No. 567.
Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster.

No. 27.]

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Hoffman’s No. 23 of the 11th ultimo in the Pinkos case.

Notwithstanding the tenor of your No. 9 and of your note to the Department of July 24 last, as to the inexpediency of presently appealing to the Government of the Czar in the sense of the instruction of June 28 last, touching the expulsion of citizens of the United States from Russia (or certain cities thereof) by reason of their religious convictions, the statements of Mr. Hoffman’s No. 23, of August 11 last, are such that the Government of the United States would seem indifferent to the cause of its citizens in Russia did it neglect to make immediate remonstrance as set forth in said instruction of June 28. Mr. Hoffman’s inference from the facts connected with Mr. Pinkos’ departure from Russia is that Mr. Pinkos had made up his mind that Russia “was no place for one of his creed.”

If the meaning of this is that a citizen of the United States has been broken up in his business at St. Petersburg, simply for the reason that he is a Jew rather than a believer in any other creed then it is certainly time for this government to express itself as set forth in the instruction above mentioned. It should be made clear to the Goverment of Russia that in view of this government the religion professed by one of its citizens has no relation whatever to that citizen’s right to the protection of the United States, and that in the eye of this government an injury officially dealt to Mr. Pinkos in St. Petersburg on the sole ground that he is a Jew, presents the same aspect that an injury officially done to a citizen of Russia in New York for the reason that he attends any particular church there would to the view of His Majesty’s Government.

It is evident that the losses incurred by the abandonment of his business in St. Petersburg will afford Mr. Pinkos ground for reclamation, if no other cause can be shown for the official breaking up of his said business than the religious views he entertained.

The direct application to have Mr. Pinkos indemnified, however, may be deferred until he shall make it appear what those losses were.

I am, sir, &c.,

WM. M. EVARTS.