Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine.
St. Petersburg, February 10, 1891. (Received February 25.)
Sir: A few days since I bad an extended, interesting, and suggestive conversation with the imperial minister of foreign affairs, Mr. de Giers, concerning the attitude and policy of Russia in respect to the Jewish subjects of the Empire. Mr. de Giers himself introduced tbe theme. In the absence of specific instructions and of any pending cases involving the rights of American citizens of Jewish faith and thus touching the question more or less directly, I might have felt some hesitation, unless in the course of an informal and personal talk, in opening an inquiry possibly liable to the reproach of intruding into the domain of the internal policy and domestic affairs of the Empire. But the freedom with which Mr. de Giers himself raised the question removed all embarrassment. In view of recent publications throughout the world and of the wide public and humane interest in the subject, the exposition and statements of the minister of foreign affairs are noteworthy and valuable. I can not undertake to repeat all that was said in a conversation which was quite prolonged, but will give the more salient features.
Mr. de Giers began by alluding to recent publications in American newspapers respecting Russia and the Jewish question, and said that these publications had been the subject of a conversation between the Emperor and himself the day before. Some of them contained personal references to the American representative, and an expression of the Emperor on this point was repeated—an expression to which allusion is made only as indicating how the conversation originated. Mr. de Giers then referred to the current reports that the Russian Government had projected or meditated new laws of a harsh character’against the Jews, and said in the most explicit terms that no new laws had been made on this subject, and that none were in contemplation. He added that he was thoroughly informed, for he was a member of the council having charge of the question. The published reports were destitute of foundation, and no such purpose was entertained as that which has been imputed to the Government.
This statement was a repetition and confirmation of the denial made a few months ago on the first publication of the reports. At that time, however, it was charged in response that, while it might be true that no new laws had been framed or would be promulgated, still substantially the same object would be attained by the revival and vigorous execution of the edicts of 1882, which had long remained dormant. I recalled these facts and asked Mr. de Giers whether there was any good warrant for this allegation. He replied that there was not. The edicts of 1882 were, he said, somewhat misunderstood. They were not strictly [Page 735] new measures. They were rather in the nature of formulating and more precisely defining provisions already in existence in less specific and exact form. They had come just after the assassination of the late Emperor and after the anti-Jewish disturbances in several of the interior provinces, where there was a tendency towards a more stringent application of the restrictive policy. It was his own feeling that the minister of the interior at that time had proceeded with too much rigor. Old laws which had slept practically unexecuted in many features were suddenly applied with too severe a hand, and hardships had inevitably resulted.
Since then the execution of the laws had again been relaxed, and their restrictions had been disregarded and overstepped. I asked Mr. de Giers if it was not true that measures had recently been taken towards the removal of the Jews from the villages to the towns in the pale to which their residence is limited by law. He answered that there was some movement in that direction. What was being done was to tighten the application of the old laws somewhat, but it would be done gently and gradually—I am careful to quote his own words—and with every reasonable allowance and consideration. The laws had not been changed, they had simply slumbered, in large part, and, because they had been so generally disregarded and nullified both by the Government and by the Jews, the movement to enforce them, even though in a limited degree, created all the more outcry.
In answer to my inquiry as to why it was deemed necessary to withdraw the Jews from the villages and lands where they had been located, Mr. de Giers said that, so far as it was done at all, it was a measure of self-protection. This question involves what is well known to be a subject of earnest controversy. The Jews contend that when they have a fair chance they address themselves to agriculture as faithfully and successfully as other people. Mr. de Giers, however, maintained the contrary view. He said that if they would really devote themselves to agricultural pursuits the Government would leave them undisturbed and would gladly give them land for cultivation. He cited a special and notable experiment of the kind in the province of Kiev under the Emperor Nicholas, which was claimed to have resulted unfortunately. He insisted that when they acquire land they secure a Christian tenant and go on as before with their own vocations. He declared that they monopolize what he described as the saloons and the mills. They make such a combination that all operations of production and sale must go through their hands. He gave these allegations as an explanation of the law which restricts the Jews to the towns, and insisted that it was a question not of religion but of economic policy. This view will be vigorously resented and resisted by the friends of the Jews, who hold that it is unfair in statement and unjust in conclusion, and that so far as it has a basis of fact the conditions grow out of the exceptional necessities imposed by a long historical course of oppression directed against the race and not limited to any country. But Mr. de Giers was stating what is relied on as the justification for the policy of the Russian Government, and in reporting his observations I am under the duty of giving them as he made them.
He frankly admitted that the question was one of great difficulty and perplexity, and that it was hard to tell what ought to be done in justice and reason. On the one hand, he recognized that the Jews suffered hardships, and he felt much sympathy for them. On the other hand, it was necessary to protect their own people, and especially the simple and improvident peasantry. In this connection he adverted to the restriction [Page 736] upon the proportion of Jewish students permitted to enter the schools. The Hebrews were an intellectual race, more alert mentally than the ingenuous people by whom they were surrounded, and if they had free and unlimited access to the highest opportunities of education they would absorb the professions within themselves. As an additional reason, he repeated the statement earnestly made in some quarters and as earnestly denied in others—that among the educated Hebrews are found many of the nihilists.
Mr. de Giers recurred several times to the fact that the laws were left in large measure unexecuted. They existed on paper, but they were loosely applied. For instance, theoretically, Jews are not permitted to reside at St. Petersburg or at Moscow 5 yet in practice they are here by the thousands, filling the professions and the banking houses, with their great synagogue recently erected and their unfettered religious devotions. The laws had long nominally restricted the movements of the Jews to the towns within the fifteen districts which constitute the pale; they had prohibited these proscribed people from holding lands or dwelling in the villages, except under certain conditions. But these laws had not been strictly enforced, there had been a steady encroachment upon prohibited ground, and now that their interdictions are again applied to some extent it produces all the more friction and complaint. In answer to an inquiry as to whether there was not at the present time a considerable emigration of Jews under these coercive measures or through fear of a more serious proscription, Mr. de Giers said that at various times there had been an emigration under such apprehensions, but in many of these cases the emigrants had found their way back worse off than when they went away.
One great source of trouble, he remarked, was the difficulty of controlling the subordinate officials. He did not doubt that there were wrongs of which the Government had no knowledge. In an Empire as vast as Russia it was impossible to watch closely all of the thousands of employés. The whole question, Mr. de Giers repeated, was surrounded with difficulty, but he hoped that some solution might be found, though he did not suggest what it might be, and his tone carried the impression that there was yet no clear perception of a satisfactory issue.
Though the fact that Mr. de Giers himself introduced the topic, and was so free and frank in discussing it, seemed to invite and encourage corresponding freedom of inquiry, I intimated that I felt some hesitation in interrogating him upon what might be regarded as a matter of internal policy. In reply he desired me to dismiss all hesitation and to ask any question I liked. He added, speaking with emphasis:
Don’t hesitate to ask even disagreeable questions, or questions that you might think disagreeable, for we are so conscious of our good intentions in this matter that we are willing to meet any inquiry.
The subject had come up unexpectedly, and I thought it best, under the circumstances, to confine myself chiefly to eliciting information, and to reserve representations deemed expedient or obligatory until another occasion, after communicating with the Department. I did, however, feel it incumbent on me to say, as I did during the course of the conversation, that, while we recognize the treatment of the people within its own borders as a question of domestic concern that belongs primarily to Russia, except so far as it may affect the rights of American citizens, we hold, and in any reference to the subject the representative of the United States must hold, the attitude which is in harmony with the [Page 737] theory and practice of our Government, which makes no distinction on account of creed. I added that the American people, prompted by the liberal and humane sentiments which distinguish them, would witness with satisfaction movements toward the amelioration of the condition of the Jews; at the same time, in any utterance on the question, we desired to approach it in a fair and friendly spirit and with a just sense of the peculiar situation of Russia. To this Mr. de Giers replied that he thought the feeling of the American people was quite natural; there was, unfortunately, much in the condition of the Jews to pity, but the conditions of the two countries were entirely different. The Jews of the United States were of a high class and were in accord with the general body of the citizens, and he thought the American people, though their feeling was easily understood, misapprehended the real facts as to Russia.
Such in substance, and at the more vital points in the exact language, so far as it can be recalled, was the conversation. It furnishes a fresh assurance, in harmony with the information I have heretofore communicated, that the Russian Government itself declares that no new measures of a proscriptive character against the Jews are contemplated. As to the existing laws, they have come to be fairly well known, though on various points it is still difficult to ascertain their precise provisions. They consist of a vast mass of edicts, ordained from time to time, filling hundreds of pages, some of them actively in force and some of them practically obsolete or unexecuted. They subject the Jews to a special code in matters of taxation, education, residence, rights of worship, limitations of industry and trade, and kindred affairs entering into all the relations of life. If they were generally and stringently enforced, they would involve incalculable hardship. As showing what the Russian Government itself says in explanation of these discriminatory and restrictive laws and in regard to the disposition with which it approaches their administration, the statements of Mr. de Giers have a value which will be appreciated. His reputation as one of the most liberal and careful statesmen of Russia gives them weight. To a people trained with a different inheritance and under a different system the reflection is, however, suggested that, whatever may be thought of the evils alleged in justification of the existing policy, the remedy more consonant with the spirit of the age would seem to be not to proscribe an entire people, the innocent with the guilty, but to proscribe the offenses and proceed against the offenders without regard to their race or their faith.
On the question of the administration of the laws, I have instituted inquiries in other quarters, upon which I shall report hereafter.
I have, etc.,