Part 7

"How in the world have you reached such a conclusion?" asked Jackson coldly, and somewhat severely.

"But ... you dislike the Jews heartily...."

The clanging of the gong was reaching our corner. Mr. Jackson rose and buttoning his coat, he said:

"It does not follow. You have made a bad syllogism: the conclusion does not follow from the premises."

"But, sir...."

"It is true that I dislike those people, but it doesn't follow that I want their rights restricted...."

And after a moment of deliberation, as though seeking for the clearest form of explanation, he went on.

"Here we are being called for dinner ... I must tell you, sir, that I cannot tolerate green peas. That is my personal taste. But it does not follow by any means, gentlemen, that I have the right to demand that green peas should not be served.... Probably, others like the dish...."

And rising to his full height, he added:

"As for the rest of your words ... as an American, I would feel insulted, if there were in my country citizens deprived of equal rights.... That a Kentuckian, for instance, should not have the right to breathe freely the air of Illinois.... My goodness.... The idea!"

And he started out, moving along the railing, straight and gaunt, and, there was something peculiar in his entire figure. He seemed to feel himself deeply insulted. At the door of the smoking-room, he met Mr. Carson of New York, his recent antagonist, and amiably taking his arm, he started to tell him something in great excitement. Judging by the way Mr. Carson turned to look at us, it was evident that they were discussing us Russians, the gentlemen who draw false conclusions from premises.

We exchanged glances. Half a minute passed in perplexed silence. Then we both laughed at once....

"Rira bien qui rira le dernier. We must confess that this time it is 'our' rather bad American who laughs last," said my sarcastic friend. "And did you notice the expression on his face at that moment?"

"Yes, it looked positively intelligent.... Probably, because the experience and wisdom of a great nation, which has already firmly established axioms, were speaking at that moment through the mouth of our American...."

"And the negroes?" said my friend hesitatingly and thoughtfully.

"Well, the negroes are 'the black peas' which Americans detest. But that is a matter of social custom; the law, however, does not distinguish them from other citizens.... To love, not to love ... that is elusive and capricious, but justice is obligatory, like an axiom...."

Entering the dining-room, I felt somewhat uneasy.... It seemed to me that all the Americans would turn and eye us, the representatives of a nation which has not as yet learned the axioms of law, and which draws childishly false conclusions from premises....

But I was mistaken. There was in the dining-room the usual rustling, clatter of plates, forks and knives, tinkling of glasses, and whispered conversation. "Our" American was sitting at the side of his odd Dulcinea, and he again looked like a self-satisfied cox-comb. But, it seemed to me that into the everyday mood of the vessel's table-d'hote, there entered something elusive and significant, which could change the appearance of this motley crowd just as our American's face had changed at the end of our conversation.

And, in fact, a few weeks later, I happened to be present at one of those tempestuous manifestations of public opinion which at times break out like storms on the surface of the ocean. There is much that is ridiculous in the every-day tone of American newspapers, in their thirst for sensations and reclame, in their petty interviews. But here everything was suddenly swept aside, and the dominant tone of the American press became deep and significant. Now and then the voices of past generations,--the men who had been the builders of freedom and law in their country, the voices of Lincolns, Harrisons, and Davises pierced the bustle of every-day life and were heard in editorials, articles, in the speeches delivered at meetings.

The occasion for all this was again the Jewish question, and the ignorance of axioms shown by a nation of the old continent. And it occurred to me that probably somewhere in Chicago, Mr. Jackson, "who dislikes green peas," was delivering, or at least listening to, a speech about the axioms of human law, and was voting in favor of a corresponding resolution.

For he firmly believes that love is capricious. Like mercy, it bloweth, whither it listeth.... But justice, justice is obligatory....

* * * * *

THE JEWISH QUESTION IN RUSSIA

Professor Paul Nikolayevich Milyukov, the central figure in the present Russian revolution, was born in 1859. Before the upheaval in 1905 he was known as a distinguished historian. In 1903 and 1904 he lectured on Russia at Harvard and at the University of Chicago, and in 1908 he spoke on the situation in Russia before the Civic Forum in Carnegie Hall. Ever since the revolutionary days of 1905-6, Professor Milyukov has been playing a most conspicuous part in the Russian emancipatory movement, as the leader of the Constitutional party, as a Duma deputy and the editor of the influential radical newspaper Ryech.

THE JEWISH QUESTION IN RUSSIA

BY P. MILYUKOV

The Jewish question in Russia presents altogether peculiar aspects. This is not only because there are in the Empire six million Jews, i.e., more than in any other State in the world, and because in the provinces annexed at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, they form as much as 11 per cent. of the population--but also for the reason that the legal status of the Russian Jews completely differs from that of other non-Russian nationalities which go to make the Empire. These nationalities endeavour to obtain the many rights of which they are deprived. The most important of these rights is national autonomy, i.e., the right of a collective unit to preserve and develop its national individuality. In this manner they desire to protect themselves from the danger of assimilation, from the possibility of their fusion with the dominant nationality. Of course the Jews, too, have been striving, especially in late years, to realise national autonomy and thus safeguard the rights and aspirations of their collective unit. But they lack still other rights. They have still to be granted those rights which to a considerable degree other Russian subjects, not of Russian birth, enjoy. The law does not protect the elementary civil rights of the Jews as members of our common Russian commonwealth. Consequently, that which the Jews strive for is far more elementary, far more primitive and simple, than the objective of other non-Russian nationalities which inhabit Russia.

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 passed when the legislatures of the world failed to guarantee the elementary civil rights of the Jews. Roumania alone constitutes 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.