Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kurschedt, chairman, Aug. 26, 1840,
31 MS. Dom. Let. 203.

“I have no remarks to make respecting the proceedings of the govern-
ment in this case, at Damascus, which was marked by the most
calumnious representations against the Jewish people and in which
excruciating tortures were inflicted and many lives sacrificed, but I
think it proper to observe that this single act on the part of the
government can scarcely be said to change that character of national
reserve which I attributed to our foreign policy. Those principles
of our external intercourse may well be said to be established, which,
during the seventy years of our national existence, and in a stirring
period, abounding with great events, everywhere exciting corres-
ponding interest, have been adhered to with that steadiness of
purpose which, almost without exception, has marked the conduct
of our government while dealing with those subjects.
"There are cruelties and outrages of such a revolting nature that it is
natural, laudable indeed, that when they occur, they should meet
with general condemnation. But this duty to outraged humanity'
should be left to the action of individuals, and to the expression of
public opinion, for it is manifest that if one government assumes the
power to judge and censure the proceedings of another or the laws
it recognizes, in cases which do not affect their own interests, or the
rights of their citizens, the intercourse of nations will soon become
a system of crimination and recrimination hostile to friendly commu-
nication. For, the principle of interference being once admitted,
its application may be indefinitely extended, depending for its exer-
cise on the opinion which each country may form of the civil polity
of another, and of its practical operation." (Mr. Cass, Sec. of State.
to Mr. Hart, Dec. 8, 1858, 49 MS. Dom. Let. 415, declining a request
to express to the Papal government condemnation of acts of cruelty
committed against Jews by the public authorities at Bologna in the
Papal dominions.)

The joining by a consul of the United States, in a Mohammedan country, with consuls from other powers in a protest against the conviction and execution of a Jew for blasphemy, meets with the approval of the government of the United States.

66

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Chandler, No. 12, July 29, 1857, MS. Inst.
Barbary Powers, XIV. 193.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, in which you request that protection be granted by our representatives in the Ottoman dominions to Israelites of Russian birth in and near Jerusalem.

"As a rule our representatives abroad are permitted to extend the protection of the United States only to native-born or naturalized citizens thereof, but the sympathy of the United States for all oppressed peoples in foreign countries has been freely manifested in all cases where it could be done in accordance with the spirit of international courtesy and diplomatic usage. In granting such protection

it is requisite, of course, that the representatives of the country to which the persons requiring protection owe allegiance should request it, and that the authorities of the country in which they are at the time residing consent to it. The desired protection will be extended, if these conditions are complied with."

Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Isaacs, June 29, 1877, 119 MS.
Dom Let. 42.

"No official interposition in behalf of Israelites who are Moorish subjects can be sanctioned, as this would be improper in itself, and would be a precedent against us which could not be gainsaid. Still, there might be cases in which humanity would dictate a disregard of technicalities, if your personal influence would shield Hebrews from oppression."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, March 20, 1878, MS. Inst. Barb.
Powers, XV. 353. See same to same, July 2, 1878, id. 360.

"It is, as you are of course aware, difficult for a foreign government to make the full force of its influence felt in intervening for the protection of native subjects of the state addressed. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the informal and friendly offices of the United States have, at times before now, been used with good effect, through the informal action of their representatives abroad in the interest of humanity and of that full religious toleration and equity which form so conspicuous a base for our own enlightened institutions, I shall be happy to instruct the United States consul at Tangier that he is at liberty to act, in the sense of your request, so far as may be consistent with his international obligations, and the efficiency of his official relations with the Scheriffian government."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Isaacs and Wolf, July 1, 1878, 123
MS. Dom. Let. 395.

The American consul at Tangier may without impropriety take such steps of inquiry as to the condition of Hebrews in Morocco as may tend to the amelioration of their condition and may not be inconsistent with international obligations.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, No. 166, April 22, 1880, and No. 189, March 2, 1881, MS. Inst. Barbary Powers, XVI. 10, 39.

"At the invitation of the Spanish government, a conference has recently been held at the city of Madrid to consider the subject of protection by foreign powers of native Moors in the Empire of Morocco. The minister of the United States in Spain was directed to take part in the deliberations of this conference, the result of which is a convention signed on behalf of all the powers represented. The

instrument will be laid before the Senate for its consideration. The government of the United States has also lost no opportunity to urge upon that of the Emperor of Morocco the necessity, in accordance with the humane and enlightened spirit of the age, of putting an end to the persecutions which have been so prevalent in that country of persons of a faith other than the Moslem, and especially of the Hebrew residents of Morocco."

President Hayes' annual message, Dec. 6, 1880, For. Rel. 1880, XI.

(2) CASE OF THE MORTARA BOY.

§ 924.

"I have had the honor of receiving your favor of the 30th ultimo, with the resolutions recently adopted by the representatives of the United Congregations of the Israelites of the city of New York,' on the subject of the abduction and detention of Edgar Mortara from his parents, under the authority of the Papal government. .

"I have long been convinced that it is neither the right nor the duty of this government to exercise a moral censorship over the conduct of other independent governments and to rebuke them for acts which we may deem arbitrary and unjust towards their own citizens or subjects. Such a practice would tend to embroil us with all nations. We ourselves would not permit any foreign power thus to interfere with our domestic concerns and enter protests against the legislation or the action of our government towards our own citizens. If such an attempt were made we should promptly advise such a government in return to confine themselves to their own affairs and not intermeddle with our concerns.

"It is perhaps fortunate that the assertion of the principle of nonintervention on the part of the United States between foreign sovereigns and their own subjects has arisen in a case so well calculated to enlist our sympathies as that of the Mortara family. For this reason the precedent will be so much the stronger and be entitled to the more binding force.

"It is enough for us to defend the rights of our own citizens under treaties or the law of nations whenever and wherever these may be assailed by the government of any foreign country. Had Monola Mortara been a citizen of the United States, the case would have been very different. The Israelitish citizens of the United States have had occasion to know that I have not been regardless of their just rights in foreign countries; and they may rest assured that they shall receive the same protection, when domiciled abroad, during my administration, which is extended to all other citizens of our common country. They would ask no more and shall receive nothing less."

President Buchanan to Mr. Hart, Jan. 4, 1859, 49 MS. Dom. Let. 474.
This singular case of the "Mortara boy" attracted at the time great
attention and produced much excitement in the United States as well
as in Europe. Edgar Mortara was born at Bologna, then in the
Papal dominions, in 1851, of Jewish parents. When less than a year
old, being ill and apparently in danger of death, he was baptized by
a Christian servant. On June 23, 1858, at ten o'clock in the evening,
he was seized by a functionary of the Holy See, accompanied by a
squad of Papal police, and taken to Rome, where he was placed with an
order of monks, to be brought up in the Catholic faith. This was done
by order of Pope Pius IX. It was subsequently reported that Edgar's
parents, after his baptism, refused to receive him, and left him to
be reared by the servant who had baptized him. It was also affirmed
that his mother eventually died in the Christian faith. In a letter
written at Rome, April 18, 1900, more than forty years after his
abduction, Edgar Mortara himself, subscribing his name as an
apostolic missionary of the Roman Catholic Church, denied both these
reports. He declares that after his baptism he remained quietly with
his parents till he was taken from them by order of the Pope, and that
his mother never gave any indication of conversion to the Catholic
faith. It appears that his parents, after he was taken from them,
continued to petition for his return, but without success. He himself
became and remained a devout ecclesiastic, expressing, in the letter
above mentioned, the wish that his relations might become partakers
of the Catholic faith. (Journal de Genève, April 26, 1900.)
See an interesting article entitled Switzerland and American Jews,"
by Sol. M. Stroock, A. M., Publications of the American Jewish
Historical Society, No. 11, 1903.

(3) RUSSIA.

§ 925.

"I have received a letter from Messrs. S. Wolf and A. S. Solomons, of this city, representing the 'Union of American-Hebrew Congregations,' in which they refer to newspaper statements indicating that the Jews in Russia have recently been subjected by the government there to extraordinary hardships, and expressing a desire that the minister of the United States to St. Petersburg may be instructed to make such representations to the Czar's government, in the interest of religious freedom and suffering humanity, as will best accord with the most emphasized liberal sentiments of the American people.' The writers of the letter observe at the same time that they are well ‘aware of the impropriety of one nation interfering with the internal affairs of another in matters of a purely local character.'

"You are sufficiently well informed of the liberal sentiments of this government to preceive that whenever any pertinent occasion may arise its attitude must always be in complete harmony with the principle of extending all rights and privileges, without distinction on account of creed, and can not fail, therefore, to conduct any affair of

business or negotiation with the government to which you are accredited, which may involve any expression of the views of this govern-> ment on the subject, in a manner which will subserve the interests of religious freedom. It would, of course, be inadmissible for the government of the United States to approach the government of Russia in criticism of its laws and regulations, except so far as such laws and regulations may injuriously affect citizens of this country, in violation of natural rights, treaty obligations, or the provisions of international law, but it is desired that the attitude of the minister, as regards questions of diplomatic controversy, which involve an expression of view on this subject, may be wholly consistent with the theory on which this government was founded."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Russia, No. 2, April 14, 1880, For. Rel. 1880, 873; H. Ex. Doc. 470, 51 Cong. 1 sess. 33. Adopted by Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, in a note to Mr. Bartholomei, Russian min., June 20, 1881, MS. Notes to Russia VII. 350.

"I am well aware that the domestic enactments of a state toward its own subjects are not generally regarded as a fit matter for the intervention of another independent power; but when such enactments directly affect the liberty and property of foreigners who resort to a country under the supposed guarantee of treaties framed for the most liberal ends when the conscience of an alien owing no allegiance whatever to the local sovereignty is brought under the harsh yoke of bigotry or prejudice which bows the necks of the natives, and when enlightened appeals made to humanity, to the principles of just reciprocity, and to the advancing spirit of the age in behalf of tolerance are met with intimations of a purpose to still further burden the unhappy sufferers, and so to necessarily increase the disability of foreigners of like creed resorting to Russia, it becomes in a high sense a moral duty to our own citizens and to the doctrines of religious freedom we so strongly uphold to seek proper protection for those citizens and tolerance for their creed in foreign lands, even at the risk of criticism of the municipal laws of other states.

"It can not but be inexpressibly painful to the enlightened statesmen of Great Britain, as well as of America, to see a discarded prejudice of the dark ages gravely revived at this day, to witness an attempt to base the policy of a great and sovereign state on the mistaken theory that thrift is a crime, of which the unthrifty are the innocent victims, and that discontent and disaffection are to be diminished by increasing the causes from which they arise."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, Nov. 22, 1881, MS. Inst. Great
Britain, XXVI. 273.

"I transmit, herewith, for your perusal, a copy of a communication
which I sent yesterday to Mr. Lowell, instructing him to approach