On May 9. at noon, you kindly handed me the translation you had made of a telegram dated Vienna, May 8, 1885, from Count Kalnoky to yourself, which is literally as follows: We regret the nomination of Mr. Keiley as minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary to the imperial court and his sudden departure from America, as here, too, like in Rome, prevail scruples against this choice. Please direct in the most friendly way the attention of the American Government to the generally existing diplomatic practice to ask previously to any nomination of a foreign minister the agrément (consent) of the Government to which he is accredited. You are therefore requested to earnestly entreat them that the newly-nominated minister may not reach Vienna before our confidential consent to his nomination has taken place. The position of a foreign envoy wedded to a Jewess by civil marriage would be untenable and even impossible in Vienna. COUNT KALNOKY. You were then informed by me in our conversation that the Hon. A. M. Keiley, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to your Government, had embarked for Europe on the day previous to the day on which the telegram was dated, and being then upon the high seas it was, as it still is, impossible to inform him of the telegram received by you until his arrival in Europe. The reason, and the only reason, given for the indisposition of the Government of Austria-Hungary to receive Mr. Keiley, stated in the telegram and repeated by you verbally to me, consists in the allegation that his wife was "a Jewess," and that his marriage to one of that faith would render his position, in the words of the telegram, "untenable and even impossible in Vienna." On Saturday, the 16th of May, at 4 p. m., I received your communication of that date, as follows: I have the honor to inform you that, in reply to the communication addressed by me to His Majesty's Government that Mr. Keiley would not be stopped en route to Vienna, Count Kalnoky has instructed me to let you know that this nomination will doubtless be attended with great difficulties, and the new minister will find himself placed in a most painful situation upon his arrival in Vienna. The question thus raised by your Government involves principles of the greatest importance, and has no precedent as yet discoverable to me in modern times and in intercourse between friendly nations; and having submitted the matter to the consideration of the President, I am instructed by him to inform your Government, through you, that the ground upon which it is announced, that the usual ceremonial courtesy and formal respect are to be withheld from this envoy of the United States to your Government, that is to say, because his wife is alleged or supposed by your Government to entertain a certain religious faith, and to be a member of a certain religious sect, cannot be assented to by the Executive of the Government of the American people, but is and must be emphatically and promptly denied. The supreme law of this land expressly declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and by the same authority it is declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is a government of laws, and all authority exercised must find its measure and warrant thereunder. It is not within the power of the President nor of the Congress, nor of any judicial tribunal in the United States, to take or even hear testimony, or in any mode to inquire into or decide upon the religious belief of any official, and the proposition to allow this to be done by any for. eigu Government is necessarily and a fortiori inadmissible. To suffer an infraction of this essential principle would lead to a disfranchisement of our citizens because of their religious belief, and thus impair or destroy the most important end which our constitution of Government was intended to secure. Religious liberty is the chief cornerstone of the American system of government, and provisions for its security are imbedded in the written charter and interwoven in the moral fabric of its laws. Anything that tends to invade a right so essential and sacred must be carefully guarded against, and I am satisfied that my countrymen, ever mindful of the suffering and sacrifices necessary to obtain it, will never consent to its impairment for any reason or under any pretext whatsoever. In harmony with this essential law is the almost equally potential unwritten law of American society that awards respect and delicate consideration to the women of the United States and exacts deference in the treatment at home and abroad of the mothers, wives, and daughters of the Republic. The case we are now considering is that of an envoy of the United States, unquestionably fitted, morally and intellectually, and who has been duly accredited to a friendly Government, towards which he is thoroughly well affected; who in accordance with the laws of this country, has long since contracted and has maintained an honorable marriage, and whose presence near the foreign Government in question is objected to by its agents on the sole ground that his wedded wife is alleged to entertain a religious faith which is held by very many of the most honored and valued citizens of the United States. It is not believed by the President that a doctrine and practice so destructive of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, so devoid of catholicity, and so opposed to the spirit of the age in which we live can for a moment be accepted by the great family of civilized nations or be allowed to control their diplomatic intercourse. Certain it is, it will never, in my belief, be accepted by the people of the United States, nor by any administration which represents their sentiments. Permit me, therefore, being animated only by the sincerest desire to strengthen the ties of friendship and mutual respect between the Gov. ernments we respectively represent, most earnestly and respectfully to crave careful consideration of this note, and to request your Government to reconsider the views you have communicated to me in respect of the possible reception of Mr. Keiley on the mission of amity and mutual advantage which, in the amplest good faith, he was selected by this Government to perform. Into the religious belief of its envoy, or that of any member of his family, neither this Government nor any officer thereof, as I have shown you, has any right or power to inquire, or to apply any test whatever, or to decide such question, and to do so would constitute an infraction of the express letter and an invasion of the pervading spirit of the supreme law of this land. While thus making reply to the only reason stated by your Government as the cause of its unreadiness to receive Mr. Keiley, permit me also to remark that the President fully recognizes the highly important and undoubted right of every Government to decide for itself whether the individual presented as the envoy of another state is or is not an acceptable person, and in the exercise of its own high and friendly dis cretion, to receive or not the person so presented. This right so freely accorded by the United States to all other nations, its Government would insist upon should an occasion deemed to be proper arise. Accept, &c., No. 30. T. F. BAYARD. Baron Schaeffer to Mr. Bayard. WASHINGTON, May 19, 1885. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the recept of your official note answering my communication of the 16th instant, relating to the nomination of Mr. Keiley as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at the court of Vienna, and shall not fail to lay it before my Gov. ernment in original with to-day's post. Not feeling myself authorized to enter in any discussion of the arguments therein contained, I cannot but repeat my most friendly verbal request that the newly nominated minister may not reach Vienna before the confidendial agrément to his acceptance of the Imperial and Royal Government has taken place. BARON: With reference to the note which I had the honor to address to you on the 18th instant concerning the appointment of the Hon. A. M. Keiley as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States near the Government of Austria-Hungary, I have now the honor to present to you the view of this Government with respect to a point which had been advanced by your Government, and which I had, in preparing that note, set aside for more convenient examination. In the telegram sent to you by Count Kalnoky, on the 8th instant, in relation to Mr. Keiley, a translation of which you kindly handed to me, I note that he desires the attention of this Government to be directed to what he designates as the generally existing diplomatic practice to ask, previously to any nomination of a minister abroad, the consent of the Government to which he is to be accredited. In the conversation we held at the time you delivered that translation to me I stated to you that such practice did not prevail with this Government, nor was such consent sought in advance of its nominations of envoys to foreign states. Upon reflection the importance of the question becomes apparent. Consequently, I have made careful search for the precedents and practice in this Department for the last ninety years. The result enables me to inform you that no case can be found in the annals of this Gov ernment in which the acceptability of an envoy from the United States was inquired about or ascertained in advance of his appointment to the mission for which he was chosen. Whilst the practice to which Count Kalnoky refers may, in a limited degree, prevail among European states, yet in this respect the exceptions are very numerous, and there are important reasons why, in this country, the practice should never have been adopted, and why its adoption would not be practical or wise. Our system of frequently recurring elections at regular and stated periods provides, and was intended to provide, an opportunity for the influence of public opinion upon those to whom the administration of public affairs has been intrusted by the people temporarily, and for a fixed time only, on the expiration of which an opportunity for a change in its agents and policies is thus afforded. The affiliation in sentiment between a political administration thus defeated at the polls and a foreign nation closely interested in maintaining certain international policies and lines of political conduct, might render it difficult for an administration, elected for the very purpose of producing a change of policy, to procure the consent of the foreign Government to the appointment of agents whose views were in harmony with the latest and prevailing expression of public opinion as the result of popular election. As this Government has never adopted the policy of employing professional diplomatists specially dedicated to the duties of the service, and as it has no titled or privileged class to select from for the perform ance of such duties, it is constrained to choose its representatives abroad from those who have been bred to other pursuits. In following this course, care is taken to secure persons of intelligence and standing, believed to be worthy of the confidence of their own Government and who would not be likely to offend the susceptibilities of society or of the authorities of the foreign country. The choice of such representatives may not invariably have been wise, but I will venture to say that it has been in the main as nearly so as human fallibility will allow. If, however, upon the announcement of a mission, the Government to which the chosen envoy is to be sent objects to him, and declines to receive him on the ground of some vague report to his discredit—probably originating in the disappointment of personal rivalry or in envy-it may result in creating an issue founded upon retaliation, and thus permit petty personal objections to seriously embarrass important public affairs, and, perhaps, in the end, prevent the accrediting of a representative of either Government. This to us would be especially undesirable in respect to Austria-Hungary, one of the most ancient and respected Governments in Europe, to which the United States are bound by many lasting ties of amity. Permit me to observe, here, that, whilst the wise and time-honored custom of this Republic precluded the prior submission of the President's choice of his agent to the approval of the Government you represent, yet I availed myself of the earliest opportunity to courteously acquaint you, by my note of the 4th instant, and your Government directly by means of an instruction sent the same day to the United States legation at Vienna, of the choice and appointment of Mr. Keiley to that mission, and to bespeak for him, through your kind offices, that favorable reception at Vienna due to his merits as an American citizen of great ability and character. In so doing, I followed with pleasure the common usage of this Government on such occasions, and one which in many instances-although I find numerous exceptions-has been observed by other Governments toward this. It is hoped, in view of the foregoing considerations, that His Majesty the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary will find in the appointment of Mr. Keiley as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States no sufficient ground to reject him in that character because of His Majesty's sanction not having previously been asked. Accept, &c., T. F. BAYARD. No. 32. Baron Schaeffer to Mr. Bayard. WASHINGTON, May 25, 1885. SIR: Information having reached His Majesty's Government through Prague papers and otherwise, that a considerable number of Bohemian's (Czechs), residents of Chicago and the environing districts, are going to leave on the 30th instant, at 5 o'clock p. m., by the Hamburg steamer Westphalia, as saloon and steerage passengers, for Prague, Bohemia, ostensibly to witness the opening festivities of the new National Theater in that city, and as it is quite possible that some of the Bohemian socialists and anarchists, now in this country, may avail themselves of this opportunity for effecting their return to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, or with a view to smuggle into His Majesty's dominion pamphlets of revolutionary character or explosives, I have been instructed to bring this matter to the notice of the Government of the United States. I have consequently the honor to make you the above communication, requesting you to take measures for having the luggage of all Bohemian tourists who are booked as passengers on the Westphalia carefully examined by the New York police, and to have all suspicious matter in the way of explosives and revolutionary pamphlets seized. I venture to hope that this request, prompted by considerations of the utmost importance, may appear practicable in your eyes, and beg that you will inform me if such suspicious matter should have been found. Accept, &c., No. 33. SCHAEFFER. Mr. Bayard to Baron Schaeffer. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BARON: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday, whereby you acquaint me with the purport of information, gathered by your Government through Prague newspapers and otherwise, to the effect "that a considerable number of Bohemians (Czechs), residents of Chicago and the environing districts, are going to leave on the 30th instant, at 5 o'clock p. m., by the Hamburg steamer Westphalia, as saloon and steerage passengers, for Prague, Bohemia, ostensibly to witness the opening festivities of the new National Theater in that city," and add that "as it is quite possible that some of the Bohe |