all the American schools but one. One of the missionaries was forbidden to preach; services at some of the churches were suppressed, and lands granted to the missions many years before by native chiefs were encroached upon and seized. These proceedings culminated in the arrest of Mr. E. T. Doane, the oldest of the American missionaries in the islands, because of a letter addressed by him to the governor protesting against the seizure of certain lands belonging to the mission. He was subsequently deported to Manila, where he was released. The government of the United States protested against these acts, and the Spanish government endeavored in a measure to repair the wrong that it had done by restoring Mr. Doane to the scene of his labors and by repeating its assurances with reference to the protection of the missionaries and their property. It made, however, an unsatisfactory response on the question of pecuniary indemnity. Subsequently, hostilities took place between the Spaniards and the natives, and all the buildings belonging to the American mission were burned by the Spanish troops; and the missionaries were forbidden to hold any meetings and were practically obliged to leave the islands. Complaints and claims were presented by the United States to the Spanish government, and early in 1893 the matter was pressed for a settlement, with a view (1) to secure the restoration of the missionaries to the scene of their labors, and (2) to obtain compensation for the property destroyed or taken from them by the Spanish authorities. In April, 1893, it was reported by the legation at Madrid that the question had been settled by Spain's agreeing to permit the return of the missionaries and to pay $17,500 on account of their losses of property. The Spanish government, however, qualified the concession of the first point by reserving "the right of fixing the moment" when the missionaries might return to Ponapé, and disclaiming all responsibility for their safety, should they return sooner.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Strobel, chargé at Madrid, No. 394, Sept. 7, 1885, MS. Inst. Spain, XX. 100; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Valera, Spanish min., March 2, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 831; Mr. Valera to Mr. Bayard, March 12, 1886, id. 832; Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Newberry, chargé at Madrid, No. 135, Oct. 6, 1891, For. Rel. 1892, 442.

66

See, also, For. Rel. 1892, 485, 512, 513; For. Rel. 1893, 559 et seq., and especially, at page 565, a chronological statement of events occurring in the island of Ponapé ... from its first occupation by the American missionaries in 1852 until November, 1890,"

by Mr. Snowden, min. to Spain; For. Rel. 1893, 574, 575, 584–588.

There being nothing in the treaties between the United States and France stipulating or regulating liberty of doctrinal teaching by

American citizens in the French dependencies, the intervention of the United States in behalf of certain American missionaries in the Society Islands "was necessarily confined to equitable representations that citizens of the United States in the French dependencies, who tranquilly obey the laws and regulations there in force, should enjoy all privileges and immunities permitted to any other foreigners."

Mr. Rockhill, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Burton, Aug. 6, 1896, 211 MS.
Dom. Let. 669.

With reference to a letter of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States relative to their mission at Benito, West Africa, the American minister at Madrid was instructed that he might, by way of good offices, bring the matter to the attention of the Spanish government and ask for American missionaries in the territories ceded by France to Spain on the west coast of Africa a continuance of the favorable treatment which had been accorded them in the past by the French authorities.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Spain, No. 336, June 1, 1901, MS. Inst. Spain, XXIII. 150.

As to correspondence between Mr. Jay, United States minister at Vienna, and the Austrian foreign office, touching the admission of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows into the Austrian Empire, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Durham, M. C., Feb. 13, 1875, 106 MS. Dom. Let. 483, referring to a dispatch of Mr. Jay of Aug. 21, 1874, and the instructions previously sent him.

9. INTERCESSION FOR PERSECUTED JEWS.

1

(1) MOHAMMEDAN COUNTRIES.

§ 923.

In 1840 Mr. Forsyth, referring to a resolution adopted at a meeting of Israelites in the city of New York in relation to the persecution of their brethren in Damascus, stated that the heart-rending scenes which took place had previously been brought to the notice of the President by the American consul there, and that in consequence an instruction was immediately written to the American consul at Alexandria, and that at the same time the diplomatic representative of the United States at Constantinople "was instructed to interpose his good offices in behalf of the oppressed and persecuted race of the Jews in the Ottoman dominions, among whose kindred are found some of the most worthy and patriotic of our own citizens, and the whole subject, which appeals so strongly to the universal sentiments of justice and humanity, was earnestly recommended to his zeal and discretion."

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.

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. 66, April 22, 1880, and No. 189, March 2, 1881, MS. Inst. Barbary Pov ers, 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."