Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question
by Lucien Wolf · English · Gutenberg #31385 · 356,749 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question
Author: Lucien Wolf
Release date: February 25, 2010 [eBook #31385]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31385
Credits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE JEWISH QUESTION ***
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY
OF THE JEWISH QUESTION
NOTES ON
THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF
THE JEWISH QUESTION
WITH TEXTS OF PROTOCOLS, TREATY
STIPULATIONS AND OTHER PUBLIC
ACTS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
BY
LUCIEN WOLF
PUBLISHED BY THE
JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF ENGLAND
_Mocatta Library and Museum_
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
(_University of London_)
GOWER STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1
1919
_All rights reserved_
PREFACE.
The substance of this volume was read as a Paper before the Jewish
Historical Society of England on February 11, 1918. It has now been
expanded and supplied with a full equipment of documents--Protocols of
Congresses and Conferences, Treaty Stipulations, Diplomatic
Correspondence and other public Acts--in the hope that it may prove
useful as a permanent record, and serviceable to those of our communal
organisations whose duty it will be to bring the still unsolved aspects
of the Jewish Question before the coming Peace Conference.
Besides helping to indicate the lines on which Jewish action should
travel in this matter, the State Papers here quoted may also serve to
remind the Plenipotentiaries themselves that the Jewish Question is far
from being a subsidiary issue in the Reconstruction of Europe, that they
have a great tradition of effort and achievement in regard to it, and
that this tradition, apart from the high merits of the task itself,
imposes upon them the solemn obligation of solving the Question
completely and finally now that the opportunity of doing so presents
itself free from all restraints of a selfish and calculating diplomacy.
It is not only that the edifice of Religious Liberty in Europe has to be
completed, but also that some six millions of human beings have to be
freed from political and civil disabilities and social and economic
restrictions which for calculated cruelty have no parallels outside the
Dark Ages. The Peace Conference will have accomplished relatively little
if a shred of this blackest of all European scandals is allowed to
survive its deliberations.
This collection does not pretend to be complete. The aim has been only
to illustrate adequately the main lines of the theme with a view to
practical questions which may arise in connection with the Peace
Conference. American documents have been only sparely quoted, for the
reason that the American Jewish Historical Society has already published
a very full collection of such documents. (Cyrus Adler: "Jews in the
Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States.") The many generous
interventions of the Vatican on behalf of persecuted Jews have also been
omitted partly for a similar reason (see Stern: "Urkundliche Beiträge
über die Stellung der Päpste zu den Juden") and partly because they have
very little direct bearing on the diplomatic activities of the Great
Powers during the period under discussion.
My grateful acknowledgements are due to the Foreign Office for kindly
permitting me to copy the documents relating to Palestine, which will be
found appended to Chapter IV, and to Lieut. J. B. Morton, who was good
enough to relieve me of much of the work of reading the proof-sheets. I
have also to thank Mr. D. Mitrani for the generous help he gave me in
preparing the Index.
L. W.
GRAY'S INN, LONDON.
_December 1918._
CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY 1
II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY 6
(_a_) PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA (1744-1745) 7
DOCUMENTS--
Petition to King George II, 1744 7
Appeal of Bohemian Jews, 1744 9
The Decree of the Empress, 1744 10
Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna, 1744 11
(_b_) THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815) 12
DOCUMENTS--
List from Klüber 14
Art. XVI of Annexe IX of Final Act of Congress, 1815 14
(_c_) THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (1818) 15
DOCUMENT--
Protocol of Nov. 21, 1818 16
(_d_) THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON (1830) 17
DOCUMENT--
Protocol of Feb. 3, 1830 17
(_e_) THE CONGRESS OF PARIS (1856-1858) 18
DOCUMENTS--
Art. IX of the Treaty of Paris, 1856 21
Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856 21
Conferences of Constantinople: Protocol of Feb. 11, 1856 23
Art. XLVI of Convention of Paris of Aug. 10, 1858 23
(_f_) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878) 23
DOCUMENTS--
Extracts from Protocols of June 24, 25, 26,
and 28, and July 1, 4, and 10, 1878 25
Extracts from Treaty of Berlin: Arts. XLIV and LXII, 1878 33
Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury, Oct. 25, 1879 34
Identic Note to Rumanian Government, Feb. 20, 1880 35
(_g_) RUMANIA AND THE POWERS (1902) 36
DOCUMENTS--
Dispatch from Mr. John Hay to U.S. Minister at Athens,
July 17, 1902 38
American Circular Note to the Great Powers, Aug. 11, 1902 44
Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate, Sept. 2, 1902 44
(_h_) THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG,
AND BUCHAREST (1912-1913) 45
DOCUMENTS--
Conference of Bucharest: Protocol of July 23, 1913 47
Jewish Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Oct. 13, 1913 48
Sir Eyre A. Crowe to Conjoint Committee, Oct. 29, 1913 51
Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Nov. 13, 1913 51
The same to the same, March 12, 1914 52
(_i_) THE JEWISH QUESTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWER (1890 and 1906) 54
DOCUMENT--
The proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance: Secret Russian
Memorandum, Jan. 3, 1906 57
III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT
(_a_) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES 63
DOCUMENT--
Art. XIV, Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699 71
Interpretation by Austrian Government, Dec. 28, 1815 71
Arts. I, III, and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, 1827 71
Secret Note by French Negotiator, Aug. 7, 1826 72
Speech of King Louis-Philippe, Nov. 5, 1835 73
Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty, June 30, 1864 73
Art. I, Anglo-Swiss Treaty, Sept. 6, 1855 73
Art. I, American-Swiss Treaty, Nov. 6, 1855 74
Interpretation by United States, 1857 74
Mr. Seward to U.S. Minister in Switzerland, Sept. 14, 1861 75
Art. I, Russo-American Treaty, 1832 75
Mr. Blaine to U.S. Minister in St. Petersburg, July 29, 1881 76
Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 13, 1911 79
Resolution of U.S. Senate, Dec. 20, 1911 79
Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, 1859 80
Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881 81
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid, Jan. 29, 1891 82
Sir Edward Grey to Jewish Conjoint Committee, Oct. 1, 1912 82
Art. XIII, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856 83
(_b_) CONSULAR PROTECTION 83
DOCUMENTS--
Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Feb. 1, 1864 86
Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1727-28 87
Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856 87
Art. IV, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856 87
Franco-Moorish Règlement, Aug. 19, 1863 88
(_c_) THE CONFERENCES OF MADRID (1880) AND ALGECIRAS (1906) 88
DOCUMENTS--
Madrid: Protocols of May 20 and June 24, 1880 90
Art. VI, Treaty of Madrid, 1880 91
Edict of the Sultan of Morocco, 1864 92
Madrid: Protocol of June 26, 1880 92
Algeciras: Protocol of April 2, 1906 98
IV. THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS 100
DOCUMENTS--
Russian Memorandum, Oct. 1840 107
Austrian Memorandum, Oct. 1840 111
Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston, Feb. 23. 1841 113
Mémoire of the King of Prussia, Feb. 24, 1841 114
Baron Bülow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841 116
Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston, March 2, 1841 116
Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, March 11, 1841 117
Further Austrian Memorandum, March 31, 1841 117
Col. Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore, June 14, 1841 119
The same to the same, Aug. 15, 1842 121
Resolution of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Nov. 8, 1843 123
Col. Churchill to the Board of Deputies, Jan. 8, 1843 123
Art. V of Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia,
Feb. 21, 1917 124
Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild, Nov. 2, 1917 124
APPENDIX.
International Anti-Semitism in 1498 126
DOCUMENT--
Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz to Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498 126
INDEX 127
FOOTNOTES
NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE JEWISH QUESTION.
I. INTRODUCTION.
ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY.
The Jewish Question is part of the general question of Religious
Toleration. Together with the questions relating to the toleration of
"Turks and Infidels," it raises the question of Religious Liberty in its
most acute form. It is both local and international. Locally it seeks a
solution through Civil and Political Emancipation on the basis of
Religious Toleration. Internationally it arises when a State or
combination of States which has been gained to the cause of Religious
Toleration intervenes for the protection or emancipation of the
oppressed Jewish subjects of another State. There have been, however, at
least two occasions when the interventions have taken the contrary form
of efforts to promote the persecution or restraint of Jews as such.[1]
As an altruistic form of international action the principle of
intervention has been of slow growth. It required an atmosphere of
toleration on a wide scale, and, before this atmosphere could be
created, Christian States had to learn toleration for themselves by a
hard experience of its necessity. They had, in the first place, to
secure toleration for their own nationals and the converts of their
Churches in heathen countries where the people could not be coerced or
lectured with impunity. In the next place they had to achieve toleration
among themselves.
Toleration among the Christian Churches--the so-called peace of
Christendom--became necessary owing to the struggle between the
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation; but it took the Thirty Years'
War to prove its necessity. The proof is embodied for all time in the
Peace of Westphalia--chiefly in the Treaty of Osnabruck, which was
signed in 1648, at the same time as the famous Treaty of Münster. The
ostensible effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to place Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism on an equal legal footing throughout
Europe. A secondary effect was to give a very marked stimulus to the
cause of Religious Liberty generally. We may recognise its first fruits
in, among other things, the campaign for unrestricted religious
toleration during the Commonwealth in England, and its application to
the Jews.[2]
It was not until 1814 that this principle was extended by Treaty beyond
the pale of Christendom. This was in the Protocol of the four allied
Powers--Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria--by which the union
of Belgium with Holland was recognised. The return of the House of
Orange to the Netherlands after the fall of Napoleon had entailed the
promulgation of a new Constitution, which, in view of the democratic
traditions of the French occupation, was necessarily of a liberal type.
Among its concessions was an article granting the fullest religious
liberty. When the Powers were called upon to sanction the union with
Belgium, they did so on condition that the new Constitution should be
applied to the whole country, and, in view of the religious differences
prevailing, emphasised the article on Religious Liberty. This is the
form in which it appears in the Protocol:--
* * * * *
Art. I.--Cette réunion devra être entière et complète, de façon que les
2 Pays ne forment qu'un seul et même État régi par la Constitution déjà
établie en Hollande, et qui sera modifiée, d'un commun accord, d'après
les nouvelles circonstances.
Art. II.--Il ne sera rien innové aux Articles de cette Constitution qui
assurent à tous les Cultes une protection et une faveur égales, et
garantissent l'admission de tous les Citoyens, quelle que soit leur
croyance réligieuse, aux emplois et offices publics.
* * * * *
Incidentally the legal effect of this stipulation was to emancipate the
Dutch Jews, though, as a matter of fact, the few disabilities under
which they laboured did not immediately disappear. The Protocol was
afterwards ratified by the Congress of Vienna and added to the Final Act
as part of the Tenth Annexe,[3] though in other respects the Congress
did not evince a very generous conception of Religious Liberty.
The conquest of religious liberty for Christians in heathen lands was a
more convincing object lesson than the Peace of Westphalia. It was
difficult for one Christian Church to acknowledge its equality with
another Christian Church and to tolerate heresy, but it was far more
distasteful to have to come to terms with the heathen and to accept
toleration at his hands.
This was not altogether an altruistic form of political action. It was
in some of its aspects part of the elementary duty of every State to
protect its nationals in foreign countries.
The earliest instances of this action we find in China, where, in the
thirteenth century, the Papacy concluded Treaties with the Mongol
Emperors for the protection of Christian Missions.[4] It was not,
however, until the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858 that Great Britain and
France secured religious liberty for Christians in China.
In the Mussulman Levant, toleration for foreign Christians was secured
by the so-called Capitulations. These were, in effect, treaties,
although they were in the form of grants by the Sultans. They gave large
exterritorial jurisdiction to the Ambassadors and Consuls of the States
on whom they were conferred. The earliest grant of this kind occurs in
the ninth century, when the Emperor Charlemagne obtained guarantees for
his subjects visiting the Levant from the famous Khalif Haroun
al-Rashid.[5] Later on, all the leading Christian States negotiated
Capitulations with the Sultans. The existing British Capitulations are
dated 1675, but an earlier grant was made in 1583.
One of the main objects of the Capitulations, besides personal security
and trading rights, was to assure religious liberty for the nationals
of the grantees. This benefited Jews at an early date, as the
Capitulations and similar treaties generally provided for certain
immunities for the native interpreters, servants and other employees of
the privileged foreigners. As Jews were frequently so employed, they
thus acquired protection against Moslem fanaticism.
In this way arose the system of Consular Protection which was long a
boon to Jews in the Ottoman Empire and in the Barbary States.[6]
In spite of these experiences the idea of diplomatic intervention for
the promotion of religious toleration in foreign States, especially on
behalf of non-Christians, has only prevailed within narrow limits. It
has been largely circumvented by the fact that such interventions must,
even with the best will in the world, be more or less conditioned by the
_raison d'état_. Unless they are likely to promote policy, or at any
rate to coincide with policy, the usual course when they are invoked is
to take refuge in the so-called principle of non-intervention.
It was, indeed, not until the seventeenth century that the question was
seriously discussed at all by the jurists, although Cromwell had already
laid down the splendid principle, in the case of the persecution of the
Vaudois, that "to be indifferent to such things is a great sin, and a
deeper sin still is it to be blind to them from policy or ambition." The
first impulses of the international lawyers were much in the Cromwellian
spirit. Bacon, Grotius, and Puffendorff all strongly maintained the
legality not only of diplomatic but also of armed intervention to put
down tyranny or misgovernment in a neighbouring State, and a century
later they were followed by Vattel. Sweden acted upon the principle in
her intervention on behalf of the Protestants of Poland in 1707, and, in
1792, it was given its widest scope, and was formally adopted, by the
French Revolution in the famous decree of the Convention which promised
"fraternity and succour to all peoples who wish to recover their
liberty."
The doctrine, however, lingered only anæmically through the early
decades of the nineteenth century. In face of the growing delicacy of
the international system, it was gradually abandoned for the
conservative principle of non-intervention, based on the independence
and equality of all States.[7] But even this principle has not always
been observed in regard to small States, although, curiously enough,
Russia invoked it against Great Britain for the protection of King
"Bomba" of Sicily, in the case of the Neapolitan prison horrors.[8]
Abstention from intervention in certain glaring cases of inhumanity by
foreign Governments--such as the persecution of the Russian Jews--has
been defended on the ground of absence of treaty rights, but, as a
matter of fact, this argument, too, has not been consistently adhered
to.[9] In all cases, whether of great or small States, treaty rights or
no treaty rights, the real test has almost always been the frigid
_raison d'état_. The United States has been less affected by this
restriction than the European Powers, and on many occasions has shown a
really noble example of the purest altruism in international
politics.[10]
II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY.
Long before the Peace of Westphalia an attempt was made by the famous
Jewess, Donna Gracia Nasi, to obtain protection for her persecuted
co-religionists by diplomatic action, and it proved successful. The
circumstances will be narrated presently.[11] It stood, however, alone
for two hundred years. Even after the Peace eminent Jews, who sought in
a like way to enlist the sympathy and help of European governments,
failed. Menasseh ben Israel made representations in this sense on behalf
of the oppressed Jews of Poland, Prussia, Spain, and Portugal to both
Queen Christina of Sweden and Oliver Cromwell, but although he met with
much and genuine sympathy he found the _raison d'état_--and probably
also a lingering reluctance to regard Jews as quite within the pale of
humanity--too strong for him.[12] A decade later a similar attempt was
made by Fernando Mendes da Costa, one of the founders of the
Anglo-Jewish Community, and a member of a very distinguished Portuguese
Marrano family. From a letter of his which is still extant,[13] it seems
that he was deeply concerned in helping the persecuted Marranos in Spain
and Portugal, and he had a scheme for organising an emigration of his
hapless brethren on a large scale to Italy and England. He received much
help from Don Francisco Manuel de Mello, the distinguished Portuguese
soldier, author and diplomatist, and through him interested Queen
Katharine of Braganza and Charles II in the scheme. It appears, too,
that, with the support of these eminent personages, the scheme was
brought to the notice of the Pope, but of its subsequent fate we know
nothing.
(_a_) PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA (1744-45).
The earliest actual intervention of a Great Power on behalf of the Jews
on humanitarian grounds took place in 1744-45, when Great Britain and
Holland made strong and successful representations to the Government of
the Empress Maria Theresa for the protection of the Jews of Bohemia and
Moravia. The intervening Powers were allies of the Empress in the War of
the Austrian Succession which was then raging. During the war some
prejudice had been caused to the Austrian Jews through the imprudence of
some of their co-religionists in Lorraine, who had obtained "safe
conducts" from the French Military Authorities to enable them to cross
the frontier into France. Reprisals against the Jews in Bohemia and
Moravia were taken by the Empress in the shape of a decree of wholesale
banishment. The decree was enforced with the utmost severity, and over
20,000 Jews were compelled to leave Prague in the depth of winter, with
little or no prospect of finding shelter elsewhere. Appeals for help
were addressed to foreign communities, and among the recipients of them
was Aaron Franks, then presiding Warden of the Great Synagogue in
London. Together with his wealthy and influential relative, Moses Hart,
he at once petitioned King George, who consented to receive him in
personal audience. His Majesty manifested every sympathy with the
persecuted Jews, and the result was that the British Ambassador in
Vienna[14] was instructed to make representations, in concert with the
Dutch Ambassador, to the Austrian Government. The representations were
received in excellent spirit, and, in deference to them, the Empress
consented to revoke the decree and permit the Jews to return to their
homes.[15]
DOCUMENTS.
PETITION TO KING GEORGE II (_B. M. Add. MSS._ 23,819, _f._ 63).
To his Most Sacred Majesty
* * * * *
The Petition of Moses Hart and Aaron Franks of the City of London
Merchants In behalf of their Brethren the Distressed Jews of the Kingdom
of Bohemia.
Humbly Sheweth
That your Majesty's Petitioners have receiv'd a Copy of an Edict
published and Issued by Her Majesty the Queen of Hungary from their said
Brethren the Jews of the said Kingdom of Bohemia by which (together with
several letters that have been transmitted to them Requesting them to
Commiserate their distress'd condition and Interceed with his Brittanick
Majesty on their behalf) it appears that their said Brethren are to be
utterly Expelled the said Kingdom and that by the last day of January
next Ensuing No Jew is to be found in any of the Towns belonging to
Prague. That after the Expiration of six Months to be accounted from the
said last day of January No Jew is to be suffered or found in the
Hereditary Dominion of her said Majesty, and in case any should be found
they are to suffer Military Chastisement.
Your Petitioners most humbly beg leave to observe that in the said Edict
there is no reason or cause assign'd for the Expulsion of their said
Brethren who therefore Suspect that it is fomented by their inveterate
enemies for motives which they cannot account for as they have always
acted as dutiful, Faithful and Loyal Subjects to their most Gracious
Sovereign the said Queen of Hungary even during the many Revolutions
that have happened in Prague within these few Years and notwithstanding
the great Devastation and Excesses which Naturally occur'd therefrom
they have continued and still do continue firm and unshaken in their
Principles of Affection & Fidelity to her said Majesty and her most
Illustrious House.
Your Petitioners far from Vindicating any Particular Persons in the
Crimes they may have committed during the last Revolution (if any such
there are) desire Adequate Punishments to be inflicted on them; but
humbly hope that the Innocent will not be permitted to suffer for Crimes
which they have in no wise been Accessary to and humbly Remonstrate that
the Expulsion of fifty thousand Familys and upwards from their Native
Country at so critical a Juncture who (as Your Petitioners are informed
and believe) always Contributed and Concurr'd in strengthening her
Majesty's hands against her Enemies must in its consequences prove
Detrimental and Prejudicial to the true Interest of the common Cause and
more immediately so to her Hungarian Majesty.
In tender Consideration whereof Your Petitioners (in behalf of the
aforesaid distress'd people) most humbly Supplicate your Majesty in your
great & known Equity & Compassion to Interpose Your Majesty's Good
Offices upon this Occasion with the Queen of Hungary in order to prevail
upon her said Majesty to revoke the said Edict or at least to Suspend
the time of the Expulsion of their said Brethren & to establish a
Commission of Enquiry in order to discriminate the Innocent from the
Guilty and Punish those only who have deserv'd her said Majesty's
Displeasure.
And Your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray &c.
MOSES HART.
AARON FRANKS.
(Endorsed:)
MOSES HART & AARON FRANKS Petition in behalf of the Bohemian Jews &c. in
Ld. Harrington's of the 28 Decr./8 Jany. 1745. sent to Sir Thos.
Robinson 27 [_sic_] Decr. 1744.
* * * * *
APPEAL OF THE BOHEMIAN JEWS (_Ibid. f. 64_).
PRAGUE, _1st Decr. 1744. N.S._
It is Certainly very Notorious all the Callamities Which have
overwhelm'd us to such a Degree that we had hardly power to Withstand
them. but None were in Competition with this Last. by a Decree from her
Majesty our Sovereign Queen of Hungaria. To Banish all the Jews out of
the Kingdom of Bohemia. Within the Term of 5 Weeks. Which is the Latter
End of January for those in Prague. & those in Bohemia are allow'd 6
Months. as appears by the original Decree of Her Majesty--Therefore What
shall we poor Souls do, in the first place, the Children Women, infirm &
Aged. Which are not in a Condition to Walk. Especially at this present
Juncture Being Cold & frosty Weather. Likewise In the Condition we are
at Present in for the Stripd many Hundreds quite to their shirts. Not
only that. but the World Is Closed to us. by reason all Roads are filled
with Troops. Which way Soever we Turn we Can find no Relief. Neither do
we know the reason for the Decree. Excepting some false persons. Who
Contrive falsities on purpose To breed ill will against us by our Lords
Who Protected us. Which they have Done.
Therefore Brethren. We Humbly Beg you wou'd Commiserate our Condition
Considering the Eminent Danger Many Thousands Souls are in by this
Decree. & Not Delay Interceeding for Recommendations from all Courts
that we may have time allowed us. for a Commission of Inquiry.
SIMON SPIRA &c.
MOSES IZAAC.
SIMON COHEN.
MENAHEM MENDAL.
ABRAHAM.
SAMUEL SPIRA.
MEYER MOSES, &c.
(Endorsed:)
Representation from the Jews at Prague
Sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 28 Decr./Jany 8. 1744-5.
* * * * *
THE DECREE OF THE EMPRESS (_Ibid. fol. 66_).
After Mature Deliberation We have been Induced by many weighty Reasons
and Considerations to resolve and Determine that no JEW shall hereafter
be Suffered or permitted to Dwell in our Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia,
which our Resolution, We Will Shall be put in Execution in Manner
following.
1st. That on the last Day of the Month of January 1745 next Ensuing No
Jew shall be found in any of our Towns belonging to Prague, and in Case
any shall, Military Chastisement shall be inflicted on them.
2nd. They are hereby permitted to Stay and remain in the Kingdom six
Months to be Accounted from the Latter end of December Instant and to
Determine at the latter end of the Month of June 1745 to Settle their
Affairs and in order to Dispose of their Effects Estate and Credit which
they shall not be able to Carry with them by the last Day of January.
That after their retreat from Prague (towards the Country) on the last
day of January as is aforementioned, No Jew shall be permitted to
Reenter the said City by Day (without having a Certificate from the
Commissary appointed to Execute the Contents hereof) and absolutely None
shall be Suffered to Stay a Single Night; And the Said Commissary is
hereby Directed to take the Necessary Precautions for Executing this Our
Will and Pleasure, and due Care that None of his Certificates be
Improperly made use of by Enabling them to Enter the City too frequently
excepting such as he shall grant thro' favour to the Principal Merchants
who will stand in Greater Need than others of entring the City often.
3rd. After the Determination of the said Six Months all the Jews shall
quitt all our Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia and Shall Never more be
found on the Borders thereof, and in Case any Shall, Military
Chastisement shall be inflicted on them as aforesaid.
4th. Our Meaning and Intention is not only that the Jews of the City of
Prague and all others who live in any Part of our Hereditary Kingdom of
Bohemia shall quitt the Same within the Thirtieth day of June 1745 but
also that No Jew shall on the said Day be found in the said Kingdom or
Settle in any of our Hereditary Countrys.
5th. And we do hereby Ordain and Appoint our Trusty and Well-beloved
Privy Councellor and Vice President of the Royal Bohemian Kingdom The
Right Honourable Philip Knakowsky Count Collowrath punctually to
perform the Contents hereof hereby requiring all and Every Person whom
these Presents or the Execution thereof may Concern to aid and Assist
the said Philip Count Collowrath and Do hereby further Positively Order
that the Contents hereof be Published in the Towns belonging to Prague
and our whole Country to the End that no Intelligence be given thereof
to those who Shall have any Dealings and Transactions with Jews.
Witness Ourself
Given at Vienna the 18th day of December 1744.
* * * * *
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR IN VIENNA (_Ibid. fols. 61-61
d._).
Separate.
WHITEHALL, _28th Decr. 1744._
SIR,--The principal Merchants of the Jewish Nation established here,
having made an humble Application to His Majesty, that he would be
pleased to intercede with the Queen of Hungary for a Reversal of the
Sentence passed upon Their Brethren in Bohemia (amounting, as They
affirm, to no less than Sixty Thousand Families), by Her Majesty's late
Edict, whereby They are ordered to depart that Kingdom in Six Months
time, and His Majesty finding that the States General have already
interposed Their Good Offices in Their Behalf; It is the King's
Pleasure, that you should join with Mor. Burmannia in endeavouring to
dissuade the Court of Vienna from putting the said Sentence in
Execution, hinting to Them in the tenderest and most friendly Manner,
the Prejudice that the World might conceive against the Queen's
Proceedings in that Affair, if such Numbers of innocent People were made
to suffer for the Fault of some few Traytors, and, at the same time,
shewing Them, the great Loss that would accrue to Her Majesty's Revenue,
and to the Wealth and Strength of her Kingdom of Bohemia, by depriving
it at once of so vast Numbers of it's Inhabitants: You will find
inclosed the Petition presented to His Majesty by the Jews here, as
above-mentioned, together with the Representation sent hither to Them
from Those in Bohemia, and I am to add to what is above, that, as His
Majesty does extremely commiserate the terrible circumstances of
Distress to which so many poor and innocent Families must be reduced, if
this Edict takes place, He is most earnestly desirous of procuring the
Repeal of it by His Royal Intercession, in such Manner that the Guilty
only may be brought to Punishment; for obtaining which, you are to exert
yourself with all possible Zeal and Diligence.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
HARRINGTON.
SIR THOMAS ROBINSON.
* * * * *
(_b_) CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815).
The next appearance of the Jewish Question in the field of international
politics was at the Congress of Vienna, sixty years later. The Congress
was not favourable to liberal reforms of any kind, either national or
religious. Its aim was to vindicate the vested interests of Legitimism
against the doctrines of the French Revolution. In its final shape the
policy of the Congress was embodied in the Holy Alliance. British
foreign policy, then under the guidance of Castlereagh, was distinctly
favourable to this policy. Nevertheless, there were curious
cross-currents at the Congress, and what liberalism there was came,
strangely enough, in large part from the Russian Tsar, Alexander I. He
had moments of liberalism so pronounced that Metternich called him "the
crowned _sans-culotte_."
It is curious to note that the Jewish Board of Deputies in England did
not move during the Congress. The reason is perhaps not difficult to
understand. They were always timid in regard to high politics, and, in
1783, when it was proposed to address the King on the American Peace,
they actually passed a resolution declaring that it was their duty to
avoid such "political concerns."[16] In the case of the Congress of
Vienna, however, they may well have felt that they could not touch the
question of religious liberty, and especially of Jewish emancipation,
without risking an imputation of Jacobinism. Moreover, the British
Cabinet then in power was a Coalition Cabinet of pro-Catholics and
anti-Catholics, and they could not well listen to any proposals that
they should champion Jewish emancipation in Vienna, while in Downing
Street the question of Roman Catholic emancipation could not even be
discussed.
Fortunately, these considerations did not apply to the German Jews.
Frankfurt and the Hansa towns sent deputations to Vienna to plead the
cause of Jewish emancipation. The Frankfurt deputation was headed by
Jacob Baruch, father of Ludwig Boerne. They managed to secure the
support of both Hardenberg and Metternich, and when it was found that
the Tsar was not averse from some concession to the Jews, they agreed to
propose the insertion of a clause--or rather half a clause--in the
Final Act of the Conference providing for the gradual extension of civil
rights to the Jews of Germany.
Unfortunately for a long time this concession remained a dead letter,
owing not only to the ill-will of the German Governments themselves, but
to an apparently harmless verbal amendment which was introduced into the
clause by the Redaction Committee at the last moment. In the final
_alinea_ it was stipulated that "the rights already conferred on the
Jews in the several Federated States shall be maintained." The object of
this was to secure to the Jews of Germany the liberties granted to them
by Napoleon during the French occupation. This design was frustrated by
the Redaction Committee, at whose instance the word "_by_" was
substituted for "_in_," the result being that the rights secured to the
Jews were not those of the French occupation, but only those which had
been grudgingly, and in very small measure, granted to them by the
Federated States themselves in the dark days before the Napoleonic
irruption.
Thus the provision of the Treaty of Vienna relating to the Jews of
Germany remained a dead letter, partly because of the amendment
introduced into it at the last moment, and partly because the
authorities had no intention of carrying it out. The Jews complained,
and both Prussia and Austria, under the influence of Hardenberg and
Metternich, protested.[17] Nathan Rothschild in London brought the case
of the recalcitrant Frankfurt authorities to the notice of the Duke of
Wellington, who persuaded Castlereagh in 1816 to make representations
with a view to their protection.[18] All these efforts, however, proved
futile, and Nathan Rothschild could only avenge himself by the public
announcement that his firm would refuse to accept bills drawn in any
German city where the Jews were denied their treaty rights.[19]
DOCUMENTS.
* * * * *
_The following is a list of the documents relating to the Jewish
Question at the Vienna Congress given in Klüber: "Akten des Wiener
Kongresses."_
* * * * *
1. Unterthänige Vorstellung und Bittschrift der Israelitischen Gemeinde
zu Frankfurt-am-Main an den hohen Kongress zu Wien mit Beilage übergeben
daselbst am 10ten Oktober 1814.
2. Schreiben des Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt/M
an den Königlichen-Preussischen ersten Herrn Bevollmächtigten Fürsten
von Hardenberg wegen Erhaltung der von dem Grossherzog von Frankfurt
jener Gemeinde bewilligten Rechtzustandes. Datiert Wien, 12ten Mai,
1815.
3. Antwort seiner Durchlaucht des Fürsten von Hardenberg auf
vorstehendes Schreiben. Datiert Wien, 18ten Mai, 1815.
4. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen ersten Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress-Präsidenten Herrn Fürsten von Metternich an die Deputierten der
Israelitischen Gemeinde der Stadt Frankfurt-am-Main als Antwort auf die
von diesen an den Kongress eingereichte Bittschrift. Datiert Wien, 9ten
Juni, 1815.
5. Anmerkung des Herausgebers (Klübers) zu vorstehenden Erlass an die
Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt-am-Main.
6. Note des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen Herrn Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress Präsidenten Fürsten von Metternich, wodurch derselbe dem
Bevollmächtigten der freien Stadt Frankfurt Herrn Syndicus Danz die von
dem allerhöchsten verbündeten Mächten, neuerdings erfolgte Bestätigung
der Selbständigkeit und Freiheit der Stadt Frankfurt anzeigt. Datiert
Wien, 9ten Juni, 1815 mit einer Beilage.
7. Accessions Urkunde der freien Stadt Frankfurt.
* * * * *
(See also documents relating to the abolition of the Feudal land-tenure
System on the left bank of the Rhine, effected during the domination of
the French revolutionary Government, vol. vi., pp. 396-426.)
* * * * *
8. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen ersten Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress Präsidenten Fürsten von Metternich an den Bevollmächtigten
Israelitischen Gemeinden Deutschland Doktor und Advokaten Carl August
Buchholz aus Lübeck betreffend die Verbesserung des Rechtzustandes der
Juden, vol. 9, p. 334.
* * * * *
The Article of the Final Act relating to the Jews is Article XVI of
Annexe IX, "Acte sur la Constitution Fédérative de l'Allemagne." It runs
as follows:--
* * * * *
XVI.--La différence des Confessions Chrétiennes dans les Pays et
Territoires de la Confédération Allemande, n'en entraînera aucune dans
la jouissance des droits civils et politiques.
La Diète prendra en considération les moyens d'opérer de la manière la
plus uniforme, l'amélioration de l'état civil de ceux qui professent la
Religion Juive en Allemagne, et s'occupera particulièrement des mesures,
par lesquelles on pourra leur assurer et leur garantir dans les États de
la Confédération, la jouissance des Droits Civils, à condition qu'ils se
soumettent à toutes les obligations des autres Citoyens. En attendant
les Droits accordés déjà aux Membres de cette Religion par tel ou tel
État en particulier, leur sont conservés.
(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 132-3.)
* * * * *
(_c_) THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (1818).
At the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, the question was once more brought
before the Great Powers. This time the initiative was taken by a
well-known English conversionist, the Rev. Lewis Way, of Stanstead,
Sussex. There was, however, no trace of conversionism in his efforts on
this occasion, and there can be no question that the Jewish Community
owe him a great debt of gratitude. He proceeded to Aix some weeks before
the Congress met, and presented to the Tsar Alexander a short scheme of
Jewish emancipation. The Tsar encouraged him to amplify it, and this he
did in two elaborate memoirs, one describing the situation of the Jews,
and the other embodying a scheme under which they might be invested with
civil rights. To this he added a short memorandum drawn up at his
request by Dohm, the veteran champion of the Jews, who came to Aix for
that special purpose. By command of the Tsar, these documents were
presented to the Congress at its sitting on November 21, 1818, and were
made the subject of a special Protocol, in which sympathy was expressed
for "the praiseworthy object of his proposals." The plenipotentiaries
further declared that the solution of the Jewish Question was a matter
which should "equally occupy the statesman and the friend of
humanity."[20] It is interesting to note that in his scheme Way
declares himself to be a believer in Jewish Nationalism, and it is for
this reason that he does not ask for more than civil rights for the
Jews, as he regards their exile in Europe as an intermediate stage of
their history. In this he was probably influenced by the prevalent
anti-French atmosphere, inasmuch as the French Jews, in their compact
with Napoleon, made by the Sanhedrin in 1806, had solemnly repudiated
Jewish Nationalism, and had thus rendered themselves eligible for
political, as well as civil, rights.[21]
DOCUMENT.
For the texts of the documents referred to above see "Mémoires sur
l'état des Israélites, dédiés et présentés à leur Majestés Impériales et
Royales, Réunies au Congrès d'Aix-la-Chapelle" [by the Rev. Lewis Way,
A.M.], Paris, 1819.
The Protocol of the Congress at which these "Mémoires" were considered
runs as follows:--
* * * * *
PROTOCOLE.
_Séance du 21 Novembre, 1818._ _Entre les cinq Cabinets._
Messieurs les SS. de Russie ont communiqué l'imprimé ci-joint, relatif à
une réforme dans la législation civile et politique en ce qui concerne
la nation juive. La conférence, sans entrer absolument dans toutes les
vues de l'auteur de cette pièce, a rendu justice à la tendance générale
et au but louable de ses propositions. MM. les SS. d'Autriche et de
Prusse se sont déclarés prêts à donner, sur l'état de la question dans
les deux monarchies, tous les éclaircissements qui pourraient servir à
la solution d'un problème qui doit également occuper l'homme d'état et
l'ami de l'humanité.
Signé: METTERNICH.
RICHELIEU.
CASTLEREAGH.
WELLINGTON.
HARDENBERG.
BERNSTORFF.
NESSELRODE.
CAPODISTRIAS.
* * * * *
(_d_) THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON (1830).
The growing symptoms of an impending break-up of the Ottoman Empire
visibly extended the practical applications of the doctrine of religious
liberty in the field of international politics. In emancipating the
Christian feudatories of the Porte, account had to be taken of the large
Moslem and Jewish minorities inhabiting those States. It was impossible
to emancipate the Christians and at the same time to place
non-Christians under disabilities, especially where they had governments
of their own faith to whom they might appeal and who might resort to
reprisals. Hence, the parity of all religions in the Levant had to be
recognised.
The point first arose in the settlement of the Greek question in 1830.
In this question it was not only the Moslems who had to be considered.
France renounced in favour of the new Kingdom her Protectorate over the
Catholics, which she derived from her capitulations with Turkey. Hence,
besides the Moslems, guarantees had to be exacted for the religious
liberty of Catholics in Greece. These guarantees were the subject of the
third Protocol of the Conference of London, February 3, 1830. At the
same time it was stipulated that there should be perfect equality for
the subjects of the new State, whatever might be their religion. Neither
Moslems nor Jews were expressly mentioned, but it is in virtue of this
Protocol that the Jews of Greece enjoy their present status as Greek
Nationals. The Jews of Greece were thus the first Jews of the Levant to
be fully emancipated.
DOCUMENT.
* * * * *
PROTOCOL _No. 3 of the Conference held at the Foreign Office, London, on
3 February, 1830_.
Present: The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France and Russia.
The Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg having been called, by the united
suffrages of the three Courts of the Alliance, to the Sovreignty of
Greece, the French Plenipotentiary requested the attention of the
Conference to the particular situation in which his Government is
placed, relative to a portion of the Greek population.
He represented that for many ages France has been entitled to exercise,
in favour of the Catholics subjected to the Sultan, an especial
protection, which His Most Christian Majesty deems it to be his duty to
deposit at the present moment in the hands of the future Sovereign of
Greece, so far as the provinces which are to form the new State are
concerned; but in divesting himself of this prerogative, His Most
Christian Majesty owes it to himself, and he owes it to a people who
have lived so long under the protection of his ancestors, to require
that the Catholics of the continent and of the islands shall find in the
organization which is about to be given to Greece, guarantees which may
be substituted for the influence which France has hitherto exercised in
their favour.
The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Russia appreciated the
justice of this demand; and it was decided that the Catholic religion
should enjoy in the new State the free and public exercise of its
worship, that its property should be guaranteed to it, that its bishops
should be maintained in the integrity of the functions, rights and
privileges, which they have enjoyed under the protection of the Kings of
France, and that, lastly, agreeably to the same principle, the
properties belonging to the antient French Missions, or French
Establishments, shall be recognized and respected.
The Plenipotentiaries of the three Allied Courts being desirous moreover
of giving to Greece a new proof of the benevolent anxiety of their
Sovereigns respecting it, and of preserving that country from the
calamities which the rivalry of the religions therein professed might
excite, agreed that all the subjects of the new State, whatever may be
their religion, shall be admissable to all public employments,
functions, and honours, and be treated on the footing of a perfect
equality, without regard to difference of creed in all their relations,
religious, civil or political.
(Signed) ABERDEEN
MONTMOREN Y-LAVAL.
LIEVEN.
(Holland: "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," pp. 32, 33.)
* * * * *
(_e_) THE CONGRESS OF PARIS (1856-1858).
The Jewish Question was more expressly discussed twenty-six years later,
at the Congress of Paris, and the subsidiary conferences which had to
settle the great political problems arising out of the Crimean War.
Meanwhile, under the influence of Sir Moses Montefiore, and more
especially of his jealousy of M. Crémieux, the Jewish Board of Deputies
had plucked up a measure of courage, and had begun to take a more active
interest in the larger political questions which involved the future of
their foreign co-religionists. In the international discussions of the
question of religious liberty which preceded the outbreak of war, the
Powers only concerned themselves with the Christian communities. The
French Jews at once took alarm, and the Central Consistory addressed the
Emperor Napoleon III and applied to the Board of Deputies in London to
make similar representations to the British Government. Both bodies had,
however, been anticipated by the personal activity of the Rothschilds in
Paris and London. Baron James, through his gifted friend and co-worker,
Albert Cohn, had already entered into direct negotiations with the
Turkish Government, and Baron Lionel and Sir Anthony de Rothschild had
interviewed Lord Clarendon, who, at their instance, had given
instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to take special note of the
Jewish Question. Thus, when the letter of the French Consistory was read
at the Meeting of the Board of Deputies on April 24, 1854, that body
found that it had little to do. Nevertheless, it addressed a formal
letter to Lord Clarendon on May 10, and, five days later, received an
assurance from him that it might rely on a favourable consideration of
the situation of the Jews of Turkey at the hands of His Majesty's
Government.[22]
Nevertheless, the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which more or less settled
all the questions arising out of the war, does not mention the Jews in
any of its articles. This is not to say that it did not fulfil Lord
Clarendon's pledges. As a matter of fact, it deals with both the
situation of the Jews in Turkey and with that of the Jews in the
liberated Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Thus, Article IX,
which takes note of the Turkish _Hatti-Humayoun_ of February 18, 1856,
is intended to refer to the Jews as well as to all other non-Mussulmans.
The history of this aspect of the Article is a little curious. Shortly
after the outbreak of the war in 1854, Turkey prepared a draft treaty of
peace containing an article providing for the religious liberty of
Christian communities. Through the inter-position of Baron James de
Rothschild of Paris, this article was reconsidered, and another was
inserted granting equal rights to all Ottoman subjects, without
distinction of creed. This was the germ of the famous _Hatti-Humayoun_.
That the latter was intended to deal equally with Jews and Christians is
shown by its Article II, in which the same privileges are expressly
granted to the Turkish Grand Rabbis as to the ecclesiastical heads of
the Christian confessions.[23]
The absence of any direct reference to the Jews, or even to equal rights
for all religious communities in the Principalities, is less
satisfactory. The omission is in the first place due to the circumstance
that the Treaty in itself is incomplete. Articles XXIII, XXIV, and XXV
refer the question of the constitutional reorganisation of the
Principalities to a Commission which was to meet at Bucharest and
consult Divans of the two Principalities with a view to making the
necessary recommendations to the Powers.[24] This Commission did not
report until 1858, when its proposals were considered by a fresh
Conference of the Powers, which based upon them the scheme embodied in
the Convention of Paris of August 19 of that year. The question of
religious liberty is dealt with in Article XLVI of that instrument.[25]
Originally it was intended to assure complete emancipation and equality
for all non-Christian communities in the Principalities, and articles to
this effect were adopted by the preparatory Conference of
Constantinople, in its Protocol of February 11, 1856, with the express
design of relieving the Jews, whose sufferings had already become a
matter of European notoriety.[26] The Rumanians, however, were already
strongly hostile to Jewish emancipation, and the reigning Prince of
Moldavia misled the Powers with specious promises of a type which has
since become bitterly familiar to the Jews all over the world.[27] The
Report of the Bucharest Commission of 1858 accepted these promises and
excluded all references to Religious Liberty from its scheme.[28] The
first draft of the Convention submitted to the Conference of the Powers
did likewise,[29] but ultimately a compromise amendment was introduced
by which the Powers agreed (Art. XLVI) to limit political rights to
Christians, while providing for the extension of these rights to
non-Christians by subsequent legislative arrangements.[30] This
concession to the Rumanians was made on the express pledge that the
original scheme of the Conference at Constantinople would be gradually
realised.[31] Needless to say, the pledge was never fulfilled. In
dealing, however, with the question, the Convention of Paris had one
merit. It lent no support to the subsequent theory of the Rumanians,
that the Jews were foreigners in a secular sense in their own country,
but, on the contrary, assumed that their status was as much that of
Moldavians and Wallachians as was the status of the native Christians.
DOCUMENTS.
ARTICLE IX OF THE TREATY OF PARIS. _March 30, 1856._
* * * * *
Art. IX. His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, having, in his constant
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman[32] which,
while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of
race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian populations
of his Empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in
that respect, has resolved to communicate to the Contracting Parties the
said Firman emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will.
The Contracting Powers recognise the high value of this communication.
It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said
Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the
relations of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the
internal administration of the Empire.
(Holland: "European Concert," &c., p. 246.)
* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM THE HATTI-HUMAYOUN OF FEB. 18, 1856.
I. Les garanties promises et accordées à tous nos sujets par le
_Hatti-cherif_ de Gulhané et par les lois du _Tanzimat_, sans
distinction de culte, pour la sécurité de leur personne et de leurs
biens, et pour la conservation de leur honneur, sont rappelées et
consacrées de nouveau; il sera pris des mesures efficaces pour que ces
garanties reçoivent leur plein et entier effet.
II. Sont reconnus et maintenus, en totalité, les immunités et privilèges
spirituels donnés et accordés par nos illustres ancêtres, et à des dates
postérieures, aux communautés chrétiennes et autres, non musulmanes,
établies dans notre empire, sous notre égide protectrice.... Les
patriarches, métropolitains (archevêques), délégués et évêques, ainsi
que les grands-rabbins, prêteront serment à leur entrée en fonctions,
d'après une formule qui sera concertée entre notre Sublime-Porte et les
chefs spirituels des différentes communautés.
III....L'administration des affaires temporelles des communautés
chrétiennes et autres, non musulmanes, sera placée sous le sauvegarde
d'un conseil, dont les membres seront choisis parmi le clergé et les
laïques de chaque communauté.
VII. Le gouvernement prendra les mesures énergiques et nécessaires pour
assurer à chaque culte, quel que soit le nombre de ses adhérents, la
pleine liberté de son exercice.
VIII. Tout mot et toute expression ou appellation tendant à rendre une
classe de mes sujets inférieure à l'autre, à raison du culte, de la
langue ou de la race, sont à jamais abolis et effacés du protocole
administratif.
IX. La loi punira l'emploi, entre particuliers, ou de la part des agents
de l'autorité, de toute expression ou qualification injurieuse ou
blessant.
X. Le culte de toutes les croyances et religions existant dans mes
États, y étant pratiqué en toute liberté, aucun de mes sujets ne sera
empêché d'exercer la religion qu'il professe.
XI. Personne ne sera ni vexé, ni inquiété à cet égard.
XII. Personne ne sera contraint à changer de culte ou de religion.
XIII. Les agents et employés de l'État sont choisis par nous; ils sont
nommés par décrét impérial; et comme tous nos sujets, sans distinction
de nationalité, seront admissibles aux emplois et services publics, ils
seront aptes à les occuper, selon leur capacité, et conformément à des
règles dont l'application sera générale.
XIV. Tous nos sujets, sans différence ni distinctions, seront reçus dans
les écoles civiles et militaires du gouvernement, pourvu qu'ils
remplissent les conditions d'âge et d'examen spécifiés dans les
règlements organiques des dites écoles.
XV. De plus, chaque communauté est autorisée à établir des écoles
publiques pour les sciences, les arts et l'industrie; seulement le mode
d'enseignement et le choix des professeurs de ces sortes d'écoles seront
placés sous l'inspection et le contrôle d'un conseil mixte d'instruction
publique, dont les membres seront nommés par nous.
(Holland: _op. cit._, pp. 330-332.)
CONFERENCES OF CONSTANTINOPLE (1856).--_Protocol of Feb. 11._
XIII. Tous les cultes et ceux qui les professent jouiront d'une égale
liberté et d'une égale protection dans les deux principautés.
XV. Les étrangers pourront posséder des biens-fonds en Moldavie et en
Valachie, en acquittant les mêmes charges que les indigènes, et en se
soumettant aux lois.
XVI. Tous les Moldaves et tous les Valaques seront, sans exception,
admissibles aux emplois publics.
XVIII. Toutes les classes de la population, sans aucune distinction de
naissance ni de culte, jouiront de l'égalité des droits civils, et
particulièrement du droit de propriété, dans toutes les formes; mais
l'exercice des droits politiques sera suspendu pour les indigènes placés
sous une protection étrangère.
(Ubicini, "La Question des Principautés," p. 13.)
* * * * *
ART. XLVI OF THE CONVENTION OF PARIS OF AUGUST 10, 1858.
XLVI. Les Moldaves et les Valaques seront tous égaux devant la loi,
devant l'impôt, et également admissibles aux emplois publics dans l'une
et l'autre Principauté.
Leur liberté individuelle sera garantie. Personne ne pourra être retenu,
arrêté, ni poursuivi que conformément à la loi.
Personne ne pourra être exproprié que légalement, pour cause d'intérêt
public, et moyennant indemnité.
Les Moldaves et les Valaques de tous les rits Chrétiens jouiront
également des droits politiques. La jouissance de ces droits pourra être
étendue aux autres cultes par les dispositions législatives.[33]
Tous les privilèges, exemptions, ou monopoles, dont jouissent encore
certaines classes, seront abolis; et il sera procédé sans retard à la
révision de la loi qui règle les rapports des propriétaires du sol avec
les cultivateurs, en vue d'améliorer l'état des paysans.
("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xlviii. pp. 77-78.)
* * * * *
(_f_) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878).
Not only were the promises of the Prince of Moldavia not realised, but,
during the next twenty years, the Jews of the Principalities were more
cruelly persecuted than ever. The persecution extended beyond the
frontiers to Servia, and it soon became the leading preoccupation of the
Jews throughout the world. Owing to their protests, the Powers
frequently intervened.[34] Rumania then took the impudent course of
resenting this interference in her internal affairs, on the ground that,
by international comity, they were no concern of foreign States. In
1867, this provoked a notable retort from Great Britain. In a despatch
sent to Bucharest in that year, the following sentence appears: "The
peculiar position of the Jews places them under the protection of the
civilised world."[35]
When the Congress of Berlin met in 1878, to reconsider the Eastern
Question, the situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and more
particularly in the Balkans, took its place in the front rank of the
preoccupations of the Powers. Several long protocols are entirely
devoted to it.[36] The result was that the Treaty of Berlin dealt
comprehensively with the whole question of religious liberty, and
stipulated separately for such liberty in all the States of the Levant.
The Treaty is thus, as the Jewish Conjoint Committee described it, in
their important Memorandum of November 1908, "above all a great charter
of Emancipation, especially of civil and religious equality."[37] This
principle is embodied in no fewer than five of its articles, relating to
every political division of the vast region with which it deals, and in
each case it is asserted as the fundamental basis of the liberties
conferred on the various States.[38] In a word, it made it a principle
of European policy that no new State or transfer of territory should be
recognised unless the fullest religious liberty and civil and political
equality were guaranteed to the inhabitants. Thus it marks the triumph
of the principle first tentatively laid down for Holland and Belgium in
Article II of the Protocol of June 1814. Though applied to Greece in the
Protocol of February 1830, it had had to wait nearly fifty years for
universal acceptance.
All the States concerned frankly and honestly accepted this principle,
and put it into operation, except Rumania. By a repetition of the
specious promises of 1858, she again obtained permission to emancipate
her Jews gradually, it being understood that the process would be
hastened, and that full emancipation would be accomplished within a
reasonable time. Unfortunately the phrasing of the articles embodying
the principle left a technical loophole of which Rumania very
dexterously availed herself, inasmuch as it did not make provision
against the application, under Rumanian law, of the _jus sanguinis_ to
the Jews who _quâ_ Jews were held to be aliens. The point was not
ignored by the Congress, but no attempt was made to satisfy it as the
intentions of the Congress were clear enough and reliance was placed on
the good faith of Rumania.[39] The result is that for forty years
Rumania has evaded both the will of the Congress and her own promises;
and to-day the Jews of that country, with the exception of a handful who
have been emancipated by individual Acts of Parliament, are the only
Jews in Europe who are denied equal rights with their fellow-citizens.
DOCUMENTS.
* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN.
_Protocole No._ 5.--_Séance du 24 Juin, 1878._
M. Waddington donne lecture de deux Articles Additionnels proposés par
les Plénipotentiaires de France, et dont voici le texte:--
"Art. I. Tous les sujets Bulgares, quelle que soit leur religion,
jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront concourir à tous
les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et la différence de croyance
ne pourra leur être opposée comme un motif d'exclusion.
"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels.
"II. Une pleine et entière liberté est assurée aux religieux et évêques
Catholiques étrangers pour l'exercice de leur culte en Bulgarie et dans
la Roumélie Orientale. Ils seront maintenus dans l'exercice de leurs
droits et privilèges, et leurs propriétés seront respectées."
Le Président dit que ces deux propositions seront imprimées,
distribuées, et placées à un ordre du jour ultérieur.
Après un échange d'observations entre le Comte Schouvaloff et M.
Waddington sur la portée des deux propositions de M. le Premier
Plénipotentiaire de France, il demeure entendu que la première
s'applique à la Bulgarie, et l'autre à la Bulgarie et à la Roumélie
Orientale ensemble.
("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. lxix., p. 917.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No._ 6--_Séance du 25 Juin, 1878._
L'ordre du jour appelle ensuite les deux propositions Françaises
insérées dans le Protocole 5, et relatives à la liberté des cultes.
Sur la première, M. Desprez demande la substitution des mots "habitants
de la Principauté de Bulgarie" à ceux de "sujets Bulgares"; cette
modification est admise, et la proposition acceptée à l'unanimité. Sur
la seconde proposition particulièrement relative aux évêques et
religieux Catholiques, le Comte Schouvaloff propose de substituer à ces
mots, "les ecclésiastiques et religieux étrangers."
Lord Salisbury désirerait que la même législation fût, sous ce rapport,
établie pour la Roumélie, et pour les autres provinces de la Turquie.
Carathéodory Pacha déclare qu'en effet une proposition concernant le
libre exercice du culte dans la province de Roumélie Orientale paraît
tout-à-fait superflue, cette province devant être soumise à l'autorité
du Sultan, et, par conséquent, aux principes et aux lois communs à
toutes les parties de l'Empire, et qui établissent la tolérance pour
tous les cultes également.
M. Waddington, prenant acte de ces paroles, annonce l'intention
d'introduire quelques changements dans la rédaction de sa proposition,
et demande l'ajournement de la discussion à demain.
(_Ibid._, p. 935.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No._ 7--_Séance du 26 Juin, 1878._
Le Président soumet au Congrès l'Article Additionnel présenté par les
Plénipotentiaires Français dans une séance précédente, et relatif aux
religieux Catholiques étrangers en Bulgarie et en Roumélie Orientale.
Lord Salisbury regrette que les Plénipotentiaires de France ne donnent
pas suite à leur proposition en étendant sa portée à toute la Turquie
d'Europe. Son Excellence y aurait vu un important progrès réalisé.
M. Waddington répond que le progrès dont parle Lord Salisbury a été
obtenu par l'acceptation dans la séance d'hier, de la première
proposition Française qui consacre l'entière liberté des cultes.
Lord Salisbury ayant fait remarquer que cette proposition ne concernait
que la Bulgarie, le Président dit que, pour sa part, il s'associe au
désir que la liberté des cultes soit réclamée pour toute la Turquie,
tant en Europe qu'en Asie, mais il se demande si l'on obtiendrait sur
ce point l'assentiment des Plénipotentiaires Ottomans.
Carathéodory Pacha déclare, qu'en répondant hier à M. Waddington, il
s'en est simplement rapporté à la législation générale de l'Empire
Ottoman ainsi qu'aux Traités et Conventions. Son Excellence ajoute que
la tolérance dont jouissent tous les cultes en Turquie ne fait aucun
doute, et qu'en l'absence d'une proposition plus étendue sur laquelle il
aurait alors à s'expliquer, il se croit en droit de considérer comme
superflue une mention spéciale pour la Roumélie Orientale.
Le Président constate que l'unanimité du Congrès s'associe au désir de
la France de prendre acte des déclarations données par la Turquie en
faveur de la liberté religieuse. Tel était le but des Plénipotentiaires
Français, et il a été atteint. Lord Salisbury désirerait aller au delà,
et faire étendre la proposition primitive non seulement à la Bulgarie et
la Roumélie, mais à tout l'Empire Ottoman. En ce qui concerne
l'Allemagne, le Prince de Bismarck, qui a donné son adhésion à la
proposition Française, aurait aussi volontiers admis celle de Lord
Salisbury, mais la discussion d'une question aussi complexe détournerait
le Congrès de l'objet de sa séance présente. Son Altesse Sérénissime
demande toutefois à Lord Salisbury s'il entend présenter à cet égard une
motion spéciale.
M. le Second Plénipotentiaire de la Grande Bretagne se réserve de
revenir sur ce point à propos de l'Article XXII du Traité de San
Stéfano.
Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que le désir de Lord Salisbury de voir
étendre la liberté religieuse autant que possible en Europe et en Asie
lui semble très justifié. Son Altesse désirerait qu'il fut fait mention
au Protocole de son adhésion au v[oe]u de M. le Plénipotentiaire
d'Angleterre, et fait observer que le Congrès ayant cherché à éffacer
les frontières éthnographiques, et à les remplacer par de frontières
commerciales et stratégiques, les Plénipotentiaires de Russie souhaitent
d'autant plus que ces frontières ne deviennent point des barrières
religieuses.
Le Président résume la discussion en disant qu'il sera inscrit au
Protocole que l'unanimité du Congrès s'est ralliée à la proposition
Française, et que la plupart des Plénipotentiaires ont formé des v[oe]ux
pour l'extension de la liberté des cultes. Ce point sera compris
d'ailleurs dans la discussion de l'Article XXII du Traité de San
Stéfano.
(_Ibid._, pp. 942-943.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No._ 8.--_Séance du 28 Juin, 1878._
Lord Salisbury reconnaît l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais pense qu'il
serait opportun de stipuler dans la Principauté le grand principe de la
liberté religieuse.
M. Waddington admet également l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais sous le
bénéfice de la proposition suivante identique à celle que le Congrès a
acceptée pour la Bulgarie:--
"Les habitants de la Principauté de Serbie, quelle que soit leur
religion, jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront
concourir à tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et exercer
toutes les professions, et la différence de croyance ne pourra leur être
opposée comme un motif d'exclusion.
"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels."
Le Prince Gortchacow craint que cette rédaction ne s'applique surtout
aux Israélites, et sans se montrer contraire aux principes généraux qui
y sont énoncés, son Altesse Sérénissime ne voudrait pas que la question
Israélite, qui viendra plus tard, fût prejugée par une déclaration
préalable. S'il ne s'agit que de la liberté religieuse, le Prince
Gortchacow déclare qu'elle a toujours été appliquée en Russie; il donne
pour sa part à ce principe l'adhésion la plus complète et serait prêt à
l'étendre dans le sens le plus large. Mais s'il s'agit de droits civils
et politiques, son Altesse Sérénissime demande à ne pas confondre les
Israélites de Berlin, Paris, Londres, ou Vienne, auxquels on ne saurait
assurément refuser aucun droit politique et civil, avec les Juifs de la
Serbie, de la Roumanie, et de quelques provinces Russes, qui sont, à son
avis, un véritable fléau pour les populations indigènes.
Le Président ayant fait remarquer qu'il conviendrait peut-être
d'attribuer à la restriction des droits civils et politiques ce
regrettable état des Israélites, le Prince Gortchacow rappelle qu'en
Russie, le Gouvernement, dans certaines provinces, a dû, sous
l'impulsion d'une nécessité absolue et justifié par l'expérience,
soumettre les Israélites à un régime exceptionnel pour sauvegarder les
intérêts des populations.
M. Waddington croit qu'il est important de saisir cette occasion
solennelle pour faire affirmer les principes de la liberté religieuse
par les Représentants de l'Europe. Son Excellence ajoute que la Serbie,
qui demande à entrer dans la famille Européenne sur le même pied que les
autres États, doit au préalable reconnaître les principes qui sont la
base de l'organisation sociale dans tous les États de l'Europe, et les
accepter comme une condition nécessaire de la faveur qu'elle sollicite.
Le Prince Gortchacow persiste à penser que les droits civils et
politiques ne sauraient être attribués aux Juifs d'une manière absolue
en Serbie.
Le Comte Schouvaloff fait remarquer que ces observations ne constituent
pas une opposition de principe à la proposition Française: l'élément
Israélite, trop considérable dans certaines provinces Russes, a dû y
être l'objet d'une réglementation spéciale, mais son Excellence espère
que, dans l'avenir, on pourra prévenir les inconvénients incontestables
signalés par le Prince Gortchacow sans toucher à la liberté religieuse
dont la Russie désire le développement.
Le Prince de Bismarck adhère à la proposition Française, en déclarant
que l'assentiment de l'Allemagne est toujours acquis à toute motion
favorable à la liberté religieuse.
Le Comte de Launay dit qu'au nom de l'Italie il s'empresse d'adhérer au
principe de la liberté religieuse, qui forme une des bases essentielles
des institutions de son pays, et qu'il s'associe aux déclarations faites
à ce sujet par l'Allemagne, la France, et la Grande Bretagne.
Le Comte Andrássy s'exprime dans le même sens, et les Plénipotentiaires
Ottomans n'élèvent aucune objection.
Le Prince de Bismarck, après avoir constaté les resultats du vote,
déclare que le Congrès admet l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais sous la
condition que la liberté religieuse sera reconnue dans la Principauté.
Son Altesse Sérénissime ajoute que la Commission de Rédaction, en
formulant cette décision, devra constater la connexité établie par le
Congrès entre la proclamation de l'indépendence Serbe et la
reconnaissance de la liberté religieuse.
(_Ibid._ pp. 959-961.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No._ 10--_Séance du 1er Juillet, 1878._
M. Waddington déclare que, fidèles aux principes qui les ont inspirés
jusqu'ici, les Plénipotentiaires de France demandent que le Congrès pose
à l'indépendance Roumaine les mêmes conditions qu'à l'indépendance
Serbe. Son Excellence ne se dissimule pas les difficultés locales qui
existent en Roumanie, mais, après avoir mûrement examiné les arguments
qu'on peut faire valoir dans un sens et dans l'autre, les
Plénipotentiaires de France ont jugé préférable de ne point se départir
de la grande règle de l'égalité des droits et de la liberté des cultes.
Il est difficile, d'ailleurs, que le Gouvernement Roumain repousse, sur
son territoire, le principe admis en Turquie pour ses propres sujets.
Son Excellence pense qu'il n'y a pas à hésiter que la Roumanie,
demandant à entrer dans la grande famille Européenne, doit accepter les
charges et même les ennuis de la situation dont elle réclame le
bénéfice, et que l'on ne trouvera, de longtemps, une occasion aussi
solennelle et décisive d'affirmir de nouveau les principes qui font
l'honneur et la sécurité des nations civilisées. Quant aux difficultés
locales, M. le Premier Plénipotentiaire de France estime qu'elles seront
plus aisément surmontées lorsque ces principes auront été reconnus en
Roumanie et que la race Juive saura qu'elle n'a rien à attendre que de
ses propres efforts et de la solidarité de ses intérêts avec ceux des
populations indigènes. M. Waddington termine en insistant pour que les
mêmes conditions d'ordre politique et religieux indiquées pour la Serbie
soient également imposées à l'État Roumain.
Le Prince de Bismarck faisant allusion aux principes du droit public en
vigueur d'après la Constitution de l'Empire Allemand, et à l'intérêt que
l'opinion publique attache à ce que les mêmes principes suivis dans la
politique intérieure soient appliqués à la politique étrangère, déclare
s'associer, au nom de l'Allemagne, à la proposition Française.
Le Comte Andrássy adhère à la proposition Française.
Lord Beaconsfield dit qu'il donne une complète adhesion, au nom du
Gouvernement Anglais, à la proposition Française. Son Excellence ne
saurait supposer un instant que le Congrès reconnaîtrait l'indépendance
de la Roumanie en dehors de cette condition.
Les Plénipotentiaires Italiens font la même déclaration.
Le Prince Gortchacow, se référant aux expressions par lesquelles a été
motivée la proposition Française et qui donnent la plus grande extension
à la liberté religieuse, se rallie entièrement à cette proposition.
Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que l'adhésion de la Russie à l'indépendance
est cependant subordonnée à l'acceptation par la Roumanie de la
retrocession réclamée par le Gouvernement Russe.
Les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans n'élèvent aucune objection contre les
principes présentés par les Plénipotentiaires Français, et le Président
constate que le Congrès est unanime à n'accorder l'indépendance à la
Roumanie qu'aux mêmes conditions posées à la Serbie.
Le Baron de Haymerle lit une motion relative à la liberté des cultes
dans le Monténégro:--
"Tous les habitants du Monténégro jouiront d'une pleine et entière
liberté de l'exercice et de la pratique extérieure de leurs cultes, et
aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à l'organisation
hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec
leurs chefs spirituels."
Le Congrès décide le renvoi à la Commission de Rédaction.
(_Ibid._, pp. 982-983, 989, 990.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No. 12--Séance du 4 Juillet, 1878._
Le Président fait mention des pétitions de la liste No. 9, et notamment
de la communication adressée au Congrès par M. Ristitch, faisant savoir
au Congrès que le Prince Milan l'a autorisé à déclarer que le
Gouvernement Serbe saisira la première occasion, après la conclusion de
la paix, pour abolir par la voie légale la dernière restriction qui
existe encore en Serbie relativement à la position des Israélites. Son
Altesse Sérénissime, sans vouloir entrer dans l'examen de la question,
fait remarquer que les mots "la voie légale" semblent une réserve qu'il
signale à l'attention de la haute assemblée. Le Prince de Bismarck
croit devoir constater qu'en aucun cas cette réserve ne saurait infirmer
l'autorité des décisions du Congrès.
Le Congrès passe à l'Article XXII du Traité de San Stéfano relatif aux
ecclésiastiques Russes et aux moines de Mont Athos.
Le Marquis de Salisbury rappelle qu'avant la séance il a fait distribuer
à ses collègues une proposition tendant à substituer à l'Article XXII
les dispositions suivantes:--
"Tous les habitants de l'Empire Ottoman en Europe, quelle que soit leur
religion, jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront
concourir à tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et seront
également admis en témoignage devant les Tribunaux.
"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée, soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels.
"Les ecclésiastiques, les pèlerins, et les moines de toutes les
nationalités, voyageant ou séjournant dans la Turquie d'Europe et
d'Asie, jouiront d'une entière égalité de droits, avantages et
privilèges.
"Le droit de protection officielle est reconnu aux Représentants
Diplomatiques et aux Agents Consulaires des Puissances en Turquie, tant
à l'égard des personnes sus-indiquées que de leurs possessions,
établissements religieux, de bienfaisance, et autres dans les Lieux
Saints et ailleurs.
"Les moines du Mont Athos seront maintenus dans leurs possessions et
avantages antérieurs, et jouiront, sans aucune exception, d'une entière
égalité de droits et prérogatives."
Lord Salisbury explique que les deux premiers alineas de cette
proposition représentent l'application à l'Empire Ottoman des principes
adoptés par le Congrès, sur la demande de la France, en ce qui concerne
la Serbie et la Roumanie; les trois derniers alineas ont pour but
d'étendre aux ecclésiastiques de toutes les nationalités le bénéfice des
stipulations de l'Article XXII spéciales aux ecclésiastiques Russes.
Le Président fait également remarquer que la portée de la proposition
Anglaise est la substitution de la Chrétienté tout entière à une seule
nationalité, et commence la lecture du document par alineas.
Sur le premier alinea, Carathéodory Pacha dit que, sans doute, les
principes de la proposition sont acceptés par la Turquie, mais son
Excellence ne voudrait pas qu'ils fussent considérés comme une
innovation, et donne lecture, à ce sujet, de la communication suivante
qu'il vient de recevoir de son Gouvernement:--
"En présence des déclarations faites au sein du Congrès dans différentes
circonstances en faveur de la tolérance religieuse, vous êtes autorisé à
déclarer, de votre côté, que le sentiment de la Sublime Porte à cet
égard s'accorde parfaitement avec le but poursuivi par l'Europe. Ses
plus constantes traditions, sa politique séculaire, l'instinct de ses
populations, tout l'y pousse. Dans tout l'Empire les religions les plus
différentes sont professées par des millions de sujets du Sultan, et
personne n'a été gêné dans sa croyance et dans l'exercice de son culte.
Le Gouvernement Impérial est décidé à maintenir dans toute sa force ce
principe, et a lui donner toute l'extension qu'il comporte."
Le Premier Plénipotentiaire de Turquie désirerait, en conséquence, que,
si le Congrès se rallie à la proposition Anglaise, il fût, du moins,
constaté dans le texte que les principes dont il s'agit sont conformes à
ceux qui dirigent son Gouvernement. Son Excellence ajoute que,
contrairement à ce qui se passait en Serbie et en Roumanie, il n'existe
dans la législation de l'Empire aucune inégalité ou incapacité fondées
sur des motifs religieux, et demande l'addition de quelques mots
indiquant que cette règle a toujours été appliquée dans l'Empire Ottoman
non seulement en Europe, mais en Asie. Le Congrès pourrait, par exemple,
ajouter "conformément aux déclarations de la Porte et aux dispositions
antérieures, qu'elle affirme vouloir maintenir."
Lord Salisbury n'a pas d'objections contre la demande de Carathéodory
Pacha, tout en faisant observer que ces dispositions se rencontrent, en
effet, dans les déclarations de la Porte, mais n'ont pas toujours été
observées dans la pratique. Au surplus, son Excellence ne s'oppose point
à ce que le Comité de Rédaction soit invité à insérer l'addition
réclamée par les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans.
(_Ibid._, pp. 1002-3, 1009-10.)
* * * * *
_Protocole No. 17.--Séance du 10 Juillet 1878._
Le Président invite le Rapporteur de la Commission de Rédaction à lire
le travail préparatoire du Traité.
M. Desprez fait connaître à la haute assemblée que le texte du préambule
n'est pas encore arrêté, mai lui sera soumis dans la prochaine séance.
Article V, qui a pour objet l'égalité des droits et la liberté des
cultes, a donné lieu à des difficultés de rédaction; cet Article, en
effet, est commun à la Bulgarie, au Monténégro, à la Serbie, à la
Roumanie, et la Commission devait trouver une même formule pour diverses
situations; il était particulièrement malaisé d'y comprendre les
Israélites de Roumanie, dont la situation est indéterminée au point de
vue de la nationalité. Le Comte de Launay, dans le but de prévenir tout
malentendu, a proposé, au cours de la discussion, l'insertion de la
phrase suivante: "Les Israélites de Roumanie, pour autant qu'ils
n'appartiennent pas à une nationalité étrangère, acquièrent, de plein
droit, la nationalité Roumaine."
Le Prince de Bismarck signale les inconvénients qu'il y aurait à
modifier les résolutions adoptées par le Congrès et qui ont formé la
base des travaux de la Commission de Rédaction. Il est nécessaire que
le Congrès s'oppose à toute tentative de revenir sur le fond.
M. Desprez ajoute que la Commission a maintenu sa rédaction primitive,
qui lui paraît de nature à concilier tous les intérêts en cause, et que
M. de Launay s'est borné à demander l'insertion de sa motion au
Protocole.
Le Prince Gortchacow rappelle les observations qu'il a présenté, dans
une précédente séance, à propos des droits politiques et civils des
Israélites en Roumanie. Son Altesse Sérénissime ne veut pas renouveler
ses objections, mais tient à déclarer de nouveau qu'il ne partage pas,
sur ce point, l'opinion énoncée dans le Traité.
(_Ibid._, pp. 1058-1059.)
* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM THE TREATY OF BERLIN, SIGNED JULY 13, 1878.
XLIV. En Roumanie la distinction des croyances religieuses et des
confessions ne pourra être opposée à personne comme un motif d'exclusion
ou d'incapacité en ce qui concerne la jouissance des droits civils et
politiques, l'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions, et honneurs, ou
l'exercice des différentes professions et industries dans quelque
localité que ce soit.
La liberté et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront assurées
à tous les ressortissants de l'État Roumain aussi bien qu'aux étrangers,
et aucune entrave ne sera apportée, soit à l'organisation hiérarchique
des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec leurs chefs
spirituels.
Les nationaux de toutes les Puissances, commerçants ou autres, seront
traités en Roumanie, sans distinction de religion, sur le pied d'une
parfaite égalité.
* * * * *
[Articles V, XXVII, and XXXV, relating respectively to Bulgaria,
Montenegro, and Servia, are in the same form with the exception of the
last _alinéa_, which only appears in the above quoted article.]
* * * * *
LXII. La Sublime Porte ayant exprimé la volonté de maintenir le principe
de la liberté religieuse en y donnant l'extension la plus large, les
Parties Contractantes prennent acte de cette déclaration spontanée.
Dans aucune partie de l'Empire Ottoman la différence de religion ne
pourra être opposée à personne comme un motif d'exclusion ou
d'incapacité en ce qui concerne l'usage des droits civils et politiques,
l'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, ou l'exercice
des différentes professions et industries.
Tous seront admis sans distinction de religion à témoigner devant les
tribunaux.
La liberté et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes sont assurés à
tous, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée, soit à l'organisation
hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec
leurs chefs spirituels.
Les ecclésiastiques, les pèlerins, et les moines de toutes les
nationalités voyageant dans la Turquie d'Europe ou la Turquie d'Asie
jouiront des mêmes droits, avantages et privilèges.
(_Ibid._, pp. 764, 766-767.)
* * * * *
REVISION OF THE RUMANIAN CONSTITUTION (1879).
_No. 115. Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury. (Rec. November 4.)_
BUCHAREST, _October 25, 1879_.
MY LORD,--I have the honour to forward to your Lordship an authorized
French translation of the Constitutional amendment concerning
naturalization and religious equality as promulgated by a Decree this
morning.
I have, &c.,
W. A. WHITE.
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
* * * * *
(TRADUCTION.)
_Article Unique.--À la place de l'Article 7 de la Constitution soumis à
la revision, on mettra le suivant_:--
Article 7. La distinction de croyances religieuses et de confessions ne
constituera point en Roumanie un obstacle à l'acquisition des droits
civils et politiques et à leur exercice.
§ 1. L'étranger pourra, sans distinction de religion, et qu'il soit
soumis ou non à une protection étrangère, obtenir la naturalisation sous
les conditions suivantes:
(_a_) Il addressera au Gouvernement sa pétition de naturalisation, par
laquelle il fera connaître le capital qu'il possède, la profession ou
l'industrie qu'il exerce, et la volonté d'établir en Roumanie son
domicile.
(_b_) À la suite de cette demande il habitera le pays pendant dix
années, et il prouvera, par ses actions, qu'il est utile au pays.
§ 2. Pourront être dispensés du stage:
(_a_) Ceux qui auront introduit dans le pays des industries, des
inventions utiles, ou qui posséderont des talents distingués, ceux qui
auront fondé de grands établissements de commerce ou d'industrie.
(_b_) Ceux qui, nés et élevés dans le pays, de parents y établis,
n'auront jamais joui, ni les uns ni les autres, d'une protection
étrangère.
(_c_) Ceux qui auront servi sous les drapeaux pendant la Guerre de
l'Indépendance, lesquels pourront être naturalisés d'une manière
collective, sur la proposition du Gouvernement, par une seule Loi et
sans autre formalité.
3. La naturalisation ne peut être accordée que par la Loi, et
individuellement.
4. Une Loi spéciale déterminera, le mode d'après lequel les étrangers
pourront établir leur domicile en Roumanie.
5. Les Roumains ou ceux qui seront naturalisés Roumains pourront
acquérir des immeubles ruraux en Roumanie. Les droits déjà acquis seront
respectés. Les Conventions Internationales actuellement existantes
restent en vigueur, avec toutes leurs clauses et jusqu'à l'expiration de
leur durée.
(_Ibid._, lxxi. 1176-77.)
* * * * *
THE COMPACT WITH RUMANIA (1880).
_English Text of Identic Note presented to the Roumanian Government,
February 20, 1880._
The Undersigned, British Representative at Bucharest, has the honour, by
order of his Government, to convey to M. Boeresco, the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Roumania, the following communication:--
Her Britannic Majesty's Government have been informed, through the Agent
of His Royal Highness the Prince of Roumania at Paris, of the
promulgation, on the 25th October, 1879, of a Law, voted by the
"Chambres de Revision" of the Principality, for the purpose of bringing
the text of the Roumanian Constitution into conformity with the
stipulations inserted in Article XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin.
Her Majesty's Government cannot consider the new Constitutional
provisions which have been brought to their cognizance--and particularly
those by which persons belonging to a non-Christian creed domiciled in
Roumania, and not belonging to any foreign nationality, are required to
submit to the formalities of individual naturalization--as being a
complete fulfilment of the views of the Powers signatories of the Treaty
of Berlin.
Trusting, however, to the determination of the Prince's Government to
approximate more and more, in the execution of these provisions, to the
liberal intentions entertained by the Powers, and taking note of the
positive assurances to that effect which have been conveyed to them, the
Government of Her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of giving to the
Roumanian nation a proof of their friendly sentiments, have decided to
recognize the Principality of Roumania as an independent State. Her
Majesty's Government consequently declare themselves ready to enter
into regular diplomatic relations with the Prince's Government.
In bringing the decision come to by his Government to the knowledge of
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Undersigned, &c.
W. A. WHITE.
BUCHAREST, _February 20, 1880_.
(_Ibid._, p. 1187.)
* * * * *
(_g_) RUMANIA AND THE POWERS (1902).
It must be confessed--and, indeed, it has been avowed by prominent
Rumanians themselves[40]--that Rumania's evasion of the Treaty of Berlin
has been a monument of resourceful duplicity and bad faith. Accomplished
by pretending to regard the native Jews as foreigners, it actually
placed them in a far worse position than they had held in 1858, when at
any rate their national character as Moldavians or Wallachians was not
contested. But, not only have they been refused emancipation and stamped
as foreigners, but, in their character of foreigners, without a State to
protect them, they have been made the victims of special and cruel
disabilities, which in practice do not and cannot affect other
foreigners.
One peculiarly barbarous act of persecution of this kind which was
attempted in 1902 nearly brought about a serious intervention by the
Great Powers to compel Rumania to observe her Treaty obligations. An Act
was passed by the Rumanian Parliament forbidding foreigners to exercise
any handicraft in Rumania unless Rumanians were assured similar
privileges in the parent States of such foreigners. The result of this
Act would have been to deprive all the Jewish artizans in Rumania of the
means of earning their livelihood, as, being foreigners without a parent
State of their own, they could not prove the reciprocity required by the
law. Prompt steps were taken to bring this project to the notice of the
Great Powers, chiefly by the late Lord Rothschild in London and Mr.
Jacob Schiff in Washington. Lord Rothschild was the first to move. In
June 1901 he forwarded to His Majesty's Government an elaborate
Memorandum setting forth the intolerable situation of the Rumanian Jews
and especially emphasising its international dangers as a stimulus of
undesirable immigration in other countries.[41] At the same time he
brought all his great influence to bear privately on individual members
of the Government. From Lord Lansdowne he received the warmest sympathy,
and the Foreign Office at once set inquiries on foot with a view to
ascertaining whether combined action by the Powers signatory of the
Berlin Treaty would be practicable. The responses, however, were not
encouraging.[42] Meanwhile the action of the London Jews had been
communicated to Mr. Oscar Straus in New York, and he persuaded Mr.
Schiff to bring the question to the knowledge of President Roosevelt.
The President, deeply moved by Mr. Schiff's story, acted with
characteristic energy. In July 1902 the Secretary of State, Mr. John
Hay, under the guise of a despatch giving instructions to the United
States Minister at Athens in regard to certain negotiations then pending
for a Naturalisation Treaty with Rumania, formulated a powerful
indictment of the persecutions. Three weeks later the American
Ambassadors in London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Rome, and
Constantinople were instructed to communicate this despatch to the
Governments to which they were accredited, and to ascertain from them
whether it might not be possible to take some steps to secure from
Rumania the fulfilment of her obligations under Article XLIV of the
Treaty of Berlin.[43] Thus supported, Lord Lansdowne no longer
hesitated. In September he despatched a Circular to the Great Powers
definitely proposing combined representations at Bucharest.[44]
As soon as this _démarche_ got wind Rumania hastened to annul the
offending law, and otherwise to restrain her anti-Semitic zeal. Nothing
more was heard of the proposed collective intervention, but it is now
known that Lord Lansdowne's proposal never took final shape because the
Russian and German Governments refused to associate themselves with it.
DOCUMENTS.
* * * * *
DISPATCH FROM MR. JOHN HAY (U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE) TO THE U.S.
MINISTER AT ATHENS.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,
_July 17, 1902_.
_Charles S. Wilson, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., Athens._
SIR,--Your legation's despatch No. 19, of the 13th of February last,
reported having submitted to the Roumanian Government, through its
diplomatic representative in Greece, as the outcome of conference had by
Mr. Francis with him on the subject, a tentative draft of the
naturalization convention, on the lines of the draft previously
submitted to the Servian Government, and Mr. Francis added that His
Excellency the Roumanian Minister had informed him of his hearty
approval of the project, which he had forwarded to his Government with
his unqualified endorsement. Minister Francis was instructed on March 4
that his action was approved. No report of progress has since been
received from your legation, but it is presumed that the matter is
receiving the consideration due to its importance.
For its part, the Government of the United States regards the conclusion
of conventions of this character as of the highest value, because not
only establishing and recognizing the right of the citizens of the
foreign State to expatriate themselves voluntarily and acquire the
citizenship of this country, but also because establishing beyond the
pale of doubt the absolute equality of such naturalized persons with
native citizens of the United States in all that concerns their relation
to or intercourse with the country of their former allegiance.
The right of citizens of the United States to resort to and transact
affairs of business or commerce in another country, without molestation
or disfavor of any kind, is set forth in the general treaties of amity
and commerce which the United States have concluded with foreign
nations, thus declaring what this Government holds to be a necessary
feature of the mutual intercourse of civilized nations and confirming
the principles of equality, equity and comity which underlie their
relations to one another. This right is not created by treaties; it is
recognized by them as a necessity of national existence, and we apply
the precept to other countries, whether it be conventionally declared or
not, as fully as we expect its extension to us.
In some instances, other governments, taking a less broad view, regard
the rights of intercourse of alien citizens as not extending to their
former subjects who may have acquired another nationality. So far as
this position is founded on national sovereignty and asserts a claim to
the allegiance and service of the subject not to be extinguished save by
the consent of the sovereign, it finds precedent and warrant which it is
immaterial to the purpose of this instruction to discuss. Where such a
claim exists, it becomes the province of a naturalization convention to
adjust it on a ground of common advantage, substituting the general
sanction of treaty for the individual permission of expatriation and
recognizing the subject who may have changed allegiance as being on the
same plane with the natural or native citizens of the other contracting
State.
Some States, few in number, be it said, make distinction between
different classes of citizens of the foreign State, denying to some the
rights of innocent intercourse and commerce which by comity and natural
right are accorded to the stranger, and doing this without regard to the
origin of the persons adversely affected. One country in particular,
although maintaining with the United States a treaty which unqualifiedly
guarantees to citizens of this country the rights of visit, sojourn and
commerce of the Empire, yet assumes to prohibit those rights to Hebrew
citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized.[45] This
Government can lose no opportunity to controvert such a distinction,
wherever it may appear. It cannot admit such discrimination among its
own citizens, and can never assent that a foreign State, of its own
volition, can apply a religious test to debar any American citizen from
the favor due to all.
There is no treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and
Roumania, but this Government is pleased to believe that Roumania
follows the precepts of comity in this regard as completely and
unreservedly as we ourselves do, and that the American in Roumania is as
welcome and as free in matters of sojourn and commerce and legal resorts
as the Roumanian is in the United States. We hear no suggestion that any
differential treatment of our citizens is there imposed. No religious
test is known to bar any American from resorting to Roumania for
business or pleasure. No attempt has been made to set up any such test
in the United States whereby any American citizen might be denied
recourse to the representatives of Roumania in order to authenticate
documents necessary to the establishment of his legal rights or the
furtherance of his personal interests in Roumania. And in welcoming
negotiations for a convention of naturalization Roumania gives proof of
her desire to confirm all American citizens in their inherently just
rights.
Another consideration, of cognate character, presents itself. In the
absence of a naturalization convention, some few States hold
self-expatriation without the previous consent of the sovereign to be
punishable, or to entail consequences indistinguishable from banishment.
Turkey, for instance, only tacitly assents to the expatriation of
Ottoman subjects, so long as they remain outside Turkish jurisdiction.
Should they return thereto their acquired alienship is ignored. Should
they seek to cure the matter by asking permission to be naturalized
abroad, consent is coupled with the condition of non-return to Turkey.
It is the object of a naturalization convention to remedy this feature
by placing the naturalized alien on a parity with the natural-born
citizen and according him due recognition as such. This consideration
gives us added satisfaction that negotiations on the subject have been
auspiciously inaugurated with Roumania. If I have mentioned this aspect
of the matter, it is in order that the two Governments may be in accord
as to the bases of their agreement in this regard; for it is
indispensable that the essential purpose of the proposed convention
should not be impaired or perverted by any coupled condition of
banishment imposed independently by the act of either contracting party.
The United States welcomes now, as it has welcomed from the foundation
of its government, the voluntary immigration of all aliens coming hither
under conditions fitting them to become merged in the body-politic of
this land. Our laws provide the means for them to become incorporated
indistinguishably in the mass of citizens, and prescribe their absolute
equality with the native born, guaranteeing to them equal civil rights
at home and equal protection abroad. The conditions are few, looking to
their coming as free agents, so circumstanced physically and morally as
to supply the healthful and intelligent material of free citizenhood.
The pauper, the criminal, the contagiously or incurably diseased, are
excluded from the benefits of immigration only when they are likely to
become a source of danger or a burden upon the community. The voluntary
character of their coming is essential,--hence we shut out all
immigration assisted or constrained by foreign agencies. The purpose of
our generous treatment of the alien immigrant is to benefit us and him
alike,--not to afford to another State a field upon which to cast its
own objectionable elements. A convention of naturalization may not be
construed as an instrument to facilitate any such process. The alien,
coming hither voluntarily and prepared to take upon himself the
preparatory, and in due course the definite obligations of citizenship,
retains thereafter, in domestic and international relations, the initial
character of free agency, in the full enjoyment of which it is incumbent
upon his adoptive State to protect him.
The foregoing considerations, whilst pertinent to the examination of the
purpose and scope of a naturalization treaty, have a larger aim. It
behoves the State to scrutinize most jealously the character of the
immigration from a foreign land, and, if it be obnoxious to objection,
to examine the causes which render it so. Should those causes originate
in the act of another sovereign State, to the detriment of its
neighbors, it is the prerogative of an injured State to point out the
evil and to make remonstrance; for with nations, as with individuals,
the social law holds good that the right of each is bounded by the right
of the neighbor.
The condition of a large class of the inhabitants of Roumania has for
many years been a source of grave concern to the United States. I refer
to the Roumanian Jews, numbering some 400,000. Long ago, while the
Danubian principalities labored under oppressive conditions which only
war and a general action of the European Powers sufficed to end, the
persecution of the indigenous Jews under Turkish rule called forth in
1872 the strong remonstrance of the United States. The Treaty of Berlin
was hailed as a cure for the wrong, in view of the express provisions of
its 44th article, prescribing that "in Roumania, the difference of
religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person
as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the
enjoyment of civil and political rights, admissions to public
employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various
professions and industries in any locality whatsoever," and stipulating
freedom in the exercise of all forms of worship to Roumanian dependents
and foreigners alike, as well as guaranteeing that all foreigners in
Roumania shall be treated, without distinction of creed, on a footing of
perfect equality.
With the lapse of time these just prescriptions have been rendered
nugatory in great part, as regards the native Jews, by the legislation
and municipal regulations of Roumania. Starting from the arbitrary and
controvertible premises that the native Jews of Roumania domiciled there
for centuries are "aliens not subject to foreign protection," the
ability of the Jew to earn even the scanty means of existence that
suffice for a frugal race has been constricted by degrees, until nearly
every opportunity to win a livelihood is denied; and until the helpless
poverty of the Jew has constrained an exodus of such proportions as to
cause general concern.
The political disabilities of the Jews in Roumania, their exclusion from
the public service and the learned professions, the limitations of their
civil rights, and the imposition upon them of exceptional taxes,
involving as they do wrongs repugnant to the moral sense of liberal
modern peoples, are not so directly in point for my present purpose as
the public acts which attack the inherent right of man as a bread winner
in the ways of agriculture and trade. The Jews are prohibited from
owning land, or even from cultivating it as common laborers. They are
debarred from residing in the rural districts. Many branches of petty
trade and manual production are closed to them in the over-crowded
cities where they are forced to dwell and engage against fearful odds,
in the desperate struggle for existence. Even as ordinary artisans or
hired laborers they may only find employment in the proportion of one
"unprotected alien" to two "Roumanians" under any one employer. In
short, by the cumulative effect of successive restrictions, the Jews of
Roumania have become reduced to a state of wretched misery. Shut out
from nearly every avenue of self-support which is open to the poor of
other lands, and ground down by poverty as the natural result of their
discriminatory treatment, they are rendered incapable of lifting
themselves from the enforced degradation they endure. Even were the
fields of education open to them, of civil employment and of commerce,
as to "Roumanian citizens," their penury would prevent rising by
individual effort. Human beings, so circumstanced, have virtually no
alternatives but submissive suffering, or flight to some land less
unfavourable to them. Removal under such conditions is not and cannot be
the healthy intelligent emigration of a free and self-reliant being. It
must be, in most cases, the mere transplantation of an artificially
produced diseased growth to a new place.
Granting that, in better and more healthful surroundings, the morbid
conditions will eventually change for good, such emigration is
necessarily for a time a burden to the community upon which the
fugitives may be cast. Self-reliance, and the knowledge and ability that
evolve the power of self-support must be developed, and, at the same
time, avenues of employment must be opened in quarters where competition
is already keen and opportunities scarce. The teachings of history, and
the experience of our own nation, show that the Jews possess in a high
degree the mental and moral qualifications of conscientious citizenhood.
No class of emigrants is more welcome to our shores when coming equipped
in mind and body for entrance upon the struggle for bread, and inspired
with the high purpose to give the best service of heart and brain to the
land they adopt of their own free will. But when they come as outcasts,
made doubly paupers by physical and moral oppression in their native
land, and thrown upon the long-suffering generosity of a more favored
community, their migration lacks the essential conditions which make
alien immigration either acceptable or beneficial. So well is this
appreciated on the Continent, that, even in the countries where
anti-Semitism has no foothold, it is difficult for these fleeing Jews to
obtain any lodging. America is their only goal.
The United States offers asylum to the oppressed of all lands. But its
sympathy with them in no wise impairs its just liberty and right to
weigh the acts of the oppressor in the light of their effects upon this
country, and to judge accordingly.
Putting together the facts now painfully brought home to this Government
during the past few years: that many of the inhabitants of Roumania are
being forced, by artificially adverse discriminations, to quit their
native country; that the hospitable asylum offered by this country is
almost the only refuge left to them; that they come hither unfitted by
the conditions of their exile to take part in the new life of this land
under circumstances either profitable to themselves or beneficial to the
community; and that they are objects of charity from the outset and for
a long time,--the right of remonstrance against the acts of the
Roumanian Government is clearly established in favor of this Government.
Whether consciously and of purpose, or not, these helpless people,
burdened and spurned by their native land, are forced by the sovereign
power of Roumania upon the charity of the United States. This Government
cannot be a tacit party to such an international wrong. It is
constrained to protest against the treatment to which the Jews of
Roumania are subjected, not alone because it has unimpeachable ground to
remonstrate against the resultant injury to itself, but in the name of
humanity. The United States may not authoritatively appeal to the
stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin, to which it was not and cannot
become a signatory, but it does earnestly appeal to the principles
consigned therein, because they are the principles of international law
and eternal justice, advocating the broad toleration which that solemn
compact enjoins, and standing ready to lend its moral support to the
fulfilment thereof by its co-signatories, for the act of Roumania itself
has effectively joined the United States to them as an interested party
in this regard.
Occupying this ground and maintaining these views, it behoves us to see
that in concluding a naturalization convention no implication may exist
of obligation on the part of the United States to receive and convert
these unfortunates into citizens, and to eliminate any possible
inference of some condition or effect tantamount to banishment from
Roumania with inhibition of return or imposition of such legal
disability upon them by reason of their creed, as may impair their
interests in that country or operate to deny them judicial remedies
there which all American citizens may justly claim in accordance with
the law and comity of nations.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN HAY.
* * * * *
AMERICAN CIRCULAR NOTE TO THE GREAT POWERS.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,
_August 11, 1902_.
SIR,--In the course of an instruction recently sent to the Minister
accredited to the Government of Roumania in regard to the bases of
negotiation begun with that Government looking to a convention of
naturalization between the United States and Roumania, certain
considerations were set forth for the Minister's guidance concerning the
character of the emigration from that country, the causes which
constrain it, and the consequences so far as they adversely affect the
United States.
It has seemed to the President appropriate that these considerations,
relating as they do to the obligations entered into by the signatories
of the Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, should be brought to the
attention of the Governments concerned and commended to their
consideration in the hope that, if they are so fortunate as to meet the
approval of the several Powers, such measures as to them may seem wise
may be taken to persuade the Government of Roumania to reconsider the
subject of the grievances in question.
* * * * *
(This note continues in the language of the foregoing despatch from the
words: "The United States welcomes now, etc." down to words: "as an
interested party in this regard.")
* * * * *
You will take an early occasion to read this instruction to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs and, should he request it, leave with him a copy.
JOHN HAY.
* * * * *
_Reply of Great Britain._
(Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate.)
FOREIGN OFFICE,
_September 2, 1902_.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
note of the 23rd ultimo, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from Mr.
Secretary Hay on the subject of the conditions of the Jews in Roumania.
His Majesty's Government joins with the United States Government in
deploring the depressed condition of the Roumanian Jews and in regarding
with apprehension the results of their enforced emigration.
His Majesty's Government will place themselves in communication with
the other Powers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, with a view to a
joint representation to the Roumanian Government on the subject.
FRANCIS BERTIE.
(_In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdowne._)
("Foreign Relations of the United States (1902)," pp. 910 _et seq._, 42
_et seq._, and 550).
* * * * *
(_h_) THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG AND BUCHAREST (1912-13).
In connection with the Balkan complications of the last ten years, which
form the overture to the present war, the Jewish organisations in
Western Europe and America--chiefly the London Jewish Conjoint
Committee--lost no opportunity of keeping the grievances of the Rumanian
Jews before the Great Powers and of maintaining the liberties already
won in South-Eastern Europe. The work has been of a more arduous and
far-reaching character than the public suspect, and, although it has not
achieved final success, it has been far from unfruitful. Of this work it
is only possible to speak in a very summary way, as much of it is still
confidential and all of it is directly related to negotiations still
pending and necessarily belonging to the domain of what is invidiously
called secret diplomacy.
In 1908, on the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and the Herzegovina
by Austria-Hungary, the Conjoint Committee seized the opportunity of
endeavouring to reopen the Rumano-Jewish Question. The annexation was a
technical infraction of the Berlin Treaty and required the sanction of
the Great Powers, for which probably a Conference would be held. The
Conjoint Committee addressed to Sir Edward Grey a request that the scope
of the proposed Conference should be extended to other infractions of
the Treaty, and accompanied it with a review of the Rumano-Jewish
Question, which constitutes one of the most important State Papers
produced in the Jewish community.[46] Unfortunately the projected
Conference was abandoned, but Sir Edward Grey was so impressed by the
statements of the Conjoint Committee that he ordered an investigation to
be made, and he afterwards formally avowed, in a letter to the Conjoint
Committee, that the charges made in the Memorandum were accurate and
that Rumania had not fulfilled her Treaty pledges. This perhaps may not
seem to be a great gain, but those who know anything of international
politics will be aware that an official statement of this kind has
considerable practical importance, and, indeed, it was not lost upon the
Cabinet of Bucharest.
The last occasions on which attempts were made to put an end to the
Rumanian scandal were in connection with the Conferences of London, St.
Petersburg, and Bucharest, which liquidated the various questions
arising out of the Balkan wars in 1912-13. Here two questions confronted
the Conjoint Committee. While the international questions at issue were
confined to the trans-Danubian States, all that was necessary was to
secure for the populations of the transferred territories in that region
a reaffirmation of the clauses of the Treaties of 1830 and 1878, by
which the liberties of racial and religious minorities were guaranteed.
When, however, Rumania joined in the war, this question became of much
greater importance, and it involved the reopening of the whole question
of Rumania's violation of the Treaty of Berlin. In spite of the efforts
of the Conjoint Committee, neither the three Conferences of London, nor
the Conference of St. Petersburg dealt with these questions. At the
Conference of Bucharest the United States Government, at the instance of
the American Jewish Committee, made a suggestion that the civil and
religious liberties of the populations of the territories transferred
under the proposed Treaty should be specially guaranteed. On the
proposal of the Rumanian Prime Minister, however, the Conference agreed
that such securities were not necessary, but expressed their readiness
to give a verbal assurance that the wishes of the United States would be
fully realised.[47] A long correspondence ensued between the Conjoint
Committee and the Foreign Office, and eventually Sir Edward Grey agreed
to a suggestion of the Committee that the Great Powers should be
consulted with a view to making their sanction of the new territorial
arrangements in the Balkans conditional on the guarantee of full civil
and religious liberty to all the inhabitants of the annexed
territories.[48] This important assurance was reaffirmed by the
Secretary of State towards the end of July 1914, within a week of the
outbreak of the present war.
DOCUMENTS.
* * * * *
EXTRACT FROM THE PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCE OF BUCHAREST.
_Protocole No. 6.--Séance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Août), 1913._
[Le Président] fait part à la Conférence de la note suivante que lui a
remise S.E. Monsieur Jackson, Ministre des États-Unis d'Amérique à
Bucarest.
"Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique désire faire savoir qu'il
regarderait avec satisfaction si une provision accordant pleine liberté
civile et religieuse aux habitants de tout territoire que pourrait être
assujetti à la souverainté de quiconque des cinq Puissances ou qui
pourrait être transféré de la jurisdiction de l'une des Puissances à
celle d'une autre, pourrait être introduite dans toute convention
conclue à Bucarest."
M. Maioresco estime que les délégués sont unanimes à reconnaître
pleinement, en fait et en droit, le principe qui a inspiré la note
précitée, le droit public des États constitutionnels représentés à cette
Conférence en ayant consacré de longue date l'application. Le Président
pense donc que la note des États-Unis d'Amérique ne saurait soulever
aucune difficulté: il est peut-être bon de rappeler quelquefois les
principes, même lorsqu'ils sont universellement admis. Aussi, croit-il
être l'interprète des sentiments de MM. les Plénipotentiaires en
déclarant que les habitants de tout territoire nouvellement acquis
auront, sans distinction de religion, la même pleine liberté civile et
religieuse que tous les autres habitants de l'état.
M. Venizelos considère qu'à la suite des déclarations du Président, qui
seront consignées au Protocole, toute insertion dans le traité à
conclure, d'un principe déjà universellement reconnu serait superflue.
Cette manière de voir de M. le premier délégué de Grèce a recueilli
l'assentiment unanime.
("Le Traité de Paix de Bucarest--Protocoles de la Conférence," Bucarest,
1913, pp. 24-25.)
* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONJOINT COMMITTEE AND SIR
EDWARD GREY.
CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,
19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.
_13th October, 1913_.
SIR,--The Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee of the London Committee of
Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association have had under
their consideration the diplomatic acts--principally the Treaty of
Bucharest--by which the new territorial system in the Near East has been
adjusted, and they have instructed us to invite the attention of His
Majesty's Government to the omission from those documents of provisions
either confirming or repeating on their own account, for the benefit of
the annexed territories, the guarantees of civil and religious liberty
and equality contained in the Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London
of February 3rd, 1830, and in Articles V, XXVII, XXXIV, XLIV, and LXII
of the Treaty of Berlin.
Owing to the vast changes which have been made in the distribution of
the Jewish communities throughout the region lying between the Danube
and the Ægean, and more especially in view of the annexations to the
Kingdom of Roumania, where hitherto the Civil and Religious Liberty
Clauses of the Treaty of Berlin have been systematically evaded, this
question has caused the Jewish people the gravest anxiety. The Conjoint
Committee are well aware that in four of the annexing States, namely,
Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro, the Constitutions provide for
the equal rights of all religious denominations, and they gratefully
acknowledge that for many years past the Jews in those countries have
had no reason to complain; but in the new conditions of mixed races and
creeds which confront those States, and in face of the symptoms already
apparent of an accentuation of the long-standing inter-confessional
bitterness and strife, they prefer not to relinquish the international
obligations by which the rights of their co-religionists have hitherto
been secured. In this view they find themselves supported not only by
all the Jewish communities of the Balkans, but also by all of the
religious minorities in the dominions which have recently changed hands.
The reasonableness of their view is further supported by the
constitutional changes effected in like circumstances in Moldo-Wallachia
and Servia three-quarters of a century ago to the prejudice of the Jews,
and also by the continued encouragement to religious intolerance
afforded by the legalised oppression of a quarter of a million Jews in
the Kingdom of Roumania.
The question was not ignored at the Peace Conference at Bucharest, but
it failed to receive any contractual solution. At the sitting of August
8th a scheme of religious, scholastic and cultural liberty was
discussed, but no agreement was reached, owing to irreconcilable
differences between the Patriarchists and the Exarchists. Moreover, the
scheme as drawn up was confined to Christian communities (Protocol No.
10). At the sitting of August 5th, the question was raised in its wider
aspects by a communication from the United States Government expressing
the hope that a provision would be introduced into the Treaty "according
full civil and religious liberty to the inhabitants of any territory
subject to the sovereignty of any of the five Powers, or which might be
transferred from the jurisdiction of any one of them to that of
another." This also met with no adequate response. M. Maioresco, the
Chief Roumanian plenipotentiary, expressed the opinion that such a
provision was unnecessary, "as the principle inspiring it had long been
recognised, in fact and in law, by the public law of the Constitutional
States represented at the Conference," but he added that he was willing
to declare on behalf of the plenipotentiaries that "the inhabitants of
any territory newly acquired will have, without distinction of religion,
the same full civil and religious liberty, as all the other inhabitants
of the State." In this view the other plenipotentiaries concurred.
(Protocol No. 6.)
The Jewish Conjoint Committee regret that they are unable to accept
either the reasoning or the assurances of M. Maioresco for the following
reasons:--
1. Even if it were true that the constitutions of all the five
contracting States assure civil and religious liberty to their
inhabitants without distinction of religion--Roumania herself is a
flagrant exception--it would not afford as permanent a guarantee as an
international obligation. The circumstances which render such a
guarantee necessary in the present case have already been referred to
above.
2. In previous territorial changes in the Near East, the liberal
provisions of the constitutions of the annexing States have not been
held sufficient for the protection of religious minorities. Thus, in
1864, when the Ionian Islands were transferred to Greece, the Powers
specifically extended to the new territories the civil and religious
liberty obligations imposed on the Hellenic Kingdom in 1830 (see Article
IV of the Treaty of London of March 20th, 1864). Again in 1881, when
Thessaly was ceded to Greece, the religious liberty obligations of 1830
were repeated in the Treaty of Cession for the benefit of the Mussulman
population (Convention of May 14th, 1881, Article VIII). A similar
course was adopted by the Great Powers in 1886, when Eastern Roumelia
was virtually annexed to Bulgaria (Article IV of Arrangement of April
5th, 1886; _cf._ Eastern Roumelia Statute, Article XXIV).
3. Roumania herself is not content to rely on the national constitutions
of the other Balkan States where the destinies of her own expatriated
brethren in race and religion are concerned. Although she persuaded the
Conference of Bucharest to reject the American proposal to insert
binding guarantees for the equitable treatment of racial and religious
minorities in the annexed territories generally, she insisted on the
adoption of an Annexe to the Protocols of the Conference pledging the
signatory States to grant equal rights and religious and scholastic
freedom to the Koutzo-Vlachs residing within their dominions. It is
difficult to understand why these Treaty guarantees should be required
for communities which have a Government at Bucharest, attached to them
by racial and religious sympathies, to look after their interests, and
not for the Jews, who have no such resource in the event of their rights
being ignored.
4. The terms of M. Maioresco's declaration in regard to "the inhabitants
of any territory newly acquired" are ambiguous, and in the case of the
Jews of the northern districts of Bulgaria, now annexed to Roumania,
might, and no doubt would be, interpreted as assimilating them to the
oppressed Jewish communities of the annexed State. Moreover, in view of
what happened to the Jews of the Dobrudja when that province was
acquired by Roumania in 1878, any unilateral assurances from the Cabinet
of Bucharest on this subject must fail to inspire confidence. The action
of the Roumanian Government on that occasion was dealt with by us in the
letter we had the honour of addressing to you on July 13th last, and it
will consequently suffice to state now that the Jews of the Dobrudja
were deprived of their national rights for thirty years after the
annexation, and even then they experienced great difficulty in obtaining
them. We cannot contemplate without anxiety the possibility of a
repetition of this application of the principle formulated by M.
Maioresco.
For these reasons the Jewish Conjoint Committee regard with grave
apprehension the omission from the Treaty of Bucharest of guarantees of
civil and religious equality for the inhabitants of the territories
which have changed hands in virtue of that instrument, and they trust
they may rely on His Majesty's Government to take such steps as will
assure to those inhabitants the full enjoyment of the high protection
accorded them by the London Protocol of 1830 and the Treaty of Berlin.
They venture to suggest that the objects they have in view might be
attained by a collective note to the States signatory of the Treaties of
London, Bucharest and Constantinople, declaring that the Great Powers
regard the Civil and Religious Liberty clauses of the Protocol of 1830
and the Treaty of Berlin as binding upon all of them within their new
frontiers and throughout all their territories. The Committee hope that
His Majesty's Government may see their way to propose such a note to
the Great Powers.
We are, Sir,
Your humble and obedient Servants,
D. L. ALEXANDER,
_President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews_,
CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,
_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.
* * * * *
TO THE RT. HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., HIS MAJESTY'S
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ETC., ETC., ETC.
FOREIGN OFFICE,
_October 29th, 1913_.
GENTLEMEN,--I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of October 13th, and to observe in reply that the
Articles of the Treaty of Berlin, to which you refer, are in no way
abrogated by the territorial changes in the Near East, and remain as
binding as they have been hitherto as regards all territories covered by
those Articles at the time when the Treaty was signed.
His Majesty's Government will, however, consult with the other Powers as
to the policy of reaffirming in some way the provisions of the Treaty of
Berlin for the protection of the religious and other liberties of
minorities in the territories referred to, when the question of giving
formal recognition by the Powers to the recent territorial changes in
the Balkan Peninsula is raised.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
EYRE A. CROWE.
THE CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE.
* * * * *
CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,
19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.
_17th November, 1913_.
SIR,--We have had the honour of receiving the letter of the 29th ult.
addressed to us on your behalf by Sir Eyre A. Crowe, and we have duly
submitted it to our colleagues of the Conjoint Jewish Committee.
We are desired by the Committee to thank you for this communication and
to express their lively satisfaction with the assurances you are good
enough to give them and which appear to them to meet the necessities of
the case they had the honour of placing before you.
The Committee propose, with your permission, to submit to you at a later
stage, for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, an amended
formula of civil and religious liberty in the Balkans, which they think
will more clearly express the intentions of the Conference of London and
the Congress of Berlin than the provisions on the same subject contained
in the Protocol No. 3 of 1830 and the Treaty of 1878. They trust that
His Majesty's Government may find it possible to make this or some
similar amendment the basis for the proposed consultation with the other
Great Powers, as they venture to think that in this way a means may be
found of obviating a repetition of the misunderstandings by which the
Jews of Roumania have hitherto been deprived of the rights sought to be
conferred upon them by the Treaty of Berlin, besides securing the rights
of other religious and racial minorities in the Balkans on a footing of
perfect equality.
We, are, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servants,
DAVID L. ALEXANDER,
_President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews_,
CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,
_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.
* * * * *
TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., ETC., ETC.
CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,
19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.
_12th March, 1914_.
SIR,--Referring to the letter we had the honour of addressing to you on
the 17th November last, we now beg to submit to you, for the
consideration of His Majesty's Government, a revised formula of civil
and religious liberty in the Balkans in the hope that His Majesty's
Government may be able to recommend it to the other Great Powers
signatory of the Treaty of Berlin for application to the territories
which have recently changed hands in the Near East under the provisions
of the Treaties of London and Bucharest, and their subsidiary diplomatic
Acts.
As you are aware, Civil and Religious Liberty in Bulgaria, Montenegro,
Servia and Roumania is at present guaranteed in identic terms by
Articles V, XXVII, XXXIV-V, XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin, and in Greece
by the concluding _alinéa_ of Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London
of the 3rd February 1830. We beg to suggest that in the extension of
these stipulations to the new territories they shall be elucidated by
the addition to each of the following paragraph:--
* * * * *
All persons of whatever religious belief born or residing in the
territories annexed to the Kingdom of---- in virtue of the Treaties of
London and Bucharest, and who do not claim a foreign nationality and
cannot be shown to be claimed as nationals of a foreign state shall be
entitled to full civil and political rights as nationals of the Kingdom
of---- in accordance with the foregoing stipulations.
* * * * *
Some slight modification of this paragraph will be required to meet the
special circumstances of each case, as, for example, the omission of the
reference to the Treaty of London in the case of Roumania, and perhaps,
the insertion of the paragraph before the final _alinéa_ of Article XLIV
of the Treaty of Berlin instead of its addition to that Article.
In making this proposal we are chiefly actuated by a desire to obviate
as far as may be possible a repetition in the territories annexed to the
Kingdom of Roumania of the cruel evasion of Article XLIV of the Treaty
of Berlin by which the native Jews of Roumania have hitherto been
deprived of their civil and political rights. It will be within your
recollection that this evasion was contrived by arbitrarily declaring
all the native Jews to be _ipso facto_ foreigners and by submitting them
in that capacity to harsh disabilities which, while apparently
applicable to all foreigners, in reality only affected them. We are
further impressed by the fact that Bulgaria, Servia and Greece have each
acquired a considerable addition to their Jewish populations and,
although we acknowledge most gratefully the fidelity with which those
States have hitherto performed their obligation in regard to civil and
religious liberty, we think it wise, in view of the evil precedent
created by Roumania, to strengthen the hands of their rulers and
statesmen by extending those obligations in the form we now suggest to
the territories they have recently acquired.
Our aims will, we think, be attained by the formula suggested above
without in any way enlarging the scope of the original stipulations, as
those stipulations were understood by their authors and the majority of
the States to which they have hitherto been applied. It is to be noted
that a similar amendment of Article XLIV was actually suggested by the
Italian representative, the Count de Launay, at the Berlin Congress,
with a view to obviating the very evasion of the Treaty subsequently
effected by Roumania, and it was only rejected by the Congress because
it was desired to adopt an identic formula for all the Balkan States and
because it was felt that the formula as it stood "paraît de nature à
concilier tous les intérêts en cause." (British and Foreign State
Papers, vol. lxix. pp. 1058-9.)
Now that it has been shown that this anticipation was illusory, we
venture to hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to
realize the intentions of the Berlin Congress by suggesting to the Great
Powers the amendment we have proposed, and that their recognition of the
territorial changes in the Near East will be made conditional upon its
adoption by all the annexing States, and more particularly by the
Kingdom of Roumania.
We are, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servants,
DAVID L. ALEXANDER,
_President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews_,
CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,
_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.
TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., ETC., ETC.
* * * * *
(For the humanitarian interventions on behalf of the Jews of Morocco see
"The Conferences of Madrid and Algeciras," _infra_, pp. 88-99.)
(_i_) THE JEWISH QUESTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWER (1890 AND 1906).
It will be noted that none of the diplomatic interventions took
cognizance of the ill-treatment of the Jews in Russia,[49] although
until the recent Revolution it afforded, in magnitude and cruelty, the
worst example of religious persecution known to modern Europe.[50] The
cynical reason has already been indicated. But if international politics
has affected to ignore the Jewish question in Russia, that question has
not been without a very distinct influence on the evolution of the
European international system. No survey of the Jewish problem in
international politics would be complete without a reference to the
curious part played by the Russo-Jewish question in the orientation of
Russian policy which made for the alliance with France and through it
for the Triple Entente. It is well known that even after the termination
of the Russo-German secret treaty of mutual neutrality in 1890, the Tsar
Alexander III remained for a long time reluctant to come to terms with
Republican France. Towards the end of 1890 there was a fresh outbreak of
official anti-Semitism in Russia, and the bitter cry of the persecuted
Jews was heard all over Europe. At that moment it happened that
negotiations for a large loan had been entered into by the Russian
Treasury with the house of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had
actually been signed. As soon as the news of the persecutions reached
New Court, Lord Rothschild resolved to break off the negotiations. At
his instance, M. Wyshnigradski, the Russian Finance Minister, was
informed by the Paris House that unless the oppression of the Jews were
stopped they would be compelled to withdraw from the loan operation.
Deeply mortified by this attempt on the part of a Jewish banking firm to
deal with him _de puissance à puissance_, the Tsar peremptorily
cancelled the contract and ordered that overtures should be made to a
non-Jewish French syndicate headed by M. Hoskier of Paris. Thus was
forged the main financial link in the chain of common interests which
soon after led to the Dual Alliance. Incidentally, it may be mentioned
that one of the effects of the Alliance was to secure to the Tsar a much
larger immunity from criticism in his persistent ill-treatment of the
Jews.[51]
Fifteen years later the Jewish question also played a part in the
curious Russo-German _rapprochement_ which nearly wrecked the Dual
Alliance. Much light has been shed upon this incident by the recent
publication of the late Tsar's secret correspondence with the German
Emperor[52] and other Russian State documents, notably a Memorandum on
the Jewish question drawn up by Count Lamsdorf in January 1906.[53]
Negotiations for the adhesion of Russia to the Anglo-French Entente had
been opened in the winter of 1903, but owing to the war with Japan and
the revolutionary outbreak in Russia the Tsar's views on the subject had
changed. Worked on by the German Emperor, he imagined himself a victim
of English intrigue, and he concluded with the Kaiser at Bjoerkoeon July
23, 1905, the bases of a new Triple Alliance to consist of Russia,
Germany, and France. While the Treaty was still unratified certain
reactionaries in Russia seized the opportunity of endeavouring to give
it a specially anti-Jewish bias. On the one hand the bureaucracy had
persuaded themselves that the Jews were the main authors of the October
Revolution, and on the other Count Witte and his colleagues in the
Cabinet were furious at the renewed rebuffs they had received at the
hands of the House of Rothschild in their efforts to raise new loans on
the Paris and London markets.[54] It was in these circumstances that
Count Lamsdorf prepared a Memorandum proposing to the Tsar that an
agreement should be concluded with Germany providing for the special
_surveillance_ of Jewish activities on the lines of a secret Protocol
which had been drawn up by the two Powers on March 14, 1904, for the
similar _surveillance_ and extradition of Anarchists.[55] At the same
time the Count suggested that the Pope should be asked to adhere to this
new Holy Alliance. This strange proposal was approved by the Tsar, who
ordered the immediate initiation of negotiations with the
Wilhelmstrasse. In due course this instruction was acted upon,[56] but
in the following May Count Lamsdorf fell, and with the entry of M.
Izvolsky into the Russian Foreign Office a new and saner direction was
given to Russian Foreign policy. Nothing more was heard either of the
Bjoerkoe Treaty or of the proposed Triple Alliance against the Jews.
DOCUMENT.
* * * * *
THE PROPOSED ANTI-SEMITIC TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
(The footnotes appended to the following document are those of Count
Lamsdorf himself. Footnotes by the Editor will be found at the end.)
_Secret._
ON THE ANARCHISTS.
The events of the year 1905, which became particularly acute at the
beginning of October last, and, after a number of so-called "strikes,"
culminated in an armed revolt at Moscow and in other cities and
localities of the Empire, show quite clearly that the Russian
revolutionary movement, apart from its deep social economic causes of an
_internal_ nature, has also a quite definite _international_ character.
This side of the revolutionary movement, which deserves very serious
attention, manifests itself chiefly in the fact that it is supported to
a large extent from abroad.
This is clearly indicated by the striking phenomenon that the Russian
revolutionists dispose of an enormous quantity of _arms_ imported from
abroad, as well as of considerable _pecuniary means_, since there can be
no doubt that the revolutionary movement hostile to the Government,
including the organising of various kinds of strikes, must have cost the
revolutionaries large sums of money.
Since it must be recognised that such support of the revolutionary
movement with arms and money could hardly be set to the account of
foreign governments (with the exception of certain isolated cases, as
for instance, the support of the Finnish movement by Sweden, and perhaps
the partial support of the Polish movement by Austria), one inevitably
arrives at the further conclusion that the support of our revolutionary
movement enters into the calculations of some _foreign capitalist
organisations_.
This result must be coupled with the fact that the Russian revolutionary
movement is altogether distinguished by an alien racial character, since
it was precisely the various allogenes--the Armenians, Georgians, Letts,
Esthonians, Finns, Poles, etc.--who rose one after another against the
Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining, if not complete
political autonomy, at least equal rights with the native population of
the Empire. When one considers, moreover, that, as is established with
sufficient certainty, among these allogenes a most important part is
played by the Jews, who have figured and still figure as a specially
active and aggressive element of the revolution, whether as individuals,
or as leaders of the movement, or in the shape of entire organisations
(_e.g._ the Jewish Bund in the Western region), one may assume with
certainty that the aforesaid support of the revolutionary movement from
abroad emanates precisely from _Jewish_ capitalist circles.
In this respect one cannot ignore the coincidence of several phenomena
which could hardly be accidental. This coincidence rather logically
leads to the further result that our revolutionary movement is not only,
as already stated, _supported_ from abroad, but to a certain extent also
_directed_ from there. The strikes broke out with particular force
precisely in October last, that is to say, at a time when our Government
was making the attempt to bring about a large foreign loan without the
participation of the Rothschilds,[A] and just in the nick of time for
the frustration of the realisation of that financial scheme. The panic
provoked by it among the holders of Russian securities and the hurried
sale of those securities could not but procure in the end, as was safely
to be expected, new profits for the Jewish capitalists and bankers, who
speculated consciously and openly, as in Paris for instance, on the fall
of Russian securities.[57]
On the other hand, the hostile movement against the Government, which
flared up immediately after the promulgation of the Manifesto of October
30th, assumed for a time milder forms as soon as the bulk of the Russian
people, of whom the revolutionists had taken no account at first,
responded to the hostile manifestations against the Government by
pogroms upon the Jews.[B]
This connexion between the Russian revolutionary movement and the
foreign Jewish organisations is, moreover, confirmed in an obvious
manner by some significant facts which have even percolated through the
Press. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned wholesale importation of
arms into Russia, which, as it transpires from the Agency reports, is
carried on very largely from the continent of Europe _via England_,
becomes quite intelligible when one considers that already in June 1905,
precisely in England, an Anglo-Jewish Committee for collecting donations
for the equipment of fighting groups among Russian Jews was openly
organised with the most active co-operation of the well-known Russophobe
publicist Lucien Wolf.[C] On the other hand, on account of the
melancholy consequences of the revolutionary agitation, which recoiled
upon the Jews themselves, in the very same England a Committee of Jewish
capitalists was founded under the presidency of Lord Rothschild, which
concentrated enormous sums of money, collected by way of subscriptions
in France, England and Germany, for the ostensible purpose of granting
relief to the Jewish subjects of Russia who had suffered by the pogroms.
Lastly, the Jews in America are organising collections both for the
victims and for the arming of the Jewish youths, without formally
separating these two aims from one another.[58][D] There is thus no
room for doubt as to the close connexion of the Russian revolution with
the Jewish question in general, and with the foreign Jewish
organisations in particular, which connexion is already perfectly clear
from the point of view of its fundamental principles, since the founders
of the Socialist doctrine, Lassalle and Marx, who wield so great an
influence on the present mind of the Russian University youth, were
notoriously both of Jewish origin. Nor can it be in any way doubted that
the practical direction of the Russian revolutionary movement is in
Jewish hands. While our newspapers pass over, no doubt intentionally,
the leading part played by them in almost complete silence, it is no
longer deemed necessary to make a secret of it abroad, even in Socialist
circles. A member of the Jewish Working-men's Union (Bund), named
Hervaille, thus declared openly at a meeting of the Dutch Socialists at
Amsterdam on the 22nd October (November 4th) that in spite of the
persecutions to which they were subjected, it is precisely the Jews who
are standing at the head of the Russian revolutionary movement.[59] In
Italy, numerous meetings of sympathy with the said movement, which in
the course of last November were organised at Rome, Milan, Turin, etc.
ostensibly, "Pro liberta Russa," ended in manifestations "Pro ebrei
Russi."[60]
Thus, with the evident promotion of the Russian revolution by the Jews
of all countries, in one form or another, to a larger or smaller extent,
providing it above all with intelligent leaders, arms and pecuniary
means, the so-to-say international side of our revolutionary movement
becomes perfectly clear, and at the same time reveals those forces which
the Imperial Government must combat, as well as the factors of State and
public life abroad, on which it must rely in this struggle.
Starting from the idea set out above, namely, that our revolutionary
movement is being actively supported and partly directed by the forces
of universal Jewry, we also discover with great probability the
organising and intellectual centre where the main supports and feeding
organs of the militant hostility to the Government in Russia are hiding
themselves. That is the famous pan-Jewish universal union established in
the year 1860, the "Alliance Israélite Universelle," with a Central
Committee in Paris, which possesses gigantic pecuniary means, disposes
of an enormous membership, and is supported by the Masonic lodges of
every description (according to some reports, they have again been
carried into Russia in recent years), which represent the obedient
organs of that universal organisation.[61][E] The principal aim of the
"Alliance Israélite Universelle"--the all-round triumph of
anti-Christian and anti-monarchist Jewry (which has already taken
practical possession of France) by means of Socialism which is to serve
as a bait for the ignorant masses--could not but find the State system
of Russia--a land of peasants, Orthodoxy and monarchism--an obstacle in
its path. Hence the fight against the existing Government, which was
started with consummate calculation at the very moment of our greatest
weakness brought about by the Japanese war. That is also why the chief
watchword of this inexorable campaign at the present moment is
universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage; that is to say, it fights
for a principle which if recognised by the Government would bring about
immediately, even before the meeting of the State Duma, the complete
removal of the existing historical-legal impediments to the triumph of
Jewry in Russia, though their complete abolition is not likely to be
welcome to the future chosen men of the Russian land either.
The said factors, which support the fight of the revolutionary elements
against the Imperial Government from abroad, also afford on the other
hand the opportunity of recognising those forces by whose joint work a
favourable soil for a successful struggle with international
revolutionary Socialism might be created. As a matter of fact, there can
be no doubt that, in accordance with the main considerations set out
above, the universally organised international revolutionary Jewry must
be confronted by other enemies, apart from Russia, who by that alone
must become the friends and allies of the Imperial Government.
Anti-monarchist Jewry, sustained by money, cannot help undermining in
every way the Monarchical German Empire, sustained by its material
power. On the other hand, owing to a tradition centuries old, the
universally organised anti-Christian Judaism cannot help seeing an
irreconcilable enemy in the only Christian community that is likewise
organised on a universal and centralised basis, viz. the Roman Catholic
Church.
It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently
been brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the
German Empire,[F] as well as the Holy See, are destined to exercise a
very beneficent influence with regard to the anti-monarchical and
anti-Christian revolutionary movement in Europe.
As for the Vatican, it must be remembered first of all that the
Protestant Government of Germany has recognised long ago the full
importance of the Holy See for the defence of the traditional
foundations of European culture. While in its internal policy, it is
leaning on the Catholic Centre-party, it has necessarily arrived at a
friendly accord with the Pope in its foreign policy as well. As for
Russia, the friendly assistance of the Vatican might likewise prove to
be of supreme importance just in the sense indicated above. Even apart
from the authoritative influence of the Holy See, through the medium of
the local clergy, especially in our Polish affairs--in this respect, the
latest Encyclical of the Pope to the Bishops of Poland presents a
significant step in meeting the wishes of the Russian Government--the
Vatican could render us an invaluable service by communicating
matter-of-fact data on the dissolving Jewish freemasonry organisation
and its branches, whose threads converge in Paris--an organisation about
which our Government is unfortunately but little informed, whereas the
Vatican is sure to watch its activity in the most attentive manner.
As for Germany, on the other hand, any further approach of its
Government towards Russia--and one of a still closer nature than the
agreement founded on the Protocol of March 1st, 1904, on combating
Anarchism--would meet with unqualified sympathy at Berlin, since it
cannot be overlooked that, next to Russia, Germany is undoubtedly the
first State that will have to sustain the struggle with the
Social-Revolutionary party. Both the Government and Society in Germany
already take note at the present moment with the greatest apprehension
of the indubitable effect of the Russian events on the Social-Democratic
and Labour question, not to mention the movement of specific hostility
to the Government in the Provinces of Prussian Poland.
Indeed, the West-European Socialists of various nationalities do not
consider it any longer necessary to make a secret of their intention to
inaugurate in this very month of January 1906, a movement hostile to the
Government of Germany--which is to reach its highest development on the
1st of May 1906--and has already started it in Prussia and in Saxony
with the self-same watchword of "Universal Suffrage." It could hardly be
doubted that behind this movement--which they intend to organise, in
accordance with the resolutions passed by the Socialist Congresses held
at Jena and Breslau, by the same means as in Russia--there stand in
reality the above indicated international aims and considerations of
principle, that is to say, the same anti-Christian and anti-monarchical
factors which had likewise been and are still in operation in the
Russian revolutionary movement. At any rate, according to an observation
by the _Deutsche Tageszeitung_, which has made it its special aim to
organise the fight against the impending general European revolution,
the more candid publicists of Social-Revolutionary tendencies are
already expressing unceremoniously their hope that the Russian movement
of hostility to the Government only presents a prelude to that general
European upheaval which, among other things, is to destroy utterly the
monarchical order of contemporary Europe. When one places oneself on
this standpoint, one cannot help perceiving in everything said above
nothing else but partial manifestations of a general revolutionary
scheme the menace of which is not confined to Russia, and which,
according to the formula of the well-known Liebknecht, consists
essentially in realising a Republic in politics, Socialism in economics,
and Atheism in the domain of religion.
In view of the considerations set forth above, no doubt can remain as to
the absolute necessity of a confidential and sincere exchange of views
on our part, in the sense indicated above, with the leading spheres both
at Berlin and Rome. It could become the foundation of a most useful
joint action, first, for the purpose of organising a vigilant
supervision, and then also for an active joint struggle against the
common foe of the Christian and monarchical order of Europe. As a first
step in the said direction, and for the purpose of elucidating the main
principles for a future programme of joint action, it seems to be
desirable to confine ourselves for the present to a quite confidential
exchange of views with the German Government.
(Signed) COUNT LAMSDORF.
Negotiations must be entered into _immediately_. }
I share entirely the opinions herein expressed. } Endorsement in the
} Tsar's handwriting.
TSARSKOYE SELO, }
_January 3rd (O.S.) 1906_. }
(Translated from the Russian text in vol. vi. of "Secret Documents,"
published by the Soviet Commission of Foreign Affairs.)
* * * * *
NOTES.
[A] _Supra_, p. 56 (note).
[B] How these pogroms were organised by the Russian Secret Police will
be found described from authentic documents in Semenoff: _The Russian
Government and the Massacres_.
[C] This is not quite accurate. The object of the Committee was to
assist the Self-Defence groups of Russian Jews in resisting the pogroms.
No arms were exported to Russia, as the groups in question, and indeed
the Russian Revolutionists themselves, found it quite easy to purchase
arms from the Imperial Russian magazines.
[D] This also is quite untrue, as the published accounts of the Funds
show.
[E] Freemasons will be able to judge of the accuracy of this statement.
It will suffice to say here that it is as untrue as it is ludicrous. The
same remark applies to the absurd reference to the Alliance Israélite.
[F] This is clearly a reference to the Bjoerkoe interview and shows that
M. Izvolsky was in error when he stated that the Agreement resulting
from the interview was disapproved by Count Lamsdorf. (See interview
with M. Izvolsky in _Le Temps_, September 15, 1917.)
III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT.
(_a_) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Not all the diplomatic interventions on behalf of Jews have proceeded on
humanitarian grounds. Through the political assimilation of the Jews
with the populations among whom they dwell, and more particularly
through their emancipation in the various countries of Western Europe
and America, they have acquired the same rights in foreign countries
under International Law and treaties as their Christian fellow-citizens.
Unfortunately this has not been universally recognised, and it has
frequently happened that, when they travelled into countries where
Jewish disabilities still lingered, they were held liable as Jews to
ill-treatment from which their Christian fellow-countrymen were free.
The question of the legality of this ill-treatment arose at an early
date.
In 1556, the Jews in the Papal States suffered a terrible persecution at
the hands of the fanatical Pope Paul IV. This culminated in the
imprisonment of all the Marranos or Crypto Jews of Ancona, and their
sentence to the stake. At that time the most influential Jews in Europe
were the Mendes or Nasi Family of Portugal and the Low Countries, the
head of which was the famous Donna Gracia Nasi. Her son-in-law, who
afterwards became Duke of Naxos in the service of the Porte, for whom he
conquered Cyprus, was the Rothschild as well as the Disraeli of his
day.[62] The Italian Jews sent piteous appeals to Donna Gracia, who was
then settled in Constantinople. She at once addressed herself to the
reigning Sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, and entreated his
intervention, on the ground that the Marrano Jews in Ancona were for the
most part Turkish subjects. The appeal was well conceived, for the
Sultan was outraged by the idea that subjects of his could be maltreated
by a foreign potentate. He promptly responded (March 9, 1556) by sending
an ultimatum to the Pope, demanding the immediate release of his
unjustly accused lieges, under pain of reprisals on the foreign
Christians within his own dominions.[63] The Turk in those days was not
in the habit of treating Christian States with an excess of ceremony,
and the Pope realised the wisdom of complying with the ultimatum. He
revenged himself, however, by burning those of the prisoners who could
not be shown to be Turkish subjects.[64]
This incident is of peculiar interest for its bearing on the still much
debated question of the political status of Jews in the lands of their
"Dispersion." The Turkish Jews in 1556 seem to have had no doubt that
they were full nationals of the Ottoman Porte and as such entitled to
the protection of the Turkish Sultan. The precedent, however, was far
from decisive. In other circumstances other views have prevailed. Thus
in 1655, when the Commonwealth declared war on Spain, and an order was
issued for the confiscation of the property of Spaniards in England,
some of the Spanish Crypto Jews, then resident in London, appealed
against the order on the ground that their national status was that of
Jews and not that of Spaniards. This plea was allowed by the Admiralty
Commissioners, to whom it was referred, and they discharged the orders
made against the appellants.[65]
The question slumbered for a century and a half, and when it reappeared
the Turk was again on the side of the light. In 1815, there was a
dispute on this subject between Austria and Turkey. At that time the
Jews of Turkey were treated better than the Jews of Austria. Austria
applied to Turkish Jews visiting her territories the disabilities
imposed upon her own Jews. Turkey protested on the ground that,
according to the treaties--mainly the Treaty of Carlowitz--in force
between the two powers, Austria had no right to make any distinction
between Turkish Jews and other subjects of the Ottoman Porte. This
contention was held to be valid by the Austrian Government, and the
incident was terminated by the issue of an instruction to the police of
Lower Austria, where the disabilities complained of were in force,
ordering them to treat all Turkish subjects alike without distinction of
race or creed.
The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left very little
option to the Austrian Government,[66] inasmuch as the reciprocity for
which it stipulated was not based, as in other treaties, on what is
known as "National treatment," that is to say that the nationals of each
contracting party visiting the territories of the other shall be treated
on the same footing as the nationals of the territories they visit. The
reason, no doubt, was that the racial and religious heterogeneity of
both Empires, and the differential treatment to which it gave rise in
their respective internal administrations, could not be recognised
internationally without grave risk of friction and controversy. The
lesson was not lost on other States, especially those which desired to
maintain their differential treatment of Jews as against the doctrine of
undenominational Nationality which was chiefly championed by France. The
result was a strengthening of the "National treatment" clause of
commercial treaties, and this, with the progress of religious liberty,
led to a succession of fresh international disputes.
For many years, curiously enough, the chief offender was the democratic
Swiss Confederation, the Federal constitution of which was exclusively
Christian, while the Cantonal legislation was in many cases frankly and
even aggressively anti-Semitic. Until 1827 the Swiss Commercial Treaties
contained no hint of religious differentiation, but in that year,
availing themselves of the reactionary and clerical sympathies of the
government of Charles X, the Federal Authorities negotiated a Treaty
with France containing a "National treatment" clause, under which the
powers of the separate Cantons to deal as they pleased with Jews were,
in effect, reserved. But this was not all. Lest the clause should be
misinterpreted, the French Minister at Berne was authorised to address a
secret Note to the President of the Swiss Diet acknowledging that it
implied the desired restriction, on "the Jewish subjects of the
King."[67] The transaction was obviously one which could not stand the
light of the Revolution of 1830, and when three years later the
Government of the Canton of Basle applied the Treaty in all its rigour
to French Jews, the Duc de Broglie, then French Minister for Foreign
Affairs, issued an Ordinance suspending the operation of the Treaty in
regard to the offending Canton, and followed this up by severing
diplomatic relations and by placing a military cordon on the
frontier.[68] The King himself approved the action of his Minister in an
energetic speech to a deputation of the Consistoire Israélite. However,
in 1835 the Ordinance was withdrawn, and until 1850 the peace was more
or less preserved by a tacit _modus vivendi_.
The resistance of France was rendered difficult, partly by perplexities
of general politics, but more immediately by the fact that the question
was a larger one than it had at first appeared. In February 1840 a
French Jew had been refused a _permis de séjour_ by the police of
Dresden on the ground that Jews were not permitted to reside in the
city. The case was precisely similar to that of Switzerland, and M.
Guizot, who was then Foreign Minister, hesitated to take up a strong
attitude as he was afraid that the precedent might involve him in
complications with other countries.[69] Nevertheless, French public
opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively debate, called upon
the Government to make suitable representations to Saxony.[70] In 1850 a
Commercial Treaty between the United States and Switzerland was signed
at Berne, but the American Senate, on the advice of the President,
refused to ratify it because it discriminated against
non-Christians.[71] This was followed almost immediately by a revival of
the anti-Semitic activity of the Basle police, chiefly at the expense of
French Jews resident in the Canton. The French Government again
protested energetically and insisted on the withdrawal of the police
measures. The demand was sulkily complied with, the Cantonal Government
reserving what they called "the principle."[72]
In 1855 a new phase of the conflict was opened by the negotiation of two
further Commercial Treaties with Switzerland--one by Great Britain and
the other by the United States--in both of which the invidious
reservations, substantially as in the French Treaty of 1827, were
retained.[73] Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in which these
treaties were signed and ratified,[74] but the probable explanation is
that the Swiss negotiators promised in effect that there should be no
discrimination. This conjecture is confirmed by the action of the
Federal Assembly in the following year, in proposing a modification of
the Constitution by which equal rights should be accorded to the Jews in
all the Cantons. Unfortunately not all the Cantons agreed,[75] and in
1857 American public opinion became much excited at the discovery that
in the Canton of Neufchatel American citizens of the Jewish faith could
not be protected by American passports.[76] From this time until 1861
the United States took the place of France as the champion of Religious
Liberty in Switzerland, and was strongly supported by Great Britain.[77]
Her efforts, however, were not successful, and it was still reserved for
France to settle the question.
The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under the
influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her Commercial
Treaties. In negotiating the new Treaty with Switzerland she resolutely
set her face against all discriminations, or possibilities of
discrimination, between French citizens on the score of religion. The
result was that she obtained in her new Treaty (June 30, 1864) a form of
article without precedent in instruments of the kind.[78] In place of
"National treatment," French citizens in Switzerland "without
distinction of creed" were assured the same treatment as was accorded to
"Christians."[79] This striking victory was speedily followed by the
abolition of all Jewish disabilities throughout the Confederation.[80]
A series of more formidable cases of the same kind arose at a later
period out of the disabilities imposed on Jews in Russia. The Powers
mainly affected were the United States and Great Britain. Both had
Treaties of Commerce with Russia, the American Treaty having been
concluded in 1832 and the British in 1859. Both Treaties contained, in
substantially the same form, articles guaranteeing reciprocal "National
treatment" to the subjects of the High Contracting parties. There is,
however, an extraordinary contrast in the interpretation of these
Treaties by the British and American Governments respectively.
The question first came up for consideration in 1862. Certain British
Jews resident in Warsaw complained that the disabilities imposed upon
native Jews were also imposed upon them, and they appealed to Her
Majesty's Government for protection. Lord John Russell held that the
articles of the Treaty of 1859, by which British subjects in Russia and
Russian subjects in England were to be treated on an equal footing with
the nationals of those countries, did not mean that British Jews in
Russia should be treated as British subjects, but that they should only
have equal treatment with their oppressed co-religionists. He
accordingly declined to seek any relief for the petitioners.[81] The
case gave rise to no controversy, not only because the British and
Russian Governments were at one in their interpretation of the Treaty,
but because the facts were not made public at the time. It proved,
however, a fatal and humiliating precedent. In 1880 a terrible era of
persecution was inaugurated for the Jews of Russia, and it soon reacted
on their foreign brethren visiting the country. Towards the end of the
year a naturalised British Jew named Lewisohn was expelled from St.
Petersburg because he was a Jew, and he invoked the protection of his
Government. Lord Granville, who was then Foreign Secretary, was at first
disposed to regard the expulsion as a violation of the Treaty,[82] but
later on he became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he
declined to depart from it.[83] In 1890, at the instance of the Jewish
Conjoint Committee, Lord Salisbury submitted the question to the Law
Officers of the Crown, with the result that the precedent set by Lord
John Russell was confirmed on its merits and not--as in the case of Lord
Granville--_quâ_ precedent only.[84] The last occasion on which an
effort was made to obtain a reversal of this decision was in 1912. The
Conjoint Committee addressed to the Secretary of State, Sir Edward Grey,
an elaborate Memorandum reviewing the history and legal aspects of the
question.[85] The reply was in effect a reaffirmation of the previous
decisions, but the grounds on which it was rested were different. Sir
Edward Grey did not discuss the reasonableness of the established
interpretation, but he pleaded that any departure from it would only
lead to the termination of the Treaty, and that this would serve neither
British nor Jewish interests.[86]
The dispute with the United States pursued a very different course. In
its earliest stages it was dealt with by minor diplomatic and consular
officials very much in the spirit of Lord John Russell,[87] but when in
1880 the Russian Government began to expel American Jews from St.
Petersburg, the question was taken in hand by the Secretary of State as
one of gravity. It was at once recognised that a religious
discrimination between American citizens could not be tolerated in any
American Treaty. This was quite apart from the question of the legal
interpretation of the Treaty of 1832.[88] That question, however, was
dealt with vigorously by Mr. Blaine in July 1881. He took the broad view
that the intention of the United States in 1832 was not, and could not
have been, that which the Russian Government read into the Treaty, that
the Russian interpretation was indefensible on moral grounds, and that
on such questions local law cannot be permitted to override the express
terms of a Treaty.[89] On this basis the United States patiently sought
a reversal of the Russian view, but without success. The fight lasted
thirty years. Eventually American public opinion became agitated, an
organised movement for the termination of the obnoxious treaty was set
on foot, and in December 1911 the House of Representatives at Washington
sent a strongly worded joint resolution to the Senate declaring that
Russia had violated the Treaty and calling upon the President to
denounce it. The Russian Ambassador in Washington expressed official
disapproval of the resolution, but President Taft acted upon it without
waiting for the Senate, and denounced the Treaty on December 15.
Thereupon the Senate contented itself with a joint resolution approving
the action of the President.[90]
The question of the status of Jews in foreign lands has also arisen in
Palestine and Morocco. In 1882 the Turkish Government, fearing a Zionist
propaganda, prohibited the settlement of foreign Jews in the Holy Land.
The United States protested, and in 1887 and 1888 similar action was
taken by Great Britain and France. In the following year the
restriction was removed.[91] In the case of Morocco, Great Britain
solved the question in advance by stipulating in her Treaty with that
country, negotiated in 1855, that her Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish
subjects visiting and residing in Morocco should be treated on an equal
footing.[92]
DOCUMENTS.
* * * * *
ART. XIV.--TREATY OF CARLOWITZ BETWEEN THE EMPEROR AND THE GRAND SULTAN,
_Jan. 26, 1699_.[93]
XIV. Trade shall be free for the Subjects of both Partys, in all the
Kingdoms and Dominions of both Empires, according to the antient sacred
Capitulations. And that it may be carry'd on by both Partys with Profit
and without Fraud and Deceit, the same shall be settled by Stipulations
between Commissarys deputed on both sides, well vers'd in Merchandize,
at the time of solemn Embassys on both sides, and as has been observ'd
with other Nations in Friendship with the Sublime Empire, so his
Imperial Majesty's subjects of what Nation soever, shall enjoy the
Security and Advantage of Trade in the Kingdoms of the Sublime Empire,
as well as the usual Privileges in a fitting manner.
("Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce," London, 1732, vol. iv.
p. 298.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by Austrian Government. Instructions to Police of Lower
Austria, Dec. 28, 1815._
"All differences established between Turkish Jews and other subjects of
the Ottoman Porte appear contrary to the spirit of the Treaties. These
speak of 'Turkish subjects' without making any exception. It is
consequently to this quality only that one must have regard, and not in
any case to the religion or profession of individuals."
(Quoted by M. Carnot in Debate in French Chamber. _Moniteur_, May 29,
1841.)
* * * * *
ARTS. I, III AND VI OF FRANCO-SWISS TREATY, MAY 30, 1827.
Article premier.--Les Français seront reçus et traités, dans chaque
canton de la Confédération, relativement à leurs personnes et à leurs
propriétés, sur le même pied et de la même manière que le sont ou
pourront l'être à l'avenir les ressortissants suisses des autres
cantons. Tout genre d'industrie et de commerce permis aux ressortissants
suisses des divers cantons le sera également aux Français et sans qu'on
puisse exiger d'eux aucune condition pécuniaire ou autre plus onéreuse.
Lorsqu'ils prendront domicile ou formeront un établissement dans les
cantons qui admettent les ressortissants de leurs co-états, ils ne
seront également astreints à aucune autre condition que ces derniers.
Art. 3.--Les Suisses jouiront en France des mêmes droits et avantages
que l'article premier assure aux Français en Suisse, de telle sorte qu'à
l'égard des cantons qui, sous les rapports spécifiés audit article
premier, traiteront les Français comme leurs propres ressortissants,
ceux-ci seront, sous les mêmes rapports, traités en France comme les
nationaux. Sa Majesté Très Chrétienne garantit aux autres cantons les
mêmes droits et avantages dont ils feront jouir ses sujets.
Art. 6.--Les Français établis en Suisse, de même que les Suisses établis
en France en vertu du traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits
qui leur étaient acquis. Toutes les dispositions de la présente
convention leur seront d'ailleurs applicables.
(Brisac: "Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France," pp.
10-11.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by French Negotiator. Secret Note to the Swiss Diet,
August 7, 1826._
Le premier point qui a paru avoir besoin de quelques éclaircissements
est relatif aux israélites sujets du roi, lesquels, en cette dernière
qualité, pourraient se croire autorisés à réclamer, dans tous les
cantons suisses, le bénéfice de l'article 5 du projet de traité arrêté
entre la commission de la Diète et moi. Je ferai observer à cet égard
que, cet article premier n'accordant aux Français que les droits qui
sont accordés par chaque canton suisse aux ressortissants des autres
cantons, il s'ensuit nécessairement que, dans ceux des cantons où le
domicile et tout nouvel établissement serait interdit, par les lois du
canton souverain, aux individus de la religion de Moïse, les sujets du
roi qui professent cette religion ne sauraient se prévaloir de l'article
en question pour réclamer une exception à la règle générale du canton
suisse. Il est toutefois bien entendu que c'est une conséquence directe
de l'article 6 du projet de traité, que ceux d'entre les israélites
d'origine française qui se seraient établis sur le territoire de la
Confédération sous le régime de l'acte de médiation et en vertu du
traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits qui leur étaient acquis.
(Brisac: _op. cit._, pp. 12-13.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by France (1835). Speech by King Louis Philippe to a
Deputation from the Consistoire Israélite, November 5, 1835._
Le roi a répondu:
"Oui, dans tous les temps j'ai regardé comme injustes et impolitiques
les mesures qui établissaient entre les citoyens d'une même nation des
différences de qualifications sociales fondées sur la diversité des
croyances religieuses. Comme roi j'ai soutenu ce principe, et je vous ai
déjà témoigné plusieurs fois combien j'avais joui qu'il m'eût été
réservé de vous en faire l'application. J'espère qu'elle deviendra
générale, je le désire beaucoup. Je crois que c'est dans l'intérêt bien
entendu de tous les peuples, et la raison doit finir par l'emporter sur
les préjugés, comme l'eau qui tombe goutte à goutte finit par percer le
plus dur rocher. Tels sont au moins mes désirs et mes espérances; mais
je ne puis me mêler de ce qui se passe dans les autres États, à moins
que les intérêts français n'en soient lésés, ainsi que cela est arrivé
dans le canton de Bâle campagne. J'avoue que j'ai été bien aise d'avoir
cette occasion de bien établir que sous mon règne tous les Français
jouissent des mêmes droits et que tous obtiennent la même protection de
la part de mon gouvernement. J'espère que mes efforts ne seront pas
infructueux et que, dans l'affaire même dont vous m'entretenez, le
canton reviendra sur une détermination aussi contraire à nos traités
avec la Suisse qu'à l'esprit du siècle où nous vivons. Pour moi, je suis
heureux d'avoir donné l'exemple de votre complète émancipation, et je
vous remercie de la justice que vous rendez à mes actes et à mes
intentions; je suis bien touché de ce que vous venez de m'exprimer."
(_Moniteur_, Nov. 12, 1835.)
* * * * *
EXTRACT FROM FRANCO-SWISS TREATY OF ESTABLISHMENT, _June 30, 1864_.
"Tous les Français sans distinction de culte seront reçus et traités à
l'avenir dans chacun des Cantons suisses sur le même pied que les
ressortissants chrétiens des autres Cantons."
(Brisac: _op. cit._, p. 53.)
* * * * *
ART. I. ANGLO-SWISS TREATY, _September 6, 1855_.
Article I. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted to
reside in each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions, and on the
same footing, as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same
manner, Swiss citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the
territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the
same conditions, and on the same footing as British subjects.
Consequently, the subjects and citizens of either of the two Contracting
Parties shall, provided they conform to the laws of the country, be at
liberty, with their families, to enter, establish themselves, reside,
and remain in any part of the territories of the other. They may hire
and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of residence and
commerce, and may exercise, conformably to the laws of the country, any
profession or business, or carry on trade in articles of lawful commerce
by wholesale or retail, and may conduct such trade either in person or
by any brokers or agents whom they may think fit to employ, provided
such brokers or agents shall themselves also fulfil the conditions
necessary for being admitted to reside in the country. They shall not be
subject to any taxes, charges or conditions in respect of residence,
establishment, passports, licences to reside, establish themselves, or
to trade, in respect of permission to exercise their profession,
business, trade, or occupation, greater or more onerous than those which
are or may be imposed upon the subjects or citizens of the country in
which they reside; and they shall, in all these respects, enjoy every
right, privilege, and exemption which is or may be accorded to subjects
or citizens of the country, or to subjects or citizens of the most
favoured nation.
(Bernhardt, "Handbook of Treaties, &c., relating to Commerce," Lond.
1908, pp. 915-916.)
* * * * *
ART. I. AMERICAN-SWISS TREATY, _November 6, 1855_.
Art. I. "The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens
of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of
reciprocal equality in the two countries, where such admission and
treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal
provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal, of the contracting
parties.
(_Pub. Amer. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. xi. p. 15.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by the United States, 1857. Letter from the Assistant
Secretary of State to the Jews of Baltimore._
_August 13, 1857._
In compliance with your request, I enclose herewith a copy of the treaty
between the United States and Switzerland which was proclaimed in 1855.
It was originally concluded in 1850, but was amended with a view to
avoid some objections which were made on the very subject to which you
refer. In its present form, although it may not remove some
difficulties with reference to those who profess the Israelitish faith,
yet I do not see that it discriminates against this class of our
citizens in any mode whatever. Undoubtedly in some portions of the
Confederation the local laws are less liberal to Israelites than to
others, and this is deeply to be regretted; but the Government of the
United States has no control over the legislation of a foreign State and
can only employ its influence and good offices to relieve the
difficulties which such legislation may impose in any given case.
JOHN APPLETON.
(_Ibid._, p. 23.)
* * * * *
_Action by the United States, 1861. Instruction to Mr. Fogg, Minister to
Switzerland._
_September 14, 1861._
SIR,--Among the important instructions addressed to your predecessor are
those concerning the restrictions of certain of the Swiss Cantons
against citizens of the United States professing Judaism--a subject
which received at Mr. Fay's hands a large share of earnest attention and
upon which he addressed the department repeatedly and at much length. It
is very desirable that his efforts to procure the removal of the
restrictions referred to, which, though not completely successful, have
no doubt had much effect in smoothing the way to such a result, should
be followed up by you. You will therefore, after having fully acquainted
yourself with what Mr. Fay has done in the premises and with the views
of the department as expressed to him in the despatches on file in the
Legation, take such steps as you may deem judicious and legal to advance
the benevolent object in question. It is not doubted that further proper
appeals to the justice and liberality of the authorities of the several
Cantons whose laws discriminate against Israelitish citizens of the
United States, will result in a removal of the odious restrictions and a
recognition of the just rights of those citizens.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.
(_Ibid._, pp. 47-48.)
* * * * *
ART. I. RUSSO-AMERICAN TREATY, _December_ 18, 1832.
Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high
contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation.
The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty
to enter the ports, places and rivers of each party wherever foreign
commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in
all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their
affairs; and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and
protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition
of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and
particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce.
("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xx. p. 267.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by United States, 1881. Dispatch of Secretary of State
to the American Minister in St. Petersburg._
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,
_July_ 29, 1881.
SIR,--...The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of a
treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of
the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are
among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists,
and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a
privilege for aliens in express terms it cannot be limited by the
operations of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith
which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional
engagement in favor of the citizens in another State exists, the law
governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable.
I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United
States concludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal
protection of all classes of American citizens. It can make absolutely
no discrimination between them, whatever be their origin or creed. So
that they abide by the laws at home or abroad it must give them due
protection and expect like protection for them. Any unfriendly or
discriminatory act against them on the part of a foreign power with
which we are at peace would call for our earnest remonstrance, whether a
treaty existed or not. The friendliness of our relations with foreign
nations is emphasized by the treaties we have concluded with them. We
have been moved to enter into such international compacts by
considerations of mutual benefit and reciprocity, by the same
considerations, in short, which have animated the Russian Government
from the time of the noble and tolerant declarations of the Empress
Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the
spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believed that
they should be interpreted in the broadest way; and it is therefore a
source of unfeigned regret to us when a Government, to which we are
allied by so many historical ties as to that of Russia, shows a
disposition in its dealings with us to take advantage of technicalities,
to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its
international engagements in justification of the expulsion from its
territories of peaceable American citizens resorting thither under the
good faith of treaties and accused of no wrong-doing or of no violation
of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple adherence to the
faith of their fathers....
I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties remain
unrepealed in the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other
nations. Even we ourselves have our obsolete "blue laws," and their
literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, might to-day subject
a Russian of freethinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, to the
penalty of having his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for
blasphemy. Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than
the letter of outworn laws, and statutory enactments are not so
inelastic but that they relax and change with the general advancement of
peoples in the path of tolerance.
The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pursue their
callings unmolested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient
proscriptive laws, is in itself an eloquent testimony to the principle
of progress. And so, too, in Spain, where the persecution and expulsion
of the Jews is one of the most notable and deplorable facts in history,
and where the edicts of the earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see
to-day an offer of protection and assured right of domicile made to
Israelites of every race....
I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholomey to
acquaint him with the general views of the President in relation to this
matter.
I cannot better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating and
amplifying those views which the President so firmly holds, and which he
so anxiously desires to have recognized and responded to by the Russian
Government.
He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating the
treaty of December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal
engagements then entered into with the Government of Russia, give us
moral ground to expect careful attention to our opinions as to its
rational interpretation in the broadest and most impartial sense; that
he would deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of the
relations of the two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to
find that this large national sentiment fails to control the present
issue, or that a narrow and rigid limitation of the construction
possible to the treaty stipulation between the two countries is likely
to be adhered to; that if, after a frank comparison of the views of the
two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest
desire to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations
between the United States and Russia are found insufficient to determine
questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, or to secure
to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in
the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two
countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient in these
regards; and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which
Russia professes toward us than a frank declaration of her readiness to
come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and
generous spirit.
I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore with
the minister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you
have on some occasions given discreet expression to the feelings of
sympathy and gratification with which this Government and people regard
any steps taken in foreign countries in the direction of a liberal
tolerance analogous to that which forms the fundamental principle of our
national existence. Such expressions were natural on your part and
reflected a sentiment which we all feel. But in making the President's
views known to the minister I desire that you will carefully subordinate
such sentiments to the simple consideration of what is conscientiously
believed to be due to our citizens in foreign lands. You will distinctly
impress upon him that, regardful of the sovereignty of Russia, we do not
submit any suggestions touching the laws and customs of the Empire
except where those laws and customs conflict with and destroy the rights
of American citizens as assured by treaty obligations.
You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia
nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall
discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their
religious faith.
I cannot but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views of
this Government will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that
of Russia and that the questions at issue will soon find their natural
solution in harmony with the noble spirit of tolerance which pervaded
the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the
statesmanlike declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the
late decree of the Czar Alexander II in 1860.
You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and
should he desire a copy you will give it to him.
JAMES G. BLAINE.
("For. Relat. of the U.S.," 1881, pp. 1030 _et seq._)
* * * * *
DENUNCIATION BY UNITED STATES, 1911.
_Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911._
Resolved, etc., That the people of the United States assert as a
fundamental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be
impaired at home or abroad because of race or religion; that the
Government of the United States concludes its treaties for the equal
protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or
religion; that the Government of the United States will not be a party
to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties
thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on
the ground of race or religion; that the Government of Russia has
violated the treaty between the United States and Russia, concluded at
St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832, refusing to honor American passports
duly issued to American citizens, on account of race and religion; that
in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons
aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; that
for the aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to be
terminated and of no further force and effect from the expiration of one
year after the date of notification to the Government of Russia of the
terms of this resolution, and that to this end the President is hereby
charged with the duty of communicating such notice to the Government of
Russia.
("Congressional Record," xlviii. 280, 304-305.)
* * * * *
_Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911._
Whereas the treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States
and Russia concluded on the 18th day of December, 1832, provides in
Article XII thereof that it "shall continue in force until the first day
of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-nine, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting
parties shall not have announced to the other by an official
notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof this treaty
shall remain obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the
expiration of the year which shall commence after the date of a similar
notification"; and
Whereas on the 17th day of December, 1911, the President caused to be
delivered to the Imperial Russian Government by the American Ambassador
at St. Petersburg an official notification on behalf of the Government
of the United States announcing intention to terminate the operation of
this treaty upon the expiration of the year commencing on the 1st day of
January 1912; and
Whereas said treaty is no longer responsive in various respects to the
political principles and commercial needs of the two countries; and
Whereas the constructions placed thereon by the respective contracting
parties differ upon matters of fundamental importance and interest to
each; Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the notice thus given by the
President of the United States to the Government of the Empire of Russia
to terminate said treaty in accordance with the terms of the Treaty is
hereby adopted and ratified.
(_Ibid._, pp. 493-522.)
* * * * *
ARTS. I AND XI, ANGLO-RUSSIAN TREATY, _January 12, 1859_.
Article I. There shall be between all the dominions and possessions of
the two High Contracting Parties, reciprocal freedom of commerce and
navigation. The subjects of each of the two Contracting Parties,
respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come, with their
ships and cargoes, to all places, ports and rivers in the dominions and
possessions of the other, to which other foreigners are or may be
permitted to come; and shall, throughout the whole extent of the
dominions and possessions of the other, enjoy the same rights,
privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and exemptions in matters of
commerce and navigation, which are or may be enjoyed by native subjects
generally.
It is understood, however, that the preceding stipulations in no wise
affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce,
industry, and police, in vigour in each of the two countries, and
generally applicable to all foreigners.
Article XI. The subjects of either of the two High Contracting Parties,
conforming themselves to the laws of the country, shall have:--
1. Full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any
part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party.
2. They shall be permitted, in the towns and ports, to hire or possess
the houses, warehouses, shops and premises, which may be necessary for
them.
3. They may carry on their commerce, either in person or by any agents
whom they may think fit to employ.
4. They shall not be subject, in respect of their persons or property,
or in respect of passports, licences for residence or establishment, nor
in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general
or local, nor to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever, other or
greater than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects.
(Bernhardt: _op. cit._, pp. 721, 724-725.)
* * * * *
_Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881. Despatch from Lord
Granville to H.B.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg._
_Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton._
FOREIGN OFFICE,
_December 28th, 1881_.
SIR,--In my preceding despatch of to-day I have discussed the question
whether Mr. Lewisohn, in the arbitrary expulsion from Russia to which he
was subjected in September of last year, was treated in accordance with
the Russian law as applied to foreign Jews. It now remains to be
considered whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to claim for a
British subject of the Jewish faith immunity from the operation of these
laws, under the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1859.
It will be seen that Article I of that Treaty secures to foreigners the
same rights as are enjoyed by native subjects generally, but the
stipulations of that Article are not
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/31385