In many places the local authorities have even taken advantage of the new decree to deprive the Jews of rights possessed by them under older statutes. In Saratov, for example, a small number of Jewish merchants, professional men and artisans have been permitted to live and engage in gainful occupations since 1893, under the terms of a special Ukase issued in that year, although the city, being outside the Pale, is closed to Jews in general. The regulations, however, required that the Jews obtain special passports from the police department certifying to their right of residence in Saratov, and special permits from the local license boards, based upon the police certificates, authorizing them to engage in their several occupations. But now that the Pale has been “abolished” the police officials have discontinued the issuing of special certificates, claiming that since all Jews have been granted the right of residence throughout the Empire the need for issuing such certificates to individual Jews no longer exists. Yet the license boards persist in their demand for such certificates from the Jews and have, to date, absolutely refused to grant them the necessary licenses without which they cannot continue in their occupations. In other words, the Jews of Saratov now have the legal right to live in that city, but are denied the legal right to secure the wherewithal to live.[10]
5. The promulgation of the abolition act, designed to mislead the public opinion, and thereby to win the sympathy, of the civilized world, has not misled the people of Russia.
This is clearly indicated by the typical expressions of editorial opinion which follow; and at this point it may be well to remind the American reader again that in Russia, more than in any other country, the press must weigh its words carefully, since editorial missteps have serious consequences.
The “Russkoe Slovo,” August 13 (26), 1915, condemns the measure as a half-way measure, as a substitution of one Pale for another, “even though it be granted that the new Pale is larger than the old.” It demands the full abolition of the Pale—“that greatest misfortune of Russian life.”
“Unfortunately,” it continues, “we tend to repeat our mistakes only too often. When we do ‘submit’ to the demands of life we do so either too late or with such indecision and so grudgingly that in the end, instead of evoking real satisfaction, we not infrequently evoke a feeling of misunderstanding or produce an effect which is the very opposite of the one intended. Yet an act can be valid and precious and achieve its highest aim only when it is done in good time, cheerfully, frankly, straightforwardly and with decision—as befits a government that is strong and sure of itself.”
The Petrograd “Retch,” the great liberal daily, August 20 (September 2), 1915, points out that the measure is merely tentative and must be legalized by statutory enactment within six months. It hopes that this enactment will not preserve the absurd limitations of the original decree.
“If it has at last been recognized as expedient to remove that shameful blot, the Pale, we ought to leave not even a small speck of it. From a moral point of view,—and even an empire must have a point of view—it matters little whether a man is held by a long chain or a short one. There should be no chains at all....”
This is echoed by the Petrograd “Courier”:
“If there is only one corner of Russia left to which Jews may not be admitted, the Pale still remains, no matter what arguments may be used, and no matter what promises of future ‘privileges’ may be made. A principle cannot be measured quantitatively. The step taken so far is merely a beginning, and life demands that it should be completed. Besides the ‘right to live’ there are other rights derived from it:—the right to attend school, to do business, to own property, to choose one’s occupation freely.”[11]