Mr. Peirce to Mr. Uhl.
St. Petersburg, June 13, 1895. (Received June 27.)
Sir: Referring to your No. 46, of April 26, and to Mr. Breckinridge’s reply thereto, No. 71, of May 17, in which he inclosed a copy of “his note to Prince Lobanow on the subject of the refusal of the Russian consul at New York to visé the passports of Israelites, I have the honor to say that in a recent conversation which I have had with the Prince, the subject being referred to, I took occasion to call his excellency’s attention to the importance of the Hebrews as a class in the United States, referring to their numbers, condition, and influence in the community as potential factors in a country governed, as is ours, by the will of the people. Prince Lobanow expressed himself as impressed with its importance, and making a note of the matter said he would consult with the minister of the interior on the subject at an early day.
Since then I have had occasion to call several times upon Baron Osten-Sacken, to whom all questions in the foreign office relating to Israelites have been intrusted. In the course of inquiries as to whether the two gentlemen of Hebrew faith referred to in Mr. Breckinridge’s dispatch above mentioned would be permitted to enter Russia, the matter of the visé of passports has come up, and Baron Osten-Sacken has informed me that he received Mr. Breckinridge’s note from Prince Lobanow, accompanied by a memorandum calling special attention to the subject. Regarding the entry of Jews into Russia, Baron Osten-Sacken states the position of Russia to be, that she looks upon their presence in the Empire as prejudicial to the Russian people. That certain numbers of them being here she must take care of them, and that this she proposes to do in her own way and according to her own views as to the best interests of all Russian subjects. That viewing the Jewish question as she does, as one of race and not of religion, but in which the two questions are inseparable, so far as her purposes are concerned, she refuses to permit foreign Jews of any nationality to enter her borders and swell the number already here. For this reason the Government has instructed all Russian consuls in all countries to refuse to visé the passports of foreign Jews. On the other hand, and speaking of his own opinion, as the real purpose of the laws forbidding the entry of foreign Jews into Russia is to prevent their settlement here and their engaging in trade within Russian territory, and not to prevent the entrance of tourists, temporary sojourners, or Jews whose purpose in coming is not of an objectionable nature to the Government, Baron Osten-Sacken said that, in his opinion, there should be a change in the present practice regarding the admission of foreign Jews.
[Page 1059]I expressed the hope that the Imperial Government would find it compatible with its policy to admit American citizens into Russia, without inquiry as to their religious opinions or race, upon presentation of their passports. That with us the Hebrews had proved themselves to be good and law-abiding citizens, who prospered without preying upon others, but that whatever might be the opinion of the Imperial Government on this question, the interpretation and application of the Federal laws discourage citizens of the United States, of all creeds, taking up permanent residence in a foreign country and continuing to claim the protection of our Government as such citizens; that such citizenship involves certain obligations which require a residence in our country, and that therefore it is unlikely that Hebrews bearing American passports would become permanently settled in Russia. This Baron Osten-Sacken admitted was a forcible argument, and he expressed himself as hopeful that it would be possible to bring about a satisfactory revision of Russian practice as regards the admission of American Jews into the Empire.
At the same time, he said that were an answer to Mr. Breckinridge’s note demanded the reply could not be favorable. That the laws of Russia are framed with regard to her own views of her own good. I took occasion to point out to the Baron that the purport of Mr. Breckinridge’s note was to protest against the extraterritorial act of an agent of a foreign Government, upon our soil, applying a religious test to citizens of the United States, an act not constitutionally within the power of any officer of our own Government to perform, and not to criticise the Russian laws.
Under these circumstances, presenting a hopeful prospect of securing a more satisfactory condition of affairs in this vexed question, and as pressing for the principle seemed to endanger complications, I felt that the discretionary clause in your No. 46 should deter me from taking the responsibility of insisting on a reply to the note in question at the present juncture. I therefore requested Baron Osten-Sacken to hold the note in abeyance for the present. To this he assented, and agreed to hold it as a memorandum of the case.
I have, etc.,
Chargé d’Affaires ad interim.