Part 11 (1/2)

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 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Amba.s.sador in Was.h.i.+ngton 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]

DOc.u.mENTS.

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 Emba.s.sys on both sides, and as has been observ'd with other Nations in Friends.h.i.+p 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 Francais seront recus et traites, dans chaque canton de la Confederation, relativement a leurs personnes et a leurs proprietes, sur le meme pied et de la meme maniere que le sont ou pourront l'etre a l'avenir les ressortissants suisses des autres cantons. Tout genre d'industrie et de commerce permis aux ressortissants suisses des divers cantons le sera egalement aux Francais et sans qu'on puisse exiger d'eux aucune condition pecuniaire ou autre plus onereuse.

Lorsqu'ils prendront domicile ou formeront un etabliss.e.m.e.nt dans les cantons qui admettent les ressortissants de leurs co-etats, ils ne seront egalement astreints a aucune autre condition que ces derniers.

Art. 3.--Les Suisses jouiront en France des memes droits et avantages que l'article premier a.s.sure aux Francais en Suisse, de telle sorte qu'a l'egard des cantons qui, sous les rapports specifies audit article premier, traiteront les Francais comme leurs propres ressortissants, ceux-ci seront, sous les memes rapports, traites en France comme les nationaux. Sa Majeste Tres Chretienne garant.i.t aux autres cantons les memes droits et avantages dont ils feront jouir ses sujets.

Art. 6.--Les Francais etablis en Suisse, de meme que les Suisses etablis en France en vertu du traite de 1803, continueront a jouir des droits qui leur etaient acquis. Toutes les dispositions de la presente convention leur seront d'ailleurs applicables.

(Brisac: ”Ce que les Israelites de la Suisse doivent a 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 eclairciss.e.m.e.nts est relatif aux israelites sujets du roi, lesquels, en cette derniere qualite, pourraient se croire autorises a reclamer, dans tous les cantons suisses, le benefice de l'article 5 du projet de traite arrete entre la commission de la Diete et moi. Je ferai observer a cet egard que, cet article premier n'accordant aux Francais que les droits qui sont accordes par chaque canton suisse aux ressortissants des autres cantons, il s'ensuit necessairement que, dans ceux des cantons ou le domicile et tout nouvel etabliss.e.m.e.nt serait interdit, par les lois du canton souverain, aux individus de la religion de Mose, les sujets du roi qui professent cette religion ne sauraient se prevaloir de l'article en question pour reclamer une exception a la regle generale du canton suisse. Il est toutefois bien entendu que c'est une consequence directe de l'article 6 du projet de traite, que ceux d'entre les israelites d'origine francaise qui se seraient etablis sur le territoire de la Confederation sous le regime de l'acte de mediation et en vertu du traite de 1803, continueront a jouir des droits qui leur etaient acquis.

(Brisac: _op. cit._, pp. 12-13.)