A TABLE OF POGROMS FROM 1903 TO 1906
(Courtesy: The Museum of Family History)
| POGROMS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| First published by the American Jewish Committee in their “American Jewish Year Book,” Volume 8 (1906-1907) The subjoined table of the outrages perpetrated upon the Jews of Russia, from Kishineff in 1903 to Bialystok in 1906, is far from complete. This statement is not set down to ward off criticism, but rather to invite additions and corrections, and open the way for an accurate record useful to the statesman and moralist of the present and to the historian and moralist of the future. Even with its supplementary list of pogrom towns and villages whose names have reached us mutilated beyond recognition, like the victims within their own confines, the table is not much more than a hint at dark things, which have escaped observation and record by a nation in pain or the witness of pain. “Many Jews killed and wounded” is neither statistics nor history; nevertheless it tells a gruesome story. Towns to the number of 284 are recorded here as the scene of assaults of the peculiar kind known as pogromy. In the United States alone, 832 places responded to the appeal in behalf of recent suffering in Russia. Who will say that the million and a quarter of money contributed by the latter covers even the estimated loss of property in the former, let alone the actual loss and the loss in potentialities?The need of gathering up all available stray notices in contemporary newspapers is the more imperative, as it cannot be said of this phase of Jewish history, “Behold, is it not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Russia?” Or, if it be there written, those chronicles are as surely lost to the contemporaries of the kings of Russia, as the old chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah are the remote descendants of the latter. And the historiographers of the Duma had no sooner written down the single chapter “Bialystok,” letting “the world know that the pogroms were not the work of the Russian nation, but of the so-called Government of Russia, than that Government proved them right by silencing them and the Duma.If the record herewith presented is incomplete in numbers, dates, and circumstances that lend themselves to tabulation, how far more imperfect is it as to color, sound and all appertaining to the life and the death it endeavors to bear witness to. The “terror by night,” the “arrow that flieth by day,” and the “pestilence that walketh in darkness,” the “destruction that wasteth at noonday,” these cannot be confined in lists and columns. Nevertheless, a study of the table below reveals at least two currents of life–one a current of shame and one of glory. The reader who permits his glance to wander down the last column cannot fail to note the tale of Governmental complicity as plainly as in the Duma Commission Report, and at the same time the tale of the revival of Jewish courage and manliness. The exposure of the first and the further development of the second will contribute to the triumph of Russian liberty and the attainment of Jewish security. That these two causes may be better understood by Jews and others in the United States justifies the appearance of the table in the AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK.A word of explanation may be needed for the table and the lists accompanying it. The table aims to contain, though in necessarily condensed form, the salient information that appeared in the newspapers. It is bound to be fallible beyond the high degree of fallibility inherent in such compilations. For such a large part of the period covered, the newspapers lay under the blighting ban of the censor. Besides, the continued use of the Old Style Calendar by the Russians is a pitfall in the way of the chronicler. Not only does he run the risk of dating events alternately according to the two systems, but also he is in danger of repeating events reported according to the one system in one source and the other system in another source. Moreover, in a turbulent country like the Russia of to-day, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between an ordinary brawl or strikers’ excesses, in which anti-Semitic feeling plays only a subordinate part, and an anti-Jewish riot of the distinctive pogrom variety. The compiler can but console himself with the hope that the imperfections of the table will stimulate some one with larger opportunities for investigation to amend and complete it.The first list, an alphabetical arrangement of the towns mentioned in the table, is to serve as a key to it. The second list contains additional names of towns from which pogroms were reported in one or another source unaccompanied by identifying data. The third list, of pogrom Gubernias, is added for the sake of showing the relation of the Jewish population to the whole, for which figures were not uniformly available in the case of the towns.Finally, the Report of the Duma Commission on the pogrom at Bialystok, as published in the London Jewish Chronicle of July 13,1906, has been appended as a huge, illustrative footnote, an exhaustive commentary. It is the only State document available on the subject of Jewish massacres in Russia. Yet, in all but one particular, it covers the ground. Substitute the names of streets and Jewish residents in Kishineff, Gomel, Zhitomir, and Odessa, respectively, for those occurring in the Report, and you have the history of these cities as well. The only feature not set forth is the farcial(sp) trial likely to follow upon Bialystok, as it followed upon Kishineff and the others. The Report shows the corruptness of the Government through its agents provocateurs, its hooligan hirelings, its soldiery, its police, its high administrative officers, but a complete account of the pogroms preceding Bialystok would show, in addition, that the Russian aristocracy does not shrink back from tampering even with the course of judicial inquiries. It orders penalties to be imposed on the victims as well as the perpetrators of the outrages–sometimes instead of them. A few of the guilty it designates as official scapegoats, to bear slight terms of imprisonment, from which a swift-following amnesty hastens to release them. Civil damage suits it refuses to have the courts entertain, and the advocates whom it assigns to the Jews, it occasionally banishes to Siberia for doing their duty conscientiously. There remains only to say, that the moderate language of the Report conveys no notion of the revolting forms of cruelty, the refinements of brutality described in the accounts of eye-witnesses at Bialystok and elsewhere. As becomes a State document of its kind, it eschews all those details which made it a sickening task merely to gather the material for this table of pogroms.1: No.; 2. Date; 3. Town; 4. Gubernia; 5. Population; 6. Jewish Pop.; 7. Damage; 8. General Remarks
WHICH POGROMS OCCURRED, NOVEMBER, 1905 THE GUBERNIAS IN WHICH POGROMS OCCURREDREPORT OF THE DUMA COMMISSION ON THE BIALYSTOK MASSACREThe Commission of Inquiry into the illegal acts of Government officials has received the report of the members of the Duma, M. P. Arakantzeff, 1. G. Schtchepkin, and V. R. Jacobsohn, who were delegated by the Duma to go to Bialystok to inquire on the spot into the causes of and the evidence relating to the riots. After an examination of the report, the Commission makes the following statement of facts:-On June 1st (14th), a pogrom broke out in Bialystok which lasted until the 3d (16th). During the pogrom many were killed, many wounded, and Jewish property was destroyed. Up to this moment it is not exactly known how many were killed and how many were wounded because some of the killed were carried out of the town and were not brought into the Jewish hospital; and many of the wounded were treated at their own homes. Eightytwo wounded Jews were brought into the Jewish hospital, among whom were three burnt bodies and seventeen wounded. To the Christian hospital six killed and twelve wounded Christians were brought. The pogrom took place in the following circumstances: A few days before June 1, rumors were circulated in Bialystok about the preparation of a pogrom. The master of the police, Derkatcheff, was murdered on the 28th of May. The murder of Derkatcheff was a very dark and mysterious affair. Derkatcheff had enjoyed much popularity among the Jews, to such an extent that he used to be called “the Jewish master of the police.” Derkatcheff was opposed to any outrages or riots; so he was, on the 21st of May, delegated by General Bogaiewski to the Surash Street, where a conflict arose between soldiers and local residents. When Derkatcheff appeared on the spot he immediately succeeded in ending the disturbance, but a sharp counter-dispute arose between him and the police-officer Sheremetieff, who was a striking contrast to Derkatcheff. In consequence of this occurrence the latter not only asked the Governor to dismiss Sheremetieff, but he insisted on the prominent citizens of Bialystok supporting him in this application. The residents of Bialystok, however, looked on Sheremetieff with suspicion. The murders of police officials which had previously occurred in Bialystok excited the anger of the police against all Bialystok Jews, whom they used to accuse of being the cause of these murders. Besides this, the Organization of the so-called Genuine Russian Men was continually propagating the idea that the Jews are the enemies of Czardom, and that all the evils and the whole confusion in the country emanate from Jews or from the Jewish agitation: that therefore the struggle with the Jews was a struggle with the conspiracy which was ruining the country, and that in conquering the Jews the conspiracy would be combated, and then there would be peace and quietness. These opinions were very deeply rooted among the police officials, and from them they passed to the obscure masses, who were influenced by the police. Shortly before the pogrom two camps were formed, one consisting of the police with the Black Hundred, and the other of Jews and those who are taking part in the movement for freedom. The latter were considered as enemies to Russia and of the established order, and the police, as well as their agents, were excited against and opposed to them and the Jews. The fact that besides the Bund there existed in Bialystok an anarchist party (the Surash Street was particularly unpopular among the police, who did not venture to appear there) was not unknown to the police, who accused all the Jews of being anarchists. The word “Jew” and the word“conspirator” were synonyms to the police and they used the word “revolutionary” to designate a Jew or a conspirator. It was a duty of course to fight revolutionaries and to annihilate them. For this purpose fighting material was prepared in the army by the agitation of the Black Hundred. Proclamations began to circulate among the soldiers stating that one must kill the conspirators, that the Imperial Duma was Jewish, that the revolutionaries were opposed to the Czar, and so on. After May 3, the sergeants in one of the regimental barracks were commanded to communicate to the soldiers that on the 1st of the following June a Catholic procession would take place, among which the Jews would throw a bomb, and there would be a pogrom. At the same time rumors were circulated by the policesergeants about the expected pogrom. In consequence, the people of the town began to talk about it, and some of them were so sure that there would be a pogrom that they sent their families away from the town.How the police looked upon the Jews is shown by the dispute between the police inspector Sheremetieffand the leaders of the Jewish community, about the question of putting a wreath on the coffin of Derkatcheff. “What, a wreath from Jews! Never! We are Christians, not Jews, vampires. You kill us and afterwards you come with wreaths. No! I shall not allow it.” On this occasion Sheremetieff talked also about the police, predicting that they would protest against the placing of a wreath by Jews on the coffin; and when the Jewish leaders asked what form the protest would take, Sheremetieff replied: “If you will, in spite of my warning, put a wreath on the coffin, you will regret it within two days, and the whole Jewish population will regret it.” No better was the reception of the Jewish leaders by the Governor of Grodno, M. Kister, to whom the frightened Jewish community sent a deputation. He remarked upon the hatred against the Jews amongst the police, because of their continually attacking them, and said that the murderers were without doubt Jewish, and so on.”I read every day,” the Governor added, “the dossier of political offenses, and all the offenders are Jewish. Jews are attacking the soldiers, and provoke their hatred also. The moment may arrive when nothing can be done against the violent wrath of the soldiers; and if I am present at the funeral of Derkatcheff and shots are fired, I will order an attack on the town. As to Thursday, June 1, I make myself responsible, but not afterwards. In Bialystok there has been no state of war, but a sort of confusion; as during a state of war there is martial law, and we have had no martial law. The Commandant of the Bialystok Garrison, General von Bader, is also convinced that the Jewish community Is responsible for several bomb outrages.”So we see that the Governor knew very well that a pogrom was being prepared, and that he knew this not only from the reports of the local administration, which was under his command, but also from the leaders of the community, who described to him the real condition and the circumstances of the place. As to the attitude of the Christian population to the Jews, all the evidences are unanimous in proving that it was quite normal, that there was never any danger of a conflict, that there was no hatred of a national, religious, or economic character, that even the competition between the Christian and the Jewish workmen in the factories never provoked any conflict, although the police endeavored to excite the people and to provoke quarrels. The small occasional disputes between Jews and Christians were always peacefully settled. Jewish and Christian witnesses bear out this fact unanimously. The same opinion was expressed by the Bialystok Duma at a public meeting on the 5th of June.Meanwhile the pogrom was prepared. On the 21st of May a general order was given to the Sixteenth Division of Infantry that on June 1 a much larger number of pickets should be posted in the place. The town was divided into two districts, northern and southern. For the first Colonel Voitchekhovski was appointed, for the second Colonel Bukowski, the general command remaining in the hands of the Chief of the Division. In the same order the rules of conduct for the soldiers were laid down.Thursday, June 1st, arrived. Greek-Orthodox processions came to the town from the villages and hamlets and formed themselves into a large procession, which began to pass through the streets Lipova, Nikolaieva, and Alexandrova. On the same day a Catholic procession proceeded from the Catholic Church to the cemetery of Saint Roekh. The processions attracted a large number of Christians. When the Greek Orthodox procession began to pass from the Alexandrova Street to the Institute Street some shots were fired near the house of Rachites, which is situated at the corner, or not far from it, near the houses belonging to Mackovski and Solman. Some people imagined they noticed also the throwing of something, and that there was a slight explosion. A tumult arose and many people threw the ikons and other religious emblems on the pavements. It appeared afterwards that there, at the Alexandrova Street, a woman named Minkowska and a man named Damiduk were hurt. Immediately soldiers arrived who were posted as it seems in the courtyard of the Imperial Bank and began shooting at the houses and at the “Kaznatcheistvo” (treasury). The soldiers fired so quickly that the people had no time to run away from the tumult. As to Minkowska, all the physicians are of opinion that she was wounded by a bullet. Immediately after the first firing a crowd of hooligans attacked and pillaged a chemist’s shop belonging to a Christian named Knoblauch. They did the same with the Jewish houses and shops in the vicinity and they began to kill the Jews.When the remnant of the procession had returned to the Greek Orthodox Church and a crowd of rioters rushed to the Surash Street, somebody threw a bomb at the corner of the street from the place opposite. The bomb caused no damage. It seems that the bomb was thrown only to frighten the hooligans who began to run away quickly. In the street there were no police or soldiers, but from the market-place the soldiers were firing in the direction of Surash Street.As though at a pre-arranged signal the pogrom arose in different places. With extraordinary speed the rumor spread that a Greek Orthodox Pope and a Polish priest were killed, that Jews had fired on the ikons, that they had murdered a Christian woman; and similar horrible stories. A Russian writer, an official named Stukalitch, living in Grodno, contributed to the propagation of this falsehood. He wired officially that atrocities had been committed by Jews. Many of the officers believed these statements, and threatened the Jews with revenge.It is noteworthy that the officers and the hooligans, who are not usually well disposed towards each other, fraternized during the disturbances. For instance, two officers approached a company of hooligans who were rioting on the market-place, and conversed with them in a friendly manner. One company of hooligans were running in the direction of the Lipova Street, but one of the officers called them to return from there and directed them to go to the Nikolaieva Street, whither they went. A policeman who subsequently noticed some other hooligans, sent them also to that street, and afterwards a company of soldiers were sent there, too. The company fired, but the hooligans quietly proceeded with their nefarious work, knowing that the firing did not concern them. Similar facts were noted in many places. Hooligans, aided by policemen, wrecked shops and pillaged goods whilst the soldiers stood by and shot every Jew who appeared in the street. The hooligans were never injured by the firing, nor were they prevented from committing outrages. Not only policemen and hooligans, but even the military, joined In the pillaging. One soldier who had plundered so many wares that he could not carry them away, asked one of his comrades to assist him.From the Thursday to Saturday there was a continuous fusillade in the town, as on a battlefield, although no enemy was to be seen. The fusillade was directed only against Jews. If a Christian walked through the street nobody assailed him, but as soon as a Jew appeared, bullets flew at him from all sides. Many of the houses and shops in the town are damaged by the bullets. It was not a struggle between two adversaries; It was a hunt by armed men of unarmed people. Whenever anyone fired, the soldiers arrived upon the scene and poured a volley into the street and on the houses. On Friday, the police were specially furious, and searched the houses for Jews who might be hiding.During all this time the secret agents of the police were endeavoring to provoke fresh disturbances and supply a pretext for further attacks upon the Jews. The police fired and attributed the firing to the Jews. They called upon the military to fire upon the Jews. All Jews, even quite old men, were named as revolutionaries, and immediately killed. The result was always the same, whether the charge was made by a policeman, a soldier, or a hooligan. Afterwards it became superfluous to charge the Jews with being revolutionaries. It was quite sufficient to cry out “Jew!”and to call the attention of a soldier to an individual who was running through the street. or was in hiding, for the soldier immediately to shoot him. During these days, namely, Friday and Saturday, pillage was not the leading feature of the pogrom. It was murder, committed by the police and the military. All the bodies of the killed during these two days bore bullet and bayonet wounds, and very seldom injuries caused by sticks or stones. Some of the killed had wounds of both kinds.The following facts afford conclusive evidence:-At the Railway StationIn spite of the presence of the governor , the gendarmes, and the soldiers, the hooligans felt quite safe at the railway station. Nobody tried to prevent them from doing their “work.” On the contrary, they were encouraged and assisted in every way. Upon the arrival of every train, whenever Jewish passengers appeared on the platform, the hooligans began to cry: “Shidi! Beat the Shidi,” and they started attacking the Jews with canes, stones, and sticks. Some Jews ran away and fled along the bridge to the town. But on the other side of the bridge military pickets were posted, and policemen searched them to see whether they carried weapons. They were driven back into the hands of the murderers. Some Jews escaped to the railway-station, but brutal attacks were made on them by the hooligans, who were standing at the station-gate. The hooligans created scenes too terrible for description. They penetrated into the first-class refreshment room, where some Jews had hidden, and dragged them out to the gate, where they slaughtered them in cold blood. The commandant, the gendarmes, and the officers looked on indifferently at the butchery of these unarmed, helpless men lying wounded on the ground. The agonies which the poor martyrs suffered did not provoke the slightest emotion on the part of the officials. On the contrary, they seemed to be much amused and delighted, and they incited the hooligans to “work” more ardently. A few officers tried to interfere in favor of the Jews, but the hooligans were so self-confident and audacious that they paid no attention to the officers and continued their bestial work. It was a general carnage.One of the Jews fought and struggled, bit and kicked for dear life, and succeeded in escaping from the hands of the mob and entering the station. He was covered with blood. and had one eye kicked out, but the hooligans standing at the entrance of the station-room surrounded him and began beating him mercilessly. They caught him by the legs and swung him on the stones. The witness C. (who was present) does not know what was the end of this shocking incident as he was compelled to hide himself.A Jew, of the name of Mulovir, who was knocked down, and punched, and cut in numerous places, saw the mob beating the Jews in the first-class waiting room. He rushed up to the kitchen on the highest floor, but the hooligans seized him there and began cudgelling him. He succeeded in escaping. There was with him another Jew, Abramski, who jumped through the window to the ground and broke one of his legs.While all these scenes of horror were taking place, the governor was present at the station.Throughout this unchecked massacre, the official bureaucracy was entirely on the side of the rough element. This is confirmed by the following fact. On Thursday, the officer of the gendarmes G. addressed a band of hooligans. He called their attention to the fact that at the railway station they could slaughter only poor people. and he therefore recommended them to turn to the centre of the town where they could pillage shops and kill the proprietors. The “rotmistr” of the frontier-guard Z. was present, and added: “The Jews who wear black shirts ought to suffer this fate. Beat them to death.”On Friday, 15th June, the atrocities at the railway station increased in brutality. A Jew. of the name of Kurrekta. who gained two crosses of St. George for distinction during the war and was saved by an officer, states that several Jews arrived at the station along with himself. They were violently beaten, fell to the ground fainting, and were then killed. He witnessed the murdering of Shimon Salmen. who arrived from the little village of Trostiantzi, Mordvha Lew and Bruinski. His own escape was miraculous. As he lay hidden on the roof he saw most terrible scenes. The hooligans beat the dead bodies with stones in the presence of the gendarmes.Seven Jews from Goniondz. terrified by the news of the massacres in Bialystok, came to save their families. The hooligans were utterly enraged by the sight of these seven Jews. They attacked them like savages and slaughtered five of them. Two were saved by one of the soldiers. They succeeded in escaping to Grodno, and there reported the events at the railway station. A Jew, of the name of Horovitz, was saved by the artillery soldiers. Serge Mlkhailovitch Lostshenko.Another Jew, of the same name, was murdered by the hooligans. He had hidden himself behind the commandant begging for mercy, but the commandant pushed him away, and the hooligans attacked him like wild beasts, chewing his clothing and biting him–his body bearing several marks of external violence. This scene was witnessed also by a man named Arkin who was at the railway station.When a lady who was present had almost gone out of her mind at the sight of the horrors, an officer tried to calm her just as if nothing out of the ordinary was taking place, saying: We must look quietly at all these scenes, because the Jews deserved much more for having thrown bombs at a procession and killed our priests; they deserve to be completely annihilated.So it appears that the extravagant falsehood published by the police about the killing of priests was not the suggestion of sheer lunacy, but part of a deliberately manufactured intrigue.When the train of the South-Western Railway arrived, ten Jews came out of the cars, eight of them were killed in atrocious fashion. Kronenberg, who succeeded in escaping, saw how these eight Jews were killed. Many soldiers, officers, and gendarmes were present. In the waiting-room was the inspector Rondkovski, with the assistant procurator of Bialystok. Rondkovskl and the assistant-procurator were standing at the window watching the murdering of these poor victims. When Kronenberg arrived at 6 o’clock in the evening at Grodno, he went to the Governor, where he met also the assistant-procurator. When he reported the carnage at the railway station, the Governor replied: “It is the Jews’ fault, as they have fired and thrown many bombs.”On inquiry, it was stated by a man named Bibula that nine Jews and one Jewess arrived by the train, and on their journey they had been guarded by gendarmes and soldiers. The latter accompanied them to the terminus, but at the station left them. The poor people then fell into the hands of the hooligans, who knocked them down on the pavement and beat them to death. No official appeared on the scene of these horrible occurrences. It was heartrending to hear the cries and the groans of the victims. One of the Christian civilians did his utmost to intervene. but he was immediately killed. The engineer Isfirsvod states that a student was killed. The victims writhing with agony were knocked and pushed, thrown and flung and beaten with iron pegs and sticks. Their cries were heard at a considerable distance from the scene of the barbarities.“Boyari”“Boyari” is the name of a suburb of Bialystok. There Is a tannery there belonging to Polivshtshouk. Eye-witnesses made a lucid and detailed statement to the effect, that on Friday, the 3/15 of June, a workman named Verbitzki brought to the spot a detachment of soldiers, indicating that there were Jews hidden there. The soldiers tried to penetrate into the tannery through the front door, but they were not successful. Meanwhile. a mob gathered in the vicinity. The soldiers and hooligans forced the entrance from behind, destroying a back door. The remaining soldiers were posted in the street, mixed with gendarmes, and among the latter was one of the name of Shoultz. The Jews who were hidden in the tannery ran out panic-stricken on to the balcony crying for help. Suddenly the soldiers and the gendarmes began to fire on them, killing a man named Gourtzmann. In the tannery Shlomo Fourmann and Lieb Mayour were also killed. The son of the proprietor, Polivshtshouk, was arrested by the soldiers and was beaten while being led to the police station. He was severely injured.The next morning, Saturday. the 4/16 of June, at 9 o’clock, the workman Mikhalks came into the tannery, and having noticed that Isaac Bakhrakh, Isaac Tsemnik and Zourakh Reznik were hidden there, he ran at top speed to bring soldiers. The soldiers came and killed Bakhrakh and Tsemnik; Reznik escaped, but he was caught and imprisoned. They accuse him, without any foundation, of having killed a woman.On the same Friday (3/15 of June), several Jews living around a “liesopilnia” (saw-mill) which belongs to Zablondovski, at the Nikolaievskaia, gathered in Zablondovski’s courtyard and hid themselves there. Some of them hid in the factory, some in the rooms of the caretaker Petkevitch and the master Nemiro. The caretaker and the master refused to allow the Jews to stay in their rooms, as the police had forbidden them to give refuge to any Jew. So they passed to the boiler-room where the heat was terrible, and the children were almost choked by the air in the narrow abode.When the massacres on the Nikolaievskaia were over, the Jews suffering with their children the torments of hell in the factory, decided to go out. Some of them went to the house belonging to Abraham Katz, some remained in the saw-mill, and others passed to the office of the factory. The house belonging to Abraham Katz is situated near a garden on one side of Boyari. When the soldiers had finished with the saw-mill they destroyed the hedge, penetrated into the house of Zablondovski, and started firing into the house of Abraham Katz. Their comrades, who were at a distance, noticing what was going on, began to fire themselves on the same house, so that the building was violently attacked from two sides and took fire.A policeman, accompanied by two soldiers, appeared and commanded the women and the children to leave the house. Some came out immediately, and others a little later. The men came out with their wives and children. The first who jumped out was Abraham Katz. He was instantaneously bayonetted by the soldiers, who were surrounding the burning house. The second, who was shot on the spot, was Nakhman Borovski. He carried in his hands a baby, two years old; the baby was severely hurt by a bullet. The third one who ran out was Shoulem Novik, carrying a baby in his arms, his wife Taube following. An officer commanded Novik to deliver the baby to his wife. When Novik refused, he wasflogged until he lost consciousness, and a soldier murdered him in a brutal manner. In similar way instructions were given to kill without mercy Semkha Veinstein, Hirsh Hepner, Zourakh Pande, and Mordkha Shmouklar. The old Jewess, Taube, and two unknown persons, had no time to escape, and were burnt alive. Two Jews hid themselves in a cellar which was full of water. The whole night, between Friday and Saturday, they lay in the water. Next morning they were discovered by two soldiers. One of them ransomed himself for 60 copecks; the other, Joel Tvorkovski, had no money, and was killed.When the firemen came, they were not allowed by the police to do their work. There were no revolutionaries in the house, nobody fired a shot from the building, although the official report mentions such incidents. The whole idea of firing from this house on the police office is absurd, as it is impossible from there to reach the police-station, which is 400 to 600 feet away, and separated by a big store-house of two floors. The soldiers who bombarded and set fire to the house of Abraham Katz were commanded by the officer B. The commissioner of police of the second district was also present.On the same day, Friday, Moshe and Ber Naviazki were passing by the small Slonim Street. A crowd of hooligans with police met them. The commissaire de police of the second district was also there. The two brothers saw that they were in danger and began begging the commissaire to save their lives. But not only was no effort made by him to protect them, but he turned away. The hooligans understood the signal and began stripping and flogging the two Jews. Ber Naviazki was found dead on the spot, and Moshe dangerously wounded. The hooligans also robbed their victims.On Saturday, the 4/16 of June, at six o’clock in the evening, a detachment of soldiers, led by policemen, was marching along the small Slonim Street, when one of the hooligans approached them and whispered that Jews were hidden in Minkovski’s stovefactory. Immediately the soldiers went there and discovered a Jew named Souravitch in the cellar. They commanded him to leave, but he refused. Then a soldier dragged him by the hair of his head and ordered him to go away. Souravitch would not go without protection, whereupon another soldier killed him. These soldiers belonged to the Kazan regiment.Although Boyari is the most peaceful part of the town, it was just there that the hooligans robbed, beat, and murdered every Jew they met. In one of the houses they had wrecked and destroyed everything. Later on they discovered a Jew and were bent on killing him, when he ransomed himself for 200 rubles. This gift produced such a favorable impression that they accompanied him, and protected him from the “wrath of the people,” allowing nobody to lay hands on him.In the courtyard of the same factory the mob mercilessly beat another Jew. They met an old Jew and, with a sharp ladle, tore the entire skin from off his head and face. The bodies of the murdered as well as the wounded people were not carried away until the fire brigade came.When the soldiers had finished their labors at the stovefactory, they divided into two bands, one of which went to the field, while the other one rushed to the gardens to search for Jews. Some Jews who were afraid to remain in their houses took refuge in the gardens belonging to Christians with the permission of the proprietors. In one of the gardens a Jew, named Levin, was found. The soldiers began to attack him. He fought and struggled until a policeman came and fired five bullets at him. He continued struggling with his murderers until he was terribly wounded. Then one of the hooligans knocked him on the head with a heavy stone, and he collapsed. In the same garden a soldier killed another Jew.Mobs, led by policemen, sought out the Jews the whole day. Afterwards two Jews were discovered; one of them, was Shloma Proushenski. The hooligans cried: “These are anarchists! Kill them!” One of the soldiers seemed not to agree and ran away. They addressed a complaint to his superiors. The other soldiers commanded the Jews to retire to the rear. The Jews, knowing that the soldiers would fire on them, refused, upon which the hooligans began to beat them with their sticks. When they were half-dead the soldiers shot them dead.At last, the soldiers and the hooligans penetrated into a house, dragged out a Jew named Einstein and killed him and his two sons, Shmuel and Terakhmirl. Afterwards they dragged out of the house the mother, Shina, and her daughter, Saon (Sonia) Einstein. Sonia tried to run away, a soldier wounded her with a bullet, and a policeman, seeing that she was still alive, fires and kills her. A soldier commanded the mother to move a little aside. The moment she takes up this position a soldier shoots her. Thus was a whole family wiped out.A certain confusion among the hooligans was provoked by the death of Khodakevitch. In the garden belonging to Khodakevitch a certain number of Jews had hidden themselves. Khodakevitch took a hatchet and went to repair a hole in the fences of the garden. At that moment the soldiers were shooting from both sides, and it is said that a policeman was wounded by this firing. It seems that one of the bullets killed Khodakevitch, but one of his hands was also cut. The hooligans noticed that and were delighted by this discovery. They began crying: The Jews killed the proprietor of the garden. Everybody knows that that was a lie. No Jew would kill a Christian who protected Jews. Khodakevitch was buried very soon and secretly, so it was not known whether his hand was cut before or after death. Khodakevitch’s daughter in her despair at the loss of her father requested the police-master, Matjevitch, to inquire into the matter. Matjevitch came, and when he saw the numerous bodies of murdered Jews, he exclaimed ironically: “This is the punishment for our dead.”On Saturday morning a fresh detachment of soldiers appeared, with police. They began searching and dragged a Jewish workman out of a stove. They asked him: What are you doing here? The poor, frightened workman did not reply. Then the policeman ordered him to be beaten and a soldier seized him by the throat and crushed his skull with his rifle. A policeman took pity on the workman, who was in agony. and ordered him to be shot. The man was killed by three bullets. Individual Cases(1) On Friday Lejba Ginzburg was In his lodging in the house of Bronekera in the Zaniejska Street. He was afraid to go out. Somebody knocked at the door. Ginzberg did not open it. The door was then broken open and the police-sergeant of the fourth district, named Bajbok, accompanied by soldiers, entered and ordered the soldiers to fire. One of the soldiers fired and killed Ginzburg’s wife. Chana Binema, and wounded her sister, Rochla Annalni. The latter, still suffering from the wounds, gave evidence to the Commission. Bajbok, not satisfied with the work he had already done, dragged out of Ginzburg’s lodging a Jewess, named Kustinowa Hinda Leja, who was carrying a baby, and ordered a soldier to fire. The soldier fired, but instead of the mother the baby was killed. The same sergeant searched the house, but did not discover anything. Nevertheless. he ordered two Jews, Joselowi Wot and Nachim, to follow him. When they came to the wall of a newly built house he commanded the soldiers to fire on them. Wot was severely wounded. Nachim fell on his knees and begged for mercy. He was bayonetted.(2) On June 14 during the firing on the house of Torpacki, three Jews were wounded in their lodgings, Brianski. Prelagnawargo and Weinciter. The latter begged policeman No. 160, Markowski, to bring ice. Instead of ice he brought some pillaged goods. Weinciter himself then went to fetch ice, but the moment he appeared out of the gate a shot was fired at him from the corner of the Lipova Street, and he was killed.(3) After the firing on the Greek Orthodox procession. the soldiers began to fire on the house of Rachites in the Alexandrova Street. The Chief of the Kazan Regiment arrived, and when he heard rumors of the throwing of a bomb he ordered the soldiers to enter the Jewish houses and to drag out the occupants. The soldiers went into the hall of the house of a Jew named Lapidus, and began to drive out his family. The hooligans then forced an entrance.On the left side of the house the hooligans stood and the Jews fell into their hands. There were killed the sons of Lapidus, Markus and Aron; his daughter. Bluma; Chana, Zina and Chaja Sara Lapidus, and Freida Lida were wounded. The house was wrecked. An old man (Frejtkin); together with a woman, fled. They were caught by the hooligans and killed. A student of the commercial school, Disszig, endeavored to defend Lapidus, but he was killed.(4) On Saturday. June 16, the baker, Gershel, and the tailor, Markel, were carrying bread to those Jews who were hiding in cellars and were starving. When passing through the Piaskowa Street they encountered several policemen, the chief of whom, Ramontowicz, fired on them. Gershel was wounded and Markel was killed.On Friday, June 15, in the Kowalska Street, the hooligans started throwing stones at the house of Judel Tajcman. The whole family thereupon left the house and went to a relation, Gindler. An arrangement was made with policeman No. 40, who accompanied them and promised to protect them. In the Portchtowa Street they were attacked by a band of hooligans. In his flight Judel Tajcman fell and was killed. Policeman No. 40 stood by and looked on with indifference.(6) When the soldiers were firing In the street, on Thursday, June 14, a young Jewish boy, a student of the commercial school, named Gildberg, was ordered away by an officer in command. As the boy fled the officer ordered one of his men to “finish” him. Thereupon one of the soldiers struck the boy with the butt-end of his rifle, and when he fell to the ground he “finished” him.(7) On Saturday, June 16, Liba Szlachter, frightened by the pogrom, took refuge In the garret of Ram’s house. Some other Jews were also hidden there. The next morning soldiers under the command of a policeman entered and killed Chaim Szlachter, a little girl, wounded Berak Szlachter and his son, and drove the rest into the street.(8) On Thursday, immediately after the beginning of the pogrom, Zamel Cukerman was working in the house of his sister, Rywka Boruchowicz. In the front part of the house was a small shop. The hooligans attacked this shop and began to plunder It. Cukerman and Boruchowicz jumped through the window into the courtyard and ran to the lodging of the Warden, Karpow; unfortunately they found the door shut. Immediately a policeman accompanied by soldiers arrived on the scene. The soldiers fired, Cukerman was killed, and Boruchowicz was dangerously wounded. ConclusionsIt is necessary to arrive at some conclusions about the facts which have been described. First of all, it is noteworthy to state the method of the pogrom. The pogrom was known beforehand. The pogrom was prepared. The rumors about the pogrom were used to frighten the people. Even the day was appointed. It is therefore clear that the pogrom was not an accidental occurrence provoked by national or religious hatred. Considering that the agents of the police circulated lies about murders committed by Jews, one arrives at the conclusion that these lies were deliberately and methodically manufactured according to a settled plan. The preparation of the pogrom on a day when Christian processions are held, and when the fanatical mob is usually very much excited, means that an appropriate moment was selected. It would be easy to understand that the mob, excited by the supposed firing by Jews, would make a pogrom and commit atrocities on the spot of the alleged offense; but it is impossible to imagine that without preparation a pogrom would have broken out so quickly and in many places simultaneously. Taking these circumstances into consideration, one arrives at the conclusion that the pogrom was previously prepared and organized; but by whom? We find that before the pogrom the leaders of the Jewish community communicated to M. Kister, the Governor, that they were in a state of panic concerning the preparations that were being made. They indicated Sheremetieff as a person who had appointed even the day for the pogrom, branding him as an open enemy of the Jewish population. The Governor replied that Sheremetieff was his most courageous and energetic official. The pogrom breaks out. The Governor arrives during the day at Bialystok and stays a long time at the railway station. Afterwards he drives to the police office to meet Bogaiewski, and at last he disappears from Bialystok altogether, and goes to Vilna to the Governor-General. Driving through the town the Governor sees with his own eyes the wounded and killed. At the station the hooligans are murdering the Jews, but the Governor makes no further attempt to stay the massacre than if he were a powerless civilian. One must suppose either that the Governor knew of the approaching pogrom, and, when it began, took no steps to quell it because the pogrom was ordered and necessary, or somebody had secretly taken away from the Governor the power to act in the matter.One must also remark that when, on June 2, the members of the Imperial Duma, Jacobsohn and Sheftel, presented to the Minister of the Interior a petition to stop the pogrom, the Minister declared that he would wire immediately to order that vigorous measures should be taken. Nevertheless, many Jews were killed from June 2, at five o’clock in the afternoon, till June 3 in the morning. Where, then, were the so-called measures? Were orders given and not taken? This idea is too absurd. It was more likely that at Bialystok it was not considered necessary to pay any heed to the instructions of the Minister because of the existence of instructions emanating from a power higher than that of the Minister–a power which guaranteed immunity and which approved their criminal actions.Considering both the conduct of the Governor and the futility of the Minister’s measures, we are forced to the conviction that the pogrom was directed by some secret power–a power which may, or may not, be known to the authorities.As to the local police, at no time did they take any measures to quell the pogrom. On the contrary, their agents excited the baser elements of the population by circulating various rumors of crimes committed by Jews during the Catholic procession. The police actually participated in the pogrom and in the pillaging. They indicated who were to be slain, and gave instructions for the slaughter. They led the bands of hooligans during the pillaging of the shops, and they allowed them to commit every cruelty. Notwithstanding that martial law had not been proclaimed, the military commanders who took control of local affairs, placed at the disposal of the police armed soldiers to kill the unarmed Jews. The Jews offered no resistance. In a state of panic they hid themselves in their houses, in cellars, in gardens, and other places.Having considered all the facts, the Commission concludes: (1) That there was no hatred of a national, religious, or economic character between the Jews and Christians in Bialystok. (2) That hostility to the Jews existed only among the police, who exerted themselves to promote ill-feeling in the army, by accusing the Jews of taking part in the movement of freedom. ( 3) That the pogrom was previously planned and prepared by the administration and that the local population was quite cognizant of such preparation.(4) That the circumstance by which the pogrom started was also previously arranged. The administrator predicted the circumstance, and therefore it could not be regarded as a spontaneous occurrence provoked by religious or national fanaticism.(5) That the military and the civil authorities showed by their conduct during the pogrom a complete disregard of all laws as well as the special regulations promulgated on February 20, 1906. Quite systematically peaceful Jewish residents, women and children, were shot. The shooting was ostensibly directed against the revolutionaries, but it is not proved that any revolutionary act took place.(6) That not alone did the civil and military authorities refrain from taking any steps to quell the pogrom, but, assisted by their agents, they themselves killed, outraged, and pillaged. (7) That the official communique as to the cause of the pogrom, namely, an attack by the Jews on the Catholic religious procession, revolutionary acts by Jews, etc., is entirely without foundation.Therefore the Commission proposes to the Duma to address interpellations:–(1) To the Minister of the Interior: Will he hold the Governor of Grodno and the officials of Bialystok responsible for having neglected their official duties and for having assisted and taken part in the pogrom?(2) To the Minister for War: (a)Is he aware that. even before martial law was proclaimed in Bialystok,the military authorities there, disregarding the existing laws, usurped the functions of the Governor of Grodno and the assistant-chief of police, and took the local administration into their own hands? (b)Whether he is aware that during the pogrom in Bialystok from the 1st (14th) to the 3d (16th) of June, the military detachments which were in the town were placed at the disposal of the police for the purpose of killing peaceful citizens, at the order of the police, and even of private persons? (c)Whether the guilty are to be prosecuted?At the same time the Commission considered it their duty to remark that the local population, which was generally terrified, is now panic-stricken by the introduction of a state of war. The investigation of all that happened in Bialystok is possible only on two conditions: (a)That all the members of the local civil and military administration are dismissed or removed, and (b)that the state of war prevailing in the town is abolished.For the Chairman, I. G. SCHTSCHEPKIN.Reporter, M. P. ARAKANTZEFF. Secretary, V. R. JACOBSOHN. Debates in the DumaThe afternoon sitting of the Duma on July 5 was entirely taken up by the Bialystok pogrom. M. Arakantzeff. reporter of the investigating committee, spoke for nearly two hours. The galleries were crowded to suffocation. M. Stolypin, the solitary occupant of the Ministerial benches, took copious notes. M. Arakantzeff’s report was delivered in quiet, sober language and in a low voice, which only heightened the thrilling horror of the recital. They had, he said, the names and addresses of all the witnesses upon whose evidence the report was based, but many of these names could not, for obvious reasons, be made public, at least not so long as the present administration remained at Bialystok, and the city was under martial law, and until these conditions were changed, he contended, it was quite impossible for the Government to ascertain the truth by an official inquiry. M. Arakantzeff supplemented his report by reading a telegram from doctors at Bialystok certifying that a bullet had been extracted from a woman who was supposed to have been struck by a bomb. This finally disposed of the allegations in the official report that a bomb was thrown at a procession. The only bomb was thrown in Surash Street, where some hooligans tried to extend the pogrom, but hurt nobody. This street was notoriously a terrorist stronghold, yet neither soldiers nor police ventured thither, and it was unscathed. If reprisals were evoked by revolutionaries, how was it that Surash Street was left alone while other streets were pillaged and the inhabitants massacred? The official report says that the troops were constantly fired upon by Jews from windows. What, he asked, were the losses among the troops? Three wounded–and he had the evidence of an officer that these men were shot by their own comrades in a cross-fusillade of a garden. The official report says that Jewish revolutionaries bombarded the central police station from a house which was burned. and in which eight or nine revolutionaries were found killed.This house could be no other than the dwelling adjoining the saw-mills. It was physically impossible to fire from it upon the police station. He had shown in the report the real circumstances of this unprovoked butchery. Why, he asked, were the massacres not stopped on the second day, when M. Stolypin claimed to have sent orders to that effect? The history of the Bialystok massacre was only a counterpart of the whole infamous policy of stirring up religious and race hatred, whereby the old regime hoped to perpetuate its own existence. Finland, Poland, and the Caucasus were other examples. The authors thereof had not scrupled to degrade the army to the rank of butchers and to besmirch therevered name of the Emperor. Let the whole world know that the pogroms were not the work of the Russian nation, but of the socalled Government of Russia. It had deceived and demoralized the army into regarding all friends of freedom as enemies of the Czar and the country, but the army was waking up. It would see through the imposture, and then woe betide the traducers and foes of the Russian nation! (Cheers.) The inhabitants of Bialystok had anchored their hope of salvation and justice upon theDuma. He would ask the Duma to honor the memory of the victims by standing up. The whole House rose in solemn silence and none ventured to cheer.On July 6 the discussion on the massacres was opened by Professor Schtschepkin. He pointed out that the Bialystok pogrom was a social and an historic phenomenon, and must, therefore, be considered from both aspects. After referring to the fact that the whole of Western Europe had eagerly awaited his report, he explained that the direct cause of the outbreak of the pogrom could be as little established as that of the fire in Moscow in 1812. Who had thrown the first bomb, who had fired the first shot, would never be discovered. He did not believe that anarchists were responsible. The anarchists would have exactly foreseen the consequences of such an act, and it was quite out of the question that they could have been guilty. It was within the range of possibility that someone not belonging to any revolutionary organization might have thrown the bomb, but really the bomb did not enter into the matter at all. For it was not the bomb that produced the pogrom, but exclusively the attitude of the police. It was the police that had met the procession, and by their outcry about the bomb had set it into confusion and excitement. A panic ensued, and this brought about the subsequent disaster. It was clear, therefore, that the police had organized the pogrom with provocative intent. If the police had remained quiet nothing would have happened. As far as the course of the pogrom itself was concerned, it fully corresponded to the experiments which have been conducted in this sphere by the late Prefect of Odessa, Neidbardt. Where no resistance was offered the pogrom proceeded without interruption. But where the Jewish Self-Defense intervened and fired at the mob the military were summoned and drove off the “rebels.” As far as the attitude of the authorities individually was concerned, Professor Schtschepkin advanced as a proof of his impartiality the fact that, on the occasion of his visit to Bialystok, he had asked the police for a guard, which had been granted to him. He had taken that course not in his own interest, but, firstly, in order to protect the ten Jewish newspaper correspondents who accompanied him, and, secondly, to prove the accuracy of his facts. Nevertheless, he had to make a damaging indictment against all departments of the administration. The Governor had been absent on the first day of the pogrom. For that alone he should be dismissed. But he had done nothing later. What had happened behind the scenes was probably more damning still. The behavior of the lower police officials was quite obvious. Even before the murder of Derkatcheff they had publicly threatened a pogrom and organized bands. During the riot they had led the mob, and had loudly called on the military not to stop them. Everywhere where premises were demolished the police had been present. Where resistance was offered the police summoned the soldiers to overcome it. To sum up, the police had not only connived at the pogrom, but had collaborated in it. As far as the military were concerned, it could be established that certain officers, notably in the Uglitch and Vladimir regiments, had conducted an active anti-Semitic propaganda. Moreover, the responsibility could only be laid at the doors of the officers. It was true that private soldiers were not bound to carry out illegal orders. But their sense of right had been absolutely stunted by the way in which they had been requisitioned in the repressive and punitive campaigns of recent times. Therefore the rank and file could not be blamed. Both the civil and military authorities had deceived the Czar in their reports on the atrocities. For this purpose they had postulated, firstly, that race-hatred existed; secondly, that the Jewish Self-Defense was revolutionary, whereas in reality it was organized from among the bourgeoisie, and was thoroughly loyal; and thirdly, that all revolutionaries were Jews. An interpellation must be directed to the Minister of the Interior. But that should not be the only measure to be adopted by the Duma. First, as there was no independent court, the inquiry into the Bialystok massacres should be handed over to the Duma; secondly the soldiers should be impressed with the fact that they were not bound to carry out the illegal orders of officers; thirdly, everyone should be allowed, as in Western Europe, to carry weapons for self-protection. As long as these three conditions were not fulfilled outbreaks similar to that at Bialystok might be repeated at any time. (Loud and prolonged applause.)The next speaker, Mr. Jacobsohn, spoke with great emotion, and he was frequently interrupted by loud applause. He said he had desired to keep silent, as the report of the Duma commission was eloquent enough. But he had visited the cemetery at Bialystok and he had seen the mutilated corpses of the victims. That picture would never fade from his memory, and therefore he was forced to speak. The Government had acted like a thief that was wanted by the police, and in order to divert attention from its own crimes, had pointed to the Jews, crying “Stop thief!” It had provoked bloodshed and organized bands. Otherwise a pogrom would have been impossible, for race-hatred only existed in their own sickly imagination. The Minister of the Interior was either a criminal or a helpless weakling. The Governor was a brute, who had passed by wounded unmoved and had had them piled with dead on a barrow and suffocated. (Cries of “Executioners!” “Murderers!”) He was a coward, for he had fled to Vilna, where he did not shrink from breathing the same air as Sheremetieff. They were used to Russian soldiers running away. (Cheers.) Even the rank and file fled when the Jews offered resistance. They thus maintained the traditions of the Russian army. The police had helped to murder and plunder. He (M. Jacobsohn) did not desire to evoke pity, but to disclose the truth. But he must relate some incidents which were particularly characteristic. One was as follows: The Jewish Sabbath fell during the pogrom. A Jewish family had hidden in their house. It was so poor that it lacked the bread over which to say the usual blessing. Suddenly the father noticed the mousetrap. A small piece of bread was hanging on the hook. He took it off and recited the blessing. So poor and so pious were the Bialystok Jews! Yet they were called revolutionaries! A band of soldiers broke into the house and murdered the whole family. He was convinced that the usual form of inquiry could not be impartial. He concluded by expressing the hope that the Russian people as a whole would dissociate themselves from the horrible events at Bialystok. (Cheers.)During the resumed debate on the Bialystok massacre on July 9, Mgr. Ropp, Bishop of Vilna, said that there was no racial or religious hatred between the various nationalities of Lithuania. The population of Bialystok was divided into two camps–one including the police, the army, and the authorities, the other comprising the remainder of the inhabitants. He ascribed the pogrom to this deplorable state of affairs. There were, however, certain subsidiary factors which aggravated the situation. On the one hand, the Bund, a Socialist and exclusively Jewish organization, had embittered certain sections of the population by its despotism and terrorist propaganda; on the other hand, Russian settlers belonging to the old faith had aided and abetted the police.M. Vinaver said that the Jews had Socialist organizations just as the other nationalities had. He contended that the massacre was artificially and deliberately provoked by the representatives of officialdom. M. Stolypin had confessed before the Duma that a few thousand proclamations had been printed at the Ministry of the Interior “to stimulate the patriotism of the troops,” The speaker maintained that hundreds and thousands of such proclamations had come from the Komissaroff printing press. He produced several copies, and read extracts therefrom, inciting to the extermination of the Jews and all such “enemies of the State.”M. Roditcheff, comparing the official communique on the Bialystok pogrom with the evidence collected by the Duma, came to the conclusion that the Government was still blindly defiant of all the dictates of humanity and reason, and would awaken only when too late. ResolutionOn July 20, at the last sitting of the Duma, the following resolution was adopted:Having heard the Report of the Commission on the Bialystok Pogrom, the Duma, in view of the facts that the pogrom against the peaceful Jewish population arose not through the indignation of the Christian population against the Jews, but through the measures adopted by the authorities; that for these acts not only the local authorities are responsible, but also the Central Government which authorized an extensive propaganda for the organization of an attack on a social stratum embarrassing to the Government and took part in the pogrom; that the official reports concealed the truth and clearly sought to justify the murder of peaceful citizens through agents of the Government; that the Government, convinced of its impotence to fight the revolution, seeks to overcome it by acts of cruelty upon peaceful citizens; that this Government, which systematically persecutes and humiliates the Jews and imbues the population with the conviction that everything is permitted against the Jews, resolved to wreak vengeance on the weakest and most severely persecuted section of the population; that such mode of action of the Government through the incitement to pogroms must in future keep the entire population of Russia in a state of incessant anxiety, and affords no possibility of peaceful labor; that through the retention in office of the present irresponsible Ministry the way is paved for frightful anarchy, the general uprising of the sorely taxed people, and the general ruin of the land;Resolves, That the only remedy for this situation unparalleled in the history of civilized countries, and the only means to prevent further pogroms, are to be found in an immediate judicial investigation and the punishment of all officials, high and subordinate, without regard to their position, who were responsible for the pogroms, and the dismissal of the Ministry.THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND AFFAIRS OF INTEREST TO THE JEWS, 1905-1906December 5, 1905, Hon. Henry M. Goldfogle. of New York, submits a resolution in the House of Representatives expressing sympathy with the Jewish sufferers by the Russian massacres.December 11, 1905, Hon. William Sulzer, of New York, submits a resolution expressing sympathy with the Jewish sufferers by the Russian massacres.December 18, 1905, Hon. William Sulzer, of New York. delivers a speech on his resolution of December 11.February 8, 1906, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs grants a hearing on resolutions expressing the sympathy of the House with the Jewish victims of the Russian massacres.February 12, 1906, Hon. Charles A. Towne. of New York, introduces a substitute for the Goldfogle and Sulzer resolutions of sympathy.March 19, 1906, Hon. William S. Bennett, of New York. Introduces a resolution regarding a modification in the Immigration Law. to meet the case of Russian-Jewish immigrants.April 2, 1906, Mr. Henry White, first delegate of the United States to the Conference on Morocco at Algeciras, has a provision inserted In the treaty by which the security and equal privileges of the Jews of Morocco are guaranteed by the signatories.April 11, 1906, Hon. Allan L. McDermott, of New Jersey, delivers an address in the House of Representatives. arraigning Russia and other Christian nations for their treatment of the Jews.May 23, 1906, The Senate passes an Immigration Bill.June 22, 1906, The Congress passes a Joint Resolution expressing sympathy with the Jewish sufferers by the Russian massacres.June 22, 1906, Hon. John Gill, Jr., of Maryland, introduces a resolution calling upon the President to transmit to the House of Representatives such official Information as he can secure concerning the massacre at Bialystok.June 25, 1906, The House passes an Immigration Bill. June 29, 1906, The Naturalization Bill becomes an Act. RESOLUTIONS OF SYMPATHY ON ACCOUNT OF THE MASSACRES OF JEWS IN RUSSIAAs the above list of Congressional resolutions, etc., shows, four resolutions expressing sympathy with the Jews on account of the outrages perpetrated upon members of their race in Russia were submitted to the Congress of the United States.On February 8, 1906, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs granted a hearing to those interested in the passage of the resolutions. The Hon. Simon Wolf, of Washington, D. C., and Representatives Goldfogle and Sulzer spoke in support of such resolutions.On June 22, the following joint resolution was introduced into the Senate by the Hon. Anselm J. McLaurin, of Mississippi, and into the House by the Hon. Robert G. Cousins, of Iowa. It was adopted without debate and unanimously by both Houses, and approved by the President on June 26, 1906:Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of the United States are horrified by the reports of the massacre of Hebrews In Russia, on account of their race and religion, and that those bereaved thereby have the hearty sympathy of the people of this country. |
