On the day of her expulsion, Miss Booth addressed an appeal to the Grand
Council of Geneva against the decree of M. Héridier. The following is
the text of the Appeal:—
“TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE.
“GENTLEMEN,—I have to-day received notice of the decree of the
Department of Justice and Police, withdrawing from me the permission
to reside in the Canton of Geneva, and enjoining my departure from
that Canton this day before 6 o’clock in the evening. The one reason
alleged for this decision is that the Salvation Army has made several
collections of money the use of which has not yet been accounted for
in spite of the summons which I received from the authorities. My
reply is, I have never myself made any collection, and have never
touched the money collected. I am not the Treasurer of the Salvation
Army, and the accounts are not in my hands. It was thus impossible for
me to respond up to this moment to the demand which was made of me. I
gave the fullest explanation to the persons who interrogated me. The
only collections which were made were those made at the doors of our
meetings. There has never been any collection made from house to house
by members of the Salvation Army. I have not been guilty of any act
whatsoever which would justify my deprivation of the permission to
reside in Geneva, consequently, strong in the sense of right and my
own conscience, I come to request you, gentlemen, to annul the decree
of expulsion published against me to-day by the Department of Justice
and Police.
“Yours respectfully,
(Signed) “CATHERINE BOOTH.”
In conformity with the Genevese law the Council of State appointed one
of its members to hear Miss Booth on the subject of her appeal. She
therefore came back from Lausanne to Geneva under a safe-conduct, in
order to appear before the Councillor of State delegated to hear her.
This took place on February 26th. The British Consul at Geneva supported
her by his presence at the interview. Miss Booth pleaded before the
Councillor of State, with clearness and earnestness, against the reasons
alleged for her expulsion. She reiterated the fact that the meetings of
the Salvation Army had always been held in private halls, that is to
say, halls belonging to private persons, or to societies, such as the
Salle de la Rive Droite, du Casino, de la Reformation, du Terraillet,
des Grottes, &c.; entrance to the former was entirely free, and for the
others cards of invitation were given, showing that they were private
meetings. They were never closed to the representatives of the public
authorities. The meetings, she avowed, had been several times
interrupted by noise and uproar; personal assaults even had been made in
the street. Miss Booth distinctly asserted that she had never been the
means, by a single word or act, of stirring up such manifestations. She
appealed to the fact of her permission of residence having been granted
for a year by the Council of State at the end of this long series of
meetings in connection with which these very disturbances had taken
place. Had they thought her responsible for the disturbances, they might
then and there have withheld the permission. It was only four days, she
reminded them, after this permission that the Council of State issued
its decree for closing the meetings. That decree had been scrupulously
respected by members of the Salvation Army, and since its publication
Miss Booth asserted she had lived in a most retired manner, having
accepted the hospitality of the family of M. Lenoir, in whose house she
was at the moment she received the warrant of expulsion. Concerning
these statements of Miss Booth in her own defence, the Federal
Government itself in its rejection of her appeal four months later says,
“The accuracy of the facts here recorded by Miss Booth to the Council of
State of Geneva cannot be disputed.” The Councillor of State appointed
to hear Miss Booth apparently assented to the justice of these
arguments. With a shrug of the shoulders he replied that these grounds
alleged by the Department of Justice and Police for her expulsion were
“only pretexts.” “It is not in truth for these reasons that you have
been expelled; it is on account of the noise you have made” (_bruit_).
Miss Booth, astonished, asked, “Do you then tell me, sir, that _false
pretexts_ were made use of for my expulsion?” The Councillor replied
hesitatingly, and somewhat apologetically, “These were only pretexts.”
He then spoke of Madame de Gasparin ... “a most distinguished lady,
belonging to one of the most ancient families of Geneva,” ... &c., &c.
Was the opinion expressed by Madame de Gasparin the true pretext then
for the expulsion? It would seem so in some degree. “You are young
women,” said the Councillor: “it is not in accordance with our ideas and
customs that young women should appear in public. We are _froissés_ by
it.” To this Miss Booth replied, with a sorrowful earnestness, and using
great plainness of speech, “Listen to me, I beg of you, sir. It is
contrary, you tell me, to your sense of what is right and becoming that
young women should preach the Gospel. Now, if Miss Charlesworth and I
had come to Geneva to act in one of your theatres, I have no doubt we
should have met with sympathy and approval from your public. We could
have sung and danced on your stage; we could have dressed in a manner
very different from, and much less modestly than you see us dressed; we
could have appeared before a miscellaneous audience, men and women,
young and old, and of every class; members of the Grand Council, M.
Héridier himself, and others, would have come to see us act; we should
have got money; Geneva would have paid ungrudgingly in that case; and
you would all have sat and approved; you would have clapped your hands
and applauded us; you would have brought your wives and daughters to see
us, and they also would have applauded. There would be nothing to
_froisser_ you, no immorality in all that, according to your ideas and
customs. The ‘noise’ we would have thus made would not have been a cause
of our expulsion. But when women come to try and save some of the 40,000
or 50,000 of your miserable, scoffing, irreligious population who never
enter any place of worship, when they come with hearts full of pity and
love for the ignorant and sinful, and stand up to tell the glad tidings
of salvation to these rebels, this mob among whom many accept the
tidings with eager joy,—then you cry out that this is unseemly and
immodest; you would not bring your wives and daughters to hear us speak
of Jesus, though you would bring them to hear us if we danced and sang
upon the stage of your theatre. Now you have expelled us; but still
there are these multitudes in Geneva who are dark, lost, unsaved; and
you know it. There they are; they exist. What will you do with them?
Say—what will you do? Are they not a danger? Does not their lost
condition cry out against you?” The Councillor of State was silent; he
sank into his chair in a state of temporary collapse. For the moment, at
least, the reality of the picture presented to him had touched his
heart; his manner was softened, though perturbed.
I may be permitted to commend the above arguments to others besides this
Genevan Councillor. Fathers and mothers have said, “We cannot approve
of, or think it right, that young women should come forward as
evangelists in that way;” and some have expressed a fear lest their
daughters should attend any meeting addressed by Miss Booth, or be
dangerously attracted by her example. These same parents, in some cases
professedly Christian parents, are in the habit of taking their
daughters to the theatres; in those theatres they may often see girls
younger than our young Evangelists, in every kind of attire—in male
dress, or scarcely any dress at all—performing their part in passionate
love scenes, it may be, for the amusement of the public. “Do you, then,”
I would ask these parents, “approve of young women coming forward
publicly in _this_ way?” If you reply “No”—(and probably you would not
desire your daughters to follow _that_ example),—then I ask, “How is it
that you can take your daughters to witness performances by young women
which you disapprove?” If you answer, “_Yes_,” then I would only ask
you,—What is your religion? Whence do you derive your principles of
right and wrong? As Christians who read the Bible, do you find anything
in the words or acts of Christ which enables you to conclude that He
approved of young women ministering to the pleasure of the public,—even,
we will suppose, in the highest and best exhibitions of histrionic
art,—while he condemned their giving any public testimony for Him and
for the Gospel? I do not find any hostile criticism dictated by an
inspired teacher, upon the bold and practical application of the
prophesy of Joel, by St. Peter, on the great day of Pentecost which
ushered in the New Dispensation of Liberty and of Power. He stood forth
and reiterated the startling and solemn words, in his address to the
assembled thousands:—“This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet
Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour
out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your _daughters_ shall
prophesy; and on my servants and on my _handmaidens_ I will pour out in
those days of my spirit; and _they shall prophesy_.” And later, at the
close of that address, he said, very explicitly; “this promise is unto
you and to your _children_.” Never was the truth more clearly implied,
or with greater apostolic authority, that in “Christ Jesus there is
neither male nor female,” and that the Spirit of the Lord bloweth “where
it listeth,” producing outward manifestations, many and various and
wonderful.
In spite of the explanations which Miss Booth was able to make, strong,
as she said, in the sense of right and her own conscience, the Council
of State rejected her appeal.
The following is the text of the reply published by them to her appeal,
and which only appeared many weeks later:—
“The Council of State, on the appeal addressed to them by Miss Catherine
Booth against the decree of the Department of Justice and Police of
February 12, 1883, withdrawing from her the permission to reside in the
canton:
“Considering that Miss Booth declares openly that she occupies in the
Salvation Army in Geneva the highest hierarchical position;[17]
“Considering that in virtue of this position she is responsible for the
actions of the association which works under her orders;
“Considering that the Salvation Army has been the cause of grave
disturbances in Geneva, and that several of its members have disobeyed
the decree of the 2nd February suspending its exercises;
“Considering Article 28 of the Law of February, 1844, which runs thus:
‘The Council of State, in virtue of its supreme administrative power,
always possesses the right of sending out of the canton foreigners whose
presence may _be a danger to the interests of the country or to the
safety of the State_!’
“Having heard the report of the Commissioner appointed to obtain the
information required, in conformity with Article 5 of the Law referring
to the discipline of Foreigners, February 9, 1844;
“Be it decreed: To reject the appeal of Miss Catherine Booth.”
I have underlined the words “a danger to the interests of the country,
or to the safety (or security) of the State,” in order the more
emphatically to draw attention to the extraordinary change of attitude,
(shuffling it may be called), of the Genevan authorities.
It is a significant fact that in rejecting Miss Booth’s appeal, the
Grand Council entirely ignored, and by implication rejected as without
foundation in law, the ground of accusation brought against her by the
Department of Justice and Police. That ground was the so-called
irregular collection of money. These Councillors of State had probably
turned to the text of the law on collections of money, and finding that
it had been falsified on the responsibility of M. Héridier, they seemed
to have considered it more prudent to bury in oblivion, so far as they
were able, the past grounds of accusation? The irregularity of the whole
proceedings of the Geneva authorities in this matter, the vagueness and
astonishing absence of definitions in their accusations against the
Salvation Army come out strikingly in the course of the narrative, and I
venture to ask the patient consideration of the reader for the facts
which elucidate this. In bringing forward a fresh accusation, as the
Council of State does in its rejection of Miss Booth’s appeal, they
ought legally to have given her previous notice of the accusation, in
order to have given her time and opportunity for explaining herself.
This they did not do; and she thus found herself suddenly with a fresh
accusation brought against her of which she had no previous knowledge or
suspicion whatever, and at the same time an accusation so grave, yet so
vague, and so utterly unsupported by facts, that it was all but
impossible for her to refute it.
The law cited by the Genevan authorities confers on the administration a
power of the nature of such as, in our own country, has been
occasionally and rarely exercised, under extraordinary circumstances
which seemed to justify the suspension of Habeas Corpus, or some
extra-legal arrest, in the face of treasonable plots, threatened
insurrection, or discoveries of dynamite! Defenders, however, of
dynamitic measures for the reform of society, nihilists, and many other
dangerous persons drawn from the malcontent population of all lands into
free Geneva, have been allowed to write, to publish journals, and to
harangue meetings in peace in that city. The authorities only make use
of their exceptional powers under the influence of terror, in the
presence of two young girls who come saying, “Repent, for the Kingdom of
God is at hand,” and promptly secure for years to come (so they hope)
the “interests of the country,” and the “safety of the State,” by the
expulsion of the preachers!
In order the more clearly to place under the eye of the reader the whole
of the legal case referring to the expulsions from Geneva, I must take a
step forward in the narrative in the matter of dates, by introducing at
this point the appeal made by Miss Booth a few months later to a higher
tribunal, to the Federal Council itself, at Berne. It seems desirable to
give the whole of this rather lengthy document and of the reply to it of
the Federal Council, for those—and there are not a few—who have so far
had only a fragmentary, and sometimes a garbled account of the case
presented to them, and who desire to know on which side justice is to be
found:—
TO THE HIGH FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.
TO MM. THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL:
GENTLEMEN,—Catherine Booth, eldest daughter of William and Catherine
Booth, the latter living at 114, Clapton Common, London, subject of
Her Britannic Majesty, has the honour to appeal to your high authority
against:
1. A Judgment of the Council of State of the Canton of Geneva,
bearing date 2nd of last March, rejecting her appeal against a
decree of the Department of Justice and Police of the same Canton,
of the date 12th February, last, which withdrew from her the
permission to reside in the Canton of Geneva, and directed her to
quit the territory.
2. Against the above-mentioned order of the Department of Justice and
Police itself.
The rejection of her appeal to the Genevese Council of State not
having been communicated to the Appellant until the date of the 25th
March, the lateness of the presentation of the present appeal is
thereby explained.
Miss Booth grounds her appeal upon the following facts and arguments:—
(_Here follows an explicit statement of the facts and events, which
have already been described in this narrative, after which the appeal
is continued._)
The Appellant as a subject of Her Britannic Majesty claims the
privileges of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Establishment
drawn up the 6th September, 1855, and ratified 8th February, 1856,
between the Swiss Confederation and Her Majesty the Queen of Great
Britain and Ireland. “This Treaty is based on the principle of a
complete reciprocity between the ressortissants of each country.[18]
It gives to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the right of
residing in any Swiss Canton on the same conditions and on the same
footing enjoyed by the citizens of every other Swiss Canton.
Consequently, British subjects are, together with their families, free
to enter, to establish themselves, and to reside in any and all parts
of the Swiss territory, on the same condition on which the Swiss
themselves are permitted to enter, establish themselves, and reside in
the United Kingdom of Great Britain, that is to say, on condition that
they conform to the laws of the country.” The State Council of the
Canton of Geneva appears to have misunderstood the terms of this
International Treaty, since it withdrew from the Appellant on the 12th
February, 1883, the permission to reside in the Canton of Geneva,
which permission had been granted her on the preceding 29th January.
Neither the decree of the Department of Justice and Police of the 12th
February, nor that of the Council of State of the 2nd March following,
pointed out any infraction whatsoever, on the part of the Appellant,
of the laws of the Canton or those of the Swiss Confederation. The
sole reason advanced by the Department of Justice and Police was the
fact that the Appellant did not give an account to the authorities of
the use of the money collections which were made in the meetings of
the Salvation Army. Now, in the first place, the Appellant has never
had the charge of the money, nor any charge whatever in connection
with these collections. In the second place, the Genevese laws impose
no obligation to render any account to the authorities of such
collections. The Police Regulation of the 4th March, 1879, only places
under this obligation those persons who have received from a competent
authority a license to make collections of money from house to house
or in the public streets. Such collections as these have never been
made by the Appellant or by any member of the Salvation Army. The
Council of State have in fact acknowledged the invalidity of this
ground of accusation by refraining from reproducing it (in their
rejection of the appeal of the Appellant), and by substituting in its
place an accusation of an entirely different nature, in regard to
which alone the Appellant has now to render her reply. The ground of
expulsion now alleged by the Council of State of the Canton of Geneva
may be examined from seven points of view (to which the appeal
presently refers).
The Appellant, it appears, then, was expelled from the Canton, not for
any personal acts of her own, but for the actions of a group of
persons, as it is professed, for which the Council of State hold the
Appellant responsible. It is important to understand clearly that the
Council of State does not lay to the charge of the Appellant any
personal act whatsoever. This is most important from the point of view
of the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Friendship and
Establishment, for it results on the confession even of the Genevese
authorities themselves, that the Appellant has never broken any of the
laws of the country, and that consequently she has the right to place
herself under the protection of the above named Treaty. The ground
upon which the Council of State rests her expulsion is, the
responsibility of the Appellant to the Genevese authorities concerning
the action of a group which receives its orders from her in virtue of
the “lofty hierarchical position” which the Appellant occupies in the
Salvation Army at Geneva.
I.
Is the Council of State of Geneva qualified to appreciate officially
the degree of responsibility of such and such members of the Salvation
Army resulting from the internal organization of that Society?
No.
Because, First: The Council of State evidently possesses no documents
sufficient to enable it to establish the degrees of subordination, to
which members of the Salvation Army may be required to submit, and the
amount of responsibility which the leaders of that Army are charged
with in regard to those under them.
Secondly: Does the Council of State possess such documents? If it does
it is at least doubtful whether it would be justified in giving them
an official sanction, and attributing to them legal consequences. It
would be thus giving to them an importance which no Government has
ever yet attributed to them.
II.
Even admitting a certain responsibility on the part of the Appellant
in regard to the actions of members of the Salvation Army, it remains
yet to be proved of what nature the acts are to which this
responsibility applies. It is evident that they can only be acts which
have been ordered to be performed by the Appellant. Even if the most
complete and official resemblance were to be admitted between the
Salvation Army and that which is commonly called an Army, and even
supposing the Appellant were the General-in-Chief of that Army, it is
clear that it would be impossible to lay to her charge the private
acts of the soldiers under her. No general of an army has ever been
held personally responsible for individual crimes or offences
perpetrated by his soldiers. It is not therefore sufficient in order
to prove the responsibility of the Appellant toward the Genevese
Government that it should be proved that members of the Society in
which she occupies a high position, should have rendered themselves
guilty of a contravention of a Governmental regulation. It must be
established that that contravention was perpetrated on her own order.
Now the Council of State never asserts that this has been the case.
III.
Moreover, the Council of State does not define any one of the acts of
which it makes the Appellant responsible. It neither indicates the
persons whom it holds guilty nor the circumstances in which they have
committed any offence. It is left to be understood only that there has
been a contravention of the order by which the Council of State, on
the 2nd February, _temporarily suspended the exercises of the
Salvation Army_. No other act whatsoever is attributed to the persons
for whose conduct the Appellant is held responsible. It is essential
to note this point. Now, in coming to the question of these
contraventions of the decree of the 2nd February, it is very difficult
to give any exact definition of their nature. First of all, it is
necessary to know what it is which the Council of State wished to
suspend temporarily. Secondly, whether it had the right to order this
suspension. When the Council of State was questioned by the members of
the Salvation Army and other persons on the former point, it never
gave any definite or categorical explanation which could serve as a
rule of conduct; and with regard to the second point it is evident
that the decree could not claim to extend to meetings held in a
private house in which certain members of the Salvation Army may have
taken part. Now it is a matter of public notoriety in Geneva that
since the issue of the decree of the Council of State the public
“exercises” of the Army have completely ceased throughout the Canton.
The Appellant defies the Council of State to establish the contrary.
It is very possible that certain members of the Salvation Army may
since then have participated as individuals in religious meetings to
which they have been invited by private persons at their own private
houses; but there is no contravention of the decree of the Council of
State in such an act; and, further, these are private actions for
which the Appellant is in no way whatever responsible.
IV.
But if it were established that this order had been contravened, and
that the Appellant herself was responsible for this, that would not
suffice to justify her expulsion. The Treaty of Establishment
guarantees to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty free residence
throughout the extent of the Swiss territory, the only condition being
that they shall conform to the laws of the country. Now what is the
sense and the exact meaning of this condition? Would the breaking of a
law, or of a simple police regulation be sufficient to deprive a Swiss
of the right of residing in England, or a subject of Her Britannic
Majesty from the right of residing in Switzerland? Evidently not. To
justify such a punishment, it is necessary that there should be a
certain character of grave and persistent resistance of the law. The
decree of the 2nd February does not cite any penal clause whatsoever
authorising the execution of its order, so that in the case of any
contravention of the decree on the part of a Swiss citizen no ground
would exist for a prosecution against such. How, then, can it be
admitted that when the offence is committed by a foreigner, that
foreigner can be punished by expulsion—a penalty much heavier than a
fine or certain days of imprisonment? The Treaty of Establishment lays
it down as a principle, in its first Article, that British subjects
may be permitted to reside in every Swiss Canton, on the same
condition and on the same footing as citizens of other Swiss Cantons.
British subjects, then, cannot be expelled from any Canton except
under the same circumstances in which a Swiss citizen could be so
expelled. These circumstances are all specified by Article 45 of the
Federal Constitution; but the Geneva Council of State does not cite
any one of them to the charge of those who are expelled by it. The
fact then even of a contravention of the _temporary_ police order of
the 2nd February, would be for those who have been guilty of it, an
insufficient reason for expulsion.
V.
The Council of State is itself so convinced of the insufficiency of
this ground of accusation, that it has deemed it necessary to cite
against the Appellant an article of the Genevese law of the 9th
February, 1844, concerning police regulations in regard to foreigners,
in the terms of which “the Council of State in virtue of its supreme
administrative power has always the right to send out of the Canton
foreigners whose presence there may _imperil the interests of the
country or the security of the State_.” This declaration is analogous
to that of Article 70 of the Federal Constitution, in which it is
stated that “the Confederation has the right to expel from its
territory foreigners whose presence may _compromise the internal or
external security of Switzerland_.” These are measures of _public
safety_ which every State has maintained the right to take in
circumstances of a character eminently exceptional. Now what amount of
weight has this article of the Genevese law in the presence of the
Anglo-Swiss Treaty of Establishment? This declaration of the Genevese
law bears the date of 1844. At that epoch the Swiss Confederation did
not possess the legal competence which it possesses to day, nor did
international relations at that period rest on so sound a basis. The
maintenance of treaties with foreign States is a matter for which the
Confederation is alone responsible. In any case of an appeal on the
part of a foreigner against a breach on the part of the Cantonal
Government of the International Treaty, which protects him in
Switzerland, it is the Federal authority alone which is competent to
take in regard to the foreigner and of his own Government the
responsibility of the incriminated act, and of the grounds upon which
that act rests. Under these circumstances, it is allowable to ask
oneself if the declaration pronounced in the Genevese law of 1844,
founded upon the supreme administrative power of the Council of State
and anterior to the Federal Constitution of 1848, has not somewhat
lost its significance. It must be noticed besides that this
declaration is also anterior to the Anglo-Swiss Treaty which is based
upon the Federal Constitution of 1848.
But whatever may be said of this point of law it is not at all
necessary to insist upon it in the presence of the inability of the
Council of State of Geneva to establish or even to explain in what
manner the presence of the Appellant and a few of her friends upon
Genevese soil has imperilled “the interests of the country or the
security of the State.” In so grave a question involving the
application of an international treaty whose stipulations are
reciprocal, it is not sufficient to quote a single article of a law,
or simply to express an opinion. It is necessary that facts should be
brought forward and proved. The Council of State of Geneva is bound
therefore—First, to define the facts to which it alludes, and then to
furnish the proof of the existence of such facts. Secondly, it is
bound to demonstrate the manner in which these facts have “imperilled
the interests of the country or the security of the State.” Until the
moment when it shall have defined these facts and demonstrated their
existence, the grounds upon which it bases its decree of expulsion
cannot be admitted by any reasonable person.
In fact, no one can believe, unless furnished with distinct proof of
the same, that the few adherents of the Salvation Army, whose actions
have been limited to the announcement at Geneva in private houses of
the same evangelistic truths which are daily preached in all the
Reformed Churches of Switzerland, and who cannot be accused of any
want of regard toward the Constitution, the Government, or the people
of Switzerland, can have placed in peril the interests of any part of
Switzerland or the security of any part of the State; while the things
which may indeed injure the interests of Switzerland are, the absence
of any security for the foreigner who may be dwelling here; public
disturbances which are allowed to continue unchecked; the prevalence
abroad of the idea that any foreigner coming here is, without appeal
and without mercy, at the disposal of the police.
But the Appellant has too much confidence in the wisdom of the Federal
High Council to suppose that it is needful to point out to it that
neither she nor her friends can be held responsible for the troubles
which accompanied their residence in Geneva, and of which they
themselves have been the chief victims. It would be as true to say
that a person robbed is responsible for the robbery committed to his
injury, or a murdered person for the crime which has cost him his
life.
The Appellant can confidently affirm that she and her friends have
conformed to every direction which has been laid down for them by the
authorities; that the two or three advertisements placarded on the
walls at the beginning of their sojourn in Geneva received, as the law
prescribes, the sanction of the police; that these advertisements were
put aside the moment it was stated that they had had a bad effect, and
that the same was the case in regard to the musical instruments
commonly in use among them in England, as soon as it was perceived
that these instruments produced a painful effect upon Genevese ears.
VI.
The weight of the allegations concerning “grave disturbances,” and in
general concerning the fatal consequences to the interests of the
country brought about by the presence in Geneva of certain members of
the Salvation Army, is considerably lessened by a close examination of
certain dates. It has already been said that the Salvation Army held
in Geneva during the months of December and January, seventy-three
meetings, a certain number of which were accompanied by disturbances
in the halls or in the streets. Let it be remembered, however, that it
was on the 29th January that the Department of Justice and Police
granted the Appellant her permission to reside in Geneva for a year.
The exercises of the Salvation Army were suspended on the 2nd
February, and the Appellant was expelled on the 12th February. Now,
between these two dates (the 29th January and the 12th February) no
disturbance had occurred of greater gravity than those which preceded
those dates. A comparison of these dates shows that the disturbances
mentioned by the Council of State in order to justify the expulsion of
the Appellant had existed in the same degree before the 29th of
January, the day on which her official permission of residence was
granted to her. That is to say, that identical circumstances had not
been previously judged by the Council of State to be of a nature to
justify the withdrawal of her permission to reside in the Canton. The
only new fact which had occurred was the pretended contravention of
the decree of the 2nd February. (The Appellant refers to what has been
already said on this subject.)
The Council of State then is found to be speaking in contradiction to
itself in supporting a measure so grave as expulsion from the Canton
on the ground of facts which before seemed to it insufficient to
justify the withdrawal of the permission of residence. Thus we have
the true measure of the value of the ground of accusation cited by the
Council of State.
VII.
The Geneva law of February, 1844, which grants to foreigners to whom
the Department of Justice and Police refuses the permission of
residing in the Canton, the right of appeal against this measure to
the Council of State, secures to them at the same time the right of
being heard by a member of that body specially delegated to that end,
and of giving personally to the Council of State every explanation
which they may believe useful in order to justify their appeal.
(Article 5 of the above law.) This guarantee evidently is intended to
allow the foreigner to explain himself with regard to the grounds
alleged for his expulsion. Can this Genevese law be considered to have
been fully executed when the Council of State, abandoning the grounds
of accusation alleged by its own Department of Justice and Police,
bases the expulsion upon entirely new grounds with regard to which it
gave the foreigner no opportunity to explain herself? It is difficult
to admit this. Such, however, is precisely the case of the Appellant,
who finds herself confronted with new grounds of accusation in regard
to which she has not been allowed to give any explanation before the
Cantonal Authorities; whereas this would not have been the case had
these grounds of accusation been mentioned (as they ought to have
been) in the decree of the Department of Justice and Police. It is
evident that in this matter the security granted to foreigners by
Article 5 of the Law of 1844 has not been extended to the Appellant.
It follows from the facts and reasons above mentioned:—
1. That the Appellant as a subject of Her Britannic Majesty is
shielded by the Treaty of Friendship and Establishment of
September 6th, 1855, between the Swiss Confederation and the Queen
of Great Britain and Ireland.
2. That under this Treaty she has continually the right to reside in
any Swiss Canton, on the same condition and on the same footing as
a citizen of other Swiss Cantons.
3. That in virtue of this right she received on January 29, 1883,
from the Geneva Council of State, the permission to reside in the
Canton for a year.
4. That on the 12th February, 1883, the Department of Justice and
Police of the same Canton gave her notice of the withdrawal of the
above permission and of an order immediately to quit the Canton.
5. That upon the Appellant having recourse to the Council of State,
this authority, on the 2nd March, 1883, confirmed the decision of
its Department of Justice and Police, while changing the grounds
of accusation.
6. That this judgment of the Geneva Government is in open
contradiction to the declaration of the above-mentioned Treaty.
7. That it is not founded upon any personal act of the Appellant of a
nature to justify the withdrawal from her of the securities of
that Treaty.
8. That according to the terms of the said Treaty, the Appellant
having the right to reside in the Canton of Geneva on the same
conditions, &c., cannot be expelled except in such a case as would
justify the expulsion of any Swiss citizen of another Canton.
9. That the Appellant is not in a case to become amenable to such
expulsion, and that the Council of State does not even profess
that she is so.
10. That a legal responsibility cannot be founded upon pure
suppositions concerning her hierarchical position; and that,
moreover, such a responsibility could not refer to any acts except
those which the Appellant has herself commanded.
11. That, moreover, the Council of State neither defines nor
establishes any of the actions concerning which it undertakes to
impose a responsibility on the Appellant.
12. That neither has the Council of State established that the
Appellant has contributed to “imperil the interests of the country
or the security of the State.”
13. That the “grave disturbances” indicated in the decree, besides
being in no degree to be imputed to the Appellant, took place
previous to the date on which the permission to reside in the
Canton had been granted to her; and not having been judged then of
a nature to justify the refusal of that permission, they cannot
possibly serve to justify its withdrawal.
14. That the grounds of accusation alleged by the Council of State not
being the same as those advanced by its Department of Justice and
Police, and not having been communicated to the Appellant, she has
been deprived in this respect of the securities granted to an
expelled person by Article 5 of the Genevese law, February 9th,
1844. That (to sum up) the decree of the Council of State of
Geneva, March, 1883, withdrawing from the Appellant the right to
reside in the Canton, is contrary to the stipulations of the
Treaty of 1855, between Switzerland and England, and ought, in
consequence, to be annulled.
For the above reasons stated the undersigned appeals to the High
Federal Council, and petitions that it will please that Council to
annul the above-mentioned decree.
(Signed) CATHERINE BOOTH.
Here follows the Reply of the Federal Council to the above appeal, which
should be patiently read throughout.
REPLY OF THE SWISS FEDERAL COUNCIL TO THE APPEAL OF MISS BOOTH.
In _re_ the report of the Department of Justice and Police to the
Swiss Confederation, and the other documents, whence are derived the
following facts:—
In _re_ the appeal of Miss Catherine Booth, born 1859, at Gateshead,
England, daughter of William and Catherine Booth, now living in London
(she being at this time in Neuchâtel, Switzerland), against her
expulsion by the Council of State of the Canton of Geneva, 2nd March,
1883.
Miss Catherine Booth came to Geneva in the month of December of last
year. In accordance with the Genevese law of February 9th, 1844,
concerning foreigners, she obtained from the Department of Justice and
Police, on January 29th, 1883, and in exchange for the deposit of her
passport, a permit to reside in the canton of Geneva for a year. On
the 12th February following, the Department of Justice and Police gave
her notice of the withdrawal of this permission, and ordered her to
quit the canton of Geneva on that same day before six o’clock in the
evening. Legally this decision is founded upon number 5 of the Article
27 of the Genevese law concerning foreigners, according to which the
permission to reside may be withdrawn if the Department of Justice and
Police learns that there exists anything which can be laid to the
charge of the foreigner, which—had it been known in time—would have
justified the refusal of the permission to reside. This decision is
based in fact:—
1. Upon what came to the knowledge of the Department subsequently to
the date of the permission given, namely, that the so-called
Salvation Army had organized upon Genevese territory collections
of money, of the use of which they had not furnished any account,
in spite of the summons which had been given by the authorities to
do so, and in spite of the fact that such an account could have
been given, since these collections were entered in a book the
existence of which Miss Booth acknowledged, but which she refused
to produce.
2. Upon the fact that such a proceeding constitutes a grave
infraction of public order and cannot be tolerated.
Before quitting Geneva on the 12th February, Miss Booth addressed to
the Council of State of the Canton an appeal against the Department of
Justice and Police. She professes in this appeal never to have
personally made any collection of money, nor to have held or had in
her own hands the accounts of the Salvation Army, which indeed she had
also stated before her interrogators. According to her the collections
had only been made at the doors of the places of meeting, and never
from house to house. Believing in consequence that she could not have
come under any law in virtue of which the authorities could refuse her
the permission to remain in the Canton if she had had previous notice
of the ground of their accusation, she demanded that the decree of
expulsion should be annulled. Conformably with Article 5 of the Geneva
law concerning foreigners, the Council of State appointed, in view of
an interrogation of the Appellant, a Commissary in the person of one
of its own members, chosen, as the law requires, from outside the
_personnel_ of the Department of Justice and Police. Miss Booth, who
had after her expulsion retired to Lausanne, was invited to appear
before this Commissary, and her interrogatory took place on the 26th
February. The Council of State published on the 2nd March the
following decree upon the appeal of Miss Booth. (Here follows the
reply of the Council of State, which has been already cited.)
Other foreigners had also arrived in Geneva about the same time as the
Appellant, that is to say, on the 10th to 15th December.
All these persons are members of a religious society, bearing the name
of the Salvation Army, which originated in London in 1865, and was
founded by William Booth, the father of Miss Booth, formerly a
minister of the Wesleyan Church. The Society is under the Generalship
of Mr. William Booth. Its organization is copied from that of a
military corps. According to the indications furnished by the
Appellant to the Sub-Inspector of Police at Geneva on the occasion of
her interrogatory on the 8th February, the above-named persons occupy
in the Salvation Army, or in the group of this Army now at Geneva, the
following military ranks:—
Miss BOOTH, Marshall.
Miss CHARLESWORTH, her Aide-de-camp.
Mr. CLIBBORN, Colonel.
M. BOUILLAT, his Aide-de-camp.
M. ZITZER, Captain.
Mr. THONGER, }
M. VINOT, } Lieutenants.
Mlle ANNA FURRER, }
Numberless meetings and public assemblies (the Appellant says 73) were
held in Geneva by these persons, in large halls belonging to private
persons or to societies. The advertisements used, the devotions, and
the practices of the Salvation Army provoked some vigorous protests on
the part of the population, and the public peace was daily troubled in
a serious manner. For this reason the Council of State of Geneva, on
the proposition of its Department of Justice and Police, decreed on
the 2nd February the temporary suspension of the exercises of the
Salvation Army. In reply to a letter from Miss Booth inquiring whether
this prohibition applied also to religious meetings which might take
place in private houses at the invitation of the inhabitants of those
houses, the Department of Justice and Police made it clear[19] that
the declaration of the Council of State was formal, and that the
Department charged with the execution of it would not tolerate in any
fashion whatsoever any participation of members of the Salvation Army
in the proscribed exercises; adding that all those who should
contravene the decree, or had contravened it, would be expelled from
the Canton. Following up this announcement the Department ordered on
Sunday, 11th February, the expulsion of four dignitaries of the
Salvation Army, _i.e._, that of Bouillat, Zitzer, Vinot, and
Charlesworth. As far as we can judge, the Appellant took no part in
any religious assembly of the Salvation Army after the 2nd February,
the date of the decree of the Council of State. This is not the case
with regard to the four members above named. Meetings in which these
assisted took place on the 5th, 7th, and 8th February, in private
houses, and according to the statement of Miss Booth, in response to
private invitations. Free access to the meetings, however, was
granted, and the invitations for the meeting of the 7th February, held
at Cologny, were even given from house to house by a servant of the
proprietor of the house where the meeting was held. The assurance
given on the 8th February by the Appellant to the Inspector of Police
that the chiefs of the Army would abstain thenceforward from meetings
even in private houses for religious purposes appears to have been
observed. It has at least been officially stated by the police that
Miss Booth had the evening of that very day engaged Captain Zitzer to
retire from a meeting to which he had been invited in a private house
at Eaux-vives, and where he had gone.
With regard to the collections of money made at the end of the
meetings, the Appellant stated in her interrogatory of the 9th
February, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, M. Benoit, that the accounts
would be published at the end of the three months of her residence at
Geneva, and that the account books would be submitted to the scrutiny
of the Department of Justice and Police as soon as her Secretary,
temporarily absent, should have returned. She added that the sums
collected had been used exclusively for general expenses, such as hire
of halls, the necessary personal expenses of the officers, printing,
&c., and that no one in the Army received pay. In a subsequent
interrogatory, on the 12th February, before Police Inspector Müller,
Miss Booth declared that it was impossible for her to furnish further
information on this matter, as her secretary was still absent, that
she did not know when she would be able to return, and that in fact
she (Miss Booth) personally had nothing to do with the keeping of
accounts, and in consequence could not give information on the
subject. She added that the collections had always been made in the
presence of the police, and that they had ceased to be made from the
time when she was informed of the Geneva law upon the subject.[20]
Several of the police reports demonstrate, as the Council of State has
shown in its decree of the 2nd February, that the methods and meetings
of the Salvation Army had stirred up during the month of January great
popular agitation, and had daily troubled the public peace, while at
the same time they seemed to threaten in the first instance the
personal safety of the chiefs of the Army who had frequently been
attacked. A letter from Dr. Olivet, Professor of Psychology at the
University of Geneva, and Director of the Lunatic Asylum called
l’asile des Vernaies, in a letter addressed to the Chief of the
Department of Justice and Police of Geneva, dated February 11th, says,
that in two recent cases of mental aberration which had attacked women
at Geneva the cause of the malady was their participation in the
exercises of the Salvation Army. This expert, as well as the Inspector
of Public Health of the Canton of Geneva, Dr. Vincent (in a
communication addressed to the Director of Justice and Police of the
12th February), declare it as a certainty that the religious exercises
practised by the Salvation Army must have unfavourable effects upon
the mental state of “_nevropaths_” or of persons simply of a nervous
constitution, from among whom the recruits of such religious
exhibitions are generally made.
Miss Booth has appealed to the Swiss Federal authority against the
decision of the Geneva Council of State. In her memorial addressed
from Neuchâtel to the Federal Council and to the President of the
Swiss Confederation, through the medium of the British Legation at
Berne, the Appellant attaches great importance to the stipulations of
the reciprocal treaty of “Friendship, commerce, and establishment”
concluded on the 6th September, 1855, between the Swiss Confederation
and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. In virtue of
the declaration of that international agreement British subjects
possess the right of residing in any Swiss Canton on the same
conditions as the citizens of other Swiss Cantons. Now the Appellant
does not consider that she has rendered herself legally liable to
expulsion. She does not consider that she would be found in such a
position as that which would authorise the expulsion of a Swiss of
another Canton, even if it were admitted that she were really and
personally responsible for all which the Genevese authorities have
laid to the charge of the members of the Salvation Army. She thinks
that they cannot justly impose on her such a responsibility. She
rejects the idea of the system which the Genevese Council of State
have endeavoured to conjure up with regard to her upon purely
hierarchical suppositions in order to make her responsible for acts of
which she was not personally cognisant, and which she had not
commanded. She adds that the authorities moreover have never defined
nor established the acts of the members of the Salvation Army alluded
to, and that they have no ground whatsoever for accusing her of having
contributed to imperil the interests of the country or the security of
the State. Moreover she asserts that the events characterised by the
Council of State as “grave disturbances” had all without exception
taken place previous to the date, 29th January, on which the
permission to reside had been officially granted to her. They could
not, therefore, seeing they had occurred before that event, adduce
them after that event as a ground for the withdrawal of that
permission. Finally, she alleges that the grounds of accusation
against her alleged by the Council of State, being altogether
different from those advanced by the Department of Justice and Police,
and not having been communicated to her, she was thus deprived of the
guarantees which Article V. of the Genevese law of February 9th, 1844,
concerning foreigners, would have extended to her. In regard to the
equality of treatment guaranteed to British subjects and to Swiss
citizens of other Cantons by the Treaty of 1855, and in presence of
the Articles 45 and 70 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, she
considers she has the right to demand whether the expulsion of British
subjects can be decreed by a simple decision of a Cantonal authority,
and if an article of the Cantonal Police law is applicable in the
case.
The Genevan Council of State has confined itself in replying to this
appeal of the 23rd May, to the presentation of a summary _exposé_ of
facts, the substance of which is as follows:—“The Salvation Army lives
by the _exploitation_[21] of credulous persons. In its Orders and
Regulations, pages 61 and 64, it gives to this _exploitation_ a
character which is regular and permanent. Undoubtedly, the Salvation
Army must, in the name of the public interest, come under the
_Cantonal Regulation of the 4th March, 1879, on the subject of the
public[22] collections of money_. The Appellant, in her position of
Marshal in the Salvation Army, a position which she has always
defended, is responsible in the highest degree, as much for the
infraction of this Cantonal Regulation as for the continual
disturbances which have arisen.”
After having further in a few words refuted the erroneous statements
of the Appellant in regard to the question of her rights based on the
Anglo-Swiss treaty, the Genevese Council of State concludes its reply
by demanding the maintenance and confirmation of the decree issued 2nd
March, 1883.
1. In accordance with generally acknowledged principles of public
law, principles to which the Swiss Federal Council adheres in
theory and in practice, the declaration of a treaty between two
countries ought to be looked upon as the international law
according to which the condition of the rights of citizens and
subjects of the one or other territory or State must be governed.
The Appellant, as a British subject, has thus the indisputable
right to claim all the advantages which the reciprocal treaty of
Friendship and Commerce of the 6th September, 1855, between
Switzerland and Great Britain assures to British subjects
sojourning in Switzerland.
2. Although the treaty in question has formulated as an international
law, the principle of equality in the matter of residence and
domicile between the subjects of either country, we must not lose
sight of the fact that this equality is not meant to be of
unlimited application. The citizens or subjects of one or other of
the two countries cannot be admitted to enter, establish
themselves, or reside upon the territory of the other except on
the condition that _they conform to the law of the other country_.
Moreover, it is expressly provided that the citizens or subjects
of the one or other of the contracting parties residing or
established in the territory of the other State may be expelled,
or returned to their country by a judicial sentence or by a police
regulation legally adopted and executed.
By these clear and explicit reservations, contained in all
treaties of establishment down to the most recent times which
Switzerland has concluded with foreign States, the principle of
equality in matters of establishment and residence between
foreigners and Swiss citizens has been restricted in a most
decided manner.
3. The argument on which the Appellant endeavours to demonstrate that
since the Confederated States in 1848 placed exclusively in the
hands of the Confederation the charge of their international
relations, and that having regard to the positive declarations of
Article 70 of the Federal Constitution, 1874 (Article 57 of the
Federal Constitution, 1848), the power of expelling citizens of
the contracting States from Swiss territory can no longer be
exercised by the Cantons;—this argument, we say, rests on an
erroneous conception of the legal position in which foreigners
resident in Switzerland are placed. In fact there cannot be any
doubt whatsoever that the Cantons have the right, side by side
with the Confederation, to exercise freely police control over
foreigners on their territory. Moreover, the exercise of Cantonal
authority in police matters in regard to foreigners has come to be
even the rule, while the exercise of such police authority on the
part of the Confederation is only the exception. It is a principle
strongly rooted in both the doctrine and the practice of the Swiss
Federal public law, that the Cantons in virtue of their
sovereignty have the right of expelling strangers by an order of
police, and particularly in cases of disturbance of public
tranquility and order.[23]
4. On the other hand, it is true that the supremacy of the Cantons in
matters relating to foreigners is limited by the Treaties, and
more especially by the Treaties of Establishment which the Swiss
Confederation has concluded with foreign States. In this respect
the Constitution and our Legislation oblige the Federal Council to
exercise vigilance in order that the Cantons may not make an
arbitrary and improper use of their powers, or act in defiance of
the treaties, in police matters relating to foreigners who may
settle on our territory.
5. It cannot be doubted, after having established these points of
law, that the police control over foreigners in the Canton of
Geneva, established by the law of the 9th February, 1844, has been
in no degree curtailed, either by the Federal Constitutions of
1874 and 1878, nor by the Anglo-Swiss Treaty of 1875. There may,
however, be room to enquire whether the application which the
Cantonal authorities of Geneva have made of that law in the
present case in the expulsion of the Appellant, is justified or
not by the facts, and whether, under these circumstances, these
authorities have sufficiently respected the legal forms and
guarantees.
6. With regard to this matter it is necessary in the first place to
settle a question of form. In her appeal Miss Booth complains,
among other things, that the reasons alleged by the Council of
State for maintaining her expulsion were not communicated to her
before the decision, in order that she might have been heard on
the matter, and that thus the Council have not acted in
conformity with Articles of the law in question. This objection
does not seem to be well founded, because the expulsion was
decreed by a Departmental decision for reasons known to the
Appellant, and the Council of State was perfectly free in virtue
of its administrative power, and in order to support the decree
of compulsion in conformity with Article 5 of the law already
cited, to base its own action on motives of public interest and
the repose and security of the State. It had no obligation to
observe in this matter, the formality prescribed by Articles 4
and 5 of the law concerning the procedure which is to be
observed in any matter of appeal against a Departmental
decision.
7. In the main it must be acknowledged that the authorities of the
Canton of Geneva had the right to decree the expulsion of the
Appellant. Miss Booth has declared herself that she holds, as
Marshal of the Salvation Army, the highest position among the
members of it which have been acting at Geneva. Now, the
organization of that army is designed after that of a military
corps. In virtue of that position, Miss Booth is therefore
responsible for the acts and movements of a group of that army
which is under her orders. Consequently, it undoubtedly was her
duty to give an account in a complete manner, and without reserve,
to the police authorities, of the collections made in Geneva in
public meetings organized by the Salvation Army. Notwithstanding,
this she neglected to do in spite of reiterated[24] notices given
to her, and she has never explained her conduct in a satisfactory
manner. There is no need to inquire here whether the notices in
question were given to the Appellant by the authorities in virtue
of a police regulation applicable to this particular case, or in
virtue of the right of surveillance and police control over public
collections, which belongs incontestibly to every political
authority. The reasons alleged by the Department of Justice
and Police of Geneva in support of its decree of expulsion
(reasons confirmed by the Council of State) being a sufficient
justification of the measures against which the appeal is lodged,
the Federal Council abstains from entering into the ulterior
reasons set forth in the decree of the Council of State of Geneva.
DECREED:
1. That the appeal of Miss Catherine Booth be dismissed as
groundless.
2. That the present decree be communicated to the British Legation at
Berne, for transmission to the Appellant, and that it be also
communicated to the Council of State of the Canton of Geneva.
Decreed at Berne, 24th July, 1883, in the name of the Swiss Federal
Council.
(Signed) L. RUCHONNET, President of the Confederation.
(Signed) — RIGNIER, Chancellor of the Confederation.
Intelligent readers scarcely require to have it pointed out to them how
hopelessly self-contradictory the whole action of the Swiss Cantonal and
Federal authorities has been in this matter up to this point. We have
seen, first, that the pretext invoked in the warrant of expulsion of the
Department of Justice and Police could not stand examination, but was
proved to be entirely unjustifiable; secondly, that the State Council of
Geneva found themselves forced to abandon that pretext (resting, as it
did, on a falsified regulation), and that they did abandon it in their
reply of March 2nd to Miss Booth’s appeal, and adopted other grounds for
the maintenance of those warrants, viz., that _the presence of these
foreigners (two ladies) endangered the interests and safety of the
State_! We now see, thirdly, that the Federal Council at Berne, in its
rejection of Miss Booth’s appeal, in its turn abandoned as indefensible
the new ground adopted by the Genevan Grand Council, and actually
re-adopted the false pretexts concerning the collections of money which
had been abandoned by the Genevan Council as untenable.
It is impossible to follow the whole of this extraordinary transaction
without a feeling of astonishment and regret. It is difficult to believe
that we are reading a record of Governmental proceedings in a free and
enlightened country in the nineteenth century. If such documents had
been turned out by some inexperienced junior clerk in a public office,
it would have been characterized as showing culpable carelessness, a
want of education, or an extraordinary absence of clearness of
reasoning, or all three. One cannot help asking—are there not on the
bookshelves of that capacious Federal Palace at Berne collections of the
different Cantonal laws and police regulations? If so, what fatality, we
may ask, prevented those Ministers of State, MM. Ruchonnet and Rignier,
from referring to copies of the laws and regulations of Geneva, in order
that they might verify the statements of M. Héridier, and clearly
understand the legal grounds upon which they themselves, as well as the
Cantonal authorities, stood, before committing themselves to the
publication of a document which was likely to be widely read, and has
been read with surprise and bewilderment by lawyers and others of
foreign States as well as in their own country. Had the Federal Council
called for a copy of the law _sur les collectes_, they would have seen
at once that nothing less than a deliberate falsification of that law
had served to furnish the Chief of the Genevan Department of Police with
an excuse for expelling Miss Booth. It is worthy of note that in
dropping the vague charge made by the Geneva State Council against her
of being a danger to the State, the Federal Council—whether consciously
or inadvertently—plead the cause of Miss Booth, establishing in their
reply the validity of a great portion of her statement in her own
defence. In doing so, they are obliged to fall back only the more
completely on the broken reed of the falsified law concerning
collections of money. It would seem, however, that some suspicion of the
inadequacy of that ground of expulsion (the collections) may have
crossed the minds of the experts who, we must suppose, drew up this
reply for the President and Chancellor of the Federation to sign. This
may be gathered from the following sentence in the reply, which I
reproduce:—
“There is no need to enquire whether the notices in question (to
produce the accounts) were given to the Appellant by the authorities
in virtue of a police regulation applicable to this particular case,
_or in virtue of the general right of surveillance and police control
over public collections which belongs incontestibly to every political
authority_.”
It is a most startling statement which is propounded in the sentence
given in italics. Every novice in politics is aware that no political
authority in any modern free State has, or would dare to assume, a right
of “surveillance and police control over public collections.”[25] The
Federal Council show here an extraordinary want of appreciation of the
guarantees of individual freedom provided by their own excellent
Constitution. They have also forgotten or they ignore the clause of the
Anglo-Swiss Treaty of Friendship, Establishment and Commerce already
quoted, which makes it illegal to search for, or examine or demand the
production of the books or accounts of those persons of either country
residing in the other. A well-known Swiss lawyer, of whom I asked
information on these points, informs me that no right whatever of police
control or surveillance of public collections exists in Switzerland.
Further comment on this subject is needless; and, indeed, it would be a
relief if the whole of the miserable business could be buried in
oblivion.
“Oh! what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.”
The little town of Rolle in the Canton de Vaud, on the shores of the
Lake of Geneva, now became a centre of the work for a portion of that
Canton. The first meeting, conducted by a few of the “Invincibles,” the
persecuted Salutists from Geneva, was held in a sort of greenhouse,
which was crowded in every corner. The florist to whom the house
belonged, said he trusted God with his glass house, and if it should be
broken he thought he had faith enough only to say “Amen!” A powerful
influence was felt here. The sound of prayer and of weeping filled the
crowded place from end to end. One of those present wrote, “the people
had only read books of falsehoods, and ridiculous newspaper articles
against us. But the God of truth will open their eyes. One poor old
Christian gentleman, who had been in this way deceived about us, was
moved to tears, and begged us to come in the afternoon to his house.”
The Vaudois government, following the example of that of Geneva, now
lost no time in putting out a decree forbidding the meetings. Owing to
the difficulty of finding private rooms, many meetings were held in the
open air. The English tourist indulging in memories of a Swiss summer,
may imagine that such meetings for worship in the open air must have
been very delightful, in the midst of fragrant pine forests, on mountain
sides, or in meadows richly carpeted with summer flowers, and in sight
of the dazzling snow of the distant mountains, suggestive of all that is
purest and fairest in the natural or spiritual world. And so indeed it
was at times, as, for example, on Ascension Day, when Miss Booth was met
by a number of her friends from Geneva, and a joyous gathering was held
by the shores of the lake, near Rolle. The whole day was spent in
prayer, thanksgiving, and the relation of God’s dealings with one and
another, until the sun declined towards the west, and the company
separated, returning homewards “with great joy,” even as the disciples
returned from Olivet after that prolonged gazing up into heaven after
their ascended Lord, who had “gone up on high, leading captivity captive
and receiving gifts for men”—the supreme gifts of the Holy Ghost—even
for the rebels who should one day lay down their arms and become His
disciples. But not always was it so pleasant or so easy to achieve a
Sunday gathering for worship and personal communion. Some self-denial is
required in the case of the hardworked man or woman who leaves the house
before sunrise to walk a long distance in inclement weather.
“Yesterday,” a soldier wrote from Rolle, in April, “we had a good
open-air meeting in spite of the police and the rain. We left the town
in small groups, like people going out for a stroll, having decided to
meet in a little path where we should have to walk in single file. All
went well and the column moved onward, everyone looking very happy at
the thought of meeting together with the Lord, although it was in secret
and at great risk. After some time of climbing and searching for a
suitable place in which to pitch our camp, we found a corner in the
brushwood among the long wet grass. We began to sing, when we were
interrupted by a whistle from one of our sentinels. We sent off a scout
to hear what it was. He reported that our friends the police were on our
track. We were quite on the mountains, and the showers of rain which
fell now and again, did not improve the rugged paths, when there were
any paths at all. But it mattered not; we all began climbing again to
find another spot; young and old, fathers, mothers and children, all
climbing up the slippery slopes together, helping each other, or pulling
themselves up by the branches of the trees, while the leaders in front
directed them by an occasional shrill whistle. At last we halted, our
feet wet and our garments draggled. We placed two sentinels on the
heights above, but we had no more alarms, and had a splendid meeting.”
Another wrote:—“Our Rolle comrades are obliged now to meet at three
o’clock in the morning; but even at that hour they have not been allowed
to worship God in peace, the night watchman having called up the police
to disperse them. Pray for our Rolle comrades; for it is almost
impossible for them to meet to pray without being hunted and stopped by
the police. As the lake is neutral ground, we are in treaty for the hire
of a large barge which we can anchor off the shore, reaching it by a
boat from the land, manned by strong salvationists....” “The power of
God was strongly felt at these Rolle meetings. A tall powerful man who
came to the meetings in the first instance in order to break them up,
was cut to the heart by some words spoken, and fell on his knees, and
another who had been a smuggler joined the ranks of the Salvationists,
and both became firm and devoted Christians.”
Towards the summer the spirit of persecution began to rage in the Canton
de Vaud, as it had done in Geneva. The meetings had ceased to be held
openly; small gatherings in private houses were all that could be
attempted. On the first of July the house of a Rolle citizen, in which
it was suspected that a few persons had assembled to pray, was attacked
by a large and riotous mob. As those within left the house, bucket after
bucket of water was poured upon them—men and women alike—drenching them
to the skin. At ten o’clock in the evening, a systematic bombardment of
the house was begun, and lasted till past midnight. Large stones were
thrown, and the doors forced open; windows and shutters were broken and
the front of the house seriously damaged. The Rolle Salvationists and
their leaders were obliged to conceal themselves as they could in holes
and corners during the whole night. The police were absolutely inactive.
Two days later several of the Salvation officers were threatened with
instant death if they attempted to meet for prayer. Fire engines were
brought out to play upon the poor worshippers as they came and went.
Another meeting was thus described.
“We began our meeting at six o’clock in the morning, on Sunday. There
were only a few old people gathered together. However, the Lord was in
our midst and blessed our souls. We met again at one o’clock to start
for an open-air meeting. We had two hours walk before us in the broiling
sun, but we felt the Lord was with us. We at last arrived at the
village, where we found the people gathered together waiting for us by
the side of the lovely lake. About 220 country people came from the
different villages around the place. They listened to every word, as one
after another spoke of salvation. We had not long commenced when a
terrible thunderstorm came on. We all went into a barn which a dear
friend lent us. The power of the Holy Spirit was here among us. When the
invitation was given to all who wished to give their hearts to God to
come forward, one big man came forward; then came another, and another.
There were six of them, who all fell on their knees at the feet of
Jesus, while we sang,
“Reviens, reviens, pauvre pécheur!
Ton Père encore t’attend.”
A Salvationist day’s work in the Canton Vaud is thus described:—
About seventy of us went by steamer to the little town of Nyon, some
miles higher up, on the shores of the lake.
As a specimen of the kind of justice we receive at the hands of some
here who have authority, we have only to cite the following incident:
As soon as we started from the pier we all placed ourselves in the
fore part of the steamer, and there began to sing some of our
favourite hymns. We had not been long so engaged before the captain of
the steamer sent word that he would not allow us to sing; so the rest
of the voyage had to be spent in silence. An old Genevese who was with
us told us that he had been in the habit of travelling on the boats
for the last twenty years, and yet had never before seen any singing
of any kind stopped. It is needless to add that had we been a band of
ordinary tourists, however worldly or foolish our songs might have
been, we should have been able to sing to our hearts’ content; but
because we happened to be a band of Salvationists, and our songs were
the songs of Zion, we were forbidden to sing them; and yet this is a
country where people are so fond of boasting of freedom and liberty of
conscience!
On arriving at Nyon we had the pleasure of seeing Capt. Becquet and
Lieut. Patrick, from Neuchâtel. We had not been long in the place
before the whole town turned out to see these strange “Salutistes,”
and of course the devil did what he could to annoy us, in the shape of
four drunken men, who, poor fellows, did all they could, in their
blindness, to do the devil’s work well, but, as might be imagined,
with but little success.
Means and opportunities for meetings with the dear friends of the Geneva
portion of the Salvation Army were rare, and often accompanied with
difficulties. The open-air gatherings, necessarily arranged with care
and prudence, were often very delightful, and the memory of them will
never cease to dwell in the hearts of those who shared in them. Under
the fire of persecution, and in the pursuit of a common, arduous and
holy work, the firmest friendships are formed, and the richest memories
are stored up. Some of the poor converts of Geneva said they would be
glad to walk eight leagues to greet their leaders once more. One wrote:
“I walked that distance one day and I was not in the least fatigued,
although I had only a slice of bread from six o’clock in the morning
until five o’clock in the evening. God gave me strength to walk and to
go on in my hunger.” Having received information in the first week in
March that certain roughs in Geneva meant to organize themselves on the
following Sunday to disturb a private meeting of the Salvationists, it
was decided to worship upon a mountain in Savoy on the French side of
the lake of Geneva, where there were a number of quarries. The
arrangements were kept strictly secret, and the place of meeting only
made known to the soldiers the evening before at all the outposts of the
Army in the various districts. The weather was now beautifully fine,
perfect for open-air meetings—a cloudless sky during the day and a full
moon at night. Miss Booth, who was still residing at Lausanne, crossed
the Lake with a few of her friends on Saturday afternoon to the Savoy
shore, and went thence by rail to a village near the Swiss frontier. The
necessary notice of the intention to hold a meeting had been given to
the French authorities, the Prefect of the locality being thoroughly
friendly, and affording every facility for a meeting. The spot chosen
was a hollow in the cliff of the Grande Salève, which towered up a
thousand feet above the spot where the meeting assembled. It was early
morning, and the grey morning mist had not yet lifted, when a number of
adherents and officers of the army appeared along the road leading from
Geneva, with faces full of joyful expectation. Troop after troop was now
seen defiling along the paths on the slopes of the mountain, their faces
ruddy with the sharp morning air, waving signals of recognition and
loving greeting. Sentinels were posted at various parts of the roads in
the valley below to direct the worshippers to the spot. Great enthusiasm
prevailed at the thought of meeting once more with their exiled leader,
Catherine Booth, and all seemed justly proud to be able to give her the
assurance by their unbroken ranks that the power of God is sufficient,
not only to save but to keep, in the hour of the fiercest trial. A
circle is formed, and all the voices are raised in a beautiful hymn of
praise. Now all are kneeling upon the stones, and prayer rises to
God—such prayer as only such surroundings and such influences can
inspire. The blue lake lies below, flashing in the early sunshine; the
assembled group is still, however, in the chill shadow of the mountain;
but the mark of light advances rapidly. It was here, in the pure but
chill air beneath the shadowy cliff, that poor Charles Wyssa caught the
cold which attacked his lungs, and from which he never recovered. He had
come, exhausted by his labours, to the place of meeting. One who was
present wrote “Never can I forget the scene as, while one of our brave
men was telling how God had guarded him and kept him safe through a
storm of opposition, the first ray of sunlight broke suddenly across the
precipice above, and fell on the assembly, bathing us all in light. We
felt that the light of fully-restored liberty would be all the brighter
for the temporary shadow and gloom.” A very solemn and happy influence
pervaded the meeting as the Maréchale spoke of what God expected from
that band, and of all He had already done for those who had dared to
follow him at all costs. During her address a number of persons friendly
to the Salvation Army, and who had been let into the secret of the
meeting, continued to arrive. Some boys, sons of Roman Catholic parents,
were seen setting fire to the underwood near where the assembled
worshippers were gathered, and carefully feeding the flame. Then the
meeting learned that the smoke which arose straight and blue,
heavenward, was the appointed signal that a meeting of the Salvation
Army was being held. This had been planned by the friendly country
people and excursionists to the Grand Salève; so that when the afternoon
meetings began a large crowd had gathered. The sound of the singing
re-echoed along the cliffs, bringing other stragglers from all sides.
“Among those assembled were the poor Greek of whom we have already
spoken, and many, if not all, of those whose testimonies have already
been quoted.”
In order to secure quietness, and to escape being hunted by the police,
the meetings in the Canton Vaud were held at 5 o’clock in the morning.
When even this early hour was found to be too late to avoid disturbance,
it was changed to 3 o’clock in the morning. These harmless worshippers
were literally hunted “like a partridge on the mountains,” as King David
in his dark days phrased it. The difficulties and toil of climbing over
rocks and through forests did not daunt the hunters, who appeared to
follow up their prey with ever increasing zest. No bitter feeling was
ever expressed, or even felt, however, by the Salvationists against the
persons who thus persistently troubled their peace. All they ever said
of them was—“They know not what they do. They have been blinded and
deceived in regard to our true character and motives.” It was arranged
on one occasion to meet at a certain spot at the edge of a remote wood
in the Canton Vaud. On reaching the place it was found to be occupied by
a tall man in the dress of a tourist. He was surveying the landscape
through an opera-glass, but as the whole of the lake and the view to
which he had directed his glass was obscured in a thick mist, some of
the party suspected a trap, and one of them went forward to speak to
him. The man appeared confused, and after a time slipped away. The next
day the same salvationist met his friend the tourist on the platform of
the railway station in the uniform of a policeman!
The work of winning souls went forward. I take the following individual
cases from the records of one of the workers, giving them in his own
words:—
“There was X., the bootmaker of Rolle, a notorious infidel, who used
often to stand on the step of his shop and insult the Pastor of the
place as he passed by, converted one night at a little meeting where
he had come out of curiosity. He immediately testified for Christ, for
which cause most of his customers left him, many coming to take away
work which they had given him. But he never wavered, trusting in his
newly-found Saviour. There was that wild girl who had brought such
sorrow and disgrace upon her family, and whose remarkable conversion
was the means of bringing father and brothers and sisters all to the
Saviour’s feet. When the mother, who had been absent for a time,
returned, great was her astonishment to find all the family thus
changed, and praising God. In such a circle, and before such a
transformation, conviction was immediate, and the mother also gave her
heart to God. What a change in that formerly wretched, godless home.
The sad-hearted mother, the drinking husband, the lost girl, the
careless sons, all turned into praying and godly people!
“A Vaudois being asked how he came to be an adherent, replied, ‘Ah!
well, like everyone else around here, I was strongly opposed to the
Armée du Salut, having believed the newspaper statements that it was a
band of “purse cutters” and comedians who drove people crazy, and I
had forbidden all my family to attend any of the meetings. My wife
greatly wished to go, but I prevented her by violent threats. Hearing
that there was to be a meeting of the Army in a wood on the shore of
the lake, I went myself, however, out of curiosity and to pass time. I
should tell you that I would not admit that women had a right to
preach; nevertheless, it was by a woman’s preaching that I was
converted. When I arrived at the meeting, instead of finding a crowd
of long-faced melancholy people, I found a number of such
happy-looking beings, that I forgot all my prejudices, and listened
without even realising that I was listening.
“‘The Maréchale explained with great clearness how a sinner could come
to Jesus just as he was. Her words made such an impression upon me
that from that moment I had no more rest of mind. Though a Protestant,
I had never before realized how a man could be converted to God. When
I returned home, I said to my wife (who had not dared to go to the
meeting for fear of me), “Well, I for one will never speak against
these ‘salutistes’ again.”
“‘Notwithstanding I tried to resist my conviction; but it became all
the deeper. I was miserable. The next day, while planting “haricots,”
I was praying in an agony to Jesus to receive me just as I was, and
take away all my sins, when suddenly a bright light seemed to flash
into my heart. I saw my sins thrown behind me, and as if hidden by a
thick veil. Such an immense joy filled my soul that I felt as if I
should _eclater_, and I immediately praised God for having saved me.
My old mother who had prayed for me ever since my childhood, and who
was lying upon her death-bed, had the unutterable joy of seeing me
converted and saved. How often she had said to me, “Thou wilt be
converted yet! God has promised it to me! Thou art kicking against the
pricks now! Thou art afraid of the Armée du Salut. Yes! I know why.
Thou art afraid to have to give up thy worldly pleasures!” O! I do
praise God that he has saved me and my whole family as well.’”
Meanwhile the _Maréchale_ and her friends continued to be cheered from
time to time, by good news of their Geneva converts. The following is
from the mother of a family at Geneva.
“MY DEAR MARÉCHALE,—It is most interesting to note day by day the
progress that our young soldiers make, and the power with which they
proclaim salvation to sinners. Each week new recruits are added to our
ranks. Ah! if all the powers of hell rise up, and if earthly
authorities refuse us protection, we will lean all the more upon the
Rock of Ages, who will never fail us in the day of distress.
“The mothers whose children have been transformed know that the Spirit
of God alone can have worked this miracle; and they can reply with
joy, ‘Far from estranging our children from us, the Salvation Army
restores them to us in leading them to Christ.’ It is the world that
takes them away and destroys them body and soul, restoring them to us
neither in this world nor in the next. Dear Maréchale, all the
soldiers pray for you that the Great Captain may supply all your
needs. We are sadly beset on every side; the enemy gives us no rest;
but, glory to God, we are fighting and not discouraged. Yesterday,
Sunday, we had six meetings. At eight o’clock in the evening the
congregation was too large for the place, and we had to have an
overflow meeting. It was a blessed day for many. We shall continue to
pray and believe.
“A MOTHER TO WHOM THE ARMY HAS RESTORED HER CHILDREN.
“Geneva, 9th April, 1883.”
It may be interesting to compare for a moment some past outbursts of
intolerance in Switzerland with the present events. The following is
extracted from the records of the Council of State of the Canton Vaud,
in the year 1824. It is a decree against the Momiers,—revivalists of
that period:—
“Considering that reports have reached us for several years concerning
the conduct of a new religious sect vulgarly called Momiers,
introduced into our Canton, and also concerning meetings of that sect
which took place occasionally, even during the hours of public worship
in the churches:
“Considering that the erroneous and exaggerated opinions professed by
the above-named assemblies are absolutely subversive of social order,
as much from the point of view of the unity of the family as from that
of their influence on civil and religious institutions:
“Considering, also, that the above-named sectaries have placed
themselves by their discourses, their actions, and their propagandism
in a position of open aggression against the National Church:
“Be it decreed,
“That the meetings above-mentioned shall be expressly forbidden as
being opposed to public order and religious peace.
“All persons whose conduct tends to the gaining of proselytes to this
new sect in a manner opposed to public order and religious peace shall
be prosecuted and punished in conformity with Article 58 of the
Correctional Code; and every person furnishing any building or room
whatsoever for the holding of these prohibited assemblies shall be
regarded as accomplices, and prosecuted as such.
“Every person having permitted or directed such an assembly, or seen
to have acted as its president, shall also be prosecuted....
“Given under the seal of the Council of State, 15th January, 1824.
(Signed)
“CLAVEL.
“BOISOT.”
This decree was powerless to arrest the religious revival of that
period. On the contrary, it gained for the Momiers the sympathy of
many persons who otherwise would have remained neutral. The decree was
only revoked in 1834, and during the whole of that time the Salutists
of the period never ceased to cry “Forward!” And God blessed them
abundantly. On the 22nd November, 1846, the Oratoire of Lausanne, the
locality of the meeting of the Momiers, having been attacked by
rioters, a new decree was issued, dated 2nd December, in which the
Council of State _forbade every religious assembly whatsoever outside
the National Church_. On the 5th February, 1847, the Council of State
called out the military force, in order to put a stop to every
religious meeting whatsoever outside the worship acknowledged by the
Constitution, and ordained that those who transgressed this order
should be visited with heavy fines, imprisonment, and other
punishments, threatening to drag them quickly before the Tribunals;
for now the war of the Sonderbund had kindled a still greater popular
hatred against the Momiers. In June, 1849, the Grand Council again put
forth a decree forbidding all the meetings. All magistrates or
functionaries of the Government who took any part in them were
dismissed from their posts. The sixth decree of interdiction continued
in operation for ten years, and was repealed in 1859 by the Grand
Council. In 1862 the Council of State established the principle of
religious liberty which is now guaranteed by the existing Constitution
of the Canton De Vaud, as well as by the Federal Constitution.
It is instructive to compare all this with the facts occurring in the
present year, 1883. The following is an extract from a letter addressed
to the Vaudois Council of State, November 4th, 1823, by a native of
Vaud, Mr. Jacques Magnin, of Mont la Ville.
On Sunday, 2nd of November, certain Christians of Mont la Ville and
the neighbourhood having assembled themselves together, as their
manner is in a room which they had hired, in order to read together
the Word of God, to sing His praises, and to exhort each other to a
holy, just and religious life,—during our service, and while we were
singing the 5th Psalm, a stone was thrown which broke two panes of the
window, and which struck one of the worshippers. On going out of the
meeting we were stoned by a great crowd of persons of all ages and of
both sexes. One of my brothers and myself were pursued along the road
with blows; stones and sticks being flung at us. We were knocked down
and dragged along the road, and thrust into a ditch. In this
condition, when I began to address my prayers aloud to God my Saviour,
they filled my mouth full of mud, beat me in the face, and seizing me
by the hair of the head struck my head on the ground several times,
crying, “Pray now to your Saviour, and see now if He will come and
deliver you.” The crowd shouted “kill him,” and other voices said,
“No, don’t kill him, but mutilate him.” We were also robbed. They
found in my pocket a Testament, and considering it quite worthless,
they returned it to me. Then we were dragged to the Mont la Ville, an
hour’s journey, the mob frequently repeating its outrages against us
with fury, inventing also other modes of torture, such as tying us
together, and also tying us to a block of wood which they forced us to
drag after us, continually beating and kicking us, scourging us with
rods, mocking us in every way, and pronouncing every kind of blasphemy
against the Eternal God.
As for me and all true Christians, this is not the kind of treatment
which would induce us to renounce the Saviour who redeemed us. We are
ready to seal with our blood the righteousness and truth of the Word
of God, and as for you, honourable sirs, we warn you that you take
good care that our blood be not upon your heads.
A WITNESS OF THE VAUDOIS MOMIERS, 1823.
Many years have passed since the deposition of this witness; but the
true witnesses ever and again renew their youth like the eagle.