington, D. C. The investigations with which the Commission was charged were made in the various countries of Europe by the Commissioners in severalty, those relating to Russia and the persecution of its Jewish subjects being made by the Chairman, Col. Weber, with the assistance of Dr. Kempster.Col. Weber's report on the condition of affairs in Russia affords the most detailed and exhaustive statement of the subject that has been given to the world. It followed closely upon the publication in the New YorkTimes, (Sept.-Dec., 1891,) of the masterly review of Russian affairs generally, by Harold Frederic, in a series of articles entitled "An Indictment of Russia," and these two publications finally disposed of the glossing with which Russian diplomacy had attempted to hide the facts.[121]This subject had on frequent occasions previously received the attention of our State Department. In a despatch under date of July 29, 1881, Secretary of State Jas. G. Blaine directs our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. John W. Foster, to demand of the Russian Government the due rights of American Jewish citizens travelling or temporarily sojourning in Russia, in compliance with treaty obligations. From this document we quote the following salient paragraphs:"From a careful examination of the causes of grievances heretofore reported by your legation, it appears that the action of the Russian authorities toward American citizens, 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 Russians. 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 has 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, specific 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 or 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 viséd being the essential requisite. And, further back still, in the time of Empress Catharine, I discover explicit tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the empire."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 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 cannot 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 conventional engagement in favor of the citizens of another state exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable."I need hardly enlarge upon the point that the Government of the United States concludes 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 discriminatory 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 such international compacts by considerations 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 Catharine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of these engagements, and believed that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; 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 dealing with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its international 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 wrong-doing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of simple adherence to the faith of their fathers."

[120]This Commission was appointed, under direction of the President, by Secretary of the Treasury Charles Foster, by virtue of authority of the act of Congress (Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill) of March 3, 1891, and its Report was transmitted by the Secretary to Congress, February 25, 1892. The Commission consisted of Hon. John B. Weber, Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York, Chairman, and the following named special immigrant inspectors: Judson N. Cross, of Minnesota; Walter Kempster, M. D., of Wisconsin; Joseph Powderly, of Pennsylvania, and Herman J. Schultheis, of Washington, D. C. The investigations with which the Commission was charged were made in the various countries of Europe by the Commissioners in severalty, those relating to Russia and the persecution of its Jewish subjects being made by the Chairman, Col. Weber, with the assistance of Dr. Kempster.Col. Weber's report on the condition of affairs in Russia affords the most detailed and exhaustive statement of the subject that has been given to the world. It followed closely upon the publication in the New YorkTimes, (Sept.-Dec., 1891,) of the masterly review of Russian affairs generally, by Harold Frederic, in a series of articles entitled "An Indictment of Russia," and these two publications finally disposed of the glossing with which Russian diplomacy had attempted to hide the facts.

Col. Weber's report on the condition of affairs in Russia affords the most detailed and exhaustive statement of the subject that has been given to the world. It followed closely upon the publication in the New YorkTimes, (Sept.-Dec., 1891,) of the masterly review of Russian affairs generally, by Harold Frederic, in a series of articles entitled "An Indictment of Russia," and these two publications finally disposed of the glossing with which Russian diplomacy had attempted to hide the facts.

[121]This subject had on frequent occasions previously received the attention of our State Department. In a despatch under date of July 29, 1881, Secretary of State Jas. G. Blaine directs our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. John W. Foster, to demand of the Russian Government the due rights of American Jewish citizens travelling or temporarily sojourning in Russia, in compliance with treaty obligations. From this document we quote the following salient paragraphs:"From a careful examination of the causes of grievances heretofore reported by your legation, it appears that the action of the Russian authorities toward American citizens, 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 Russians. 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 has 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, specific 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 or 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 viséd being the essential requisite. And, further back still, in the time of Empress Catharine, I discover explicit tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the empire."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 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 cannot 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 conventional engagement in favor of the citizens of another state exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable."I need hardly enlarge upon the point that the Government of the United States concludes 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 discriminatory 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 such international compacts by considerations 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 Catharine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of these engagements, and believed that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; 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 dealing with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its international 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 wrong-doing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of simple adherence to the faith of their fathers."

"From a careful examination of the causes of grievances heretofore reported by your legation, it appears that the action of the Russian authorities toward American citizens, 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 Russians. 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 has 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, specific 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 or 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 viséd being the essential requisite. And, further back still, in the time of Empress Catharine, I discover explicit tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the empire."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 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 cannot 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 conventional engagement in favor of the citizens of another state exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable."I need hardly enlarge upon the point that the Government of the United States concludes 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 discriminatory 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 such international compacts by considerations 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 Catharine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of these engagements, and believed that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; 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 dealing with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its international 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 wrong-doing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of simple adherence to the faith of their fathers."

"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 Russians. 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 has 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, specific 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 or 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 viséd being the essential requisite. And, further back still, in the time of Empress Catharine, I discover explicit tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the empire.

"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 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 cannot 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 conventional engagement in favor of the citizens of another state exists, the law governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable.

"I need hardly enlarge upon the point that the Government of the United States concludes 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 discriminatory 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 such international compacts by considerations 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 Catharine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of these engagements, and believed that they should be interpreted in the broadest way; 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 dealing with us to take advantage of technicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its international 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 wrong-doing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of simple adherence to the faith of their fathers."

CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF IMMIGRATION IN ITS HISTORICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS.

(Note.—In the preparation of the following article the editor has utilized the contents of a paper read by him before the Board of Presidents of the National Societies of Philadelphia, as a member of that body, December 12th, 1891).

A review of the subject of American Jewish citizenship necessarily involves a consideration of the recent accretions to the Jewish population in this country through the immigration of those of the expatriated Russian Jews who have found and are yet finding their way to our shores. The influx and settlement here of this practically new element of the population has attracted a large measure of public attention, notwithstanding the fact that it comprises an average of not over 8 per cent. of the total immigration. This has been due not only to the extraordinary causes of the influx, but also to the fact that the settlement of a large number of the newcomers in the seabord cities has caused some disturbances in the labor market at those points.

The influence of this movement on the future development of American Judaism is beyond our immediate purview, and its present bearing on the Jewish community need be considered but incidentally. In view, however, of the repeated changes in our immigration laws since 1882, when the immigration of the Russian Jews began to reach its present marked proportions by reason of their expulsion from their homes, and of the agitation for such further legislation as will result in a practically complete disbarment of these and other unfortunate victims of European oppression, we may here properly proceed to a briefconsideration of the social, political and economic aspects of the question, both as regards the Russian Jewish immigrants and immigration in general.

The earliest immigration movement of which a record has come down to our day is that which carried the Hebrew Abram from "Ur of the Chaldees" westward to the plains of Canaan. It carried with it the latent energy whose force has been the most potent in the world's affairs; which has become the moving spirit of the Caucasian race, and which afforded the vehicle of development for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The far-reaching consequences of that first of recorded immigrations need not be dwelt upon; it forms the prologue to the history of civilization, a history whose epilogue is yet to be enacted, and whose processes are not only still a living reality in the present, but are proceeding towards an infinitely greater compass in the future.

The migration of Abraham is to be regarded, not only from the historic standpoint, but in the most abstract scientific sense, as a force, resulting as all forces must, from some cause of equal or greater potentiality, and moving, as all forces do, along the lines of least resistance. The movement proceeded, as we know, from the East, away from, if not out of, the cradle of the Caucasian race; from where expansion was hemmed and development was hampered, towards the West and South where the possibilities of both were greater and the requisite conditions more favorable. This was forty centuries ago; from that time to the present the movement has still been westward and southward, and by virtue of the same natural law that operated in the early dawn of history, its course is manifestly destined to trend in the same direction for some time longer.

In the meantime, throughout all the course of the historic past, migration after migration has successively marked the greatest epochs in the annals of mankind. The migration of Abraham was followed by many others, none indeed of more far-reaching significance, but all or nearly all of greater magnitude, and not a few of them of vast importance as factors in the history of man. Some centuries after Abraham's time themigration of the Canaanite Cadmus westward to the Isles of Greece, or perhaps the migration of the Pelasgic tribes westward from Asia Minor, opened the first chapter in the history of Europe. Still later, through the great migrations at the close of the Roman period, and in the early Middle Ages, the barbarians of Europe became imbued with the leaven of Jewish ideals in the form of Christianity, and further still in the course of time the migrations of the hunted Jews from Germany to Poland, and from Spain to Holland and to England, influenced permanently the current of the world's affairs. Subsequently, the migration of the Pilgrim Fathers to North America left an indelible impress in our modern civilization, and finally the migrations of yesterday and to-day, trending still westward to the Pacific, and the offshoots of the current to Australia, to New Zealand and to South America, have opened in the history of mankind a chapter which the Twentieth Century will not complete.

It is remarkable that of all these notable migrations, that of Abraham may be considered as not only first in point of time, but also as altogether normal in its character. In all the later historic movements of this kind, the element of force is more or less definitely manifest, but Abraham's migration was a peaceful one, and when he took up the sword at all, it was only to benefit the people among whom he dwelt. We find him earnestly pleading the cause of his adopted countrymen, notwithstanding their great wickedness; he bought and paid for even his last resting place rather than accept it as a gift, and in general he figures on the historic horizon as in all respects not only a typical but a model immigrant.

Had the great migrations of later times been as peaceful as that of Abraham, the annals of humanity would have been less troubled than we find them. But the subsequent movements of population were migrations of masses of people, forced from their native soil by extraneous pressure or lured away by the incitements of conquest, or by both agencies combined, and such movements must in their very nature, be violent and sanguinary.

The earliest peoples required for their sustenance far more space than do equal numbers in a more civilized state. They had no developed means of subsistence; the most primitiveinhabitants relied solely on the products of unaided nature, and these they found mainly in the chase. As this became more difficult, or its produce scarcer, they betook themselves to herding, a culture in itself, the first step in civilization, and the first expedient to support an increasing population. In this respect the inhabitants of the Eastern plains were far in advance of their Western contemporaries; the Asiatic herdsman was more favorably situated than the huntsman in the forests of primeval Europe, and hence we find both culture and population first evolved in the East and flowing thence by natural sequence towards the West. Culture, the outgrowth of population, was first planted in the East; there it rooted and there it blossomed, and there humanity gathered its first fruits, but its ripened products have fructified upon its Western grafts. Westward indeed the star of Empire has made its way, and here on our Western Continent, under the ægis of our great Republic, under the influence of American liberty and freedom, it seems destined to reach its ascendant.

In the upbuilding of this Republic the descendants of the first great emigrant have taken, as we have recorded in the preceding pages, an ample share, and among these descendants the compatriots of the present victims of Russian barbarity were by no means wanting. The emigration of the Slavic Jews to America had been going on in a normal manner, and therefore to a limited extent, for a long time before the present exodus, and in fact, so to speak, from the beginning. After each of the successive uprisings of Poland against the barbarous tyranny of its Russian oppressors, from the time of Pulaski, who after leading his countrymen vainly against the Russian hordes in 1768, came to America to die in the struggle for liberty here; from the time of Kosciuszko, who came here to fight successfully for the independence of our country and then returned to fight vainly for the independence of his own, there have been Polish emigrants to America and among them were many Jews. Haym Solomon, who afforded one of the noblest examples of devotion to American liberty that is recorded in our annals, was as we have seen[122]a Polish Jew and an intimate of the two patriots named above, and on Pulaski's staff was a Jewish officer[123]and others of his Jewish countrymen were doubtless serving in his command.

Down to the bloody outbreak of Russian fanaticism in 1879-1880, followed by the officially decreed expulsions of the succeeding years the influx of the Slavic Jews, was, as we have noted, a normal tide, like that which brought to these shores millions of immigrants from every European country. Normally, without being forced, and of their own volition they had come, as had the Sephardic Jews from England and Holland during our Colonial period and in the early decades of our independence, and as the German Jews came with the stream of German immigration after the beginning of steam navigation and the Revolution of 1848. The English Sephardim ceased to emigrate after their enfranchisement in 1850; the German Jews have ceased to emigrate since their enfranchisement in 1871, and the Polish and Russian Jews would come in fewer numbers if they were not driven from their homes, and would scarcely come at all if but the boon of unhampered domicile, not to mention political liberty, were accorded to them there.

The calamitous condition of general suffering into which the Russian Jews were plunged by the proscriptive policy of their government, appears to have passed its acute stage. While the expulsion of the Jews from the interior of the Empire and their settlement, permanent or temporary, in the "Pale" of the Western Russian provinces, including Poland, was in the height of its progress a few years ago, the number of those who were eventually forced to emigrate was very large, aggregating, it is estimated, nearly two hundred thousand in a single year. The newcomers in the Pale, nearly all of them utterly impoverished through pillage by the low element of the populace and by the extortion of the officials, disorganized the economic condition of the older settlers in the district and caused a most excessive competition for the means of livelihood. The emigration of some of the surplus population and the gradual reorganization of the remainder, has tended to render the general condition less acute, and while a considerableemigration from the Pale must, in the nature of things, be looked for until the existent conditions are fully ameliorated, the great exodus that marked the years 1891-2 is not likely to be repeated unless further measures of oppression and repression are adopted by the Russian government.

Meanwhile the world looks on while the Jews of Western Europe and America are laboring to help those of their Russian brethren who, unable to gain a foothold in the Pale, are forced out from their wretched surroundings. The world looks on while the philanthropist Maurice de Hirsch, emulating the spirit of Montefiore, is devoting his wealth to the succor of his co-religionists and striving to found an asylum for them on the plains of Argentina. It looks on while the Alliance Israélite Universelle, from its headquarters in Paris, is establishing and maintaining primary schools for the Jews throughout the Orient, and agricultural schools for the Russian refugees in Palestine; while this educational work is being seconded by both the American and European branches of the Order of B'nai B'rith, and while Edmond de Rothschild is fostering agricultural colonies near Jaffa and Jerusalem and aiding Russian Jews to gain a foothold in the land of their forefathers.

In our own country agricultural colonies of Russian Jews have been founded, educational institutions built up, distribution of the refugees effected, through the efforts of Jewish communal organizations or by means of the funds devoted for the purpose by Baron de Hirsch, or by both in unison. The de Hirsch Trust dispenses in this manner the income of $2,500,000 donated for this purpose by the great-hearted and open-handed philanthropist, supplementing to this large extent the charitable efforts of the American Jews in their work of succor. That work is carried on by independent local organizations both in Europe and America, ramifying from the Vistula westward to the Golden Gate; centering in Königsberg, Memel, Lemberg and Brody, in Berlin and Vienna, Hamburg and Bremen, in Paris, London and Liverpool, in New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Baltimore, in Chicago, San Francisco and Portland, and at other intervening points. These organizations are apart from the great movement organized by Baron de Hirsch and chartered in England under the title of "TheJewish Colonization Association." That institution, which the Baron has endowed with the sum of $10,000,000, has its headquarters in St. Petersburg and affiliated centers throughout the Jewish Pale, and is devoted exclusively to furthering the Jewish emigration to the Argentine Republic. The Russian Jewish emigrants to other lands proceed wholly by dint of their own means or those of their relatives already in the haven of rest, and these wayfarers are frequently impoverished and always in need of protection and counsel. Onerous as has been the burden which the wickedness of Russian folly has imposed on the Jewish people at large, they have thus far coped with a reasonable degree of success against the almost overwhelming difficulties of the situation.[124]

During the progress of this movement a hue and cry has repeatedly been raised all along the roads which the Russian refugees have taken in escaping from their oppressors and in seeking an asylum and resting place. Here in our country, where many of our State governments have made organized efforts to induce immigration into their borders, where numerous towns and hamlets in the interior are organizing "booms" to increase their population, here, where the single State of Texas, with less than two and a half millions of population, extends over an area greater than Germany and England together; where a state like Montana, larger than England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland combined, has a population of but 132,000, only half as many as the single English town of Leeds, here there have not been wanting those who have constantly urged in Congress and in the press, that European immigration should be not only regulated, but largely restricted and even entirely debarred. All this because in the metropolitan centres and at times at other points, a surplus of wage workers in one or two industries was causing friction and disturbance.

This agitation, by reason of its obvious causes, may well claim our attention in connection with our present subject.

The effort towards better material conditions which has formed the main impulse of all emigration movements, has, as we learn from history, been always fraught with suffering and misery for the populations first effected, and frequently for several of the succeeding generations, but, in the end, improvement has resulted to the greater number at least. Even when the natural surroundings of a migrated population are not more favorable than those of their previous experience, the mere change of environment has generally furthered an improvement of their social arrangements. The change of their location may disappoint an immigrant people in their hopes of material betterment, but they never fail to take advantage of their new beginnings to eliminate from their new organization such conditions as their previous experience had proved objectionable. Migrations, whether peaceful or otherwise, and for that matter sudden changes of material conditions generally, inevitably consume a large part of the existing powers of those effected, but where those powers are not totally exhausted and destroyed, where enough energy remains to form a nucleus of recuperative force, and especially where the new material surroundings are more favorable than those which were left behind, there a marked improvement of all the conditions of life, physical and intellectual, material and social, becomes developed. It would be superfluous to cite the proofs of this proposition; the history of civilization is a record of its examples, and its latest annals are but statements of this fact.

Palpable as is this fact, and nowhere is it more so than on this Western Continent, and especially in our own country, there are yet many who regard an immigrant with the narrow prejudice of mediæval ignorance, and to whom a stranger is still, as to the barbarians of old, an enemy. Over and over again in the course of the great new departure which the establishment and growth of these United States has made in the world's history, over and over again in the course of our development, has the debarment of immigrants been proposed and advocated. At times the opposition to the new comers has been born of Old World animosities, at other times of religious prejudice, and latterly we hear most frequently of restrictions proposed on political and economic grounds.

That political reasons may justify a restriction, or even dictate the entire debarment of certain defined classes of immigrants, is to be admitted. Thus the exclusion of Chineseimmigrants may be defended on the grounds of a broad public policy, with reasons which cannot logically be adduced with regard to any branch of the Caucasian race. The most cogent of these reasons, and the one that has afforded the only rational basis for the policy adopted, is not the economic element of the subject, not that the Chinese live cheaply and work cheaply, but that their assimilation with the rest of the population is practically impossible. To what extent the theoretical possibility of their being merged in the general population could be realized, to what extent its realization would be desirable or the contrary, to what extent a mixture of the Caucasian and Mongolian races would enhance or deteriorate their respective qualities, physical and psychical, we need not here stop to inquire. Suffice it to re-state the fact that political, or perhaps ultimately ethnological reasons may here be considered as prompting a course which could not reasonably be adopted on any other ground. But in the case of immigrants of the Caucasian race, such opposition as has been made from time to time, though frequently insisted upon as a political necessity, can only, in the absence of any broad ethnological basis, be argued on economic grounds.

The discussions engendered by propositions to restrict immigration have recurred at various periods of our history and have been factors in our politics from the beginning of our institutions. There was indeed already in the old Colonial times an anti-immigration or Nativist Party, almost before there were any natives to make it up. In fact, the subject has cropped out whenever some slight occasion offered, and particularly whenever politicians on the in- or the outside needed a new string to harp upon. Some of us are old enough to remember something of the native American agitation which began as far back as 1835, and which took shape in the so-called "American" party, afterwards generally known as the "Know-Nothings," about 1844. In that year the Know-Nothing Party carried the city of New York on a mayoralty election by a large majority, and for a time the movement spread widely throughout the country. It developed strong religious prejudices, and was marked by the memorable anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia.The odium which those disgraceful outrages brought on the "American" party was attempted to be overcome by making it a secret organization, and in the political confusion resulting from the breaking up of the old Whig party, the former grew to such proportions that in 1855 it carried no less than nine state elections. That the movement then had no vital force, but was only a political stalking-horse for partisan purposes, became manifest in the Presidential election of 1856, when the Know Nothing candidates carried only the State of Maryland, and that only by aid of the remnant of the Whig party and the bludgeons of the "Plug-Uglies." The outcome of the whole movement, politically considered, was the complete extinction of the party organization which had fostered, and the permanent discredit of the party leaders who had promoted it.

But the lessons of the past, the arguments and considerations which have repeatedly led to the rejection of a prescriptive policy, have now to be gone over again in this later generation, and the reason for this is plain enough. The economic aspect of the question is more permanent than the political, and the economic argument more plausible than the other. The objectionable features inseparable from a considerable influx of newcomers into a community, large or small, are palpable and on the surface, while the inestimable value of these newcomers, by virtue of the added material and social forces with which they endow the community, becomes perceptible only upon a closer investigation of the subject. It thus happens that when an unusually large number of new arrivals disturbs for a time some existing economic condition, the community is startled by those immediately affected with an outcry against the intruding force, and it is then only on investigation that it becomes apparent that while indeed a comparatively few individuals suffer, and even they but temporarily, the new element is of far-reaching benefit to the community at large.

A quite parallel instance, as far as it goes, is the effect of the introduction of machinery in substitution of hand labor. The history of inventions is burdened with the details of opposition which gathered at every step of the process through which Man has brought to his service the forces of Nature. So too, the practical aid of immigration in subduing the domain of Natureon this Western Continent has often been decried as inimical to the interests of those native to the soil, notwithstanding that even a cursory analysis of the question proves clearly the fact that the immigrant not only does not travail against the native's interest, but on the contrary, aids and enhances that interest beyond all computation. Just as the throng of new inventions temporarily disarranges existent conditions of commerce and of industry, with the immediate result of causing economic distress to some groups of individuals, so the tide of immigration temporarily affects existent conditions in the centers of population, but the eventual benefit of the new force is as certain to be felt in the latter case as in the former.

Back to Index Next