Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part I
No. 490.
Mr. Peixotto to Mr. Fish.
Bucharest, June 29, 1872. (Received July 25.)
Sir: I have the honor herewith to transmit a printed copy in French, with translation in English, of the circular note addressed by Mr. Costaforo, minister of foreign affairs, to the agents of Roumania abroad, together with two printed articles in German, with English translations, extracted from the New Free Press of Vienna, the leading journal of the continent. For some time I questioned the propriety of transmitting Mr. Costaforo’s note, inasmuch as he had furnished no copy.* * *
Desirous, however, that you should be put in possession of all phases and of both sides of the question, I have determined to send you the same, not doubting your ready appreciation of the points at issue, and simply remarking that the attempted denial or belittling of the recent riots is only in consonance with the policy which has always been adopted by the Roumanian government oh this question.
Mr. Costaforo is now at Constantinople pleading his cause before the Sultan, who, though generally scandalized at all other times, is resorted to whenever storms exceed the laying of the home government.
I am, &c.,
Circular note to the agents of Roumania abroad.
Sir: The court of assizes of Buzéo has just pronounced upon the audacious and impious crime committed toward the end of the month of December, in the cathedral of Ismail, a crime which has again excited the passions of the people against the Jews, as well at Ismail as at Wilcow and Cahul. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment was passed againt the principal author, Moses Samson, alias J. Silbermann; the Jews, Struhl Waismann, a. Praismann, Haim David Goldschlaeger, and the rabbi Alter Brandes, being condemned, as accomplices, to three years’ imprisonment.
The government, who have not failed from the commencement of this unfortunate affair to take the most energetic measures for the re-establishment of order, and its maintenance in the event of any fresh outbreak, have, in the very matter in which justice had taken its course, given a new proof of their equitable and conciliatory disposition, diminishing by the right of pardon the rigor of a definitive decree.
On the report of the minister of justice, a copy of which is inclosed, His Highness the Prince, our august sovereign, has granted a free pardon to two of the prisoners, and commuted the punishment of the three others, who could merely be liable to a correctional [Page 694] penalty. The principal author alone will have to undergo the full punishment to which he has been condemned.
I will now draw your attention, Monsieur l’Agent, to the different appreciations of the late events, which, being based for the most part on inaccurate information, have naturally resulted in re-opening the Jewish question, a question destined, it would seem, whenever it is mooted, to assume proportions calculated to compromise the security of the country.
In fact, as soon as any matter of a certain importance gives rise to complaint on the part of Jews residing in Roumania, the newspapers immediately seize upon it, make the most of it, and exaggerate its nature and bearing; and the falsest news, exciting the most enlightened minds against the country and the government, are finally accepted by the cabinets of the great powers.
This system has been going on for many years, and in spite of all the assurances given by the government, and their incessant exertions, which have succeeded since the year 1869 in re-establishing tranquillity among the Christian and Jewish centers of population, all unfavorable circumstances are eagerly availed of to call in question the good faith of the government, and to require a settlement of the lot of the Jews by foreign intervention.
It is therefore of importance, Monsieur l’Agent, to re-establish, before everything, the truth, both as to the events which have recently taken place at Ismail, and as to the general state of the Jewish question in Roumania. You will thus succeed in securing in our favor the benevolent support of the civilized powers, who, on being better enlightened as to our situation, will not, I have every confidence, fail to aid us in surmounting the difficulties we seek to avoid, and which are incessantly being created for us.
Thus, without taking into account the just indignation which the sacrilege committed in the cathedral and the impious robbery of the sacred objects would have produced in any country, especially among the lower classes of society, it has been sought in every possible way, in spite of the repeated assurances of the government, to give immense proportions to some devastations which took place in consequence of the first ebullition of the public mind, and before the authorities could re-establish tranquillity. In these regretable acts, which could easily have been explained if the circumstances in which they were produced had been carefully studied, there has been seen a system of persecution against the Jews, and it has been sought to make the whole country responsible for a few scenes of local disorder stirred up by an odious deed. Must we not conclude, then, that it is absolutely necessary no longer to be silent upon a question which has been more than once successfully invoked to the detriment of the interests of the country, and of the Jewish population itself.
Even now, that everything has long been restored to order, and that, owing to the energetic measures taken by the government, the fear that new troubles might occur on the occasion of the Easter holidays is completely removed, now that we had a right to believe that the truth had at length come to light, and that it is recognized by the evidence of the facts established on the spot by the agents of the foreign powers themselves, that not a single Jew has been killed or wounded, that no woman has been violated, and that the importance of the havoc committed had been exaggerated, we see with grief that eminent and, we doubt not, sincere men, go so far as to believe that it is conducive to the success of the cause to exhibit in foreign parliaments frightful pictures of persecution, murders, rapes, and other atrocities, which have had no existence either at Ismail, or at Cabool, or at Wilcow, where the tumults took place.
We do not seek to extenuate the gravity of the wrong that has been done, and we are under no delusion as to the importance attached by the great powers to this Jewish question; but we also ask ourselves with a good conscience, how a government, actuated by the best intentions, and incessantly giving proofs of the sincerity of their intentions, could succeed in conquering the difficulties by which they are beset, when they have to contend against a system tending to exaggerate the complaints, without taking into account the causes producing them, and seeking to cause to be forgotten the enormous difference between the Jews of Western Europe and Jews massed together by hundreds of thousands and occupying almost exclusively many towns in Roumania.
We will not conceal from you, Monsieur l’Agent, on the other hand, the bad impression produced upon the government of the prince by the verdict of acquittal just pronounced by the jury of Buzeo in favor of several of the prisoners. But if we may be allowed to observe the character of this institution, even in the most civilized societies, whence we have derived it, it will not be difficult to show that there has often been occasion to deplore, in the verdicts of juries, the fatal influences exercised on the minds of citizens called upon to judge their equals by the prejudices or the passions of the moment which have made them deviate from the straight path of justice. The Roumanian government has had to regret, on more than one occasion and at different periods, such deviations, and has not failed, in consequence of them, to lay before the chamber the modifications they considered it necessary to introduce into the jury-law. [Page 695] We are convinced that the legislature will make it their business to study and improve this law during the next session.
We must, however, hear in mind the general and excessive excitement of the popular mind consequent on the profanation of the church, and especially at the moment of finding, after five days’ search, the cross and the sacred objects in the drains of a house inhabited by Jews, where they had been thrown by the Israelites A. Praismann and Haïm David. This deed has been proved, and can no more be called in question.
If, in consequence of the great difficulties attendant upon an examination diligently prosecuted during several months, certain judicial errors brought about the indictment of the Rabbi Brandes, and of David Goldschlaeger, whom the chief culprit had denounced as accomplices and instigators of the crime; if the justice of the jurors, ignorant of the nice distinctions established by science between the different persons who have co-operated in a crime, has seen accomplices where there were only receivers, (receleurs,) still we must not conclude that there was but one person guilty. The facts officially established, the detailed confessions made by the culprits themselves, as they are set forth in the report of the minister of justice, the money stolen which was found at the house of one, and the sacred objects thrown by two other Jews into the drains, and where they were found on the information of the latter by the agents of the government, leave no room for doubt on this subject. I mention these details, Monsieur 1’Agent, not indeed with the view of excusing the conduct of the jurors, but because I think it would not be right to suppress the co-relation between the crime committed and the acts of disorder which resulted from it; public opinion would be but half enlightened if, while exaggerating the extent of the latter, it were sought to extenuate the moral importance of the principal act by reducing it to a simple question of figures, as it was attempted to do in the English Parliament.
I stop here, Monsieur 1’Agent. I believe I have said enough to bring out the principal points you will have to develop and uphold. There is no religious persecution in Roumania, and there has never been any. But comparatively there is a very large number of Jews, more than in any other country. The indigenous commerce suffers, and there are many towns in which it has been completely abandoned to the Jews. The state of civilization of the Jewish population leaves much to be wished; everything is to be hoped from time, and the exertions made by enlightened Israelites to ameliorate the manner of their co-religionists.
In the mean time they form a separate class, a true caste in the country, where they cease not to take refuge, in spite of the intolerance of which our nation has been latterly accused, and which should have driven them from it had it really existed.
To pretend that their conduct is always correct, and that they are simply the unfortunate and innocent victims of what it has been agreed to call the persecutions of the Jews in Roumania, is not the truth. The propagandism carried on against the country and its government by the Israelitish press and the incessant appeals to foreign interference, do not seem to me calculated to allay the evil; on the contrary they aggravate it. In seeking to hit the mark they overshoot it.
The present government has given proofs of firmness, and in the serious circumstances it has had to face since its accession, it has not for a moment ceased to observe the rule of duty; putting itself above all passions, and all regard to a false an$ vain popularity.
The Jews themselves recognize the truth of this, and the most enlightened among them understand perfectly the difficulty of the situation and how many obstacles we have had to surmount to maintain the balance of social relationship, and to secure general tranquillity. Other obstacles, then, must not be created, nor the question aggrayated by interferences which might have the effect of enfeebling the action of authority and of paralyzing its best intentions.
The foreign agents accredited at Bucharest are better able than any other person to enlighten their governments on the state of things in Roumania, and on the line of conduct pursued by the present cabinet. We, therefore, had a right to reckon upon their kind support, and on their coming to our assistance and giving us their sympathy in the task we imposed upon ourselves. But, contrary to this hope, the Prince’s government have just been painfully surprised by taking cognizance of the collective document, whose unusual form and threatening tone are not of a nature to encourage them in their exertions.
This document has appeared in all the newspapers, and we abstain from pronouncing an opinion upon it. But we cannot pass over in silence the direct attack which it makes upon the dignity of power. This document, moreover, is unfounded, and, at least, useless. The agents were aware of the energetic measures the government had taken, of its own accord, against the recurrence of disorders, and if it had seemed to them necessary to interfere, conformably to their instructions, they might, at least, have dispensed with applying to us unmerited reproaches.
Even the delay of the communications, of which the subscribers of the above-mentioned document complain, is justified, seeing that, by my note of the 7-19th February, last, I had reserved the right of communicating the result of the examination, and not [Page 696] the inquiry, (enquête,) as they say, which was rather designed for information of government as to the conduct of their employe’s. The examination having lasted during the time required for the hearing of many hundred witnesses, and having been but recently terminated, the government had necessarily to wait for the decision of justice, to communicate to the agents the general result of the examinations of all the suits, one of which is being tried this very day before the court of assizes of Ibraïla.
The present government has never failed in its duties toward the representatives of foreign powers; it had a right in its turn to expect more regard on their part. In presence of the events which daily take place under the eyes of the agents, the ministry ought to have been better supported in foreign cabinets, especially in questions in which it has to contend against the hostile tendency of those who are not particular in the choice of their arms, and who never fear to borrow from the unpopularity of a situation, the means of attack which would fail them on the ground of loyalty and truth.
The agents of the guaranteeing powers, who have certainly the right to draw the attention of the government of Roumania to the questions of general interest which pre-occupy the civilized world, ought not to forget, however, that in consequence of certain precipitate acts, whose rectitude, both as regards the form and the basis, may have escaped their perspicacity, they only, unconsciously, and contrary to their instructions, keep up the irritation of the public mind, and thus oblige us to deplore new forces in a struggle which, in the long run, cannot but weaken our energy.
Accept, &c.
The discussion of the Roumanian Jewish question in the German Reichtag, the English Parliament, the Washington Congress, and in the meeting at the London Mansion House, seems to sound in the ears of the clever Wallachians like the announcement of the hour of retribution for the brutalities which they have practiced so long with impunity. As we are informed by a private telegram, which we received Friday, the minister of foreign affairs, Costaforo, has gone to Constantinople to remove any intervention on account of the Jewish question, and now the Rumanische Post publishes a long circular note of Costaforo to the Wall ac hi an agents abroad, calculated to accuse the consuls of the powers residing at Bucharest, for their protest raised against the violences at Ismail, Vilcor, and Cabool, at their respective departments.
Considerations of political decency prevent us from reproducing this curious document, swarming with lies, which tries partly to deny, partly to embellish, the Jewish persecutions, and to represent the consuls as liars and intriguants. Mr. Costaforo in defending the riots behaves as the most tender friend of the Jews. If he could not execute his benevolent intentions, this was only the guilt of the papers, the consuls, and, of course, the Jews, who are very glad to be hunted down. The shameful verdict of Buzeo is justified by the low degree of culture, not of the jurors, but of the Jews; Mr. Costaforo, nevertheless, promises a reform of the jury institution whose imperfection he therefore finally avows. It is understood that the Roumanian government will not, as they hope, “obtain the benevolent support of the civilized powers” for the continuance of their shameful household; but we believe, also, that no minister of exterior in the world will permit to be insulted by listening to the lecture of such an arrogant document, which is against the most elementary notions of decorum; the Roumanian agents will simply be set out of doors. But Mr. Costaforo has proved that it is necessary to teach the Wallachians the first notions, not only of propriety, justice, and love of truth, but also of manners. The retribution is limping upon crutches behind the Roumanian atrocities, but will yet catch and punish, in time, the violators of justice.
To the protest which the representatives of the foreign powers at this capital have addressed to the government, concerning the Jewish riots of Bessarabia, Mr. Costaforo has now replied, in the shape of circular-note, to the “Roumanian agents abroad.” That these dark existences, which they are pleased to call “Roumanian agents,” are playing a very indefinite rôle, and have no raison d’être, from the stand-point of international law, is above all doubt. The Porte has repeatedly protested against these pretended airs of independent sovereignty, and has again and again endeavored to have [Page 697] her objections complied with by the guaranteeing powers. I can comprehend why these Roumanian agents should have been tolerated at Vienna, Paris, and Berlin, out of motives of delicacy to the feelings of Roumania; but that a minister of foreign affairs should be permitted to jump over the heads of the agents of the guaranteeing powers, and address directly to the latter any diplomatic documents, is a monstrosity.
Should the powers accept directly such documents, they apply to their representatives here a grave slap, and make their position very untenable. Mr. Costaforo, besides giving a lesson to the agents like school-boys, reproaches them moreover with having “acted against their instructions,” thus charging them with abuse of their function. Such a proceeding against accredited agents is unheard of in the annals of diplomatic intercourse, and ought the least to be tolerated in this instance.
And the contents of the note itself I A tissue of disfigured facts and lies, a mass of contradiction, a jumble of empty phrases, of superficialities, without beginning and without end. The minister thereby seeks to develop truth concerning the excesses as well as the situation of the Israelites in general, and herewith to “acquire the support of the civilized powers.” And to commence with this restoration of truth the minister says: “It has been sought in every possible way to give immense proportions to some devastations which took place in consequence of the first ebullition of the public mind, and before the authorities could re-establish tranquillity.”
“Some” devastations, says Mr. Costaforo, who at the time he visited the scenes of the violence to investigate for the Government, beheld such spectacles of misery at Vilcor, Ismail, and Cabool, as moved him to give from his own pocket reliet to the haggard, emaciated, wailing, and plundered wretches on all sides surrounding him, and received from them lists showing losses to the extent of 600,000 francs. Mr. Costaforo promised indemnification to the unhappy people, and does this now by a naïveté, believing thereby to succeed to convince foreign countries that much noise had been made for nothing, and that they will discredit the reports of the whole press, the foreign agents, and the facts themselves, in order to place confidence in him, him, who permitted the authorities to intercede only after seven days’ duration of the riots. Mr. Costaforo says further: “Even now that everything has long been restored to order, and that, owing to the energetic measures taken by the government, the fear that new troubles might occur on the occasion of the Easter holidays, is completely removed, now that we had a right to believe that the truth had at length come to light, and that it is recognized by the evidence of the facts established on the spot, by the agents of the foreign powers themselves, that not a single Jew has been killed or wounded, that no woman has been violated, and that the importance of the havoc committed had been exaggerated, we see with grief,” &c.
The above-stated assertion of the minister contains a lie, as Mr. Costaforo well knows from the petitions of the Ismail and Vilcor deputations, that many Jews have been wounded, and many wives and girls violated in the presence of their parents and husbands, by the intoxicated, brutalized mob. Indeed, only a Costaforo can have the hardihood to utter, before the whole world, such a gigantic falsehood!
Mr. Costaforo moreover affects to regret the verdict of the Buzeo jury in the Ismail affair, and undertakes at the same time to vindicate it in some degree, three of the condemned Jews being, according to him, culpable of receivership, and not deserving complete pardon. The truth, however, is that the attorney-general, Borsh, sent to Ismail, after exact and careful investigation, repeatedly informed the minister by telegram that the Israelites were perfectly innocent, and that he (the minister) must oppose the accusation given on the part of the Fokshani chamber of putting under accusation. But Mr. Costaforo did not at all care for the scribbling of his attorney-general, nor of the report which the latter gave, which the minister, of course, did not communicate to the consuls, in spite of his promise, and in which the innocence of the Israelites was again proved in the most convincing manner, but permitted the poor men to be brought before the jury, condemned, two of them to be pardoned on his own motivated report to the prince, and did not publish the report, which could have been calculated to enlighten everybody as to the real facts.
The minister then says, “If the justice of the jurors, ignorant of the nice distinctions established by science between the different persons who have co-operated in a crime, has seen accomplices where there were only receivers, still, we must not conclude that there was but oneperson guilty.” We will majce allowance to the jurors for this ignorance; but why have the courts, who must not be ignorant of the nice scientific distinctions, brought the Israelites as “accomplices” before the jury? Why has Mr. Costaforo, himself a doctor of law, permitted them to do so, when he was perfectly aware of the real facts from the detailed report of his clever attorney-general? A private assertion of Mr. Costaforo, after his return from Bessarabia, and the receipt of the extremely dignified and discreet note of the consuls here, will show to what class of people he belongs. He said to an intimate journalist,” the damnedhlthy Jews deserve what has been done to them; had I been at Ismail at the time of the sacrilege, I would have joined the mob; the agents make a great fuss, but the more they will cry the less will I listen to them.”
[Page 698]And Mr. Costaforo dares to call “unfounded and useless” the collective note of the consuls, to which alone we are indebted for the pardon of the two Israelites, and the removal of every danger during the Easter holidays! He concludes the note with the following words: “The agents of the guaranteeing powers ought not to forget that, in consequence of some precipitated acts, whose rectitude, both as regards the form and the bases, may have escaped their perspicacity, they only unconsciously, and contrary to their instructions, keep up the irritation of the public mind, and thus oblige us to deplore new forces in a struggle which, in the long run, cannot but weaken our energy.”
The latter part is a threat which Mr. Costaforo, in taking leave, gives the guaranteeing powers; in other words, it means, “.if you will continue to make any fuss, then we will abandon our ‘energetic’ measures.”