Mr. Runyon to Mr. Olney .

No. 385.]

Sir: It seems to me quite proper to report to the Department some of the collateral circumstances in regard to the application of Mr. Louis Stern to the Government of Bavaria for a pardon or commutation. From the time when the application was made, the Bavarian press in general opposed it and the popular expressions indicated that the demand for refusal was based not so much on the feeling that it would be necessary in order to vindicate the law, as to exhibit impartiality in the administration of it. In this latter aspect reference was made not only to the fact of the applicant’s reputed wealth, but also to the circumstance that he is a foreigner, and also even to hisrace. And, further, [Page 482] reference was made to a somewhat recent case—the Fuchsmühle case—in which the law was enforced with government interference against peasants charged with trespass. Evidence of this feeling is found in the accompanying translation of extracts from speeches recently delivered in the Bavarian Parliament.

I have, etc.,

Theodore Runyon.
[Inclosure in No. 385.]

Translation of extracts from speeches delivered in the Bavarian Parliament (Landtag) on October 3, 4, and 5, in connection with the debate occasioned by an interpellation regarding the Fuchsmühle case.

Member of Parliament Dr. Ratzinger (Bauernbund, “Farmers’Alliance”):

No one attempted to interpose at Fuchsmühle, but when the question was the case of an American Jew one of the highest Bavarian officials, as I am informed, was obliged to give the matter his attention, only because the “ignoble” American Jew had known how to make himself a millionaire. The people will never submit to that. * * * All this is the result of the unhealthy imitation of Prussian views and customs which from upper circles is beginning to be forced upon our South German people. (Berliner Tageblatt, October 5, 1895, a.m.)

Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc., Baron von Crailsheim:

Interposition had been made in behalf of Stern which it was not possible to ignore, and as the president of the government of Unterfranken happened to be near Kissingen at the time, he was instructed, as being the proper person, to look into the matter. * * * That the Government did not take the side of the offender is shown by the rejection, which took place a few days ago, of the application for pardon which had been made by him. (Norddeutsche Allgemeine-Zeitung, October 6, 1825, No. 469.)

Member Beckh, of Weissenburg:

When it was pretended that peasants had opposed the authority of the State they were shot down, but when an American Jew does the same thing in the most outrageous way high Bavarian noblemen endeavor to protect him from the consequences. God be thanked that “Leib Stern” must serve out his sentence. The sentence is moderate enough. If the case had been that of a Christian he would have been punished more severely, and properly, as from a Jew one can not demand so much understanding of and respect for the law. (Berliner Tageblatt, October 5, 1895, No. 507.)

Baron von Crailsheim:

The representations made by the Member Beckh, that the Bavarian minister in Berlin displayed special activity in this matter, is incorrect. The minister merely reported that the American embassy had interested itself in the lot of its countryman. Moreover, no pressure was exerted on the Kissingen official to inspire him to withdraw his complaint. The government president had only been instructed to ascertain whether the offer made was enough of a satisfaction for the offense. Had the Government desired to hush the matter up, means to this end could no doubt have been found.