Page:International law and the discriminiations practices by Russia under the Treaty of 1832 (IA internationallaw00kuhn).pdf/6

 The most meager reflection leads inevitably to the conclusion that if this contention were permitted to prevail as a guiding principle of international relations, not a single treaty in force with reference to the protection of the rights of citizens of one country within the territory of another could be deemed any longer the source of any definite rights or privileges. However definite might be the right or privilege granted by treaty to the citizens of a foreign state, it could be rendered nugatory simply by denying the right or privilege to native citizens.

The acceptance of any such principle would revolutionize the relations of states upon the basis of conventions, and would extend the class distinctions made in one nation, beyond the borders of that nation, to the territory of every other nation with which it had treaty relations affecting aliens.

Russia first asserted the theory in 1862 in its diplomatic correspondence with Lord Russell representing the British Foreign Department. No report of this correspondence is to be found in the published record of British State Papers, but it is referred to, however, in the correspondence which passed in 1880 with reference to the case of Lewisohn, a British subject of Jewish faith, who was expelled simply by reason of the creed which he professed. Lord Granville at first took a vigorous stand against any discrimination, writing to the British Ambassador that: “The treaty be¬ tween this country (Great Britain) and Russia of the 12th January, 1859, applies to all Her Majesty’s subjects alike, without distinction of creed." (British State Papers, Vol. 73, p. 833.)

For some reason which does not clearly appear, Lord Granville afterwards surrendered his position in the matter and followed the precedent of 1862 and insisted only that British subjects should be placed on the same footing as Russian subjects of the same “class.” He did not admit the correctness of the principle as a guide for the interpreta-