Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge.
Washington, June 18, 1897.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 561, of the 24th ultimo, in further relation to the interesting case of Frederick G. Grenz, a naturalized American citizen, who has been acquitted of the charge of having expatriated himself without Imperial permission.
This gratifying result, and the remarks of Baron von Osten Sacken, appear to justify your inference that there is a growing disposition among the more advanced statesmen of Russia to regard the old policy and treatment in this class of cases as being “too drastic to meet the requirements of to-day.” It would afford this Government much satisfaction to witness a change in the direction of recognizing the larger policy of most of the modern States by which the right of the citizen or subject to peaceably change his allegiance by orderly process of law is admitted by statute or confirmed by the conclusion of naturalization treaties. The spirit of accommodation which, after many failures through a long series of years, at length enabled the Russian Government to negotiate with the United States a convention of extradition on the most advanced modern lines may, it is hoped, yet permit of an agreement upon the terms of a treaty whereby the irritating questions affecting our naturalized citizens of Russian origin may be removed from the field of discussion and given that practical settlement which may not hopefully be devised so long as the two Governments approach the matter from diametrically opposed standpoints.
The Department is disposed to commend the course pursued by you and by Consul Heenan in so dealing with the case of Mr. Grenz as to avoid academic discussion of the abstract merits of the controversy. This Government has no desire to force that of Russia to any abrupt acquiescence in the doctrines we profess as to the liberty of the subject, which tenets we may frankly admit are derived from sources very distinct from the historical traditions of imperialism. It is willing to recognize the good disposition which Russia has shown in her own way and through her own municipal and judicial workings toward personally deserving American citizens who have incurred statutory or technical disabilities in Russia. It would deplore on the part of Russia, as much as it would avoid for its own part, any attempt to narrow the controversy to rigid limits and so bring about a deadlock from which neither party may recede with self-respect. It is prepared now, for many years past, to give to its representatives in Russia the widest latitude to deal with this class of questions according to the more amiable and elastic formulas of unwritten diplomacy, in the confidence that by pursuing this mutually deferential course a more formal agreement upon the essential principles involved may eventually be found within reach.
It would be gratifying to discern a similar disposition on the part of the Russian agents in this country. The Russian Government has lately been made acquainted with the indisposition of the United States to acquiesce in any inquisitorial office on the part of Russian agents toward American citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States, whereby a religious test and consequent disability as respects civil rights in Russia may be imposed. The response has been elicited that the test complained of is not essentially religious, but rather racial and [Page 443] political; and in proof of this, the laws of Russia providing for the favorable treatment of foreign Jews of certain categories seeking to enter Russia have been officially communicated. By the judicial order of March 14, 1891, the power of legations and consulates to vise passports for Russia extends—without previous authorization of the ministry of the interior—to Jewish bankers, chiefs of important commercial houses, and the brokers, representatives, clerks, and agents of such houses. Nevertheless, this Department from time to time learns of the refusal of Russian agents in this country to authenticate the passports of Jews unquestionably belonging to the privileged catagories, no other reason for refusal being assigned them than that the applicants are Jews. The recent case of Mr. Adolf Kutner, a wealthy and highly esteemed merchant of California, to whom a visé was refused by the Chargé d’affaires because he “was not a Christian,” has created a painful impression in the Senate, to members of which high body Mr. Kutner is well and favorably known. A resolution introduced by Senator Perkins, on the 25th ultimo, seeks to emphasize the contrast between the professions of the Russian Government in regard to the favorable treatment of alien Jews resorting to the Empire, and the prohibitory practice of the Russian agents in this country. That resolution, having been referred by the Committee on Foreign Relations to this Department for an expression of its views on the subject, a letter, of which copy is inclosed, was addressed to the chairman of that committee on the 5th instant, in which the position of the Russian Government is truthfully but temperately stated.
This matter is not now presented by way of argument and protest, but in order that you may in such friendly and discreet manner as may be practicable suggest to the minister for foreign affairs that one annoying feature of the case may be justly eliminated if the discretion conceded by Russian law to the Imperial legations and consulates in the matter of authenticating the passports of Jews resorting to Russia were made effective and practical as to Jews of the privileged classes; or, in the language of Prince Lobanof’s note of August 12/24, 1895, were in fact operative to admit Jews “of foreign allegiance when they seem to present a guarantee that they will not be a charge and a parasitic element in the State, but will be able, on the contrary, to be useful to the internal development of the country.”
This suggestion is made in the same amicable spirit which appears to have prompted the disposal of the Grenz case, and which characterizes your dispatch on the subject and this reply. It can not now be foreseen whether the resolution will be adopted as introduced, but should the Senate approve it, the course of the Department there under would be greatly facilitated were it ascertained in advance that the action of Russian agencies in the United States will be in full harmony with the liberal features of the Russian law.
Respectfully, yours,