Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, Nov. 24, 1884, MS. Inst.
Great Britain, XXVII. 349.

The publications referred to by Mr. Frelinghuysen in the two foregoing
passages were not direct incitements to assassination or arson, but
were announcements, in the form of news reports, of the alleged
intention of persons in British jurisdiction to commit such unlawful
acts.

(5) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

$194.

"I greatly regret that I do not feel myself at liberty to comply with the request contained in your letter of the 15th instant. I would to God that the governments of all countries, like that of our own happy land, might permit knowledge of all kinds to circulate freely among the people. It is our glory that all men within the United States enjoy the inestimable right of worshipping God according to the dictates of their own conscience. In Sardinia, however, the case is unhappily far different. There they have a state religion and a strict censorship of the press; and they exclude all books of every kind, except such as are in accordance with their own faith. and principles. They have their system and we have ours; and it has ever been the policy of this Government not to interfere with the internal regulations of foreign governments, more especially in questions of religion. From the jealous character of the Sardinian Government it is almost certain that our interposition would be unavailing; and the attempt might injure instead of proving beneficial to the Waldenses themselves.

"Your information in respect to the Baptist missionary who was imprisoned at Hamburg is not correct. This you will perceive from a copy of Mr. Forsyth's letter to our consul at Hamburg, which I enclose to you. The missionary had been released before Mr. Forsyth's letter reached Hamburg. Had he been an American citizen, it would have been the duty of this Government to interpose its good offices for the purpose of relieving him from imprisonment. The case of requesting permission to introduce books into a country, prohibited by the state religion and the state policy is far different.

"I have had a conversation on this subject with our excellent friend, Walter Lowrie, esq., who entirely concurs with me in opinion, that we ought not to interfere, and, if we should, that our interference would prove unavailing. Such is also the judgment of the President.

"It is with sincere pain that I feel myself constrained to deny your benevolent request."

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to the Rev. Mr. Baird, Oct. 22, 1845, 35 MS.
Dom. Let. 299.

"The President has referred to this Department the memorial of the 13th instant, over your signature and that of other clergymen of your denomination, asking a renewal of supposed instructions of my predecessor, William L. Marcy, to the United States representative in Japan, for the purpose of inducing the Government of that Empire to repeal the laws which make the profession of Christianity penal. In reply I have to state that the only passage in the instructions to Mr. Townsend Harris upon the subject is the following, contained in a letter of Mr. Marcy to him, of the 13th of September, 1856: 'The intolerance of the Japanese in regard to the Christian religion forbids us to hope that they would consent to any stipulation by which missionaries would be allowed to enter that Empire, or Christian worship, according to the form of any sect, would be permitted.' Hence it appears that you are under a misapprehension in regard to the instructions referred to. It is evident from Mr. Marcy's language that he was familiar with the antecedents of Christianity in Japan. You yourselves are no doubt aware that our religion was in a flourishing state there about two centuries ago, that large numbers of Japanese had become converted to it; that consequently the priests of other religions became alarmed at its progress, when, owing to the imprudence or as some suppose the arrogance of the Christian divines, the Japanese rulers, lay and clerical, caused them and their converts to be attacked and massacred, whereby Christianity was at once as it were extirpated. The same penal laws against it to which you refer were then enacted and remain in force to this day. The occasion and policy which dictated them may be presumed to be still fresh in the memories of the many cultivated people in that quarter. Some of the prejudices against Christians may have been softened by the intercourse with them which has taken place since that country was reopened by us to foreign trade. It is to be feared however, that any attempt to induce them to change their policy in respect to our religion would be premature. Still this Department will instruct Mr. Van Valkenburgh, the United States minister in Japan, to make inquiries upon the subject, and, if he should find the prospect at all favorable at the present time, to cooperate with Her Britannic Majesty's representative, if as you intimate that functionary should also be instructed to endeavor to have the disabilities against Christians in Japan removed."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to the Rt. Rev. Horatio Potter, Nov. 23, 1866, 74 MS. Dom. Let. 417.

"Your No. 10, under date of April 27th, submitting a statement of facts furnished by the Rev. Henry Schauffler, who has requested the interposition of your legation in his behalf, has been received.

"Mr Schauffler, who represents himself to be a citizen of the United States residing at Brunn, in Moravia, complains that while his family and some invited friends were in the habit of occasionally assembling at his private house for devotional exercises, he had been interdicted by the authorities from holding such meetings, and judicial proceedings against him had been instituted. On this account he has claimed the interposition of your legation, and you informed him in reply that you must decline to take any official action without the instructions of this Department.

"A statement, a copy of which you transmit to the Department, has been prepared by him to obtain such instructions.

The Department approves your refusal to address the Austrian Government on this question without instructions in reference thereto. I have carefully examined your dispatch and the statement of Mr. Schauffler enclosed therewith. Mr. Schauffler states that, having moved to Brunn to further the dissemination of the Scriptures through colporteurs, and the understanding of the Bible through private exposition in his own dwelling, in the circle of his invited friends and by public lectures, he commenced holding Bible exposition meetings at his home, in the summer of 1874. Although these meetings are denominated private and domestic, the attendance increased until ninety or one hundred persons were present.

"In January he began to hold public Bible lectures in a hired hall, obtained for the purpose. Soon afterwards he was charged with ' enticing' children into these meetings, and with violations of the law in having distributed tracts to children, and was forbidden to hold further meetings. Various proceedings followed, during which he appealed to the stadtholder of Moravia, who rejected his appeal, and after efforts on his part to procure a revocation of the order he was finally refused the right to hold private meetings, because his meetings had been too large; or to hold public ones, on account of the police prohibition.

"Under all these circumstances, and as he intends to appeal to the ministry to reverse these proceedings, he has appealed to you for your intervention.

"It does not appear that Mr. Schauffler claims the right to carry on his work, or to hold these meetings under any treaty obligation, or under any other authority than the laws of the country; but he insists that, while charged with the violation of the law, he has not in reality been guilty thereof; and that he therefore should be allowed to continue to hold his meetings. It does not, moreover, appear that he has been punished for any violation of law, nor does any such punishment seem to be feared or expected. The question, therefore, which he has presented, seems to be whether under the laws of Austria he is entitled to hold these meetings.

"To address the Government of Austria-Hungary on his behalf under these circumstances would require a complete understanding of the Austrian law, and clear proof that the authorities have improperly construed the law against him.

"It is a delicate task for this Government to assume to enter upon an examination of a question depending solely on foreign law, and to express to the Government of Austria-Hungary the opinion that its authorities have improperly or unfairly refused what is claimed merely as a privilege pursuant to its laws. If this were competent in any case, it might be said in this case with force that it is not easy to distinguish between a public meeting and a meeting of some ninety or one hundred persons, gathered for whatever purpose, or between giving tracts to children and lending them' to those who have asked for them.

6

"It appears, moreover, that Mr. Schauffler has not exhausted his appeal to the courts, or authorities of the country. The Department is not in possession of the text of these laws, or of sufficient evidence to warrant an expression of opinion that Mr. Schauffler has been unfairly dealt with. Without therefore passing upon the correctness of the position assumed by him, and with every disposition to aid him in any proper work, I do not see, under the circumstances of the case as presented or with the information now furnished, that it is competent for this Government to direct its representative to make an appeal of the nature asked for. You are, however, authorized to use your unofficial good offices, if requested, that Mr. Schauffler may have an opportunity for a fair hearing and presentation of his case in such quarter as may be desired.

"I am aware of the many sacrifices and the unselfish labors of many gentlemen of his profession, and it is a source of regret that the Department is not always enabled to afford such active assistance in foreign countries, as they may desire."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Delaplaine, chargé at Vienna, June 2, 1875,
MS. Inst. Austria, II. 352.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 190, relating to the case of Mr. H. A. Schauffler.

"It is understood that Mr. Schauffler desires merely to receive the treatment which any foreigner under similar circumstances would be entitled to receive under Austrian laws; and that being the case, it is desirable that such action may be taken as will be most likely to bring about that result. It was the design of the Department, in its communication to you of the 13th March last (No. 95), to have procured (informally or otherwise as you might think proper) from the foreign office the legal provisions therein referred to. It was thought by the Department that if, on the receipt of the laws in question, it

should be found that Mr. Schauffler's case admitted of amelioration, or would seem to do so, under a fair interpretation of the laws, the matter could be brought to the attention of the foreign office with great assurance of success, the application being fortified already by the material previously obtained from that source.

"The Department does not consider an attempt to put Mr. Schauffler on the same footing in Austria, in respect to the conduct of his meetings, as are other foreigners, similarly situated, as in anywise interfering with or complaining of the legal internal or domestic administration of His Majesty's Government or the laws of AustriaHungary; nor would the Department act otherwise in the matter, were Mr. Schauffler a propagandist of any other school. The question is one of equal rights and privileges in a given case, for a citizen of the United States, to those accorded other foreigners under the actual laws of the Empire.

"As your No. 190 has failed to advance the interests of Mr. Schauffler and leaves the official statement of the laws yet unobtained, I will thank you to proceed in the matter as indicated in instruction No. 95.".

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Austria-Hungary, May 19, 1879, MS. Inst. Austria-Hungary, III. 13.

"With reference to your remark that the Government cannot consent that the power of a state shall anywhere be exercised against our people who are adherents of the Christian religion because of their religion, or that they shall be subjected to abuse for this reason, you are understood of course to confine your statement to the maintenance of religious views, and not to contemplate the obtrusive presentation of certain views in violation of the laws of a country in which the parties voluntarily have entered."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Seward, min. to China, May 2, 1876, MS.
Inst. China, II. 385.

"Upon the 23d of November, Sir Edward Thornton called upon me and stated that he was instructed by Lord Derby to read to me, and if I desired it to leave with me a copy of an instruction bearing date. October 28, which had been addressed to Mr. Layard, Her Majesty's minister at Madrid, touching religious toleration in Spain, and that Lord Derby expressed the hope that the Government of the United States might instruct its representative at Madrid to make representations in a similar sense to the Government of the King. I transmit, herewith, a copy of this instruction, which was given me by Sir Edward Thornton.

"You will perceive its guarded character, and while Lord Derby states that Her Majesty's Government have learned with great regret that the Spanish Government had placed upon the XIth article of