NEW MEASURES OF OPPRESSION AND PUBLIC
PROTESTS
1. THE DESPAIR OF RUSSIAN JEWRY
The civil New Year of 1882 found the Jews of Russia in a depressed state
of mind: they were under the fresh impression of the excesses at Warsaw
and were harassed by rumors of new measures of oppression. The
sufferings of the Jewish people, far from stilling the anti-Jewish fury
of the Government, had merely helped to fan it. "You are maltreated,
_ergo_ you are guilty"--such was the logic of the ruling spheres of
Russia. The official historian of that period is honest enough to
confess that "the enforced role of a defender of the Jews against the
Russian population [by suppressing the riots] weighed heavily upon the
the Government." Upon reading the report of the governor-general of
Warsaw for the year 1882, in which reference was made to the
suppression of the anti-Jewish excesses by military force, Alexander
III. appended the following marginal note: "This is the sad thing in
all these Jewish disorders."
Those among Russian Jewry who could look further ahead were not slow in
realizing the consequences which were bound to result from this hostile
attitude of the ruling classes. Those of a less sensitive frame of mind
found it necessary to inquire of the Government itself concerning the
Jewish future, and received unequivocal replies. Thus, in January, 1882,
Dr. Orshanski, a brother of the well-known publicist, [1] approached
Count Ignatyev on the subject, and was authorized to publish the
following statement:
[Footnote 1: See above, p. 238 et seq.]
The Western frontier is open for the Jews. The Jews have already
taken ample advantage of this right, and their emigration has in no
way been hampered. [1] As regards your question concerning the
transplantation of Jews into the Russian interior, the Government
will, of course, avoid everything that may further complicate the
relations between the Jews and the original population. For this
reason, though keeping the Pale of Jewish Settlement intact, I have
already suggested to the Jewish Committee [attached to the Ministry]
[2] to indicate those localities which, being thinly populated and
in need of colonization, might admit of the settlement of the Jewish
element ... without injury to the original population.
[Footnote 1: According to an old Russian law which had come into
disuse, departure from the country without a special Government
permit is punishable as a criminal offence.]
[Footnote 2: See p. 277.]
This reply of the all-powerful Minister, which was published as a
special supplement to the Jewish weekly _Razsvyet_, increased the panic
among the Jews of Russia. The Jews were publicly told that the
Government wished to get rid of them, and that the only "right" they
were to be granted was the right to depart; that no enlargement of the
Pale of Settlement could possibly be hoped for, and that only as an
extreme necessity would the Government allow groups of Jews to colonize
the uninhabitable steppes of central Asia or the swamps of Siberia.
Well-informed people were in possession of much more serious
information: they knew that the Jewish Committee attached to the
Ministry of the Interior was preparing a monstrous plan of reducing the
territory of the Pale of Settlement itself by expelling the Jews from
the villages and driving them into the over-crowded cities.
The soul of the Jewish people was filled with sorrow, and yet there was
no way of protesting publicly in the land of political slavery. The Jews
had to resort to the old medieval form of a national protest by pouring
forth their feelings in the synagogue. Many Jewish communities seemed to
have come to an understanding to appoint the 18th of January as a day of
mourning to be observed by fasting and by holding religious services in
the synagogues. This public mourning ceremony proved particularly
impressive in St. Petersburg. On the appointed day the whole Jewish
population of the Russian capital, with its numerous Jewish
professionals, assembled in the principal synagogue and in the other
houses of prayer, reciting the hymns of perpetual Jewish martyrdom, the
_Selihot_. In the principal synagogue the rabbi delivered a discourse
dealing with the Jewish persecutions.
When the preacher--an eye-witness narrates--began to picture in a
broken voice the present position of Jewry, one long moan, coming,
as it were, from one breast, suddenly burst forth and filled the
synagogue. Everybody wept, the old, the young, the long-robed
paupers, the elegant dandies dressed in latest fashion, the men in
Government service, the physicians, the students, not to speak of
the women. For two or three minutes did these heart-rending moans
resound--this cry of common sorrow which had issued from the Jewish
heart. The rabbi was unable to continue. He stood upon the pulpit,
covered his face with his hands, and wept like a child.
Similar political demonstrations in the presence of the Almighty were
held during those days in many other cities. In some places the Jews
observed a three days' fast. Everywhere the college youth, otherwise
estranged from Judaism, took part in the national mourning, full of the
presentiment that it, too, was destined to endure decades of sorrows and
tears.
2. THE VOICE OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA
The political protest, which could not be uttered in Russia, was soon to
be heard in England. During the very days on which the Russian Jews were
weeping in their synagogues, their English coreligionists, in
conjunction with prominent English political leaders, organized
indignation meetings to protest against the horrors of Russian
Judaeophobia. Already at an earlier date, shortly after the pogrom of
Warsaw, the London _Times_ had published a series of articles under the
heading "The Persecutions of the Jews in Russia," containing a
heartrending description of the pogroms of 1881 and an account of the
anti-Semitic policy of the Russian rulers. [1] The articles produced a
sensation. Reprinted in the form of a special publication, which in a
short time went through three editions, they spread far beyond the
confines of England. Numerous voices were soon to be heard demanding
diplomatic intercession in favor of the oppressed Jews and calling for
the organization of material relief for the victims of the pogroms.
[Footnote 1: The author of these articles was Joseph Jacobs who
afterwards settled in New York, where he died in 1916.]
Russian diplomacy was greatly disconcerted by the growth of this
anti-Russian agitation in a country, whose Government, headed at that
time by Gladstone, endeavored to maintain friendly relations with
Russia. The organ of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
_Journal de St. Petersbourg_, published two articles, attempting to
refute the most revolting facts contained in the articles of the _Times_;
it denied that there had been cases of rape, and asserted that "murders
were exceedingly rare." [1] The official organ further stated that "the
Government has already begun, to consider new legislative measures
concerning the Jews," without mentioning, however, that these "measures"
were of a repressive character. The mouthpiece of Russian diplomacy
asked In an irritated tone whether the pro-Jewish agitators wished "to
sow discord between the Russian and the English people" and spoil the
friendly relations between these two Powers which Gladstone's Government
had established, reversing the contrary policy of Beaconsfield.
[Footnote 1: It is true that the account in the _Times_ contained a few
exaggerations as far as the number of victims and the dimensions of the
catastrophe in general are concerned, but the picture as a whole was
entirely in keeping with the facts, and the cases of murder and rape,
as, for instance, in Kiev, were, on the whole, stated correctly.]
However, these diplomatic polemics were unable to restrain the English
political leaders from proceeding with the arrangements for the
projected demonstrations. After a whole series of protest meetings in
various cities of England, a large mass meeting was called at the
Mansion House in London, [1] under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor.
The élite of England was represented at the meeting, including Members
of Parliament, dignitaries of the Church, the titled aristocracy, and
men of learning, A number of prominent persons who were unable to be
present sent letters expressing their warm sympathy with the aims of the
gathering; among them were Tennyson, Sir John Lubbock, and others.
[Footnote 1: On February 1, 1882.]
The first speaker, the Earl of Shaftesbury, pointed out that the English
people did not wish to meddle in the inner affairs of Russia, but
desired to influence it by "moral weapons," in the name of the principle
of the "solidarity of nations." The official denials of the atrocities
he brushed aside with the remark that, if but a tenth part of the
reports were true, "it is sufficient to draw down the indignation of the
world." It was necessary, in the opinion of Shaftesbury, to appeal
directly to the Tzar and ask him "to be a Cyrus to the Jews, and not an
Antiochus Epiphanes."
The Bishop of London, speaking in the absence of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Primate of the Anglican Church, reminded his audience
that only several years previously England had been horrified by the
outrages perpetrated by the Turkish Bashi-buzuks[1] upon the Bulgars,
who were then defended by Russia, and it had now a right to protest
against Christian Russia as it had formerly done against Mohammedan
Turkey.
[Footnote 1: See above, p. 253, n. 2.]
The most powerful speech was delivered by Cardinal Manning, the great
Catholic divine. He pointed to the fact that the Russian Jews were not
only the object of temporary pogroms but that they constantly groaned
under the yoke of a degrading legislation which says to the Jew: "You
may not pass beyond that boundary; you must not go within eighteen miles
of that frontier; you must not dwell in that town; you must live only in
that province." He caused laughter in the audience by quoting from
Ignatyev's famous circular concerning the appointment of the
gubernatorial commissions, in which, commenting upon the terrible
atrocities recently perpetrated upon the _Jews_, the Minister lamented
"the sad condition of the _Christian_ inhabitants of the southern
provinces." Cardinal Manning concluded his eloquent address with the
following words marked by a lofty, prophetic strain:
There is a book which is common to the race of Israel and to us
Christians. That book is the bond between us, and in that book I
read that the people of Israel are the eldest people upon the earth.
Russia and Austria and England are of yesterday, compared with the
imperishable people, which, with an inextinguishable life and
immutable traditions, and faith in God and in the laws of God,
scattered, as it is, all over the world, passed through the fires
unscathed, trampled into the dust, and yet never combining with the
dust into which it is trampled, lives still, a witness and a warning
to us. [1]
[Footnote 1: In reproducing the quotations I have followed in the
main the account of the Mansion House Meeting contained in the
pamphlet published In New York under the title _Proceedings of
Meetings held February 1, 1882, at New York and London, to Express
Sympathy with the Oppressed Jews in Russia_. The account of the
_Jewish Chronicle of_ February 8, 1882, offers a number of
variations.]
After several more speeches by Canon Farrar, Professor Bryce,[1] and
others, the following resolutions were adopted:
[Footnote 1: James Bryce, the famous writer and statesman, subsequently
British ambassador at Washington.]
1. That, in the opinion of this meeting, the persecution and the
outrages which the Jews in many parts of the Russian dominions have
for several months past suffered are an offence to Christian
civilization, and to be deeply deplored.
2. That this meeting, while disclaiming any right or desire to
interfere in the internal affairs of another country, and desiring
that the most amicable relations between England and Russia should
be preserved, feels it a duty to express its opinion that the laws
of Russia relating to Jews tend to degrade them in the eyes of the
Christian population, and expose Russian Jewish subjects to the
outbreaks of fanatical ignorance.
3. That the Lord Mayor be requested to forward a copy of these
resolutions to the Right Honourable W.B. Gladstone and the Right
Honourable Earl Granville, in the hope that Her Majesty's Government
may be able, when an opportunity arises, to exercise a friendly
influence with the Russian Government in accordance with the spirit
of the preceding resolutions.
Finally a resolution was adopted to open a relief fund for the sufferers
of the pogroms and for improving the condition of Russian Jewry by
emigration as well as by other means. The committee chosen by the
meeting for this purpose included the Lord Mayor, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Cardinal Manning, the Bishop of London, Nathaniel de
Rothschild, and others.
A few days after the Mansion House Meeting the English Government
responded to the resolutions adopted on that occasion. The following
dispatch, dated London, February 9, appeared in the Russian papers:
In the House of Commons, Gladstone, replying to an interpellation of
Sir John Simon, stated that reports concerning the persecutions of
the Jews in Russia had been received from the English consuls, and
could not but inspire sentiments of the utmost pain and horror. But
the matter being an internal affair of another country, it could not
become the object of official correspondence or inquiry on the part
of England. All that could be done was to make casual and unofficial
representations. All other actions touching the question of the
relations of the Russian Government to the Jews were more likely to
harm than to help the Jewish population. [1]
[Footnote 1: On this occasion Gladstone merely repeated the words of
the Russian official communication which had been published on the
eye of the Mansion House Meeting in the hope of scaring the
organizers of the protest: "The Russian Government, which has always
most scrupulously refrained from interfering in the inner affairs of
other countries, is correspondingly unable to allow a similar
violation of international practice by others. Any attempt on the
part of another Government to intercede on behalf of the Jewish
people can only have the result of calling forth the resentment of
the lower classes and thereby affect unfavorably the condition of
the Russian Jews." In addition to this threat, the _Imperial
Messenger_ endeavored to prove that the measures adopted by the
Government against the pogroms "were not weak," as may be seen from
the large number of those arrested by the police after the
disorders, which amounted to 3675 in the South and to 3151 in
Warsaw.]
Another telegram sent from London on February 14 contained the following
communication:
In the House of Commons, Gladstone, replying to Baron Worms, stated
that no humane purposes would be achieved by parliamentary debates
about the Jews of Russia, Such debates were rather likely to arouse
the hostility of a certain portion of the Russian population against
the Jews and that therefore no day would be appointed for the
debate, as requested by Worms. [1]
[Footnote 1: Compare the _Jewish Chronicle_ of February 17, 1882.]
In this way matters were smoothed over, to the great satisfaction of
Russian diplomacy. The public and Government of England confined
themselves to expressing their feelings of "disgust" at the treatment of
the Jews in Russia, but no immediate representations to St. Petersburg
were attempted by Gladstone's Cabinet. For the same reason the English
Prime Minister refused to forward to its destination a petition
addressed to the Russian Government by the Jews of England, with Baron
Rothschild at their head. Count Ignatyev had no cause for worry. The
misunderstanding with the friendly Government had been removed, and the
fiery protests at the English meetings interfered but little with his
peace of mind. He pursued his course, unabashed by the "disgust" which
it aroused in the whole civilized world.
The voice of protest against the Russian barbarities which resounded
throughout England was seconded in far-off America. Long before the
accession of Alexander III. the Government of the United States had
repeated occasion to make representations to the Russian Government with
reference to its treatment of the Jews. These representations were
prompted by the fact that American citizens of the Jewish faith were
subjected during their stay in Russia to the same disabilities and
discriminations which the Russian Government imposed upon its own Jews.
[1] Yet, actuated by broader humanitarian considerations, the United
States Government became interested in the general question of the
position of Russian Jewry, and invited reports from its representatives
at St. Petersburg on the subject. [2] On April 14, 1880, the Secretary
of State, William M. Evarts, responding to a petition of the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, who had complained about "the
extraordinary hardships" which the Jews of Russia were made to suffer at
that time, directed the United States Minister at St. Petersburg, John
W. Foster, to bear in mind "the liberal sentiments of this Government"
and to express its views "in a manner which will subserve the interests
of religious freedom." [3] Acting upon these instructions, Foster took
occasion to discuss the Jewish question in his conversations with
leading Russian officials about which he reported fully to his
Government. [4]
[Footnote 1: See the correspondence between the United States and Russia
collected in _House of Representatives, 51st Congress, 1st Session.
Executive Document_ No. 470, dated October 1, 1890.]
[Footnote 2: A "memorandum on the legal position of the Hebrews in
Russia" was transmitted by the American legation to the Secretary of
State on September 29, 1872 (_loc. cit_. pp. 9-13). An abstract from a
Russian memorandum on the Jewish right of residence was forwarded in the
same manner on March 15, 1875 (_loc. cit_., pp. 25-28). The circular of
Tolstoi against the pogroms (see later in the text, p. 314) is
reproduced in full, _loc. cit_., p. 68 et seg.]
[Footnote 3: _loc. cit._, p. 33.]
[Footnote 4: An account of Foster's conversation on the problem of
Russian Jewry with de Giers, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Loris-Melikov, the Minister of the Interior, and "the Minister of
Worship" is found in his dispatch of December 30, 1880, _loc. cit._, p.
43 et seq.]
On May 22 of the same year a resolution was passed by the House of
Representatives requesting the President to lay before it all available
information relating to the cases of expulsion of American citizens of
the Jewish faith from Russia, and at the same time "to communicate to
this House all correspondence in reference to the proscription of Jews
by the Russian Government." [1]
[Footnote 1: Compare _Congressional Record_, Vol. 13, part 7,
_Appendix,_ p. 651. The same request for information was repeated by the
House of Representatives on January SO, 1882 (_loc. cit._., Vol. 13, p.
738; see also p. 645). In reply to the latter resolution President
Arthur submitted, under date of May 22, 1882, all the diplomatic papers
on the subject which were printed as _Executive Document_ No. 192. These
papers were reprinted on October 1, 1890, as part of _Executive
Document_ No. 470, under President Harrison]
The pogroms of 1881, and the indignation they aroused among the American
people induced the United States Government to adopt a more energetic
form of protest. In his dispatch to the United States Minister at St.
Petersburg, dated April 15, 1882, the new Secretary of State, Frederic
T. Frelinghuysen, takes account of the prevailing sentiment in the
country in these words: "The prejudice of race and creed having in our
day given way to the claims of our common humanity, the people of the
United States have heard with great regret the stories of the sufferings
of the Jews in Russia." He therefore notifies the Minister "that the
feeling of friendship which the United States entertains for Russia
prompts this Government to express the hope that the Imperial Government
will find means to cause the persecution of these unfortunate beings to
cease." [1]
[Footnote 1: _Executive Document_ No. 470, p. 65.]
A more emphatic note of protest was sounded in the House of
Representatives by Samuel S. Cox, of New York, who, in his lengthy
speech delivered on July 31, 1882, scathingly denounced the repressive
methods practiced by the Russian Government against the Jews, and, more
particularly, the outrages which had been perpetrated upon them during
the preceding year. [1] He makes the former directly responsible for the
latter. In his opinion the pogroms were not merely a spontaneous and
sudden outburst of the Eussian populace against the Jews, but rather the
slow result of the disabilities and discriminations which are imposed
upon the Jews by the Russian Government and are bound to degrade them in
the eyes of their fellow-citizens:
[Footnote 3: _Congressional Record_, Vol. 13, part 7, _Appendix,_ p. 651
et seq. The speech is accompanied by an elaborate tabulated statement of
the pogroms and a map of the area in which they had taken place.]
Is it said that the Russian peasantry, and not the Government, are
responsible, I answer: If the peasantry of Russia are too ignorant
or debased to understand the nature of this cruel persecution, they
have warrant for their conduct in the customs and laws of Russia to
which I have referred. These discriminate against the Jews. They
have reference to their isolation, their separation from Russian
protection, their expulsion from certain parts of the Empire, and
their religion. When a peasant observes such forceful movements and
authoritative discriminations in a Government against a race, it
arouses his ignorance, and inflames his fanatical zealotry. Adding
this to the jealousy of the Jews as middlemen and business-men, and
you may account for, but not justify, these horrors. The
Hebraic-Russian question has been summed up in a few words:
"Extermination of two and one-half millions of mankind because they
are--Jews!" [1]
[Footnote 1: loc. _cit_., p. 653.]
After giving an elaborate account of the horrors which had taken place
in Russia during 1881, he wound up his speech with the following
eloquent appeal:
This people is one of the survivors, with Egypt, China and India, of
the infancy of mankind. It is at the mercy of the cruel despot of
the North. With a lineage unrivalled for purity, a religious
sentiment and ethics drawn out of the glory and greatness of Mount
Sinai ... with an eternal influence from its law-givers, prophets,
and psalmists never vouchsafed to any language, race or creed, It
outlives the philosophies and myths of Greece and the grandeur and
power of Rome. It is this race, broken-hearted and scattered, to
which the Czar of all the Russias adds the enormities of his rule
upon the victims of the ignorance and slander of the ages. The
birthright of this race is thus despoiled; and, Sir, have we no word
of protest? Struggling against adversities which no other people
have encountered, do they not yet survive--the wine from the crushed
grape? [1]
[Footnote 1: _loc. cit_., p. 656.]
The resolution introduced by him on that occasion was to the following
effect:
Whereas the Government of the United States should exercise its
influence with the Government of Russia to stay the spirit of
persecution as directed against the Jews, and protect the citizens
of the United States resident in Russia, and seek redress for
injuries already inflicted, as well as to secure by wise and
enlightened administration the Hebrew subjects of Russia and the
Hebrew citizens of the United States resident in Russia against the
recurrence of wrongs; Therefore
Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not
incompatible with the public service, report to this House any
further correspondence in relation to the Jews in Russia not already
communicated to this House." [1] [Footnote 1: _Congressional Record_,
Vol. 13, p. 6691.]
The resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
was finally passed by the House on February 23, 1883.
The sentiments of the broad masses of the American people had found
utterance somewhat earlier at a big protest meeting which was held in
February, 1882, in the city of New York, where the first refugees from
Russia had begun to arrive. [1] A resolution was adopted protesting
"against the spirit of medieval persecution thus revived in Russia" and
calling upon the Government of the United States to make energetic
representations to St. Petersburg. One of the speakers at the New York
meeting, Judge Noah Davis, said, amidst the enthusiastic applause of the
audience:
[Footnote 1: The meeting was held on Wednesday, February 1, 1882, on the
same day as the Mansion House Meeting in London. The chair was occupied
by the Mayor, William R. Grace. See the _American Hebrew_ of February 3,
1882, p. 138 et seq.]
Let them come! I would to Heaven it were in our power to take the
whole three million Jews of Russia. The valley of the Mississippi
alone could throw her strong arms around, and draw them all to her
opulent bosom, and bless them with homes of comfort, prosperity, and
happiness. Thousands of them are praying to come. The throne of
Jehovah is besieged with prayers for the powers of escape, and if
they cannot live in peace under Russian laws without being subject
to these awful persecutions, let us aid them in coming to us. [1]
[Footnote 1: See _Proceedings of Meetings held February 1, 1882, at
New York and London, to Express Sympathy with the Oppressed Jews in
Russia_. New York, p. 20 et seq.]
These words of the speaker, uttered in a moment of oratorical
exultation, voiced the secret wish cherished by many enthusiasts of the
Russian ghetto.
3. THE PROBLEM OF EMIGRATION AND THE POGROM AT BALTA
In Russia itself a large number of emigration societies came into being
about the same time, which had for their object the transfer of Russian
Jews to the United States, the land of the free. The organizers of these
societies evidently relied on some miraculous assistance from the
outside, such as the _Alliance Israélite_ of Paris and similar Jewish
bodies in Europe and America. Under the immediate effect of Ignatyev's
statement to Dr. Orshanski in which the Russian Minister referred to the
"Western frontier" as the only escape for the Jews, the Russian-Jewish
press was flooded with reports from hundreds of cities, particularly in
the South of Russia, telling of the formation, of emigrant groups. "Our
poor classes have only one hope left to them, that of leaving the
country. 'Emigration, America,' are the slogans of our brethren"--this
phrase occurs at that time with stereotyped frequency in all the reports
from the provinces.
Many Russian-Jewish intellectuals dreamed of establishing Jewish
agricultural and farming colonies in the United States, where some
batches of emigrants who had left during the year 1881 had already
managed to settle on the land. A part of the Jewish youth was carried
away by the idea of settling in Palestine, and conducted a vigorous
propaganda on behalf of this national idea among the refugees from the
modern Egypt. There was urgent need of uniting these emigration
societies scattered all over the Pale of Settlement and of establishing
central emigration committees to regulate the movement which had gripped
the people with elemental force.
Unfortunately, there was no unity of purpose among the Jewish leaders in
Russia. The intellectuals who stood nearer to the people, such as the
well-known oculist, Professor Mandelstamm, who enjoyed great popularity
in Kiev, and others like him, as well as a section of the Jewish press,
particularly the _Bazsvyet_, insisted continually on the necessity of
organizing the emigration movement, which they regarded as the most
important task confronting Russian Jewry at that time. The Jewish
oligarchy in St. Petersburg, on the other hand, was afraid lest such an
undertaking might expose it to the charge of "disloyalty" and of a lack
of Russian patriotism. Others again, whose sentiments were voiced by the
Russian-Jewish periodical _Voskhod_ and who were of a more radical turn
of mind, looked upon the attempt to encourage a wholesale emigration of
Jews as a concession to the Government of Ignatyev and as an indirect
abandonment of the struggle for emancipation in Russia itself.
In the spring of 1882, the question of organizing the emigration
movement had become so pressing that it was decided to convene a
conference of provincial Jewish leaders in St. Petersburg to consider
the problem. Before the delegates had time to arrive in the capital, the
sky of South Russia was once more lit up by a terrible flare. Balta, a
large Jewish center in Podolia, where a Jewish emigration society had
had sprung into being shortly before the catastrophe, became the scene
of a frightful pogrom.
It was shortly before the Russian Passover, the high season of pogroms,
when the Russian public was startled by a strange announcement published
towards the end of March in the _Imperial Messenger_ to the effect that
from now on it would accurately report all cases of "Jewish disorders"
in accordance with the official information received from the governors.
The announcement clearly implied that the Government knew beforehand of
the imminence of new pogroms. Even the conservative _Moscow News_
commented on the injudicious statement of the official organ in emphatic
and sarcastic terms:
The _Imperial Messenger_ is comforting the public by the
announcement that it would in due time and at due length report all
cases of excesses perpetrated upon the Jews. One might think that
these are every-day occurrences forming part of the natural course
of events which demand nothing else than timely communication to the
public. Is there indeed no means to put a stop to this crying
scandal?
Events soon made it clear that there was no desire to put a stop to this
"scandal," as the Moscow paper politely termed the exploits of the
Russian robber bands. The local authorities of Balta were forewarned in
time of the approaching pogroms. Beginning with the middle of March the
people in Balta and the surrounding country were discussing them openly.
When the Jews of that town made their apprehensions known to the local
police commissioner, they received from him an evasive reply. In view of
the fact that the Jewish population of Balta was three times as large as
the Christian, it would not have been difficult for the Jews to organize
some sort of self-defence. But they knew that such an organization was
strictly forbidden by the Government, and, realizing the consequences,
they had to confine themselves to a secret agreement entered into by a
few families to stand up for one another in the hour of distress. On the
second day of the Russian Easter, corresponding to the seventh day of
the Jewish festival, on March 29, the pogrom began, surpassing by the
savagery of the mob and the criminal conduct of the authorities all the
bacchanalia of 1881. A contemporary observer, basing his statements on
the results of a special investigation, gives the following account of
the events at Balta:
At the beginning of the pogrom, the Jews got together and forced a
band of rioters to draw back and seek shelter in the building of the
fire department. But when the police and soldiers appeared on the
scene, the rioters decided to leave their place of refuge. Instead
of driving off the disorderly band, the police and soldiers began to
beat the Jews with their rifle butts and swords. This served as a
signal to start the pogrom. At that moment, somebody sounded an
alarm bell, and, in response, the mob began to flock together.
Fearing the numerical superiority of the Jews in that part of the
town, the crowd passed across the bridge to the so-called Turkish
side, where there were fewer Jews. The crowd was accompanied by the
military commander, the police commissioner, the burgomaster, and a
part of the local battalion, which fact, however, did not prevent
the mob, while passing the Cathedral street, from demolishing a
Jewish store and breaking the windows in the house of another Jew, a
member of the town-council. After the mob had crossed over to the
Turkish side, the authorities drew up military cordons on all the
three bridges leading from that side to the rest of the town, with
the order not to allow any Jews to pass. Needless to say, the order
was carried out. At the same time the Christians of the remaining
sections of the town and of the village of Alexandrovka were allowed
to pass unhindered. Thanks to these arrangements, the Turkish side
was sacked in the course of three to four hours, so that by one
o'clock in the morning the rioters found nothing left to do. During
the night, the police and military authorities arrested twenty-four
rioters and a much larger number of Jews. The latter were arrested
because they ventured to stay near their homes. The following
morning, the Christians were released and allowed to swell the ranks
of the pillaging mob, while the Jews were kept in jail until the
following day and freed only when the governor arrived.
On the following day, March 30, at four o'clock in the morning, a
large number of peasants, amounting to about five thousand and armed
with clubs, began to arrive in town, having been summoned by the
Ispravnik [1] from the adjacent villages. The arrival of the
peasants was welcomed by the Jews, who thought that they had been
called to come to their aid. But they soon found out their mistake,
for the peasants declared that they had come to beat and plunder the
Jews. Simultaneously with the arrival of the peasants, large numbers
from among the local mob began to assemble around the Cathedral, and
at eight o'clock in the morning signals were given to renew the
pogrom. At first this was prevented. The officers of the local
battalion, who patrolled the city, ordered the soldiers to surround
the mob and hold it off for about an hour, during which time the
Greek-Orthodox bishop [2] Radzionovski admonished the rioters and
tried to make them understand that such doings were contrary to the
laws of the Church and the State. But when the police commissioner,
the military chief, and Ispravnik arrived before the Cathedral, the
military cordon was withdrawn, and the crowd, now let loose, threw
itself upon a near-by liquor store, and, after demolishing it and
filling itself with alcohol, resumed its work of destruction, with
the co-operation of the peasants who had been summoned by the
Ispraynik and the assistance of the soldiers and policemen. It was
on this occasion that those wild, savage scenes of murder, rapine,
and plunder took place, the account of which as published in the
newspapers is but the pale shadow of the real facts.... The pogrom
of Balta was called forth not by the mere inactivity but by the
direct activity of the local authorities.
[Footnote 1: The head of the district (or county) police. The police
in the larger towns of the county is subject to the police
commissioner of the town, who is referred to earlier in the text.]
[Footnote 2: In Russian, _Protoyerey_, a term borrowed from the
Greek. It corresponds roughly to the title of bishop.]
What these "savage scenes" were we do not learn from the newspapers,
which were forbidden by the censor to report them, but we know them
partly from unpublished sources and partly from the later court
proceedings. Aside from the demolition of twelve hundred and fifty
houses and business places and the destruction and pillage of property
and merchandise--according to a statement of the local rabbi, "all
well-to-do Jews were turned into beggars, and more than fifteen thousand
people were sent out into the wide world "--a large number of people
were killed and maimed, and many women were violated. Forty Jews were
slain or dangerously wounded; one hundred and seventy received slight
wounds; many Jews, and particularly Jewesses, became insane from fright.
There were more than twenty cases of rape. The seventeen year old
daughter of a poor polisher, Eda Maliss by name, was attacked by a horde
of bestial lads before the eyes of her brother. When the mother of the
unfortunate girl ran into the street and called to her aid a policeman
who was standing near-by, the latter followed the woman into the house,
and then, instead of helping her, dishonored her on the spot. The
fiendish hordes invaded the home of Baruch Shlakhovski, and began their
bloody work by slaying the master of the house, whereupon his wife and
daughter fled and hid themselves in a near-by orchard. Here a Russian
neighbor lured them into his house under the pretext of defending their
honor against the rioters, but, once in his house, he disgraced the
daughter in the presence of her mother. In many cases the soldiers of
the local garrison assaulted and beat the Jews who showed themselves on
the streets while the "military operations" of the mob were going on. In
accordance with the customary pogrom ritual, the human fiends were left
undisturbed for two days, and only on the third day were troops summoned
from a near-by city to put a stop to the atrocities.
On the same day the governor of Podolia arrived to make an
investigation. It was soon learned that the local authorities, the
police commissioner, the Ispravnik, the military commander, the
burgomaster, and the president of the nobility [1] had either directly or
indirectly abetted the pogrom. Many rioters, who had been arrested by
the police, were soon released, because they threatened otherwise to
point out to the higher authorities the ringleaders from among the local
officials and the representatives of Russian society. The Jews, again,
were constantly terrorized by these scoundrels and cowed by the fear of
massacres and complete annihilation, in case they dared to expose their
hangmen before the courts.
[Footnote 1: The nobility of each government forms an organization of
its own. It is headed by a president for the entire government who has
under his jurisdiction a president for each district (or county). Such a
county president is referred to in the text.]
The pogrom of Balta found but a feeble echo in the immediate
neighborhood--in a few localities of the governments of Podolia and
Kherson. It seemed as if the energy of destruction and savagery had
spent itself in the exploits at Balta. On the whole, the pogrom campaign
conducted in the spring of 1882 covered but an insignificant territory
when compared with the pogrom enterprise of 1881, though
surpassing it considerably in point of quality. The horrors of Balta
were a substantial earnest of the Kishinev atrocities of 1903
and the October pogroms of 1905.
4. THE CONFERENCE OF JEWISH NOTABLES AT ST. PETERSBURG
The horrors of Balta cast their shadow upon the conference of Jewish
delegates which met in St. Petersburg on April 8-11, 1882. The
conference, which had been called by Baron Horace Günzburg, with the
permission of Ignatyev, was made up of some twenty-five delegates from
the provinces--among them Dr. Mandelstamm of Kiev, Rabbi Isaac Elhanan
Specter of Kovno--and fifteen notables from the capital, including Baron
Günzburg himself, the railroad magnate Polakov, and Professor Bakst. The
question of Jewish emigration was the central issue of the conference,
although, in connection with it, the general situation of Russian Jewry
came up for discussion. There was a mixed element of tragedy and
timidity in the deliberations of this miniature congress, at which
neither the voice of the masses nor that of the _intelligentzia_ were
given a full hearing. On the one hand, the conference listened to
heartrending speeches, picturing the intolerable position of the Jews;
and one of the delegates, Shmerling from Moghilev, who had just
delivered such a speech, was so overcome that he fainted and died in a
few hours. On the other hand, the most influential delegates,
particularly those from the capital, were looking about timorously,
fearing lest the Government suspect them of a lack of patriotism. Others
again looked upon emigration as an illicit form of protest, as
"sedition," and they clung to this conviction, even when the conference
had been told in the name of the Minister of the Interior that it was
expected to consider the question of "thinning out the Jewish population
in the Pale of Settlement, in view of the fact that the Jews will not be
admitted into the interior governments of Russia."
At the second meeting of the conference, the rabbi of St. Petersburg,
Dr. Drabkin, reported to the delegates about his last conversation with
Ignatyev. In reply to the rabbi who had stated that the Jews were
waiting for an imperial word ordering the suppression of the pogroms,
and were anticipating the removal of their legal disabilities, the
Minister had characterized these assertions as "commonplaces," and had
added in an irritated tone: "The Jews themselves are responsible for the
pogroms. By joining the Nihilists they thereby deprive the Government of
the possibility of sheltering them against violence." The sophistry of
the Minister was refuted on the spot by his own confession that the
Balta pogrom was due to "a false rumor charging the Jews with having
undermined the local Greek-Orthodox church," in other words, that the
cause of the Balta pogrom was not to be traced to any tendencies within
Jewry but rather to the agitation of evil-minded Jew-baiters.
At the same session, the discussion of the emigration question was
side-tracked by a new design of the slippery Minister. The financier
Samuel Polakov, who was close to Ignatyev, declared in a spirit of base
flunkeyism that the labors of the conference would prove fruitless
unless they were carried on in accordance with "Government
instructions." On this occasion he informed the conference that in a
talk which he had with the Minister the latter had branded the
endeavors to stimulate emigration as "an incitement to sedition," on the
ground that "emigration does not exist for Russian citizens." Asked by
the Minister for suggestions as to the best means of relieving the
congestion of the Jews in the Pale, Polakov had replied: "By settling
them all over Russia." To this the Minister had retorted that he could
not allow the settlement of Jews except in Central Asia and in the newly
conquered oasis of Akhal-Tekke, [1] In obedience to these ministerial
utterances, the obsequious financier sharply opposed the plan of a
Jewish emigration to foreign lands, and seriously recommended to the
conference to consider the proposal made by Ignatyev. The Minister's
suggestion was bitterly attacked by Dr. Mandelstamm, who saw in it a new
attempt to make sport of the Jews, Even Professor Bakst, who objected to
emigration on principle, declared that the proposed scheme of settling
the Jews amounted in reality to "a deportation to far-off places" and
was tantamount to an official "classification of the Jews as criminals."
[Footnote 1: In the Trans-Caspian region. It had been occupied by
Russian troops shortly before--in 1880.]
From the project of deportation, which failed to meet with the sympathy
of the conference, the delegates proceeded to discuss the burning
question of pogroms. It was proposed to send a deputation to the Tzar,
appealing to him to put a stop to the legislative restrictions, which
were bound to inspire the Russian population with the belief that the
Jews were outside the pale of the law.
In the question of foreign emigration the majority of the conference
voted against the establishment of emigration committees, on the ground
that the latter might give the impression as if the Jews were desirous
of leaving Russia.
After a debate lasting four days the following resolutions were adopted:
_First_, to reject completely the thought of organizing emigration,
as being subversive of the dignity of the Russian body politic and
of the historic rights of the Jews to their present fatherland.
_Second_, to point to the necessity of abolishing the present
discriminating legislation concerning the Jews, this abolition being
the only means to regulate the relationship of the Jewish population
to the original inhabitants.
_Third_, to bring to the knowledge of the Government the passive
attitude of the authorities which had clearly manifested itself
during the time of the disorders.
_Fourth_, to petition the Government to find means for compensating
the Jewish population, which had suffered from the pogroms as a
result of inadequate police protection.
At the same time the conference took occasion to refute the old
accusation, which had again been brought up in the gubernatorial
commissions, that the Jews still retained their ancient autonomous Kahal
organization, and that the latter was operating secretly and was
fostering Jewish separatism to the detriment of the other elements of
the population.
The resolution of the conference on this score read as follows:
We, the undersigned, the representatives of various centers of
Jewish settlement in Russia, rabbis, members of religious
organizations and synagogue boards, consider it our sacred duty,
calling to witness God Omniscient, to declare publicly, in the
presence of the whole of Russia, that there exists neither an open
nor a secret Kahal administration among the Russian Jews; that
Jewish life is entirely foreign to any organization of this kind and
to any of the attributes ascribed to such an organization by evil
minded persons.
The signers of this solemn pronouncement were evidently unaware of the
degrading renunciation of national rights which was implied in the
declaration that not only had the Jews lost their former comprehensive
communal organization--this was in accordance with the facts--but that,
were such an inner autonomous organization to exist, they would regard
it as a criminal offence, subversive of the public order and punishable
by the forfeiture of civil rights.