No. 100.]

No. 32.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

St. Petersburg, March 25, 1881. (Received April 11.) 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 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 citizens sojourning peaceably, for business or pleasure, in Russia, without regard to their religious belief. I have constantly made this appeal in my conversations with and communications to the Russian authorities. But it will be noted in my No. 73, of December 30, that I called attention to the fact that the Russian Government denies 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 personal 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 disabilites 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 an 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 seige" exist, before a person undergoes the sentence of the law. The laws and regulations in question are usually entrusted to the police authorties, 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 every proper opportunity.

I am, &c.,

No. 33.

JOHN W. FOSTER.

No. 121.]

Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

St. Petersburg, May 24, 1881. (Received June 13.)

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 one hundred thousand 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 suspended payments, other bankruptcies are feared, and the prices of provisions and articles of prime necessity have temporarily risen greatly in price. Massacre 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 themselves 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 awakened to its wide-spread and deeply-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 towards the Jews. The country has not been prosperous for some time 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 speculators have profited by this state of affairs, and the poorer classes have 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 asserted also that the Nihilist societies have profited by the situation to incite and encourage the peasants and lower classes of the towns and cities in order to increase the embarrassments 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 investigation 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 of that of the 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 discussion 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 Parliamentary report. It will be noticed that two questions were presented in 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 bis government was reluctant to make any representations in regard to the persecutions and to the second that a protest had 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 semi-official 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 Government representations thereon than the latter would have to address Lord Granville on account of the agrarian crimes in Ireland. In reference to the expulsion, it maintains that if made according to Russian law a protest was not proper; and, on the other hand, if the expulsion was 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.

I am, &c.,

JOHN W. FOSTER.

[Inclosure in No. 121.-Translation of editorial from the St. Petersburg Journal, May 21, 1881.]

The debates in the English chambers are always of great importance, even when they refer to subjects where the competency of these assemblies to treat them is absolutely null. In such cases they show certain currents of opinion, often artificial, often wide of the mark, but of which it is always well to take notice. Last Monday, as the telegraph informs us, Mr. Dilke, replying to Mr. Worms, declared that England had made no representations on the subject of the excesses against the Israelites and against the students [7] in the south of Russia, because the government of St. Petersburg had itself taken measures to repress these disturbances.

This is right, although the sub-secretary of state might have added that there was absolutely no reason, no pretext even, for the English Government to address observations to a foreign government on disturbances which were purely domestic. How did it happen, then, that when interpellated a second time, Mr. Dilke made a reply

less correct, saying that the government had as yet taken no definite resolution? We have no difficulty in believing that no definitive resolution has been taken, for the question is in no respect of a character to be examined by the English cabinet, and the kind of assimilation with Persia in which the speaker permitted himself to indulge lacks both justice and good taste. What Mr. Dilke should have replied is, that the British cabinet has no right, on account of the troubles at Kief, &c., to address representations to the Russian Government which the latter would not have a right to address to Lord Granville on account of the agrarian crimes in Ireland.

As regards the case of Mr. Lewisohn, we do not know the particulars. But as Mr. Dilke read the laws governing the residence of Jews, it is to be supposed that in the opinion of the speaker this expulsion has taken place in violation of the laws in question, for otherwise we cannot understand how the British Government has thought itself authorized to protest against the application of laws in force in Russia to strangers coming here to reside. Now, if the said Mr. Lewisohn has really been expelled in violation of the Russian laws, he may be sure that the protest of Mr. Dilke will not be unproductive. It was even useless; a simple denunciation of an abuse of local authority, which may have been committed, would have been sufficient. We repeat, we are not acquainted with the details.

No. 135.]

No. 34.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

St. Petersburg, July 14, 1881. (Received July 30.) 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 have heretofore noted, the laws on this subject are contained in a voluminous mass of legislation, regulations, decisions of ministries, &c., 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 can make it without the employment of an experienced native attorney and having in view some special case or 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 necessary 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; so 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 exceptions may be briefly stated as follows:

I. Certain foreign Jews may come into the governments or provinces of West and Southwest Russia named, to wit:

First, rabbins invited by the Russian Governments to exercise their profession:

Second, manufacturers with a capital of 15,000 roubles, by special arrangement; and

Third, artisans brought by said manufacturers, upon certain specified conditions.

II. All other parts of Russia are closed to foreign Israelites, with the

limited exception 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, of finance, and of foreign affairs; but even after being admitted 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 excep tion 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 1 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 than in the treaty with the United States that the privileges therein granted "in no wise affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry, and 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 concluded 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 Lewisohn, now pending and the occasion of some inquiry in Parliament, has been heretofore referred to, I inclose a statement of facts relating thereto which is doubtless substantially correct. It may be noted that while Lewisohn was refused permission to revisit St. Petersburg, the American citizen Mr. Wilczynski, who was expelled about the same time, was, upon application of this legation, given permission to return.

I am, &c.,

JOHN W. FOSTER.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 135.]

SKETCH OF THE LAWS OF RUSSIA RELATIVE TO FOREIGN ISRAELITES.

Israelites in general are in Russia subject to a special legislation.

There is found in the Code of Laws a series of provisions, in their proper place, spread over many different chapters and divers published regulations on commerce, industry, and the trades, devoting to them special clauses.