Anti-Semitism is not peculiar to Russia; it is to be found in other countries as well. But there it exists as an emotion and a state of mind, not as a system of legislative definitions. The time has long since pa.s.sed when the legislatures of the world failed to guarantee the elementary civil rights of the Jews. Roumania alone const.i.tutes a peculiar exception. But, as a rule, in all civilised States the law guarantees Jewish rights, and religious and racial differences do not create legal disabilities. Nevertheless, if anti-Semitism is still in existence in the Western countries, the aims it pursues there are political. It continues to be the weapon of political reaction. And its objective, at its extreme, is by no means like the grandiose programme of utter destruction of the Jews which is pursued by the "truly-Russian" theoreticians of our reaction.

Consequently, the Jewish question in Russia means, above all, the legal disabilities of the individual Jews that result from the discriminations made against them as a religious and national ent.i.ty.

It is only one aspect of our general inequality and of our lack of civil freedom. The problem of Jewish equal rights in Russia is the problem of the equal rights of all our citizens in general. That is why the anti-Semitical parties in Russia have a larger political significance and importance than the anti-Semitical parties of the West. In our country they almost coincide with anti-const.i.tutional parties, in general, and anti-Semitism is the banner of the old regime, of which we still struggle in vain to rid ourselves. This accounts for the fact that the Jewish question occupies such a prominent place in Russian social and political life. Here the struggle for general rights coincides with the struggle for national rights. That is why the Jewish problem has come to occupy the centre of our political stage.

I must add that Russian anti-Semitism, as defined above, is a comparatively new phenomenon, in fact, it may be a.s.serted that it is a phenomenon of most recent origin. However ancient may be the instincts on which our anti-Semites try to play, anti-Semitism itself as a political motto, as a movement with a party platform and definite aims, is a new means of political struggle, invented and applied only in late years. Of course, in the past there can be found manifestations--very crude and coa.r.s.e--of what might be termed "zoological" anti-Semitism. In 1563, Ivan the Terrible conquered Polotzk, and for the first time the Russian Government was confronted by the fact of the existence of the Jewish nationality. The Czar's advisers were somewhat perplexed and asked him what to do with these newly acquired subjects. Ivan the Terrible answered unhesitatingly: "Baptise them or drown them in the river."

They were drowned. And the old Russian "zoological" nationalism was satisfied by this primitive solution of the problem. But the political wisdom of Czar Ivan's times has long since become obsolete.

A century later Russian statehood for the second time ran across the Jewish problem when Smolensk was taken by Czar Alexyey Mikhaylovich the Debonnaire, also an old Russian nationalist who was not conscious of his nationalism. He could not make up his mind to settle it by simply destroying the object which perplexed Russia's political mind.

After due deliberation, he decided to have the Jews deported. This was a somewhat milder measure. Another century pa.s.sed, and Russia conquered the vast and rich territory which is included in the so-called "Pale of Settlement." This portion of Russia was peopled with many millions of Jews. It was not possible any longer to do away with this large population by either drowning it in a river, or even--as many are still planning in all earnestness--by deportation.

Thus, the Russian state, in the person of Empress Catherine II, for the first time found itself forced to face the Jewish question in a form which did not allow of simply waving it aside. How then did the enlightened Empress settle it? Well, she simply did not put the question. Her decision was nearly this: The Jews have lived there--let them stay there; they had certain rights relating to their faith and property--let them enjoy these rights in the future. The Interpretation of the Senate even more strongly emphasised this thought. Here is the gist of this Interpretation: "Since the Imperial Ukase has placed the Jews in a legal status of equality with the rest of the population, the rule established by her Majesty should, therefore, be followed in application to each particular case. Every one should enjoy his rights and acquisitions according to his condition and calling without distinction of faith and nationality."

Such was the decision of the Senate of the time of Catherine the Great. There can be no question here of a negative solution of the Jewish problem, for the very possibility of such a problem was not considered. Least of all did Catherine think that in the lapse of years her ukase of December 23, 1791, in which neither faith nor nationality was mentioned, would give birth to ... the "Pale of Settlement." At that time the Jews were confined within the limits of the "Pale" neither more nor less than the Ukrainian population of that section, or the people of the old Russian provinces were. It will be remembered that in those times the law forbade a townsman to take up his residence in another town or in a village. It was not a special limitation intended for the Jews, it affected all the Russian subjects throughout the Empire. How then did it result in a special Jewish disability?

It did not result either from the increase in the rights of other citizens, or from the limitation of the rights of the Jews as a nationality. The afore-mentioned limitations were removed from the townspeople of non-Jewish birth both in the newly annexed provinces and elsewhere. But they remained in full force in relation to the Jews, living in towns. But since all the Jews were registered as townspeople, this restriction coincided with the limits of their nationality. Hence arose the "Pale" which a.s.sumed the character of a national disability. Thus, the problem of Jewish disabilities was practically solved before the legislator ever formulated the Jewish question.

For this reason, in the times of Catherine II, when the main features of the future Jewish disabilities were becoming a fact, the Government did not solve the general Jewish question in principle. Likewise, during the entire century which followed Catherine's reign, that is, all through the nineteenth century, our legislation was in a state of constant indecision.

A brief historical survey will show plainly the accuracy of this statement. In 1795 the Jews who lived in the villages of the Province of Minsk were ordered to move to the towns. In the following year they were permitted to stay in the villages, because the landed proprietors employed them as agents for the sale of whiskey. In the year 1801 a new edict again expels the Jews from the villages. In 1802 the Senate rules that they must stay in their former places of residence. In 1804--the year that saw the first Regulation concerning the Jews--they are ordered to be expelled within three years from the villages throughout the country. But in 1808 before the term expires the law is found impracticable. The Jews again remained where they had been established, their status being subject to further regulation. Then the Committee of the year 1812 came to the conclusion that the law of 1804 must be completely abrogated, in view of its being unjust and dangerous. Between 1812 and 1827 the mood of the legislation is again altered and prohibitive measures follow one another. In 1835, these measures are once more found to be useless and inefficient. In 1852, expulsions are renewed, but a few years later, with the beginning of the liberal reign of Alexander II, this policy is again abandoned and an interval of rest and quiet, covering a quarter of a century, is inaugurated. Then the temporary Regulations of 1882 undertake to prohibit new Jewish settlements outside of towns. Former settlements, although illegal, were legalised and exempted from persecution. But in 1893 all the Jews who had illegally settled in the villages were again ordered to be expelled therefrom. Nevertheless, the committee of the year 1899 not only refused to ratify this measure, but, on the contrary, it recognised the necessity of relaxing even the old Temporary Regulation of 1882. And, in fact, in 1903 we find the Jewish settlements in 158 villages. At the same time, the Jewish rural population within the limits of the "Pale of Settlement" grew considerably. In 1881 there lived in the villages 580,000 Jews; in the year 1897 they reached the number of 711,000.

Thus did our legislation concerning the Jews fluctuate and vacillate.

And amidst these hesitations the thought of a complete removal of all the Jewish disabilities never died. Here is another historical excursion covering a century. The Committee of Jewish Affairs of the year 1803 plainly established this regulation: "the maximum of freedom and the minimum of limitations." The second Committee, whose activities fall in the period from 1807 to 1812, proved even more thoroughgoing, for it was more familiar with the conditions of Russian life. It a.s.serted that the Jews are useful and necessary for the Russian village. It added, furthermore, that the negative, dark phenomena which are attributed by some to the presence of Jews in the villages, in reality are characteristic of Russian life in general, and cannot be said to be due to the Jewish influence. This was also the opinion of the minority of the Imperial Council in 1835. In 1858, the Minister of the Interior himself demanded equal rights for the Jews, and the reactionary Committee on Jewish affairs agreed to the demand on the sole condition that the disabilities should be removed gradually, from various Jewish groups. The new Committee of 1872 acted even more vigorously. It believed that the abolition of Jewish disabilities is, in general, nothing but an act of justice, and that this abolition must be carried out not gradually, but immediately i.e.

it must include all the groups of the Jewish population. Again, the Committee of 1883 comes to the same conclusion that it is necessary to give the Jews equal rights. That was the opinion even of Von Pleve, who is known to the world for his persecution of the Jews. In the period from 1905 to 1907 the revision of the legislation concerning the Jews for the purpose of abolishing the prohibitive measures was considered but a question of time and was left to the consideration of the people's representatives in the Imperial Duma which had just come into being. The opinion of the first two sessions of the Duma is well known. The People's representatives in the first two Dumas announced directly and unambiguously that the realisation of full civic freedom, for Jews as well as for the rest of the citizens, was one of their first tasks. Then a new reactionary election law was introduced. It made a radical change in the composition of the Imperial Duma and also in the att.i.tude of the latter toward the Jewish question. The outright usefulness of the part played by the Jews in the economic life of both town and village,--this fact, which even reactionary governments, ministers and committees ceased doubting, was again questioned by the newly elected representatives of the Russian people. It is only from that moment on that it became possible to plan such measures as the abolition of those meagre rights which the Jews are still enjoying. Thus, together with the victory of political reaction the new anti-Semitism, which we cannot any longer overlook, has become triumphant.

Our historical excursion enables us also to explain the reason why in the present phrase of Russian social life the Jewish problem has again arisen in an unprecedented form. It was simply a new political weapon, in a sense, the result of the new form of political life. As long as the nation was voiceless, as long as all matters were decided by the bureaucracy in the quiet of offices, committees, and ministries, it was possible for the Government to ignore the people as a factor in legislation, and to take into account nothing but the needs and the welfare of the state as it understood them. But when the nation was called to partic.i.p.ate in state affairs, there arose the need of influencing it in a certain sense. It became necessary to work up the ma.s.ses, to act on their intellect and will. Official anti-Semitism is the most primitive means of satisfying this need, a simplified attempt to bridle the ma.s.ses, to suggest to them the feelings, motives, views and methods which are in the interest of those who play the game. In other words, demagogy came into being. For the purposes of demagogy a special political weapon, corresponding to the political conditions under the new regime, was created,--namely artificial political parties.

Thus, anti-Semitism of the new type, however strange this conclusion may appear, is the product of the const.i.tutional epoch. It is a response to the need for new means of influencing the ma.s.ses. And in this sense anti-Semitism plays in Russia the same role as it played in Western Europe.

Bismarck, it will be remembered, called anti-Semitism the socialism of fools. In order to combat the socialism of intelligent people, it is necessary to take hold of the ignorant ma.s.ses and to mislead them by showing them the imaginary enemy of their welfare instead of the real one. Anti-Semitism says to the ignorant ma.s.ses: "There is your enemy, fight the Jews, and you will improve your life conditions...." It is well known that such attempts to apply anti-Semitism for the purpose of creating social parties of the new type were more than once made in the West. As an example, I shall cite the Christian Social Party in Austria, with its late leader, Lueger.

There is one small difference between us and the West. In Russia the ma.s.ses are not so well prepared to appreciate a social argument, even when served in a simplified form. In Russia anti-Semitism is forced to present this argument in an even more popular form, making an appeal to the most elementary pa.s.sions and instincts. F.I. Rodichev once remarked in the Duma, parodying Bismarck's aphorism to fit it to our conditions, that anti-Semitism is "the patriotism of perplexed people." In fact, anti-Semitism in Russia is a means of creating a nationalism of a definite type in the ma.s.ses, it is with this aim in view that our anti-Semites play on the racial and religious animosities of the ma.s.ses.

In spite of this difference, the very means, ways, and methods our anti-Semites use in their striving to mould the popular mind are of distinctly foreign origin. It is enough to collate the arguments expounded in the Duma or printed in the _Russian Standard_ and _Zemshchina_ with the anti-Semitic literature of the West, such as Drumont's books, or similar German works,--and it becomes apparent that in the latter the entire anti-Semitic a.r.s.enal of our nationalists is to be found ready-made. It is from thence that mediaeval legends of ritual murders and law projects concerning the slaughter of cattle, and such-like inventions, are imported to us.

Anti-Semitism serves in Russia one more purpose. It is not sufficient to influence the ma.s.ses. It is also necessary to act on the powers that be. If it is imperative to get hold of the ma.s.ses, it is also necessary to frighten the authorities. Thus a new version of the anti-Semitic legend comes into being: the legend of the Jew as the creator of the Russian revolution. It is the Jew,--so our anti-Semites a.s.sure us--who created the Russian emanc.i.p.atory movements, it is he who formed the revolutionary organisation, it is he who marched under the red banners.... The Russian who would give credence to this tale would show his disrespect for the Russian nation. To a.s.sert that it is only owing to the help of the Jew that the Russian people freed themselves is tantamount to saying that without the Jew, the Russian nation can not reach the road of its own emanc.i.p.ation. No, however great my respect for the exceptional gifts of the Jewish people may be, I will not refuse the Russian nation the ability of taking the initiative in the cause of its own freedom.

But there is another side to this matter. If there can be no question of the dependence of the emanc.i.p.ation movement on the Jews, the dependence of the Jews on the emanc.i.p.atory movement is very real. What must be the Jew's att.i.tude toward this movement? There can be only one answer to the question. The Jewish ma.s.ses have realised the importance for them of the emanc.i.p.atory movement not only because they are more enlightened, because they are more educated, because they are not addicted to alcoholism, and, hence, are superior to their neighbours in their understanding of their own needs; the Jewish ma.s.ses were also led to side with the movement for freedom because in their case it was a struggle for elementary rights the importance of which is plain to every one and vitally concerns every one. That is why the entire Jewish ma.s.s may actually be reckoned in the ranks of those who are with the Russian emanc.i.p.atory movement.

One more remark in conclusion. In late years the "inorodtzy" (Russian subjects of non-Russian birth), having lost their hope that the Russian emanc.i.p.atory movement would bring them any immediate practical results, have sought to influence the Government by means of more direct methods. There are national movements which believe that they would more rapidly get national rights by means of negotiating with the bureaucracy. They are inclined to think that this way is more direct than the partic.i.p.ation in the Russian emanc.i.p.atory movement.

Other national groups, in the struggle for their national rights, choose a different kind of tactics: they seek a more direct way in another direction,--not through the bureaucracy, not from above, but from below. They, too, believe that the "inorodtzy" must organise for their specific national aims and keep apart from the common cause of Russia's political emanc.i.p.ation.

From what has been said about the peculiar nature of the Jewish question which results in the sufferings of the Jews not only as a national group, but also as individual citizens, it follows that it is difficult for the Jews more than for any other group of "inorodtzy" to accept either one of the aforenamed tactical methods. The Jews must bear in mind with especial clearness that their fate is closely and inseparably interwoven with the fate of the general emanc.i.p.atory movement in Russia. They must also keep in mind that the separate national movements which disrupt the bonds of political parties in order to make place for their national programmes, may prove injurious to our common cause. They may lead us away from the common highroad to by-paths where we all run the risk of going apart and losing our way.

And here is the practical conclusion to which these considerations lead. The separate national movements should be postponed until the solution of the general problem of all-Russian emanc.i.p.ation. Let us hope that the Jewish nation understands the close connection existing between its fate and that of Russia's freedom, now, as well as it did in those years when it fought in the ranks of the Russian progressive movements. Let us hope that in the future, as in the past, the emanc.i.p.ation of the different nationalities which people the Russian Empire will be fought for in the common ranks of the all-Russian movement for freedom.

THE JEWS AND RUSSIAN ECONOMIC LIFE

_Mikhail Vladimirovich Bernatzky, born in 1878, is a noted writer on economical topics. He taught economics at the Kiev University and at the Polytechnical Inst.i.tute, Petrograd._

THE JEWS AND RUSSIAN ECONOMIC LIFE

BY M. BERNATZKY

Much has been written about the insufferable situation of the Russian Jews, these serfs of the twentieth century, chained to "the Pale of Settlement," somewhat like the Roman colons, _"glebae adscripti_." The tragic history of late years and the epoch through which we are living can disturb the inner composure of the most indifferent spectator of current events. It is painful to touch upon many aching and essentially clear questions, but life constantly and severely demands that they should be brought before our minds, and life awaits an answer to them from the thought and conscience of Russian society.

It is not our intention to discuss the necessity for the removal of Jewish disabilities from the humanitarian standpoint. However majestic may be those "elementary principles of law and morality,"

which have been achieved by mankind on its long historic road and which are now the very basis of civilisation, in the eyes of many they are still little more than "fine words," stylistic embellishments of highbrow talk. Of course, the atmosphere of discriminations is equally pernicious for those who suffer and those who are privileged: did not serfdom corrupt the master as well as the slave? All this is eminently true. But there are arguments, which we regret to say, are more appealing and convincing. It is these arguments that we shall treat in the present paper.

The reader is well aware of the fact that in these days nothing has been discussed more vividly than the necessity of developing Russia's productive powers. The intimate connection between the general prosperity of our country and its economic progress has penetrated into the consciousness of people at large. It is the war, evidently, that has driven this truth home to us: namely that the ultimate success of the conflict depends not only on the activity of the armies, but also on the economic stability of the belligerent nations. The economic difficulties which are being experienced by Germany, strengthen our faith in our final victory. More than a quarter of a century ago the Russian Minister of Finance, who took great pains to develop our industry, wrote in the explanatory memoir which accompanied the project of the state budget:

"I believe it to be the duty I owe Your Imperial Majesty to express my firm, clear, and profound conviction that economic prosperity of the people even when coupled with a somewhat imperfect military organisation will be more useful in case of war than the most complete military preparedness combined with economic weakness. In the latter case, the people, however eager they may be to sacrifice both their life and property, can bring to the altar of the fatherland their life only, but they will be unable to furnish the necessary financial means for the State."

It is from this standpoint of economic interests that we shall approach the painful Jewish question. The time is long since past when it was possible to say with the Empress Elizabeth Petrovna: "From Christ's enemies I desire no profit." It is precisely in this profit that both the Exchequer and the higher cla.s.ses, and--what is most important--the people at large, are greatly interested. The basic productive force of a country is the living work of its population.

The body politic of Russia contains about six millions of gifted and undoubtedly industrious Jews. The manner in which the forces of this people are applied will be treated further on. For the moment let us state this: it is to the interest of the Russian State to utilise economically this living Jewish energy as completely and rationally as possible. From this standpoint all the obstacles which are created for the Jews in the field of education are absolutely incomprehensible: it is as if our country, sorely lacking as it is not only in representatives of superior qualified labour, but actually in literate people, were striving to increase its ignorance and intellectual backwardness. Of course, formal justification can be found for every act, and every evil-doer endeavours to convince himself of the justice of his evil deeds. So it is in this case, too: the intentional shutting-off of the Jewish ma.s.ses from education is motivated by the desire to keep them from becoming superior to the Russian population, which, it is said, is intellectually inferior to the Jews. This argument is an outright insult flung in the face of the Russian people. It shows that the official guardians of the nation do not know its rich natural powers. But this argument cannot obscure the essential nature of Jewish disabilities as an intentional neglect of that productive power which is represented by a portion of the Russian subjects. Our economic organism does not get all the benefits to which it may rightfully lay claim.

Let us turn to those characteristic social and economic conditions under which the Jews exist in our country. Nearly all of them, upward of five millions, live within the Pale of Settlement, which comprises fifteen governments and Poland, and only six per cent. live outside of this territory. Within the Pale, Jews are not allowed to buy or take on lease real estate outside the towns and townlets, which circ.u.mstance makes it impossible for them to become farmers. This, in connection with the limitation of residence, has naturally resulted in a peculiar character of the Jewish occupations. It is characteristic of the part the Jews play in Russia's economic life that nearly seventy-three and eight hundredths per cent. of them are forced to seek employment in the country's commerce and industry. Of the entire Jewish population throughout the Empire, only two and four tenths per cent. are engaged in agriculture, four and seven tenths per cent. in liberal professions, eleven and five tenths per cent. in personal service (domestic service etc.); the rest, minus the persons without any definite employment are forced to seek for means of livelihood in the field of commerce (thirty-one per cent.), industry (thirty-six and three tenths per cent.), and transport (three per cent.) In the same way works the artificial congestion of the Jews in the cities: only eighteen per cent. live in the villages of the Pale of Settlement, while the rest--more than four-fifths--toil in the towns and townlets.

Such a one-sided distribution of Jewish labour would not be a negative phenomenon if it were possible to spread it uniformly over the entire country. For, backward as Russia is industrially and commercially, the Jews would easily find a place in the fields of endeavour which suit them best and would greatly benefit the country by furthering the process of its industrialisation. Under present circ.u.mstances they are crowded in one place and overburden the commerce and the industry of the Pale of Settlement. As a result, the struggle for existence among them is so keen and desperate that in some sections they are undoubtedly on the way to degeneration. In the West, Galicia and Roumania excluded, the Jews are well represented in the wealthy cla.s.ses; in Russia an overwhelming portion of them are proletaries, "free like birds," poverty-stricken people who literally do not know to-day by what they are going to live to-morrow. Heart-rending pictures are painted by impartial observers of the life of the Jewish poorer cla.s.ses, of all these tradesmen, factory workers, petty merchants and peddlers. They literally starve and cripple both mind and body in the slums of cities and towns. The natural result is that in their eager search for means of livelihood they are forced to have recourse to all sorts of expedients. Hence, all this talk about the "criminal features" of the Jewish character and their propensity for financial speculation, which propensity is, however, easily forgiven and even encouraged in the "true-Russian" representatives of our commercial interests. On the other hand, the Jews lower "the standards of living" by offering their services often at a very low price. Thus a peculiar "social anti-Semitism" comes into being, in Russia as well as in the countries of Jewish immigration,--a phenomenon not unlike the movement against "yellow labour" in the United States and in the Australian Federation. There can be no doubt that the artificially restrained field of application of Jewish labour is alone responsible for the unspeakable condition in which it is forced to exist. In spite of the exodus of a large ma.s.s of Jews from Russia, which bears a.n.a.logy to the emigration of the Irish people from their native country,--upward of one and a half million Jews left Russia between the years 1881 and 1908,--the remaining millions seem to be doomed to starvation and degeneration. The popular tales about Jewish wealth are most emphatically contradicted by impartial facts. Of the emigrants who reach the sh.o.r.es of America the Jews are the poorest. A Scotch emigrant coming to the United States brings on the average $41.50, an Englishman $38.70, a Frenchman $37.80, a German $28.50, while a Jew brings the sum of $8.70, the smallest of all, far below the general average, which is $15.00. Consequently, if any real danger at all threatens the aboriginal Russian population, it is precisely the cheap labour of the congested Jewish ma.s.ses, and the more the Jews will be oppressed the worse it will be for the Russian workman! For the employer will always give preference to cheaper labour. It is evident, therefore, that the present treatment of the Jews is really not dictated by the native Russian population, and that the democratic argument is but a false pretext. The Russian labour market, while congested in the Pale, is scarce in other sections. That the economic life of Russia, as a whole, suffers from it is obvious.

In this connection, another point is worthy of our attention.

Contrary, to the popular idea of the Jewish greed, the Jews are usually satisfied with a lower rate of interest on the capital invested, since what they are after is the bare means of livelihood.

In this fashion they lower, to a considerable extent, the capitalist's profits, a circ.u.mstance which cannot fail to irritate the Gentile capitalists. Consequently, all this comes to compet.i.tion of capital, and it is significant that the fiercest anti-Semitic outcries come from the capitalistic cla.s.ses. Let us not forget that the early pogroms at Odessa were caused by the agitation of the Greek merchants who feared for their commercial ascendency.

What has been said so far demonstrates with sufficient clearness that the anti-Semitic economic policy is detrimental to the economic organism of Russia as a whole. The true interests of our country demand that Jewish labour and Jewish means should be given complete freedom of application. Russia will only gain from such a change of policy toward the Jews. Anti-Semitism, from the economic standpoint, is nothing but a tremendous waste of the country's productive powers.

Here is another aspect of the question. Whether the Jews as a race are to one's liking or not, is a question of individual taste, the solution of which cannot be allowed to influence the sane economic policy of a state. This must be guided by objective data. As a matter of fact, the Jews const.i.tute more than one third, thirty-five per cent., of the commercial cla.s.s in Russia. If we believe our country's prosperity to be bound up with the process of its progressive industrialisation, we must admit that the part the Jews play in Russia's commercial life is tremendous, that to a considerable degree they handle her entire commerce. All that hinders the untrammelled manifestation of the Jewish economic energies is harmful to Russia's economic organism.

"If there were no Jews now in Russia, it would be necessary to invite them, in the interests of both the commercial and industrial development of the country, just as they were more than once invited for the same purposes in the past." This conclusion, reached by a student of the Jewish question in Russia, is eminently and profoundly true. The opinion of an individual student may not appear authoritative, but it has been many a time endorsed by social groups and organisations. We need not go far back into history to find facts of this sort. In 1912 at the time when the customary fair was in full swing, the Governor of Nizhni-Novgorod showed an unusual zeal in persecuting the Jews. This was in all probability connected with the Duma pre-election campaign. The "Society of the Manufacturers and Mill Owners of the Moscow Industrial Section," an organisation which is rather far from being liberal in its opinions, saw fit to interfere in its own interests. A memoir dealing with the prohibitive measures directed against the Jews was composed and presented, through the president of the Society, Mr. Goujon, to the chairman of the Council of the Ministers. Here is a quotation from this memoir: "In the economic life of the country the Jews play the part of middlemen, placed between the producer and the consumer of goods. In the Northwestern, Southern, and Southwestern provinces this function is almost exclusively that of the Jews. To isolate under such conditions, the commercial and industrial population of a considerable section of the country from the centre of its manufacturing districts is equivalent to inflicting a tremendous loss not only on the Jewish merchant cla.s.s but also on the many millions of the non-Jewish population.... To isolate the village from the town, the towns of the West and South from the towns and villages of the Centre and the East, is to disturb intentionally the economic life of the country, to undermine credit and depreciate the people's labour."

That is the opinion of the Moscow manufacturers. Well aware of the real needs of the country, and unwilling to sacrifice their commercial interests to anti-humanitarian mottoes, they expressed their fear that the actions of the administration would hinder the realisation of the harvest and that the "stocks of goods would find neither consumers nor buyers nor energetic middlemen to the extent to which they otherwise would have."

The Jewish people has grown to be a living part of Russia's economic organism, and the blows which are directed against the Jews affect in an equal, if not a greater, degree the ma.s.s of the aboriginal Russian population. We do not intend to discuss here the Zionistic dreams and aspirations of the Jews. One thing is clear to us, namely, that a complete exodus of the Jews from Russia would be greatly detrimental to her economic development. The Western world understands this truth very well. Werner Sombart in his work _Die Zukunft der Juden_ (The Future of the Jews) reaches the following conclusion: "If by a miracle all the Jews would decide to-morrow to emigrate to Palestine we (the Germans) would never allow them to. For it would mean a catastrophe in the field of economic relation, not to speak of other fields, such as we have never as yet experienced and which would probably cripple our economic organism forever."

But we, Russians, give little thought to such questions. As late as the year 1914 we did not hesitate to inaugurate new restrictive measures, which it took the great trial of this War to stop.

Whoever has our economic welfare at heart, whoever dreams about the mighty development of our country and of its real emanc.i.p.ation from foreign influence,--inasmuch as this is generally possible,--must understand that anti-Semitism is the worst foe of our economic prosperity, that, in short, the Jewish question is a Russian question. Full rights for the Jews, equal with those that the rest of the population of the Empire enjoy, are an indispensable condition for our peaceful cultural development. Only on that basis can we achieve the broad ideals which have come into prominence in this tragic struggle with German imperialism.