Chapter XXXIII

RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA. THE PASSPORT QUESTION.

The normal rate of Jewish immigration is but slightly affected by
the panic of 1893――Oppressiveness of the Sunday Laws are felt
by the new immigrants――The Extradition Treaty with Russia――
Beginning of the struggle about the Passport Question――The
first Resolution against Russia’s discrimination, introduced
in Congress by Mr. Cox in 1879――Diplomacy and diplomatic
correspondence――More resolutions――Rayner, Fitzgerald, Perkins――
Henry M. Goldfogle――John Hay’s letter to the House――More
letters, speeches and discussions――The Sulzer Resolution and
the last step to abrogate the Treaty of 1832.

The large increase in Jewish immigration from Russia after the renewed persecutions of 1891, like the general increase in the beginning of the last decade of the nineteenth century, lasted only till the effects of the hard times, which began in the spring of 1893, began to be felt. But the increase in Jewish immigration was more than ordinarily large, or what might be considered for those times as abnormal, only in one year――1892. If this year, in which there arrived 76,417 Jews from Russia,[47] should be eliminated, it is seen that Jewish immigration fell off much less in proportion than general immigration. The general figures are: 560,319 for 1891; 502,917 for 1893; 314,467 for 1894; and 279,948 for 1895. The number of Jewish immigrants from Russia for those years was: 42,145 for 1891; 35,626 for 1893; 36,725 for 1894, and 33,332 for 1895. The cause of it was mentioned in a former chapter――that the largest part of the Jewish immigration now consisted of families or near relatives brought over by those who have established themselves here. The condition of those remaining there was becoming continually worse, while those who were here could, with a little exertion and self-denial, save enough, even in slack times, to save their immediate relatives from the conditions which were becoming unendurable in Russia.

For this large and increasing mass of Russians, the relations between the United States and Russia were a matter of grave concern. And to them, in conjunction with the Galician Jews and the Roumanian Jews, who were, roughly estimated, nearly half as strong numerically as the Russians, the question of the restriction of immigration, which was then being discussed in Congress and in the country generally, was of most vital interest. The fear that the oppressed Jews who were left home could not come in now, and that there might be difficulty even in bringing over members of the family, sufficed to make this question overshadow all others in the mind of the Jewish immigrant; to make it not only the most important, but with many, the sole Jewish problem.

A minor problem which had also become more acute under the changed conditions was the Sunday Laws of the various states. While the laws themselves date further back, some of them from the eighteenth century, and they were not enforced with any more severity than before, the opportunities for conflict with them were now much more frequent. The Jewish immigrants of the former periods, who were mostly traders doing business with their Gentile neighbors, and were also inclined toward Reform Judaism, usually rested Sunday, for economic reasons as well as on account of their religious views. But now there were in many large cities, and especially in New York, large Jewish neighborhoods where brisk trading was done among Jews themselves. There were Jewish shops and factories in which the owners, the managers and foremen, as well as the workers, were Jews. And not only was the proportion of Orthodox Jews among them very large, but even the unbelievers and the radicals among them thought the Sunday laws oppressive and incongruous. It was certainly not what most of them expected to find in the Land of Liberty: to be hampered and interfered with for practices which were then practically permissible in countries like Russia and Austria, where the Churches rule supreme and where Jews are harassed on every imaginable pretext.

Two incidents in the relations with Russia aroused the interest of the Russian Jews in America at that time. The first related to the Treaty of Extradition which was negotiated between the two governments during the first administration of President Cleveland, but was not pressed for ratification, owing to protests which were made against it by Russian Jews and which were seconded by many liberal Americans and by a considerable portion of the press. But the document itself, signed by the representatives of the two governments seven or eight years before, remained in the State Department, and was again presented to the Senate by John W. Foster, a former American Minister to Russia, who held the office of Secretary of State in the last months of the administration of President Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901). It was ratified by the Senate in February, 1893, and the report of its ratification and exchange with Russia was a painful surprise for the Jews of the country, especially for the natives of Russia. Happily the fears about the possible effects of the treaty proved absolutely groundless. Every extradition case under this treaty which was fought in the United States courts was won, and, as far as it is known, not one Russian refugee who made the plea against extradition, claiming that he was wanted for political offences, was ever delivered to Russia.

The second occurrence pertained to a difficulty of long standing: to the general treaty between the United States and Russia which was concluded in 1832. The number of Jews in the United States at that time was comparatively small, and very few of them came from Russia. The intercourse between the two countries was insignificant, and probably no Jew of that time thought of going from America to Russia for any purpose. It could therefore not have occurred to the representatives of our Government in negotiating the treaty that Russia would discriminate against American Jews who might come there. As a matter of fact, the language of the treaty implied equal treatment for all American citizens alike, and is much less objectionable than was the treaty with Switzerland, which was concluded later (see above Chapter XXIII), in which discrimination against Jews was knowingly accepted. And while a case of discrimination against an American-Jewish citizen in Switzerland was under consideration by the State Department in Washington at the very time when the treaty of 1855, with the highly objectionable clause, was adopted, more than forty years passed after the adoption of the Russian treaty of 1832 before the question of Russia’s disloyalty to the terms of the treaty attracted the attention of the American Government, although there seems to have been some correspondence about it as early as 1866.[48] The name of a naturalized Jewish citizen, Theodore Rosenstrauss, appears frequently in the diplomatic correspondence of the State Department from 1873 to 1879, and his case was the cause of the following Joint Resolution being introduced in the House of Representatives of the 46th Congress in June, 1879, by Mr. Samuel S. Cox of New York, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs:

JOINT RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
WITH RUSSIA AS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

_Whereas_, It is alleged that by the laws of the Russian
Government, no Hebrew can hold real estate, which unjust
discrimination is enforced against Hebrew citizens of the
United States resident in Russia; and

_Whereas_, The Russian Government has discriminated against one
T. Rosenstrauss, a naturalized citizen of the United States, by
prohibiting him from holding real estate after his purchasing
and paying for the same, because of his being an Israelite; and

_Whereas_, Such disabilities are antagonistic to the enlightened
spirit of our institutions and age, which demand free exercise
of religious belief, and no disabilities therefrom; and

_Whereas_, The Secretary of State, under date of April 29, 1879,
expresses doubt of his ability to grant the relief required
under existing treaty stipulations; therefore

_Resolved_, By the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the
rights of the citizens of the United States should not be
impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; and
that if existing treaties between the United States and Russia
be found, as is alleged, to discriminate in this or any other
particular, as to any other classes of our citizens, the
President is requested to take immediate action, to have the
treaties so amended as to remedy this grievance.

After a debate, in which the fact that English Jews were permitted to own land in Russia, was brought out, this Resolution passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1879, and as far as known was not heard of again.

In the diplomatic correspondence which followed, the American Government insisted on its rights under the treaty and urged its minister to claim absolutely equal treatment for all American citizens alike, Jews as well as others. The arguments and the mode of procedure which are now familiar to every one who is interested in the question, were all used thirty years ago, though the only effective remedy, suggested by the first resolution, “to take immediate steps to have the treaties amended,” had not been resorted to. But the question of former Russian subjects who return to Russia as American citizens, in which the principle of expatriation and right of naturalization is involved, is not touched upon in these early disputes. There is even a clear intimation that the Russian Government’s chief objection was against naturalized Jews from Germany. Mr. Foster, who was then our representative in St. Petersburg, in a dispatch dated December 30, 1880, reports an interview which he had with M. de Giers, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and says:

So far as concerned Jews who are bona fide American citizens
(not disguised German Jews), he would assure me of the most
liberal treatment, as he knew it was the desire of the Emperor
to show all possible consideration to American citizens. If such
came to St. Petersburg and encountered any trouble, if I would
merely send him an unofficial note, he would give them all the
time I might ask for them to remain here to attend to their
business....

The same dispatch reports also a conversation with the Minister of Worship, who “listened with much interest to my presentation of the subject. He said that a commission was now engaged in studying the question of reform in these laws,” and “frankly recognized that the laws were not fully in accordance with the spirit of the age.” But in the end of this document Mr. Foster acknowledges his failure to obtain what he wanted and says that “the Russian Government was disposed to grant what we desired only as a favor when my government asked it as a right” (quoting Loris Melikov).

In a dispatch sent by Secretary of State James G. Blaine to Mr. Foster, dated July 29, 1881, the entire subject is historically reviewed and the principles involved are restated in strong and lucid terms. Two passages from this dispatch are worth quoting. One reads: “From the time when the treaty of 1832 was signed down to within a very recent period, there had been nothing in our relations with Russia to lead to the supposition that our flag did not carry with it equal protection to every American within the dominions of the empire.” The second is the last sentence of the dispatch and reads: “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 spirit of tolerance which pervaded the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the statesman-like declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the later decree of the Czar Alexander II. in 1860.” Actual dealings with Russia were a novel experience for American diplomatists, and even so eminent a statesman as Mr. Blaine could believe――after the pogroms of the spring of that year――that the question would be solved in the same manner as in Switzerland――by the final emancipation of the Jews of that country.

In the meantime new cases had arisen, and the question was again brought before Congress. Representative Samuel S. Cox of New York introduced a second resolution in the House of Representatives on January 26, 1882, which was passed four days later, requesting the President, if it was not incompatible with the public service, to communicate to the House all correspondence between the Department of State and the United States minister at St. Petersburg, relative to the expulsion of American Israelites from Russia, and the persecution of the Jews in the Russian Empire. Another resolution, asking for further correspondence on the subject, was introduced by Mr. Cox on July 31 of the same year and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He submitted the same resolution again in February, 1883, when it was passed. There was another resolution in 1884, and more correspondence in 1886 between Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard and the American representative in Russia, with no better results than before.

The subject was taken up more earnestly than before in the following decade. Congressman S. Logan Chipman of Michigan introduced in the House, in February, 1892, a resolution “To inquire into the operation of the Anti-Jewish Laws of Russia on American Citizens.” It was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and reported on April 6, 1892, in a much amplified form, but its passage is not recorded. Mr. Irvine Dungan, of Ohio, introduced, on June 10, 1892, a joint resolution “directing the severance of diplomatic relations with Russia,” which seems not to have gone any further than the Committee on Foreign Affairs. There was new correspondence, too, as the result of new cases, and probably also as an indirect result of the resolutions which were introduced in the House. A letter written from the State Department in 1893 to Mr. Andrew D. White (b. 1832), the educator and historian, the greatest man who ever represented the United States in Russia, contained the “surmise that some strange misapprehension exists in this regard in the mind of His Majesty’s Government, which your accustomed ability and tact may explain and perhaps remove.” The events proved that he could do neither.

In 1894 the subject was again brought before the House, for the first time by a representative of Jewish extraction. Isidor Rayner (b. in Baltimore, 1850), who was successively a member of the Maryland Legislature, a State Senator, a representative in Congress for three terms, the Attorney-General of the State of Maryland, and is now serving his second term as United States Senator from that State (beginning March 4, 1911), was then serving his third term in the House and was recognized as one of the ablest orators and leaders of his party (the Democratic) in the popular branch of Congress. But his resolution, which was introduced May 28, 1894, in which the President was “directed to call the attention of the Government of Russia to its continued violation of the treaty rights,” met with no better fate than the preceding ones which were introduced by non-Jews. The disposition of the resolutions made, however, little difference, for the Government was urging a settlement of the difficulties as strongly as if it was commanded by Congress to do so.

Minister Breckinridge, who was in St. Petersburg in 1895, writing to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs in that year, states “that it has long been a matter of deep regret and concern to the United States that any of its citizens should be discriminated against for religious reasons while peacefully sojourning in this country.” The subject was apparently taken up more seriously now than before, and there was justification for the belief that it would have to be settled soon. Mr. H. H. D. Peirce, Secretary of Legation, writing in June, 1895, of an interview which he had with a high Russian official, declares that the latter admitted the force of the argument and “expressed himself as hopeful that it would be possible to bring about a satisfactory revision of Russian practice as regards the admission of American Jews into the Empire.” In the following month Assistant Secretary of State A. A. Adee wrote to the Legation at St. Petersburg:

Your conclusion that it is inexpedient to press the complaint
to a formal answer at present appears to be discreet, but
the Department must express its deep regret that you have
encountered in the foreign office a reluctance to consider
the matter in the light in which this Government has presented
it. The Russian Government can not expect that its course in
asserting inquisitorial authority in the United States over
citizens of the United States as to their religious or civil
status can ever be acceptable or even tolerable to such a
Government as ours, and continuance in such a course after our
views have been clearly but considerately made known may trench
upon the just limits of consideration.

There were three more dispatches of considerable length sent about this subject in the same year, 1895; one from Mr. Breckinridge to Secretary of State Richard Olney, dated July 4; the second from Mr. Adee to Mr. Breckinridge, dated August 22, and a third, dated October 23, from Washington to the Russian capital, beginning with the acknowledgment of the receipt of a set of regulations relating to the Jews in Russia and commenting on it that: “If anything, it presents the subject in a still more unfavorable light, for it seems that those Russian agents in a foreign territory may in their discretion inquire into the business standing of the principal of the commercial house employing a Hebrew agent, and act favorably or unfavorably, according to their own judgment of its importance.” It continues that even “assuming for the ♦argument’s sake but not by way of admission, that such a right may technically exist, the question remains whether the assumption to exercise it in face of the temperate but earnest remonstrances of this Government against foreign interference with the private concerns of its citizens, is in accordance with those courteous principles of comity which this Government is so anxious to observe in its relations with all foreign states.”

All this was of no avail, and the question was again brought before Congress. Representative John F. Fitzgerald (b. in Boston, 1863; now Mayor of Boston) of Massachusetts introduced the following resolution in the House of Representatives, March 31, 1897, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs:

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of State be requested to demand
from the Russian Government that the same rights be given to
Hebrew-American citizens in the matter of passports as now
are accorded to all other classes of American citizens, and
also inform the House of Representatives whether any American
citizens have been ordered to be expelled from Russia or
forbidden the exercise of the ordinary privileges enjoyed by the
inhabitants, because of their religion.

The same resolution was re-introduced by Mr. Fitzgerald in December, 1899, with no better results. In the meantime, a Jewish banker from California, Mr. Adolf Kutner, was refused admission to Russia in 1897, and this caused Senator J. C. Perkins of that State to introduce a lengthy resolution about this question in the United States Senate (May 25, 1897), which was followed by a shorter one presented in the House by Representative Curtice H. Castle of the same State in December of that year.

In 1902 the question was again brought to the attention of the House by a Representative who not only is himself a Jew, but represents a district most of whose inhabitants are immigrant Jews who are interested in the passport question. Henry Mayer Goldfogle (b. in New York City, 1856), who was twice elected Judge of the Municipal Court in an East Side district, was in 1900 elected, as a Democrat, to represent the Ninth Congress District of New York, which includes the most thickly populated part of the East Side, and has been re-elected at every Congressional election since, serving now (1911) his sixth term. It was during his first term that he introduced what became well known as the “Goldfogle Resolution” and has been before Congress in one form or another for nearly a decade. Its original form as it was introduced, March 28, 1902, was as follows:

_Resolved_, By the House of Representatives of the United States,
that the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, respectfully
requested to inform the House whether American citizens of
the Jewish religious faith, holding passports issued by this
Government, are barred or excluded from entering the territory
of the Empire of Russia, and whether the Russian Government
has made, or is making, any discrimination between citizens of
the United States of different religious faiths or persuasions,
visiting or attempting to visit Russia, provided with American
passports; and whether the Russian Government has made
regulations restricting or specially applying to American
citizens, whether native or naturalized, of the Jewish religious
denomination, holding United States passports, and if so, to
report the facts in relation thereto, and what action concerning
such exclusion, discrimination or restriction, if any, has been
taken by any department of the Government of the United States.

This resolution was amended by adding the words “if not incompatible with the public interest” after the word “House” in the third line. It was passed by the House April 30, 1902. Shortly afterwards (June 27) Senator E. W. Pettus of Alabama introduced a resolution in the Senate requesting the President, “if not incompatible with the public interest, to inform the Senate as to the attitude of the Russian Government toward American citizens attempting to enter its territory with American passports.” This was also passed by the Senate, but the reply was given to the House before the Senate Resolution was introduced. The essence of the letter to the House, written by Secretary of State John Hay (1838–1905), dated May 2, 1902, that American Jews are not at a greater disadvantage before that Government than are the Jews of other countries; that the exclusion of naturalized citizens of Russian origin was explained by Secretary Olney in his report to the President in 1896 as due to circumstances under which a “conflict between national laws, each absolute within its domestic sphere and inoperative beyond it, is hardly to be averted”; that the effort to secure uniform treatment for American citizens in Russia, begun many years ago, had continued, although it had not been attended with encouraging success; and that the Department of State send to all persons of Russian birth who received passports an unofficial notice showing what were the provisions of Russian law liable to affect them, in order that they might not incur danger through ignorance.

The subject has been treated officially and semi-officially in various manners since that time, but practically without results. It came up several times in Congress, and was ably discussed by Jewish representatives and their friendly colleagues, hardly a voice ever being raised in defence of the Russian Government. There were new resolutions by Judge Goldfogle, who was now recognized as the Jewish Representative in Congress; new correspondence between the State Department and the American Ambassador in St. Petersburg; a personal letter from President Theodore Roosevelt to Count Witte (who came to the United States to negotiate a treaty of peace with Japan in 1905), in which that Muscovite statesman was begged “to consider the question of granting passports to reputable American citizens of the Jewish faith,” and a letter from Secretary of State Elihu Root (b. 1845; now a Senator from New York) to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff in October, 1908, telling him that the Administration “has urged the making of a new treaty for the purpose of regulating the subject.” It was the subject of a notable address delivered by the well known attorney and communal worker, Louis Marshall (b. in Syracuse, N. Y., 1856), at the convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations which was held in New York in January, 1911, and was afterward brought before President William H. Taft (b. 1857) by a delegation which was appointed by that convention. Public men in various parts of the country became interested in the question. They were encouraged by an almost unanimous public press to stand up for the rights of American Citizenship, regardless of creed, and the movement became well-nigh irresistible. Numerous State Legislatures adopted resolutions favoring the abrogation of the treaty unless the American passport be fully recognized as conferring the right of domicile in all parts of the Russian Empire. Congress was flooded with resolutions which were adopted by Jewish organizations all over the country, and many meetings were held to express the public indignation, as well as the dissatisfaction with the Government’s dilatoriness in obtaining justice for its Jewish citizens. The most imposing meetings were held under the auspices of the National Citizens’ League, a newly formed organization, composed mostly of prominent non-Jews, of which Andrew D. White became the chairman.

In December, 1911, the resolution for the abrogating of the treaty, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by William Sulzer, of New York, was adopted with practical unanimity. But President Taft had anticipated this action by the instructions which he gave several days before to the American Ambassador in St. Petersburg, to serve formal notice on Russia that the Treaty of 1832 would be abrogated on December 31, 1912, i. e., after one full year shall have elapsed after the notice of abrogation, as it is provided by the terms of the agreement itself. Both houses of Congress soon afterwards approved the President’s act without a dissenting vote, and the battle was won, as far as the American side of it was concerned. But the work of negotiating and concluding a new treaty was perforce left to the slow procedure of diplomacy, which is doubly slow when a government, like the Russian, which is so unwilling to recognize the rights of Jews, is one of the contracting parties.