No. 527.
Mr. Jewell to Mr. Fish.

No. 73.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith an extract from the St. Petersburg Zeitung of May 10, 1874, together with a translation of same upon the subject of the Hebrews in Roumania.

The treatment of the Jews by this government is so different from that of our own as to be the cause of no little trouble at this legation, and everything which appears in print bearing upon the subject of the relation of the United States to the Hebrew race is read with interest and commented upon in official circles; and while this letter from Bucharest does not in any way affect this legation, I send it to you as part of the current history of the day at this capital.

I have, &c,


[From the St. Petersburg Zeitung, No. 110, May 10, 1874.]

The situation of tlje Israelites in Roumania, on whom the attention of Europe had been again drawn lately, on account of the law concerning spirituous liquors, has grown rather worse instead of getting improved, for the circumstance that the “liberals” of the land, always Imstile to them, are opposing every humanitarian attempt of the Roumanian government by rendering it suspected of yielding to a foreign pressure.

Now again, as before, the agitator in behalf of the Israelites, Mr. Peiceotto, American consul-general, has imprudently furnished the best weapons to the “liberals” by giving notice, in a demonstrative manner, through the consular secretary, of discontinuing his subscription to the paper La Romanie, which, in a series of articles, attempted to prove the impossibility of equal rights for the Israelites so long as they [Page [837]] continue to be not only a religious but also politically separate community—in fact, a nation among nations.

The Romanie has the following remarks on the subject: “We regret that such decision had been taken, since Mr. Peiceotto had been himself the mover of the diplomatic complaints raised against Roumania with reference to the Hebrew question; and it seemed but just to us that he should know our disintereste and impartial (?) views in the way of our defense to the end, and the practical conclusions we intend to establish therefrom, excusing us if an expression did not sometimes quite convey our thought. Should a lively word have possibly escaped from our quick pen that might hurt his religious opinions, we respectfully beg to apologize for it.”