cient to justify Russian apprehensions for the safety of their military communications in the event of war. England and Russia: Just at that moment when diplomacy seemed in a dead-lock, and England congratulated herself upon the progress of events which threatened to leave the Russians in a cul de sac at San Stefano and blockaded in the Baltic, the Cimbria, which had secretly passed to the north of the British Islands, and, unobserved, traversed the Atlantic, cast anchor in Southwest Harbor. Never did a transition scene in a theater produce a more startling effect. Never was a chessplayer, intent on his own plan of the game, more surprised when his opponent moved a knight to check the king, and at the same time disclosed check to the queen, than were the English, who, while they were gazing with satisfaction upon Constantinople, thus heard the Russians on the other side of the globe cry check to their Atlantic commerce. I think it is not wrong to ascribe in large part the increasing tendency, toward a peaceful solution, which is apparent during the last few days among the English people, and in their press, to this, the most significant movement which Russian diplomacy has made. The diplomatists on both sides are now silent touching their work, which is a sign of more earnest efforts for an adjustment. But the scales appear still to be balancing between war and peace. If England were now to make peace, her government could fairly plead, in justification of their previous warlike demonstrations, that they had gained three essential advantages: first, they have distracted attention from the victories of Russia, which were calculated to establish for her an immense prestige in the East, and have attracted the eyes of both Asia and Europe to England instead; second, they have won for England a considerable moral prestige before the world as a regulating power, and have proved that she possessed still the courage to strike in her quality of "great power"; third, they will have secured important modifications of the San Stefano preliminaries in a sense adverse to Russian interests. The extent of these modifications, and of material advantages secured to England, will only be known when the result of Count Schouvaloff's present visit to St. Petersburg shall be known. SIR: Yesterday evening the following telegram was delivered to me. At first, upon observing the errors of the address, I supposed that it was sent to this legation by mistake for that of some European power; but subsequently I was informed that similar telegraphic appeals were delivered also to the embassies of the European powers. I therefore transmit it at once, with all the errors of the telegraphic text, for your information, in compliance with the request of the memorialists, having no reason to doubt its genuineness: [Translation.] His excellency the ambassador of the Empire of America, at Vienna, from Galarasi : The undersigned beg permission to communicate the reasons for this telegram to the high ministers for foreign affairs of your empire. With sentiments of the deepest respect, the undersigned, poor Mussulmans, inhabitants of Silistria and population of the district, have the honor to advise you that fifty thousand souls de plus quale are now in our district, in which number only ten thousand Christians are included. Moreover, pursuant to the final conditions of peace, the fortresses of Silistria have been transferred to Russia. To-day, unfortunately for us, a great change in the local authority has been made. Only two months ago the malefactors, disturbers of the publie peace, have through their depredations begun to cause appréhensions of regrettable and unhappy occurrences, inasmuch as travelers and traders who pass over the country, as well as the inhabitants of the Mussulman villages, have been robbed, stripped, severely beaten, seriously bruised, wounded, and even killed by the Bulgarian brigands. Up to this present time we have lost sums amounting to several millions, represented in animals and other property in the district; finally, during the last few days the Russian soldiers in the city have threatened to enter our houses, and even the apartments of the women, without previously asking our permission, and in disregard of our religious customs. Entertaining no longer confidence, we consider our present position full of danger, and would regard ourselves fortunate in finding an opportunity of removing to some other place, even with the sacrifice of all our property and possessions. In the name of justice and humanity, by which we are entitled under the law of civilization to address high impartial judges and demand aid and protection, we pray also in the name of our distressed families, that the necessary measures may be adopted in this matter for the purpose of respecting the security and tranquillity of these populations. On the part of the Turkish nationality. MEHMED HAKKO. SILISTRIA, April 30, 1878. HADJI SOULEIMAN. I ought to add that during the last few weeks there have been throughout European Turkey so general and so uniform movements, nominally on the part of Greek and Mussulman inhabitants, for the expression of discontent with Russian and Bulgarian rule, and with the arrangements made at San Stefano, that I have been forced to the conclusion that they were inspired by the agents of a government practically acquainted with the force of public opinion, desirous to modify or change the present direction of Christian sympathy, familiar with the means of creating a public sentiment, and interested in the result. European Turkey has for many years been the special field of diplomatic and international intrigue. Just now Greece in the south, Austria and Servia in the west, and England everywhere, are at work to support their respective claims by appeals to one or another portion of the greatly diversified population of the provinces of Turkey. The object of most of the recent appeals is not so much affirmative as negative; it appears to be chiefly the negation of the present arrangements. In some cases, however, they express a desire for annexation to a different nationality from that proposed. I am, &c., No. 30. JOHN A. KASSON. No. 76.] Mr. Kasson to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Vienna May 19, 1878. (Received June 3.) SIR: Count Schouvaloff yesterday left St. Petersburg for London. As the diplomatic pulse at Vienna responds quickly to the Oriental pulsations of the northern courts, I availed myself of the opportunity of a dinner at one of the embassies yesterday, at which were two or three officials of the foreign office, to ascertain the fact that the count's object had been gained, and that he was returning to London feeling that his mission had been successful. The hopes of a congress and of peace are therefore strengthened. Still the most complete ignorance exists of the points which form the basis of the expected adjustment. But the assurance is everywhere felt that if, in any way, England is satisfied, European peace will not be further disturbed. If it were not for the energy displayed by the Russians in preparing to add to their navy the vessels they appear to be buying in American ports, I should still consider the chances of war and peace about equally balanced. But the unquestionably justifiable apprehensions in England of a serious loss of the Atlantic commerce in the event of war, and the consequent disturbance of their great manufacturing industries, have converted the warlike demonstrations of Russia upon our coasts into effective movements toward peace. This influence has been aided by the serious discontent of the laboring classes, breaking out recently into destructive tumults, which are but a foretaste of occurrences to be expected if Russian naval operations should abridge the already diminished demands upon their factories. So, at this moment, the chances for peace preponderate, but with a still uncertain balance. I have more than once advised you of the interest manifested here in the possible facilities afforded along our coasts for naval aid to Russians in case of war between them and England. Since I began to write upon that subject it has been largely discussed in the English press. This discussion itself has practically helped the cause of peace, by indicating to England her vulnerable heel, which all her mailed ships cannot cover from the attacks of flying cruisers. A few days since the British ambassador made me a long call and turned the conversation into inquiries on the subject of our neutrality laws, whose complete stringency I explained to him. At the same time I did not conceal from him the difficulty of enforcing them along 5,000 miles of coast, where in many cases all the evidences would go to sea with the violators of the law, leaving the most energetic prosecutors helpless. I beg leave now to bring to your attention, if not already anticipated by your own examination, another point, arising from the sixth article of the "Alabama" treaty. Its importance has been suggested to me by the anxious assertions of the London journals of their confidence in our fidelity to the THREE RULES established by the Washington treaty of 1871. These rules are at first only declared applicable to the particular cases pending in arbitration. Then follows this clause: "And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them." If I am not wrongly informed, the United States Government has repeatedly urged the English Government to comply with the second branch of this engagement, but without result. The records under your hand will determine the fact. This engagement is absolutely mutual and entire. If England has refused, or neglected after demand, to execute a part of it which devolved on her, how much obligation remains imposed on our government to execute another part on the demand of England? The clauses behind the comma are as much a part of the consideration as that before it; and I am under the impression that the English minister was warned of this construction before Mr. Fish went out of office. In commenting here on our neutrality laws, and especially on section 5283, I cannot, in the absence of advice from the Department, construe the law prohibiting the purchase or equipment, in our ports, of vessels adapted to war uses as applicable in time of peace. If the literal con struction claimed (in one instance by an American journal) were to prevail, our shipbuilding and gun factories must be permanently closed against all purchases by foreign governments except those should be our actual allies in war. For all such vessels and arms are in fact bought "with intent" to be used against a nation with which we are at peace, if and whenever war shall break out between the purchaser and such friendly government, or even against our own. Certainly our law did not intend to stop commerce in military material preparatory to possible or even probable war, so long as the world actually continues in a state of peace. Troubled relations between two governments friendly to us do not banish either of them from our ports, ship-yards, and factories, until such relations have been notified to us to be belligerent, or have notoriously become so. I have, &c., No. 31. JOHN A. KASSON. No. 81.] Mr. Kasson to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Vienna, June 1, 1878. (Received June 14.) SIR: The telegram dispatched to me by the Department (bearing no date) was received here on the morning of the 30th ultimo, as follows: Urgence. Vienne de Washington, 85.14 V. Brest. Telegraph answer of Austria respecting monetary conference and date thereof. SEWARD. On the same day I called at the foreign office to advise the urgency of your desire for early information of the decision of this government. Baron Orezy, who personally approves the plan of a conference, told me that while the invitation of the United States had been accepted by the Hungarian Government, the Austrian had not yet acted upon it; but he would address a personal note to Baron de Pretis, the Austrian minister of finance, requesting an early decision. The jurisdiction of the coin questions involved in the monetary conference proposed by the United States, does not belong to the common ministry of the whole empire, but to the respective local governments of the Austrian Empire and Hungarian Kingdom. To them your invitation was referred by the minister of foreign affairs. He has deferred the formal communication of the decision of either to me until he shall be able to communicate the resolution of both governments. Verbally, he notified me of the Hungarian decision. I therefore telegraphed an answer to you on the same day your telegram was received, in the following terms: STATE DEPARTMENT, Washington: Hungary accepts. Austria still undecided. Action urged. KASSON. I shall also telegraph you the formal decision as soon as notified to me. I had not neglected to previously call the attention of this government from time to time to the invitation. While Hungary acted with promptitude, Austria deliberates at leisure. But it is to be remembered that the Austrian as well as the Hungarian Government has been much engaged and embarrassed by the unsettled condition of the relations between the two parts of the empire. From my conversation with Baron Orezy I conclude that the preference of this government will be for Paris as the place, and the month of September as the time for the meeting of the conference. I have, &c., No. 32. JOHN A. KASSON. No. 82.] Mr. Kasson to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Vienna, June 5, 1878. (Received June 20.) SIR: The United States Government has on different occasions interested itself in the question of protecting American Jews traveling or residing in Roumania, and has expressed its sympathy with the oppressed condition of the race in that country. Preliminary to a report which I am preparing respecting the establishment of treaty relations between the United States and Roumania, whose independence, it is expected, the congress about to assemble will recognize, I beg leave to bring to your attention the question of securing the object in which so many of our compatriots take a deep interest. In anticipation of Roumanian independence, Germany commenced negotiations with the Roumanian Government for a commercial treaty. According to information received here, the hostility of the latter to the recognition of equal rights for Jews of a foreign nationality with those of other citizens or subjects of the same nationality would have practically proscribed a portion of the German subjects. For that reason the proposed treaty was not accepted by Germany. There is little conception in America of the tenacity of the prejudice against that race in Roumania, and of the contempt and occasional violence and wrong to which this prejudice leads, as well as to the legal deprivation of the ordinary privileges of good citizenship. It would be to the honor of the United States Government if it could initiate a plan by which at once the condition of American Hebrews resident or traveling in Roumania, and the condition of natives of the same race, could be ameliorated and their equality before the law at least partially assured. The European congress is about to assemble, and will be asked to recognize the independence of Roumania. Would there be any just objection to the United States Government offering on its part, if the European powers would on their part make the same condition, to recognize the independence of that country, and to enter into treaty stipulations with its government, only upon the fundamental preliminary agreements: 1. That all citizens or subjects of any such foreign nationality shall, irrespective of race or religious belief, be entitled to equal rights and protection under the treaty and under their laws. 2. That all subjects or citizens under the jurisdiction of the Roumanian Government shall, irrespective of their race or religious belief, have equal rights of trade and commerce with the citizens or subjects of the |