undersigned cannot consent to consider the correspondence at an end. He respectfully solicits an opportunity at least to explain his views upon a subject which forms so heavy and humiliating a grievance to so large a number of American citizens. He understands and sympathizes with the sensibility of Switzerland upon foreign interference, and acknowledges that his government has no more right to request changes in her laws and institutions than she has in ours. But this general principle cannot be applied in the present case, and where the legislation of one country contravenes the natural and international rights of another, the party aggrieved may certainly call attention to the supposed wrong, and the undersigned does not think the other party can, without discourtesy or unreasonableness, reply that it is useless to examine the subject.

The undersigned trusts that no expression from his pen has been misinterpreted into an interference with, or critique upon, any Swiss law or institution in itself, but only as incompatible with those rights of American citizens which are sanctioned by general usage, international comity, modern civilization, and Christianity. Even on the subject of those grievances he has not demanded anything as a right, but has simply requested as a favor that he may be permitted to explain what it is which he proposes to ask, and why he thinks the cantonal governments of Switzerland cannot, in equity or reason, refuse it. Is it according to diplomatic usage that the respectful appeal of a government for the examination of an acknowledged embarrassment in the way of international intercourse be dismissed, without hearing upon what facts and considerations it is grounded, particularly as the undersigned believes that the difficulty might be, if not completely removed, at least so far modified as to satisfy the requirements of the one party, without infringing the rights or material interests, or even wounding the susceptibilities, of the other? And if not, the government of the United States would cheerfully withdraw its complaint upon being made acquainted with any fair reason. Animated by this spirit, he must express surprise at the allusion to slavery in one or two of the cantonal answers, and that it should have found an echo in the esteemed note of 14th. Slavery could only, with reason, have been mentioned in connexion with the matter if the undersigned had demanded from the federal government the abolition of cantonal laws, or if he had complained of those laws, without being able to show that they operated unjustly upon American citizens. The allusion to slavery is not justified by any grievance, real or pretended, suffered by Swiss citizens in consequence of that institution, whereas our effort in favor of the Israelites has in it nothing disrespectful, but arises from the natural and proper desire of the American government that its citizens should be received abroad without insult, and should be received in Switzerland upon the same footing as in other countries, and as the Swiss are received in the United States, unless some good reason can be proved to the contrary.

The undersigned therefore begs to be permitted to lay before the high federal council, at as early a future period as possible, certain considerations why this subject ought to be submitted to a new examination, in order to ascertain whether, at least, some middle course may

not be possible. The esteemed note of 14th acknowledges that the complaint is not clearly understood. The undersigned wishes to explain it fully.

The United States receive large numbers of Swiss citizens, many of whom amass ample fortunes and then return to their native country. The commercial relations are of too great importance, and the material advantages received by Switzerland too well known, not to give to the American government a certain right to represent such a grievance and to ask a friendly explanation. It is true that an explanation has been given during the negotiation of the existing treaty; but that explanation, after due experience of the operation of the treaty, and of the illiberal manner in which Americans are treated under it, does not appear to the undersigned to present any fair grounds for accepting, without remonstrance, a state of affairs as permanent and unavoidable which the undersigned believes temporary and capable of gradual modification. It is true that in the existing treaty the rights of American citizens are limited by the constitutional and legal provisions of the federal and State governments. But that is no reason why the United States should not inquire what those provisions are-whether they are enforced with equal liberality upon American citizens, Swiss citizens, and the citizens or subjects of other governments. It is true that the treaty guarantees the right of excluding Israelites from its privileges. But a treaty is a temporary contract, purposely concluded for only a short period, that its operations may be observed and that each party may be satisfied that the provisions of it are executed in a friendly spirit, and that the advantages on one side are not unnecessarily outweighed by those on the other. It is true the United States government has no right to interfere in the international legislation of Switzerland, but it has, undoubtedly, a right to inquire into the value of the treaty, and if it appear that this grievance might, without any comparative inconvenience, be, in a considerable degree, remedied by a simple readiness to examine both sides of the subject, and if Switzerland refuse to show that friendly readiness, it would then be proper for the undersigned to lay the case before his government for its consideration, with his opinion that the complaint of the American Israelites is equitable, and grows cut of wrong inflicted upon them without sufficient motive, in defence of which no argument can be used which cannot be shown to be without foundation; that there is nothing proposed to be asked by the undersigned in conflict with the constitution or laws of the federal or cantonal governments, or in opposition to their commercial, industrial, or other material interests, and that if the high cantonal governments suppose that the undersigned has intended to ask anything not strictly within these limits-anything which a friendly, reasonable, and independent government ought not to grant-it would be quite proper to furnish the undersigned an opportunity to explain away so erroneous an impression.

There are several points in the esteemed note of 14th upon which the undersigned desires to make a few observations:

1. It is stated that "by the treaty, in consideration of the federal constitution, Christians alone have a right to the privileges of that treaty;

but that, notwithstanding, the cantons have the right and the power to extend those privileges to American citizens of the Jewish persuasion, if they choose to do so.'

The undersigned not only admits this, but points to it as an evidence that the cantons, having the full power, if they choose, to redress the grievance, cannot reasonably refuse to do so upon such an appeal from the United States government, without a frank explanation.

2. It is stated that "in most of the cantons, Israelites, when of respectable character, or when there is reason to believe they will carry on their business in an honorable way, are admitted, notwithstanding the constitution and notwithstanding the treaty:" and yet it is stated, in the closing paragraph, "that no American Israelite need ever apply for this favor, as the Swiss consul general has been instructed to inform the American government that in future it would be useless to attempt to procure the right of establishment for any Israelite American citizen, and that all complaints on this subject must hereafter be rejected." Although the question here is only of the right of establishment, the declaration seems framed in a spirit which must make every American Israelite regard himself threatened with expulsion, should he ever seek to establish himself upon any part of the Swiss territory, although so many Israelites of Switzerland and of other nations are there admitted. The complaint, therefore, of the American government, should the subject be left in its present state, must be regarded, not only as having failed to accomplish anything for Israelite American citizens, but as having rendered their position, with regard to Switzerland, worse than it was before.

3. It is stated "that no canton is legally obliged to admit the Israelites either of Switzerland or of other nations." To this point the undersigned has the honor to inquire how many Israelites, both Swiss citizens and of other countries, are, notwithstanding, now permitted to carry on their business in Switzerland? What number of Israelites are admitted in this way in each of the cantons, and whether the United States government has not a fair right to inquire why American Israelites should be refused favors granted to those of other nations, particularly as the Hebrew people in America, never having been subject to unjust treatment, may certainly be considered equal to those of any other country? It is in vain to say that American Israelites are treated like those of Switzerland. The undersigned

wishes an opportunity to show that this is not the case.

4. The existing treaty, it is true, was framed in conformity with the clause of the federal constitution; but the government of the undersigned had reason to believe that the restrictive spirit against Israelites was passing away; that it existed only in one or two points; that although a clause in the constitution guaranteed the right of excluding them, this right would be enforced in a friendly and large spirit; and that the only real reason for a legislation which other countries had so generally abandoned was to be found in a special circumstance, that the abrupt abolition of it would admit a class of Jews from Alsacia upon Swiss territory, whose peculiarities might

occasion some embarrassment to the few Swiss peasants upon the frontier of that province.

5. It is stated "that the federal council has no right to compel the government of Basle to grant the right of establishment to Mr. Muhlhauser." This remark would be a very proper and sufficient answer if the undersigned had ever asked the high federal government to compel the government of Basle to admit Mr. Muhlhauser. But is it a fair answer to the respectful representation which the undersigned had the honor to make to the federal government, (that being the only government to which he is accredited,) that the application of an American citizen for permission to reside and carry on his business in Switzerland has been refused on no other ground than his being an Israelite, while that permission is accorded to Israelites of other nations?

After having taken copies of the answers of the cantons, the undersigned will have the honor to return them to the high federal council, and he avails himself of the occasion to renew to their excellencies the assurances of his most distinguished consideration.

Their excellencies the PRESIDENT

THEO. S. FAY.

And the other members of the High Federal Council, at Berne.

The Federal Council to Mr. Fay.

[Translation.]

BERNE, May 14, 1858.

In his note of the 3d of December last, his excellency, Mr. Fay, minister resident of the United States of America near the Swiss confederation, invoked the attention of the federal council to the treatment which that class of American citizens who are of the Jewish belief receive in some of the cantons, and at the same time expressed the wish to obtain more complete knowledge of the still existing restrictions against Israelites. The Swiss federal council made no delay in obtaining from the cantons answers to the questions propounded, and now has the honor to transmit, accompanying the inquiries, the explanations received in original, in the written answers of the cantonal governments after investigation made.

Although, from the introductory portion of the note mentioned, it is not clear in what particular American Israelites believe themselves to be aggrieved, yet this becomes manifest from the contents of the esteemed note of 9th April, wherein the non-allowance of the establishment of the optician Sigmund Muhlhauser, in Basle, was closely discussed. This affords occasion to the Swiss federal council to make some observations thereon. Your excellency well understands, and it is not in controversy, that in the treaty of friendship and commerce concluded between Switzerland and North America it is stipulated in article 1 that, by the treaty, in consideration of the constitution

of the confederacy, Christians alone are entitled to the rights and privileges of that treaty; but that, notwithstanding, the cantons shall have the right and the power to extend such privileges to American citizens of any other religious belief. In fact, even now, in several cantons-indeed, in most of them-Israelites of respectable character are admitted to carry on a business properly conducted; but this depends entirely upon the voluntary action of the canton; just as some of the States of the Union maintain laws and institutions whose abrogation is not within the competency of the federal government, and which, to some other States, appear to be as strange and odious as the regulated measure of privilege in this country allowed to the Jews may be thought by those who are participant of such institutions. It was known, moreover, to a former negotiator, and through him to the government of the United States, that no canton is under obligation to admit Israelites, either Swiss or foreign, to the right of establishment; and it must also be remembered that exactly this question of the Jews substantially occasioned the various draughts and the retardation of ratifications, and that in the end the existing project was chosen for the purpose of sustaining the cantons in their rights of discouragement or rejection of the Jews. Your excellency may, with this brief remark, find it intelligible that the federal council had no right to interfere with the government of Basle for rejecting the optician Sigmund Muhlhauser. Finally, the Swiss federal council permits itself the further observation, that its consul general at Washington has been instructed to inform the government of the North American free States that in future it would be useless to attempt to procure the right of establishment for any Jew in the Swiss cantons, for that any reclamation on that point would thenceforward be rejected.

The Swiss federal council avails itself of this occasion to renew to your excellency the assurance of its high consideration. In name of the Swiss federal council.

DR. FURRER, President of the Council. SCHIESS,

Chancellor of the Confederation.

His excellency Mr. THEO. S. FAY,
Minister Resident of the United States of North America, Berne.

I have received a communication, with enclosures, upon the Israelite question, from Mr. Levy, of Washington. He speaks of similar communications to be sent to me from other persons. No such have been