Mr. Breckinridge to
Mr. Olney.
Legation of the United States,
St. Petersburg, December 6,
1895. (Received Dec. 23.)
No. 181.]
Sir: Referring to Mr. Uhl’s No. 130, of October
23, regarding the refusal of Russian consuls in the United States to
visé the passports of certain American citizens of Jewish descent, and
to the proceedings had in connection therewith, I now have to inclose a
copy of my note of this date to Prince Lobanow upon the subject.
In the same connection reference should be had to Mr. Adee’s No. 107, of
August 22, and No. 92, of July 5.
[Page 1072]
I wish to call attention to certain changes which have taken place, in
the form at least, of this controversy as it has progressed.
The first distinct expression upon this particular point in our long and
varied controversies with the Russian Government about the rights of our
citizens of Hebrew descent, and the expression to which most frequent
reference has been made, was Mr. Wharton’s dispatch No. 60, of February
28, 1893, to my predecessor, Mr. White. But in that dispatch the issue
was largely colored by the religious feature which seemed to give rise
to this objectionable policy, as is shown by such expressions as “a
religious inquisitorial function” “a religious test,” “Jewish faith,”
etc.
The correspondence has reflected and to quite an extent has been limited
by this aspect of the question until the position of the Department was
made broader and clearer by the dispatches of Mr. Uhl and Mr. Adee,
previously referred to.
I have incorporated the substance of these dispatches in my present note
to Prince Lobanow. In my brief reference therein to our treaty rights I
have been guided chiefly by Mr. Blaine’s dispatch No. 87, of July 29,
1881, to Mr. Foster, in which those rights are fully discussed.
Referring to the inclosed copy of my note to Prince Lobanow, I will only
add that while I have sought, of course, to reflect accurately the
position and sentiments of the Government, and in an entirely respectful
manner, yet I have not deemed it wise or proper, in the exercise of such
discretion as may rest with me, to present the case with any less
distinctness and vigor than my instructions justify.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 181.]
Mr. Breckinridge
to Prince Lobanow.
Legation of the United States,
St. Petersburg, December 6, 1895.
Your Excellency: Referring to your note of
August 12/24, and also to your former note of June 26/July 8, both
relating to the refusal of Russian consuls in the United States to
visé the passports of certain classes of American citizens of Jewish
descent, and previously acknowledged, I now have the honor to
communicate with you further upon the subject.
I did not fail to transmit to my Government the very careful and
temperate arguments in which your excellency stated the position of
the Imperial Government in this matter, and defended the law under
which its officials act.
Your excellency has the goodness to say that the practice is not
based upon the religious faith of the persons immediately concerned.
I beg to reply that while this may alter the appearance, yet it does
not change the nature of the case. The religious feature was merely
the strong incident which seemed to give rise to the erection of
tribunals within the territory of the United States empowered to
accept some and to reject others of the certifications of their
Government, and to make inquisition into the faith of their
citizens. It is equally obnoxious to the institutions and derogatory
to the dignity of the United States that their certifications should
thus be discriminated against from any other cause, or that their
citizens should be subjected, upon their own
[Page 1073]
soil, to inquiries relating to their
race, wealth, business pursuits, or to any other intrusion upon
their rights and into their private and personal affairs.
Painful as it is to my Government that such discriminations should be
made by the Imperial officials anywhere against its certifications
and against any of its citizens innocent of crime, and violative as
this is believed to be of both their natural and treaty rights, yet
it is still more objectionable when practiced by foreign tribunals
erected within our own jurisdiction, guided by an elaborate system
of practice against the United States and their citizens, and
clothed with power to act favorably or unfavorably according to
their own judgment of the importance of the case. Whatever may be
the purpose, this is the effect of such regulations and practices,
and it is my duty to say to your excellency that they can not be
acquiesced in by the United States.
It seems to my Government that it should not be necessary to go to
the length to which it has been compelled to go in order to
demonstrate entirely to the satisfaction of the Imperial Government
the correctness of its contention in this matter, and to secure the
prompt cessation of this practice in the United States, for it is
not believed that any Government will seriously contest that every
sovereign state is and must be the judge for itself of the extent to
which foreign consuls may be permitted to act under their own laws
within its territory, and that such permission may be determined by
the corresponding exequatur. If there be an exception to this, it
must be with respect to countries justly held in much less
estimation than does or should obtain between the United States and
Russia.
The United States conspicuously illustrate their convictions on this
subject in respect to their own consuls. Our customs laws require
the administration of a consular oath to exporters presenting
manifests of goods for certification; but upon the representation of
certain European Governments, among them Great Britain and Germany,
that the administration of such an oath by a foreign consul to a
subject of the country is an invasion of the judicial independence
thereof, our consuls were enjoined to refrain from the act
complained of in all cases affecting a subject of the sovereign of
the country where they reside. Such Governments were fully competent
to insert in the consular exequatur an express inhibition of the
obnoxious act; but that fact only lends additional legal and moral
force to any subsequent protest against acts of this character not
foreseen.
I trust that I have been able to make clear to your excellency that
my Government never can and never should consent to these practices.
They humiliate within its own territory, by invidious and
disparaging distinctions, a class embracing many of its most honored
and valuable citizens, though in such a cause it would contend with
equal zeal for a single, though the humblest, citizen in the
land.
I am happy to believe that it is in the justice of this claim and in
the persuasive power of a friendly nation that the strength of this
contention lies. My Government feels that it has carefully observed
in all its earnest but disregarded protests about this matter the
principles of comity which it is scrupulous to observe, and it feels
that it is entitled to a better return than it has received. It does
not desire this difference to trench upon the just limits of
consideration.
If I have spoken plainly, it is yet with the greatest respect, and
because plain but respectful speech seems to me the best way to
remove differences between Governments jealous of their dignity and
rights, and yet moved, as I am sure both are, by a sincere desire to
do justice
[Page 1074]
and to both
preserve and increase the honorable friendship which has so long
subsisted between them. It is in this spirit that I express the hope
that this protracted and irritating difference may come to a speedy
end.
I avail myself, etc.,
