Association (Article 56), liberty of conscience, and of creed. This
latter M. Jeanhenry[36] carefully distinguishes from liberty of public
worship, as if the external exercise of worship was something
superfluous. But does he not see that liberty of conscience and belief
only come into effect when men unite in order to exercise the same
form of its outward expression? What meaning would liberty of
conscience have without this outward expression? It would only be the
power of having one’s own opinion in one’s inmost soul. In this case
the Constitutional law would be superfluous, for nothing can touch the
inner conscience of any human being. The only thing which the
authorities can guarantee is the safe expression externally of a man’s
views. Moreover, the fundamental article, is Article 49, concerning
freedom of conscience. Article 50, concerning liberty of public
worship, is only the practical application and corollary of the
former. (On this point M. Monnier cited the authority of Blumer,
showing that Articles 49 and 50 are inseparable.) True freedom of
public worship can only be exercised within the limits of public order
and good morals. I ask has the Salvation Army offended against good
morals? On the contrary it would have been much better received in
Switzerland if it had less openly attacked _immorality_. And with
regard to public order, it is said the Army is an occasion of
disturbance. Are we to allow, then, that freedom of public worship is
to be at the mercy of rowdies in the street? Our legislation on the
subject means that the _forms of public worship themselves_ may not be
a contravention of public order. The Salvation Army itself does
nothing which disturbs public order! This is in no way interfered with
except by those who violently disturb the meetings. If the Cantons had
the power of restricting according to their own fancy the free
exercise of worship, the Federal Constitution would become the
plaything of the caprice of the cantonal authorities. In England they
understand perfectly the liberty of meeting and worship. There was
formed there, in opposition to the Salvation Army, a ‘Skeleton
Army’—(I see Miss Booth smiles)—which has collisions with the
processions of its rival in the streets. A magistrate in England had
put down the processions of the Salvation Army on one occasion, but
the Judge of Assize, on the contrary, condemned the ‘Skeletons’ as the
aggressive parties, and gave a verdict for the Salvationists, who had
been disturbed in the exercise of their right. Now, in Neuchâtel, who
are the disturbers? Is it the Army or the rowdies? The Army is but a
sect, a little more eccentric, perhaps, than others. Those persons who
do not like its methods need not go to witness them. Certain persons
have only gone there in order to make a noise. Are we to give way to
the corrupt proverb: ‘The beaten party must pay the fine?’ No; it is
the roughs who ought to pay the fine.
“We come now to the Cantonal Constitution. It is clear that this ought
to harmonize with the Federal Constitution. The latter gives us a
restraining declaration of rights for the whole of Switzerland; the
Cantons on the other hand may go further, but without encroaching on
the Federal declaration. Well, our Constitution in Article 11
guarantees the right of meetings which present nothing illegal in
their object nor in their methods. It moreover guarantees, in Article
13, the freedom of worship; but it goes even further than the Federal
Constitution; it assures to forms of worship an unlimited liberty
without applying to them the restrictions of the Federal Article 50.
And how was it that this Article 13 came into existence?” (Here the
Speaker read the debates of the Constituante of 1848, which are full
of striking allusions.) “From this it would appear distinctly that our
Neuchâtel Constitution tends to prevent all interference of the State
in the exterior exercise of forms of worship. The Constitution forbids
us also to make any distinction between the different citizens in
relation to the worship they may profess. If this were not so the
principle of equality and not only of liberty would suffer. Why, then,
did you treat the Salvation Army differently from other sects? The
decree of the Grand Council has endorsed the most flagrant inequality,
not only in its spirit but in its practice on this occasion. For
example, why do you prosecute only six of the accused, whereas there
were three hundred persons in the forest of Prise-Imer? If you are
convinced of your ground and wish to be logical, you should prosecute
them all. I know your prisons would not be large enough; well then,
knock them down and build new ones. When once you have entered upon
the path of religious persecution you will want many more prisons than
those you now have. In fact you will require immense barracks for your
prisoners. (Sensation and laughter.) I speak thus in order to lay my
finger on the inequality of your proceedings. The accused here are
simple soldiers of the Army, and Mme. Boillot—”
Mme. Boillot (interrupting with eagerness): “Pardon me, sir, I am a
Sergeant.” (Laughter.)
M. Monnier (continuing): “I repeat that you must make your choice.
Either strike out all the fine Articles which adorn our Constitution
or withdraw your decree. If our Constitution is a real thing and not a
simple document which can be claimed or rejected at will, then you
must change all its noble texts in conformity to the wishes and the
fancies of the people and re-write them in the spirit of your own
decree. If you cannot do this, you must punish everybody, and you must
even include in your prosecutions the jurists who, we have heard,
advise the members of the Salvation Army to resist your decree. I have
no doubt you would have on your side that public opinion which you
rely upon, but you would continue to sink and fall miserably before
the world.”
Some excitement began at this point to prevail in the Court, and M.
Cornaz, the Chief of the Department of Justice and Police becoming
furious, charged the gendarmerie to suppress the demonstrations,
declaring aloud that he would clear the Court. This was an assumption
of authority to which he had no claim. Only the President can clear
the Court. In the midst of this excitement, M. Monnier continued: “The
Council of State had imagined it had a way of escape in the discovery
of Article 72. This Article had long ago fallen into oblivion, the
oblivion which in fact it deserved; but it has been disinterred in
order that it might serve as a left-handed weapon to the Grand Council
in place of that which the Constitution refused them. The Grand
Council said to itself, ‘now is the moment to apply this Article, the
utility of which has been up to the present day almost unknown.’ But
alas, since last Saturday this weapon has no longer any existence. For
what is a Corporation? The Council of State has adopted the meaning
which it looked up in Littré’s Dictionary. An unlucky choice!
According to Littré a Corporation is defined as a body having
‘particular and special rights and privileges.’ Splendid things they
are, these rights and privileges of the Salvation Army! the privilege
of having been interrupted in their worship, and of having had to
submit to imprisonment before trial!” (M. Monnier here read again the
telegraphic message addressed by Lord Granville to Mr. Adams, the
British Ambassador.) “Now, therefore, nothing remains of all your
unfounded structure. The whole merit of your argument was based upon
your right to deprive us of our liberties until we should be
authorized as a Corporation. This was your plea; but Article 72 now
falls to the ground. Oh, if the Grand Council had only had the
prudence to take another evening for consultation! But they were in
such terrible haste to press on this affair. They said to themselves,
‘We have no need to talk any more about it; see how it will succeed!’
Why did not they listen to the advice of their Liberal Deputies, men
of good sense, not leaning in their sympathies more to the Army than
the Radicals, but who would have advised a little reflection and
delay? See how the weapons of our Government fly out of its hands.
Public opinion is constantly thrown in our teeth, and the terrible ten
thousand! Truly the danger has been greatly exaggerated. If the
Council of State and the Grand Council had acted in a legal manner
they would still be sitting comfortably in their armchairs. But now
public confidence has been withdrawn from them.
“The agitation which they continually spoke of was manufactured. If
the police had had permission (I will not even say had had the order)
to act, it would have been strong enough to have enforced
tranquillity, but there never was any serious desire to see the law
enforced. The people have sufficient instinct to know what they may
do, and when the police was not there to maintain order, they did not
distress themselves about their responsibility. We are quite aware who
it is that organized the disturbances. They are people very well known
at the Castle (the prison); they are people well experienced in
helping on the interests of the Government, above all at election
times! (Sensation, applause, and groans.) The mob said to themselves,
‘Here we are with a good comedy to play out;’ and the serious and
sensible part of the population was entirely quiescent, understanding
nothing about it. For my part I should wish to have seen the Prefect
of Police and two or three Councillors of State present themselves in
front of the Hotel Mont Blanc. There they should have beaten the
roll-call drum, and read the proclamation of the Council of State;
made, in a few calm words, an appeal to common sense, and then all
would have been at an end. There would then have been no need for the
famous petition of the ten thousand, signed outside the city by the
rural population, who had never even seen the Salvation Army. At St.
Gall, they seem to have understood repressing disturbances on a recent
occasion. The magistrates themselves had to confront them in their own
persons. At Basle, also, quiet was restored on such an occasion, and
the armchairs of the Councillors were not in the least shaken.
(Laughter.) Do not let us have any nonsense about public safety. M.
Dubs (one of the highest legal authorities) has written: ‘Behind the
pretence of public safety there is always found a private interest.’
Let us beware of panics! They tell us the people wished these measures
to be taken, and that they claimed them in their petition. It is a
most curious thing indeed that in the decree one finds almost the
identical terms used as in the petition, and it would seem as if the
pens which indicted the two documents must be in near relation. Is it
right that the Government should follow the people in this manner in
all its caprices? No, the people are themselves bound to obey the
Constitution. It is not possible that they can annul it by a petition.
They understood this on another occasion, for in 1873, 10,000
petitioners demanded that the Ecclesiastical law should be submitted
to the people. On that occasion people were reminded of the respect
due to the Constitution, and were told that an imperative mandate
could not be proclaimed by them, and the petition was rejected. There
was another way in which the case before us might have been dealt
with, and that was by revising the Constitution itself, which at
present seems to be too liberal in tolerating us, and in doing so they
would have only pandered to the imperial will of the mob. You are men
of judgment, we have had plenty of proofs of that lately. (Laughter.)
Why do not you do this? And then you might have taken into your
counsels the authors of the petition themselves, amongst whom there
are several advocates. (I regret it for the honour of the Neuchâtel
bar.) But no, you do not venture to revise the Constitution, and why?
Because you like sometimes to quote these beautiful inalienable rights
the existence of which attracts foreigners to our country, and which
have been so prominently exhibited, framed and glazed, at the Zurich
Exhibition. Yes, it was necessary to hold to these fine rights of the
Constitution, and yet to stick to our friends! (Sensation.) Thus they
try to find a middle course, and in doing so they fall into a quagmire
and everybody, jury, president, lawyers, accused, everybody in fact
now plays at hide-and-seek, out and in, amongst the Articles of the
Constitution. (Laughter.) We are reminded continually that a law even
if it is unjust, ought to be obeyed. This is a convenient doctrine for
the Government, who if it could be only sure of our obedience, could,
by a sudden decree, suspend the Constitution itself. But in doing so
they are guilty of an aberration which debases the Constitution to a
lower level than an ordinary law. When two laws are in distinct
contradiction to one another, one cannot be held guilty for choosing
one in preference to the other. But on the other hand one is certain
to be in the right if one has on one’s own side the Constitution,
which is above the Cantonal law. Every persecution which has taken
place in the past has pleaded legality in its favour. Every past
persecution has been based upon texts of law and excellent decrees;
such texts and decrees as you have allowed to prevail against the
Constitution, which is itself the source of all law and the source of
your own authority, you magistrates! In such a case as this, a high
authority tells us we have the right of legal resistance. Authors are
agreed in saying that under such circumstances a rebellion, such as M.
Audeoud of Geneva has raised, is legitimate. Our resistance (that is
to say, the resistance of the Salvation Army) is passive, limiting
itself to the continuation of the exercise of the right of which it is
desired to deprive it. Finally, by the oath which Judges take, they
are themselves deprived of the power of making an application of an
unconstitutional law. If you find, therefore, that this law is
unconstitutional you have no right to apply it.” (The speaker
concluded by demanding the acquittal of all the accused.)
To this address, of which no adequate idea is given by the above, the
Procureur-Général declined to reply, and the prisoners were each asked
in turn whether they had anything to say in their defence.
Captain Becquet, called upon first, pointed out how the disturbances at
the commencement had been a “got-up affair” by people who had never seen
the Army. As to its _methods_, which the Procureur had talked so much
about, though they had never used a drum or cornet at Neuchâtel, yet he
thought they had as much a right to use _every_ instrument as David had.
He would give them a specimen of old-time religion, and as the
Procureur-Général had quoted largely from a pamphlet, he asked to be
allowed also to make a quotation. He then opened his bible and read the
150th Psalm! Cries of derision were heard from some in the audience
while the Captain read and commented. “The Army had attacked sin and the
devil—_that_ was why it was attacked and ill-used, but nothing in earth
or hell would stop its progress.”
Miss Booth then made her defence. A defence it could hardly be called.
It now seemed as if it was not the Salvationists, but the authorities
who were on the defensive.
(The Procureur-Général had himself remarked in his speech: “What do we
find before us? People who show the slightest sign of repentance?... No!
no! but a handful of people who come here with a coolness, and _aplomb
simply superb_, to tell us that they have done nothing wrong, who
presume to talk to us about ‘law,’ and to declare they are in their
rights and mean to stick to them!” And he was right, for certainly
prisoners at the bar never seemed more at ease nor more calmly
trustful.)
As she rose, calm and self-possessed, and faced the President, none but
her intimate friends understood the wonderful God-given power of spirit
and soul required in that moment to enable Miss Booth to triumph over
the exhaustion and acute suffering of those two long days following
twelve of imprisonment. She said:—
“I have no need to enter upon the legal aspect of this question; that
has been ably dealt with by M. Monnier. Yet as M. le Procureur-Général
himself went off the ground of law to discuss at great length the
doctrines and methods of the Army, I feel I cannot for truth’s sake be
silent; although I am fully aware that we are not here to enter upon a
disquisition about Christianity.
“Permit me first to say that if the Conseil d’Etat had any doubts or
misgivings concerning the methods and end of the Salvation Army, the
honourable members should have sought information from competent judges,
that is to say, from those who know us, who had both seen and heard us,
before accepting the opinions of persons who had done neither one nor
the other.
“What is the need for the Salvation Army? Allow me to read an extract
from one of your own journals:—‘Cantonal Governments, the Federation,
neighbourhoods and families see with alarm the flood of demoralisation
rising menacingly higher and higher; and instead of seeking to destroy
the causes of this deluge, they only take away the remaining dams.’ Can
you deny the existence of the state of things described by this paper?
“It is needless to enlarge upon the necessity for a Salvation Army in
the face of these facts.
“The Procureur-Général has said, in speaking of the work, that it moved
the entire population, and that there must be a cause for this. He has
reason to say so. I agree with him; there is a cause, far deeper than
any that has been mentioned here to-day. It is at this cause we
strike—which exists _in the heart of man_.
“As to our aim, we are trying to bring these people who outrage your
laws, who fight against God, to the feet of Him who alone can change
them, to the only hope that exists for them, the Saviour of the world!
We work, we live, we suffer to do this. This is our one and only
object—to bring the world to the Great Deliverer, Jesus Christ!
“Our only message has been, ‘Repent and turn ye to the Lord that your
sins may be blotted out.’ We want to see the drunkards, the thieves, the
outcasts washed in the precious blood of Jesus, and changed into
peaceful, loyal citizens.
“This being our end, it is to the interest of all Governments to protect
us; and in protecting us they protect themselves.
“In our efforts to attain this end we have met with the bitterest
opposition in Switzerland, because our motives have been wilfully
misrepresented. Lies, as absurd as untrue, have been circulated about
us; and we have been bitterly persecuted—first by those who resist the
light, and secondly by those who have been misled, and will one day
regret their action.
“The great accusation against us is that we disturbed the public peace;
in a word, we were the cause of scandal. If to preach the Gospel, to
denounce sin, and to pray over the masses is a scandal, then we are
guilty of a scandal, even as Christ and Paul were. The Procureur-Général
has attempted to describe in detail our proceedings, yet this gentleman
has avowed that he has never attended a single meeting, never put his
foot inside the Mont Blanc; he cannot, therefore, be considered capable
of judging since he has never seen them! (Laughter.)
“M. le Procureur-Général has said we attacked the town with drums, and
trumpets, and other extravagant things. I ask M. le Procureur-Général
how many drums he has seen in Neuchâtel, or trumpets? Not one. What is
the truth? No musical instrument, with the exception of a piano, has
been employed. No flag, no processions. The only bill that has been
issued I hold in my hand, which simply announces that the Salvation Army
will hold meetings at seven, three, and seven.
“M. le Procureur-Général has referred to the language of the
Salvationists. He says we teach that all that is necessary for Salvation
is for one to jump on the platform and say, ‘_Je suis sauvé_’ (‘I am
saved’) after five minutes’ self-examination. No one in Switzerland has
ever heard us make such an outrageous statement. It is not true.
“Notwithstanding, there may come a day when M. le Procureur-Général and
others would give all the world to be able to say, ‘Je suis sauvé!’ The
time will come when he will have to face the great unknown future,
appear before another tribunal, to face another Judge! Then he with
others will prove the value of those words, ‘Je suis sauvé!’
“But what are our proceedings? (1.) We have sung hymns in the hall that
we had hired. Everyone can procure a little book of the hymns we use,
and judge for themselves. Here is a specimen:—
‘Seul refuge de mon âme,
Je veux m’appuyer sur Toi;
La paix que mon cœur réclame
Est à Tes pieds, ô mon Roi!’
(2.) We read the Bible. Switzerland has not waited till the Salvation
Army came to read the Bible. You know this Book already. (3.) We pray,
and (4) we persuade men to leave the road of sin and death—to renounce
evil, and give their hearts and lives to the Saviour. And God is our
witness that we have _done nothing more_.
“Is that a scandal? To sing, and speak, and pray in the name of Jesus?
It is not we that throw stones, that break windows, that howl and hoot
after respectable people in the streets. It is not we who violate
domiciles. It is against all logic to say that _we_ are the scandal of
your country.
“Ah! the question of all questions, the question which every intelligent
man ought to face, is—What are we to do with the masses? If they are not
reached by the power of the Gospel—if they are not won from sin and the
power of Satan—a day will come when they will turn round against you,
occasioning terrible trouble and disorder, and awful will be the
consequences. Then, Messieurs, you may have reason to regret your action
in this matter. If these disturbers are capable of manifesting such
hatred, such rage against citizens who pray to God, they will also be
capable of manifesting the same rebellious spirit against _any other
opinion, or any other law, which may not please them_.
“We have not made your people like this. Bear in mind that we have not
created this terrible state of barbarism which was let loose around that
Hall, and which has made my heart bleed many times in witnessing. Who is
responsible for this? We cannot be, for we have only been in your town a
few months.
“There are people also in Switzerland who have followed our meetings and
know that we are on the side of law and order, and that our only end is
to stop vice, to empty the prisons, and to save souls out of the grasp
of the devil. And it is those who are _interested in, and gain by sin,
who fight against us_!
“Although we have suffered terribly through misrepresentations that have
been wilfully circulated about us, we are not discouraged! we know that
truth and justice will soon triumph. I love Switzerland all the more for
what we have endured. A little while and Switzerland will love us. We
shall win thousands to righteousness, peace, and heaven. (Cries of
assent and dissent.)
“Further, we have broken no law since we entered your country. The
Prefect admitted to me that Capt. Becquet had all along strictly obeyed
his orders and counsels with reference to the Mont Blanc. We have
submitted and submitted again and again, until you have taken away from
us the right to meet to pray. This lands us on another platform
altogether. We have now no more any choice. There is but one course open
to us—we must follow that. We must obey God; we must be in harmony with
the laws of Heaven. We are not here to plead ‘Not guilty.’ No! Like
Daniel and Paul, and the early Christians, we weighed this matter. I
weighed it in my room on my knees. We have all told you that we did
violate the decree. We have no wish to hide it. I note, however, that
the enemy of souls has full liberty. He can do his work without
hindrance. He can lead to perdition thousands of victims. He is
permitted to drink, and shout, and sing, and dance, and make all the
noise he likes without the least interruption on the part of the
authorities, while we are _made prisoners for praying in a wood_! I was
struck the other night when in my prison by the howling and singing of
bands of roughs, which continued till past midnight, without any
interruption that I am aware of from the police, while our people were
followed home because they had sung a hymn, and strict watch was kept
that they should not do it again.
“I fear there is reason to believe that personal feeling and prejudice
have somewhat taken the place of justice in this matter. Permit me,
Messieurs, to say that on the ground we occupy to-day, where liberty and
truth are at stake, all prejudice and personal and vindictive feeling
should be banished; that justice, and justice alone, should have full
and fair play.
“I ask why the meetings were stopped at the Mont Blanc at the moment
when there was no noise? I was in Neuchâtel when the order came from the
Prefect to stop the evening meeting after a certain Friday night, at
which there had been _no disturbance_. The same thing occurred with
reference to the afternoon meeting. Why were the afternoon meetings
closed when there _was no noise_? And again with the Sunday morning
meetings. Neither is the law in execution to-day on account of noise,
since perfect order reigned on the 9th September at the Prise-Imer. The
meeting lasted from two to six, and hundreds of people, including
policemen and the Prefect of Boudry, witnessed the solemnity of that
occasion. And I ask further, is it just to shut up our hall on account
of the noise outside? If a _man took a shop for his business_ and people
chose to break his windows, _would the Conseil d’Etat shut his shop up
to satisfy_ the roughs outside—would they be guilty of such injustice?
Then why has it shut up the hall which we had taken, and which was our
property? They did not even offer to pay the rent. All we demand is that
which is guaranteed by your Constitution—religious liberty.
“M. le Procureur-Général referred to our Queen, saying that even she was
subject to the decrees of Parliament, but that I placed myself above her
in refusing to become subject to the decrees of the Grand Conseil. There
is no parallel between Her Majesty and myself. No Act has been passed to
forbid her praying in a wood, or I think her Majesty would have
something to say on the subject! (Sensation.)
“M. le Procureur-Général has spoken in a way that has astounded me on
public opinion, which, he says, they cannot afford to treat lightly. Let
me remind M. le Procureur-Général and all here that it was public
opinion that crucified Jesus Christ. The rulers and the people all
joined together to put him to death. Do you justify that action? That
was _public opinion_.
“The Government in England protects us. The Queen, John Bright, and
others of the most intelligent and influential men in our country, have
publicly expressed their sympathy. They appreciate and understand the
end and aim of the Army.
“One word in conclusion. You can punish us; you can imprison us; you can
persecute us (as long as you are permitted); but what you cannot do is
to stop this work—to suppress it. I warn you. Beware what you do, for
your country’s sake, for Jesus Christ’s sake; and as you value the peace
of your soul in a dying hour. Take care that in banishing us you don’t
banish the light, that you do not banish Jesus Christ, and in that great
day when you are called to give an account you be found guilty of
fighting against God.
“You can laugh at me; you can mock me; but you cannot deny what I have
said. God is with us!”
M. Convert, being asked if he wished to add anything, said:—
“The Procureur-Général has spoken in unsparing terms of our madness and
fanaticism. I shall not reply to this. History will judge between us.
The great future will show who is right—the Government accuser or the
Salvationist accused.
“When I heard of the coming of the Salvation Army I was extremely
anxious to assume the _true_ attitude towards them, and therefore I
immediately wrote to friends in London and other places who had
opportunity of seeing and studying the work and the workers. I had heard
many strange reports; among others that the work was full of
irreverence; but I wished to have exact information from people who had
seen, and heard, and studied for themselves, and not mere hearsay; and I
am glad of the opportunity of stating publicly that all the information
I thus received was such as to reflect the highest credit upon the Army
and its officers. I have since had the opportunity of seeing them
personally, and my experience has more than confirmed the information
received. I consider it an honour to be here to stand by them to-day,
whilst at the same time protesting as a Swiss and a Neuchâtelois,
against a decree which forces me to stand at this bar as an accused. It
is a post of honour; but I ask why was I chosen for this honour among
two hundred other Salvationists who attended the meeting? The two
hundred would have been happy to have been here at this bar to-day.”
The same question was then asked of Mme. Boillot, who said: “The
Procureur-Général had accused the Army of being a scourge to the
country. I reply, if you want to abolish something, abolish the real
scourges. Shut up the houses of ill-fame which are licensed by the
State, and the public-houses, and then you will have less need of your
prisons and of the Salvation Army!” (Sensation.)
Sergeant Cost then said: “All I have to ask, Mr. President, is that if
you punish our dear English Officers, you will give me the same sentence
as you give them!”
Sergeant Hess asks the same.
The Jury retire, and while the murmur of conversation rises all around,
the word is passed along the line of the accused, and among the
Salvationists in the audience, “Let us all pray!” In that moment of
crisis, from the midst of the excited throng, many prayers are rising to
the Eternal Throne.
During the whole of those two days, unseen and unknown to that earthly
tribunal, an appeal had been unceasingly going up to the Supreme Court
of Justice above, winged by the prayers of multitudes in other lands—
“And thus the whole round earth
Was every way bound by golden chains
About the feet of God!”
After a time the President resumed his chair: “Silence! Messieurs! The
Jury is about to enter. I call upon this audience now to maintain the
attitude of respect due to the dignity of this tribunal. Upon the
slightest disturbance I shall have the hall cleared.”
A moment of breathless suspense followed.
The door opens, and the foreman of the jury advances to the table,
followed by his six colleagues.
With a manner full of courageous dignity, he reads:
_First Question_: Did the accused take part in a meeting?—Yes.
_Second Question_: Was this meeting in violation of the decree?—Yes.
_Third Question_: Did they act with culpable intention?—No.
The Judge pronounces:
“In consequence of this verdict, _the accused are acquitted_.”
Fervent “Amens;” burst spontaneously from the Salvationists in the
audience.
The following remarks on the events of those few days from Mlle. ——, may
be interesting.
“On Saturday morning a carriage came to fetch Miss Booth and Mr.
Becquet, who, accompanied by the jailer, drove to Boudry, a little
country town at five miles distant from Neuchâtel, where the trial was
to take place. We ourselves left the station at Neuchâtel at 7 o’clock
in the morning; a great many Salutistes were gathered there, and as
soon as they were in the train began singing their cheerful hymns of
victory, and never ceased till the train arrived at Boudry. A crowd of
Neuchâtel people marched in, and found this quiet little place already
filled with people. The windows, doors, and streets were filled with
faces looking eagerly at the anxious throng who flocked towards the
Hôtel de Ville. It did require strength and patience to stand for two
hours for the doors to be opened. But the subject was too intensely
interesting to consider the fatigue or the inconvenience of being
crushed in the crowd. Meanwhile a few friends gathered together in a
little upper room in a friendly house opposite, and many fervent
prayers were offered concerning this most important day. This little
room became quite a sanctuary during the two days of the trial; many a
time we saw it filled with earnest Christians, several of the
_prévenus_ joining us to gather strength from on high. Luther’s hymn,
“_C’est un rempart que notre Dieu_” was a favourite one, and brought
comfort to many; we sang, however, also a good many Salvation songs in
spite of the judges opposite who might have heard us! The jury
assembled at 9.30 a.m.; then the prisoners were called in. Miss Booth
entered first; she looked very pale and suffering. Many saw her then
for the first time, and no doubt many thought she looked more like an
angel than a criminal! Captain Becquet next entered; he, too, bore on
his face traces of his hard work, and of the privations of the prison;
he looked worn and very pale, but as joyful as ever. His peace is
unalterable; loss of comfort, trials, persecution, difficulties, are
nothing to him. When I asked him during the day how he was, he
answered cheerfully: ‘Very well indeed; there is only one thing which
can make me unhappy, that is _sin_.’ Some hearing this said: ‘One must
confess these people do not look unhappy.’ It was indeed a very
striking sight to observe the faces of the six ‘culprits.’ The perfect
calm and peace which shone on their faces was in itself eloquent
enough. They seemed quite unconcerned and perfectly at their ease in
the midst of the crowd of people glaring at them. No nervousness, no
agitation; they knew that the Lord Himself would speak through their
lips; yea, that He was in the midst of them—what then could they fear?
they were not their own, they had acted in obedience to their Master,
and He had called them to be witnesses for Him before this Court, and
here they were for His sake. M. Convert sat beside Miss Booth. He is a
worthy Christian, of mature age, and a faithful follower of Christ.
His father many years ago had also had to appear before the tribunals
for his faith, and was sentenced to three days of prison for having
held a religious meeting. Mme. Boillot is a young lady only 25 years
old. Although a Christian woman before, she had been greatly blessed
through the Salvation Army in Neuchâtel, and had been very bold and
determined in holding meetings at her own house, and attending as many
others as she could, without neglecting her family duties. Cost is a
gardener who was converted in one of the meetings at the Mont Blanc
Hall. He, too, has been a good faithful soldier, holding meetings
every week at his house without fear. Hess, a good-looking young man,
carpenter, had been a drunkard for many years, had signed and broken
the pledge many a time, but only since the Army came to Neuchâtel did
he obtain sufficient strength and blessing to keep it, and to be a new
creature. His testimony was very remarkable.
“So much for the criminals. I will not enter into the details of the
debates which you will be able to read fully in the papers. A few
things were particularly striking. The Procureur-Général is a man who
professes to be a Freethinker, far, far above the narrow-minded people
who call themselves Christians; yet, in his pleading against the
accused, his _strongest_ argument was, that almost all the pastors and
ministers of religion had expressed their feelings and opinions,
either in the press or pulpit, _against_ the Salvation Army. ‘An
eminent _Christian_ lady, also a famous authoress, had written such
revelations against this association that there could be left no doubt
in the minds of every thoughtful person that this Army was nothing but
a lot of _Saltambanques_, who, instead of promoting religion, did only
injure and profane it, &c., &c.’ Then the Procureur quoted several
pages of Mme. de Gasparin’s brochure. It made everybody shudder, who
loved the name of Jesus, to hear that blessed name uttered in such a
tone, quoting the disgraceful passages where Mme. de Gasparin
represents Jesus as the bitterest judge of the Salvation Army, tearing
their banners, crushing their platforms, &c., &c. (Awful language.) I
was ashamed for all our pastors to have to have their names quoted in
the cause of the unbelievers against the true followers of Christ.
“The powers of darkness were certainly well represented in this
tribunal; we could _feel_ the conflict between the two powers very
strikingly; but, thank God, our faith never faltered, and we knew that
the Lord was the strongest and that the victory would be His.
“A few illustrations come to my memory of this fact. At the end of the
first day a few roughs had climbed on the high brick stove at the end
of the room, when the President declared that the prisoners would be
released until Monday, when the debates would be continued. One of
these men shouted at the top of his voice: ‘Au clou,’ which means in
slang, ‘To the prison with them.’ At this very moment there was a
great crash and the man fell down the stove, breaking off a whole
corner of it. He was himself much hurt by his fall, so that he stopped
shouting, and the accused could freely leave the hall without
molestation.
“Another incident I noticed;—a rough-looking woman in the crowd who
seemed all rage and anger against the _Maréchale_, swearing and
threatening to kill her with her pitchfork if she was released; she
kept following the debates eagerly. To our great surprise we noticed
that a considerable change took place in her when the _Maréchale_
spoke; at last her face changed completely—she was quite silent and
grave looking—tears rolled down her checks, and it was exactly as if a
tiger had been changed into a lamb. To God be all glory.
“I must not forget to tell you that very few persons, in fact nobody
expected the acquittal of the accused. The advocate whom I had
questioned a few days before said that it would be a _miracle_ if they
were acquitted, that everything was against them, the fact even of
having to go to Boudry was most unfavourable—all these country people
were rough, and opposed to religious questions, and that they were
determined to put an end to these manifestations, &c. But God
overruled all! Our advocate suddenly recollected that petition of the
10,000, and he remembered that the jury which was to judge the
Salutistes could not be composed of men who had signed this petition;
this would be enough to make them _unfit_ to judge impartially, having
expressed their opinion _against_ them in signing the petition. The
accused are allowed to choose their jury, therefore when the members
were proposed, the advocate went to the chateau where the
petition-lists were examined, and there more than half the names were
found of the proposed jurors, as signatories. The debates of the first
day bore on these preliminary questions, which ended in the
composition of a new jury, none of whose members had signed the
petition, and were in fact all _good_ men. This was God’s hand. Still,
even on Monday when the question _de fond_ really began to be treated,
people did not know what the end would be. It was very interesting to
observe the different faces in the crowd. Some anxiously hoping and
fearing, others waiting like wild beasts to devour their prey. The
crowd was much greater than on Saturday, and the air so bad, so
intensely hot, that it was almost impossible to bear it. Of course,
the great attraction was to hear the defence of the prisoners, and it
was a remarkable thing to hear from these lips the confession of the
name of Christ made without fear. I could not stay the whole time, and
remained a little outside to get fresh air; a great many big fellows
were assembled there drinking and using bad language. One
rough-looking man quite drunk, lifted his hand shouting, ‘If you want
an executioner, here I am, take me, we don’t want these English; I
follow the advice of our pastor, we have our pastors!!’ Some others
went to the Temperance Hall, emptied the chocolate cups on the floor,
and took out of their pockets bottles of _eau-de-vie_, which they
began drinking in that place! They said, ‘In these times of trouble,
nobody knows what poison is in this chocolate, we must drink better
stuff!!!’ Altogether there was a very uncomfortable presentiment of
some outbreak in the evening. The suspense was very great. We kept
believing and praying, but I must confess not without fear. When at
last, towards 8 o’clock at night, the jury gave the verdict of
acquittal, and the words ‘_sans intention coupable_,’ were pronounced,
there was a momentary dead silence like the calm before the storm. M.
Cornaz, the director of police, then ordered his police to withdraw,
so the poor accused were at the mercy of the mob. Miss Booth was
protected by her advocate, M. Monnier, and Professor Kœnig, of Berne,
and reached her carriage, but the shouts and shrieks were awful, worse
than those of wild beasts. ‘A l’eau, à l’eau,’ they shouted, and
followed the carriage _en masse_, trying to upset it. But the coachman
succeeded in getting out of the crowd; then the roughs attacked the
other Salvationists who had to walk, pelted them with mud and stones,
howling and blaspheming, so much so that we could only pray and thank
God that they were not more hurt. Oh! how we sang in our train coming
back! such joyful songs of victory; we did praise the Lord, and made a
joyful noise unto the Lord.”
Great assistance was rendered to the accused by M. Professor Kœnig, of
Berne, a distinguished Swiss lawyer, and legal adviser to the British
Embassy. Dr. Kœnig had had the case before him for some time previously,
had studied it thoroughly, and watched the trial on behalf of our
Foreign Office.
Much indignation was felt throughout Switzerland, and found its
expression also in the English Press, at the conduct of M. Cornaz in
ordering the police to leave at the moment the verdict of acquittal was
pronounced, the moment in which the disappointed roughs might be
expected to break out in vengeance against the acquitted persons.
The _Suisse Libérale_ had the following on the subject:—
“After the conclusion of the trial, the crowd, which disperses slowly,
appears tumultuous enough in the neighbourhood of the building, and
threats are heard against the acquitted. The Brigadier of Gendarmes
approaches M. Cornaz to take his orders for the protection of the
persons whom the jury have just acquitted, and receives this answer,
made in an exasperated tone by the Director of Justice and Police—an
answer with which I remain astounded, but which I give textually:—
“‘_We have nothing more to do; you may retire._’
“The brave gendarme does not understand. He has not even strength to
articulate the usual word, ‘Director, you are right,’ and goes silently
away with his comrades. I leave without comment this little episode to
the reflection of those who still think several things which I do not
think any more at all. Miss Booth, jostled and pressed in the most
painful way by a hostile crowd, gets into a carriage with her advocate
and M. Kœnig. The carriage drives off in the midst of hisses and
hooting. The crowd is very discreet on the whole, as it had just been
given _carte blanche_.”
M. Cornaz’s face was white with passion when he heard the verdict of
acquittal. During Miss Booth’s defence he had stood facing her with “an
_evil grin_” on his face, as one of the papers expressed it, and on one
occasion rudely interrupted her, saying, “Silence her; Shut her mouth!”
He subsequently distinctly and publicly denied having dismissed the
police at the moment when most required for the protection of the
accused. This led to a correspondence in the press. M. du Pasquier
stated that he had distinctly heard the words spoken. M. Kœnig also, and
many others, attested the fact. The astonishment of the honest policeman
under him when ordered to retire was also witnessed by many persons.
Further comment is needless.
In the turbulent rush from the Court-house of Boudry, a fierce-looking
man approached Capt. Becquet, and gave him notice, with a clenched fist,
that “his flesh and blood would pay for it,” if he persevered in holding
meetings.
The other Salutistes were followed by a crowd of roughs along the
country road, and those who brought up the rearguard were savagely
kicked and pelted.
The not unfriendly feeling of the Public Prosecutor towards those
against whom he reluctantly took part may be illustrated by a little
incident. At the close of the trial, Capt. Becquet went up to him, and
held out his hand, saying, “I have no bitterness against _you_, sir.”
The Prosecutor responded heartily; patting Becquet on the back, he said,
“Nor have I against you and your comrades.” Miss Booth and her English
friends left Neuchâtel the same evening for Paris.
On the 3rd of October, certain persons who had formed themselves into a
committee for the organization of a public meeting to demand the
expulsion from the Canton of the English Salutistes, issued the
following address:—
“FELLOW CITIZENS,—The jury of Boudry has given its verdict. The
Salvationists are acquitted. As signatories of the anti-Salvationist
petition you demanded that measures should be taken to put a stop to
the action of the Salvation Army in your Canton. Your Council of State
and your Grand Council have granted the desire of the ten thousand
petitioners. A decree was published forbidding the meetings of the
Salvation Army upon the whole of the Republican territory of the
Canton of Neuchâtel. This decree was violated. The popular will has
not been respected. The decision of the jury of Boudry has rendered
that decree a dead-letter. Fellow citizens, it is incumbent now on the
people to demand of the Council of State a measure of Police and
Public Order which would put an end to the whole scandal, namely, the
expulsion of the foreign Salutistes. The resolute measure adopted by
the Constituted Authority upon the petition of ten thousand citizens
must not be allowed to be trampled under foot. We adjure you,
therefore, to come together on Sunday, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon,
on the Place du Gymnase, to discuss publicly the urgent measures which
are required. We count upon the presence of all citizens who regard
the dignity of the country and respect our laws.
“Signed by the Committee of Organization of the Meeting.”
A novel spectacle presented itself at Neuchâtel on that Sunday, _i.e._,
that of a large meeting of people demanding the immediate expulsion of
certain foreigners who had already crossed the Jura, and were some
hundreds of miles away.
A special cheap train service had been organized to tempt people from la
Chaux du Fond and other towns to come. The Committee of organization,
followed by about two hundred citizens, with a military banner and
music, marched to the station to meet those who were to arrive. On
returning, the procession, it is said, numbered about two thousand. At
the head of it marched M. Schmidlin, proprietor of the Café of the
Trocadero, and a veterinary surgeon of Boudry. Several members of the
Grand Council are said to have been present. Having marched round the
town, they halted at the Place du Gymnase.
M. Gehrig addressed the meeting, and enjoined the order suitable for a
Republican assembly worthy of the name. He thanked the citizens who had
replied to the appeal of the committee, for having come together to
demand respect for the rights of the Government, and for the will of the
majority of the people. They could not, he said, be satisfied with the
position in which the verdict of Boudry had left them. They demanded
expulsion—(prolonged cheers)—the immediate expulsion—(renewed cheers)—of
the foreigners who had brought disturbance amongst them.
M. Max Diacon, advocate, then spoke:—That was the first time, he said,
in the history of their country that such an immense concourse of people
had assembled to demand that the Government should enforce respect for
the law. The meeting had assembled to claim from the Council of State a
measure which would restore peace to their country. That day, which
would be a marked one in the history of the country, would, he was sure,
pass off with that order and dignity from which their people had never
swerved. They could do there what could not be done under a monarchy,
namely, demand through the voice of the whole people, not violence, but
justice. (Cries of “Yes, yes, it is true.”) He could not say all that
was on his heart, but he must reply to the accusations which had been
brought against the 10,000 petitioners. They had been reproached for
giving too much importance to a few English men and women. But the
question was not that. The motive which urged them was the sentiment
that in a Republic the laws must needs be respected.
M. Cochard then spoke:—The question, he said, was whether the people
should continue to be masters or not. The Salvation Army, by planting
its flag in their midst, had stirred up the indignation of the people.
Those mountebanks—(vociferous cheers)—trampling on all religious
principles, had tried to introduce their new religion into their
country. But for themselves, they had their own pastors, their beloved
and respected pastors. They did not need any comedy-players to teach
them, and they repudiated the Salvation Army, whose grand principle was
“Pay down money, and you shall be saved.” The decree of the Grand
Council had been violated by the decision of the jury. They (the
meeting) had a right to expel those who had brought disunion into the
families of the people. It could not be allowed that a few English
people should violate their laws under the pretext that they had
consulted Swiss advocates. They had held a meeting in violation of the
decree, and this they did (he blushed for the Canton of Neuchâtel) under
the auspices of a Neuchâtel citizen. It was said that these English were
already gone; but, he said, they might come back again! (The speaker
concluded by reading a resolution as follows:) “The Council of State of
Neuchâtel is respectfully requested to satisfy the wish of the people
expressed in the popular assembly of the 7th October, and to decree the
immediate expulsion from our Canton by a measure of police and public
order, of the foreign Salvationists, who have been the cause of scandals
among us, and who have permanently troubled the public peace.
“This resolution shall be conveyed to the Council of State at the Castle
by a deputation from the meeting. All citizens are invited to accompany
the deputation in procession.”
About seven hundred men then ascended the hill to the Chateau, followed
by a crowd of spectators. The gate of the Court was closed. The terrace
of the College was crowded with spectators. When the procession reached
its destination the gate was opened, and then the crowd poured into the
narrow passage with a great rush. Women groaned, children screamed, and
at last the Court was filled.
A correspondent of the _Suisse Libérale_ wrote:—“When I had at last
entered the Court with great difficulty, having just missed the harangue
of the speaker who presented the resolution to the Government, M.
Comtesse, President of the Council of State had begun to speak, and was
complimenting the people. The people of Neuchâtel, he said, were the
friends of order. (Cheers.) They did not wish to be troubled in their
family life by foreigners who came to embitter them in the name of a
religion which they perverted and dishonoured. (Cheers.) They (the
Swiss) had always shown hospitality to foreigners who came peaceably to
enjoy their institutions; but those who came to speculate on their
hospitality and resist their laws they would drive out of their country.
The Council of State would show that it knew how to do its duty, and to
enforce respect for the popular will. It was well that that dignified
demonstration had been organized, in order that they who had calumniated
the country by predicting a disorderly meeting that day would have the
lie given to them. They were a people jealous of good order, and they
did not require any lessons from foreigners, and still less from haughty
advocates of their own country. (Prolonged cheers.)”
M. Cornaz, Chief of the Department of Justice and Police, then addressed
the people. He complained of having been calumniated in the matter of
his having withdrawn police protection from the accused at the trial.
His concluding words were, “This day it has been the people who have
spoken. The powerful breath of the people has dissipated all these
infamies and calumnies. Let us give three cheers for the Neuchâtel
Republic.”
M. Diacon said he would propose, in that Castle which their ancestors
had re-conquered on two occasions, one more cheer for the Neuchâtel
Republic and Government.
The procession then returned to the town, where speeches were again made
on the Place du Gymnase.
A Zurich newspaper remarked: “The committee for the formation of this
meeting was composed of an obscure post-office official and a couple
of young lawyers strongly attached to the chief of the Department of
Justice and Police (M. Cornaz). The head of the procession, it is
said, was formed by a band of good-for-nothings, such as those who
distinguished themselves in Geneva in the persecutions of the
Salvation Army. M. Cornaz, surrounded by his friends and brethren,
stood upon a balcony, in a position to be well seen by the people. On
the two occasions when the procession was obliged to pass along the
Rue du Chateau, in front of the house of M. Aimé Humbert, the grossest
abuse was showered upon its occupant by the roughs in passing.”
La _Nouvelle Gazette_ said: “This meeting has been pronounced a
success. To us it does not appear so. It was an occasion for Sunday
excursionists to amuse themselves, and the manifestations were
absolutely wanting in everything like seriousness and dignity.”
A correspondent from Switzerland to the _Globe_ (London), wrote as
follows of the address made on the occasion of the popular meetings:—
“Especially telling was the hit directed against the Salvationists on
the ground that they were mountebanks, who were seeking to get money
out of the pockets of the people. To the average Helvetian mind, this
charge is quite sufficient to justify their expulsion. Never had the
well-worn proverb—‘Point d’argent, point de Suisse’—a fuller
illustration. In trying to get hold of some Swiss money, the Booths
have committed an unpardonable sin. The ingenuous inhabitants of these
valleys and mountains have so long been accustomed to relieve the
English traveller of his gold, that they bitterly resent the
introduction of the converse process....
“Amid vociferous cries of ‘Au Chateau,’ it was announced that the
_cortège_ would be reformed and would proceed to the Castle—the seat
of the Cantonal Government—for the presentation of the demand.
Hurrying there before the crowd, I secured a place in the inner court,
and was presently witness to a scene which, _magna componere parvis_,
would be paralleled if Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain came out into
Palace Yard on a Sunday evening to address congratulatory speeches to
the leaders of a mob-meeting which had marched from Hyde Park to
Westminster Palace. When the orators and the bands of music arrived
they were warmly received—evidently in accordance with a
pre-arrangement—by MM. Comtesse and Cornaz, leading Radical members of
the Council of State. These distinguished gentlemen told the crowd
that they had done perfectly right in organising a noisy demonstration
in order to try to upset the decision of a properly constituted court
of justice. There was much said by these responsible administrators
about the necessity of making all foreigners as well as Neuchâtelois
obey the law, which in this case, be it remembered, is an edict of the
Council, which a court of justice has declared to be in opposition to
the law of the land.”
The following circular to the Prefects of Police was issued by M. Cornaz
on the 10th October.
“GENTLEMEN,—Now that we have expelled Miss Booth and Mr. Edmund
Becquet, there is no longer, properly speaking, any Salvation Army in
the Canton of Neuchâtel. This corporation has failed to strike any
firm roots amongst our people. It was an exotic importation, and seems
to me to be fated to disappear, together with those who introduced it.
Any foreigner in Switzerland who may attempt to revive its existence
will come under the decree of expulsion of the 8th October. This
measure must be sternly enforced in regard to such persons. In order
then that a religious assembly held by people of Swiss nationality
should come within the application of the decree of 15th June, 1883,
it must advertise openly and as in defiance, the name and exterior
signs of the Salvation Army. Now, therefore, we have re-entered our
normal state. The Canton of Neuchâtel is the country of religious
liberty, where everyone possesses the right freely to carry out his
own form of worship, and to unite with others under the protection of
the Constitutional, Cantonal, and Federal guarantees. All that has
recently passed in relation to the Salvation Army testifies to the
serious interest which our people take in spiritual questions. In
demanding its expulsion the Neuchâtel people have not manifested any
intolerance toward any religious opinion, seeing that the Salvation
Army, in its dogmas, does not essentially differ from the Protestant
sects which enjoy among us complete liberty. But public sentiment was
shocked by the jugglery and shows which the Salutistes mix up with
religion.[37] An irresistible current of opposition arose amongst the
population. There is every reason to hope that the spirit of justice,
of moderation and liberty which distinguishes our people, and that the
most complete liberty will continue to be respected, as it has ever
been since 1848. Liberty of conscience is a sacred thing in the
Republic, and the opinions of a minority have the same title to
respect as those of a majority. The public authorities rely on the
good will of all the citizens in carrying out this respect. So far
from interfering in any fashion whatever with meetings which are not
directly interdicted by the late decree of the Grand Council, our duty
is, on the contrary, to defend them against all attacks, as certainly
the Grand Council and the Council of State desire should be the case.
“Accept, gentlemen, the assurance of my distinguished consideration,
in the name of the Department of Police.
“CORNAZ.”
There appears in this address to his subordinates a rising fear in the
mind of M. Cornaz, lest he and his adherents should be on the verge of
becoming the minority whose rights he now calls upon the police to
respect. Possibly he also fears that his subordinates, (often, probably,
men of greater dignity of character than himself), might be too ready to
imitate the imprudence (to call it by a very gentle word) of which he
himself was guilty at the close of the Boudry trial, and that they might
carry out once too often in their official acts the principle of
non-interference in scenes of violence which may take place in future.
The _Continental Times_ of the 20th October contained the following
observations on M. Cornaz’s circular to the Police:—
“Having exercised the law in an arbitrary manner and expelled two
inoffensive English subjects from a country that is remarkable for
harbouring insurgents of all nations, the Neuchâtel Government applies
a salve to its conscience by publishing the above letter, signed by
Councillor of State Cornaz, and addressed to the Prefects of the
Canton:—It would be difficult to find a circular more abounding in
lame excuses, in unreasonable reasons, in poor attempts to explain
away tyranny and hide a cowardly subservience to the compulsion of a
party that objects to any religious body which seeks to empty cafés
and brasseries, or of one which accustomed to live on the money
brought into Switzerland by foreigners, has a quaking in the pockets
at the idea of subscriptions being made among the Swiss by foreigners
who may carry the proceeds away with them. No! M. Cornaz, your Canton
has not returned to its normal state. Such oppressive acts as have
been performed in Neuchâtel leave their mark on men’s minds. The
attempt to excuse a tyrannical decree while boasting of religious
liberty, is a sign of weakness, and the day is not far distant when
the same party that urged you to the expulsion of Miss Booth and Mr.
Becquet may demand of you acts more difficult to condone than the
persecution of a few helpless members of the Salvation Army.”
In the _Courrier de Neuchâtel_, which published this circular of M.
Cornaz, there stood, rather strikingly, side by side, in the next
column, the following earnest appeal from certain Christian men of the
Canton of Neuchâtel, following immediately upon the departure of the
acquitted Salvationists:—
“DEAR FELLOW CITIZENS,—Not being able to present ourselves personally
to give you this invitation, we do it by means of this advertisement.
On Sunday, the 14th October, at eight o’clock in the morning, there
will be a meeting to which we invite all persons who love the truth.
At this meeting the subject treated will be that of the slavery to sin
which is eating into the heart of our dear Helvetia. We shall treat of
the youth of our country, which is given up, bound hand and foot, to
prostitution, a vice which is practised in our country on such an
enormous scale. We shall take into consideration the ways and means
which may be employed in order to prevent the hope of our country from
being polluted and corrupted throughout, soul and body. Above all will
be brought forward the one efficacious remedy, through which, thanks
be to God, already many among us have been saved. It is in the name of
Jesus that we invite you. Come in great numbers—fathers and young
men.”