Russia and American Jews. which has nothing in common with a reli gious point of view." . . . "When, for mot ives of internal order, Russian law raises obstacles to the entrance of certain cate gories of foreigners upon our territory, the Russian consuls, who can neither be ignor ant of nor overlook the law, are in the neces sity of refusing the visé to persons who they know belong to these categories. ... As to the American Constitution, I must confess that it seems to me to be here beside the question. The Article of the Constitution which you are good enough to mention, and which prescribes that no religion is prohibited in the United States, is, by the very nature of things, placed outside of all prejudice by the consular authority. He has neither to pro hibit nor authorize the exercise in America of any cult; and the fact of his visé being ac corded or refused does not encroach upon the article in question. The refusal of the visé is not at all an attack upon any established religion; it is the consequence of a foreign law of an administrative character, which only has its effect outside of the territory of the Union." I make no apology for quoting this com munication so fully, for it is a clear statement, and its arguments difficult to answer—that is, if one wishes to be frank. But Mr. Breckenridge claims (as did Mr. Buchanan in 1832)—and, it is presumed, the Department also—that the Russian Foreign Office does not "understand our institutions. Thus he says, writing Prince Lobanoff on July 20th, "for in this difference, so radical, springing from institutions so different, and embarrassed somewhat by differences of speech. I have realized the obstacles to a complete mutual understanding of the issue.'" Now, Prince Lobanoff shows, in his note of July 8th, that he quite sufficiently grasps the theory of our institutions, and rightly fails to find that it affects the question at issue. As to "differences of speech." Mr. Breckenridge is. unfortunately, not the first of our diplo
463
matic envoys who has been embarrassed at a time when fluency, in at least French, would have been most desirable. Though having an honorable record in the Halls of Congress, he certainly was—if there is any thing at all in diplomatic experience—at a disadvantage as compared with the Russian Foreign Minister; for Prince Lobanoff, on the very day that Mr. Breckenridge sent his final note—on this subject—to him (Decem ber" 6th, 1895), had attained the age of sev enty-one years, having been from his twen tieth year in the Russian diplomatic service. He had occupied successively the posts of Ambassador at Constantinople,—where the Czar Alexander II. had utilized his services in the negotiation of the Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin,—at London, and at Vienna; and in 1895, though named, and al ready en route, as Ambassador at Berlin, he was recalled to fill the place of Minister of Foreign Affairs. He only lived until the summer of 1896. The position of the Department, in 1895, would no doubt have been stronger had its contention been made on the ground of rights accorded under the treaty of 1832; or, in default of any concession proved, it had claimed that it could not grant exequa turs if the Russian consuls were required to hold to their original instructions. At that very time, Secretary Olney's tone was firm and unyielding toward England in the Vene zuela boundary matter; yet had he taken as equally firm and uncompromising tone with Russia his action might not have. met with so much popular approval. Indeed, an ex amination of the Chinese Exclusion Law (as renewed for another ten years), will show that the same arbitrary acts alleged against the Russian Consuls in the case of American Jews, are authorized by the government of the United States where intending Chinese immigrants are concerned, not excepting those of a higher grade than, and of superior education to, the proletariat—of all of which
