ted"; that they shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs; and that they :'shall enjoy to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside"; there re mains, unfortunately, the provision: "on con dition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning com merce"; as well as the latent ambiguity in the words quoted, "the same security and pro tection as natives of the country wherein they reside"; for a little twisting might easily make these words mean, Russians and Rus sian Jews, as distinguished from each other; so that American Jews would only have the same measure of security and protection ac corded them as Russian Jews would receive. Moreover, as this proviso in Article I. should be taken in connection with that at the end of Article X.—where, at first view, there appear to be no limitations placed upon the recipro cal rights of the citizens and subjects of either of the high contracting parties—stipu lating that that Article is not to "derogate in any manner from the force of the laws already published, or which may hereafter be published, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias to prevent the emigration of his subjects, the Russian Government might claim that this would apply to laws which might thereafter be passed for the expulsion of certain classes of its subjects, as well as those to "prevent the emigration" of certain other classes. In 1895 difficulties arose owing to the refusal by the Russian Cónsul-General at New York to visé passports issued by this Government to citizens of Jewish faith; and Mr. Breckenridge, our Minister to Russia, received instructions from Secretary Gresham to present the views of our Government. Mr. Breckenridge thereupon addressed a note to Prince Lobanoff, Russian Secretary for Foreign Affairs (May 5-17, 1895) in
which he said that Prince Lobanoff was aware it had long been a matter of deep regret and concern to the United States that any of their citizens should be discriminated against for religious reasons in Russia; that it was repugnant to our laws and the national sense "for a foreign official, located within the jurisdiction of the United States, to there apply a religious test to any of our citizens to the impairment of his rights as an Amer ican citizen or in derogation of the certifi cate of our Government to the fact of such citizenship"; that it was "not constitutionally within the power of the United States, or of any of its authorities, to apply a religious test in qualification of the equal rights of all citi zens of the United States"; and that "no law or principle was more "warmly cher ished by the American people." Mr. Breck enridge then says: "It is therefore impossible for my Government to acquiesce in any man ner in the application of such a test within its jurisdiction by the agents of a foreign power." The Russian Foreign Office having there after been furnished, at its request, with an outline of the powers granted to, and limita tions placed upon, the Federal Government by the Constitution and Amendments there to, and particularly by the First Amendment, forbidding Congress to make any law "res pecting an establishment of religion" or "pro hibiting the free exercise thereof; Prince Lobanoff, replying on July 8th to Mr. Breckenridge's note of May i7th, writes: "If it was at all the fact of belonging to the Jewish religion which was an obstacle for certain foreigners to be admitted into Russia, the law would extend the interdiction to all the members of that religion. Now, on the con trary, it recognizes formally the right of whole categories of Israelites to enter Rus sia, and the selection which it has made of these very categories proves that it has been guided in this question solely by considera tions of an internal administrative character
