Washington, June 15.—Through their representative association, B’nai B’rith, the Jews of America to-day laid their case before President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay, and they are content to abide by whatever the Executive decides is best for them.
A statement of the proceedings given out at the White House concerning the conference consisted of a memorandum submitted by the B’nai B’rith on the recent Kishineff massacre, a tentative draft of a petition to the Tsar, which it is desired this Government should unofficially or semi-officially assist in delivering to the Tsar, and procuring a reply thereto, and copies of thereplies of Secretary Hay and President Roosevelt to their callers.
The memorandum says that the facts concerning the Kishineff massacre as officially reported by the Russian Government have appalled and horrified not only the Jews in Russia and elsewhere, but the whole American people, who want something done, and whose hostility to Russia, if nothing is done, will become intensified and fixed.
In his reply to the memorandum Secretary of State John Hay said:
“No person of ordinary humanity can have heard without deep emotion the story of the cruel outrages inflicted upon the Jews of Kishineff. These lamentable events have caused the profoundest impression throughout the world, but most especially in this country, where there are so many of your coreligionists who form such a desirable element of our population in industry, thrift, public spirit, and commercial morality.
“Nobody can ever make the Americansthink ill of the Jews as a class or as a race—we know them too well. In the painful crisis through which we are now passing the Jews of the United States have given evidence of the highest qualities—generosity, love of justice, and power of self-restraining.
“The Government of the United States must exhibit the same qualities. I know you do not doubt the sentiments of the President. No one hates more energetically than he does such acts of cruelty and injustice as those we deplore. But he must carefully consider all the circumstances and then decide whether any official action can be taken in addition to the impressive and most effective expressions of public opinion in this country during the last month. You will have observed that no civilised government in the world has yet taken official action—this consideration alone would bid us to proceed with care.
“The Emperor of Russia is entitled to our respect, not merely as the ruler of a greatand friendly nation, but as a man whose personal character is even more elevated than his exalted station. We should not be justified in assuming that this enlightened sovereign, who has given so many proofs of his devotion to peace and religious tolerance, has not done and is not doing all that lies in his power to put a stop to these atrocities, to punish the guilty, whether they belong to the ignorant populace or to high official circles, and to prevent the occurrence of the outrages which have so shocked humanity. In fact, all we know of the state of things in Russia tends to justify the hope that even out of the present terrible situation some good results may come; that He who watches over Israel does not slumber, and that the wrath of man, now as so often in the past, shall be made to praise Him.”
The call on the President at the White House followed, and there President Roosevelt, after the memorandum was laid before him, said:
“Mr. Chairman: I need not dwell upon afact so patent as the widespread indignation with which the American people heard of the dreadful outrages upon the Jews in Kishineff. I have never in my experience in this country known of a more immediate or a deeper expression of the sympathy for the victims and of horror over the appalling calamity that has occurred.
“It is natural that while the whole civilised world should express such a feeling, it should yet be most intense and widespread in the United States; for of all the great powers I think I may say that the United States is that country in which, from the beginning of its national career, most has been done in the way of acknowledging the debt due to the Jewish race, and of endeavouring to do justice to those American citizens who are of Jewish ancestry and faith.
“One of the most touching poems of our own great poet, Longfellow, is that on the Jewish cemetery in Newport, and anyone who goes through any of the old cemeteries of the cities which preserve the records ofcolonial times will see the name of many an American of Jewish race who, in war or in peace, did his full share in the founding of this nation. From that day to this, from the day when the Jews of Charleston, of Philadelphia, of New York, supported the patriot cause and helped in every way, not only by money, but by arms, Washington and his colleagues, who were founding this Republic—from that day to the present we have had no struggle, military or civil, in which there have not been citizens of Jewish faith who played an eminent part for the honour and credit of the nation.
“I remember once General Howard mentioning to me the fact that two of his brigade commanders upon whom he had placed special reliance were Jews. Among the meetings of the Grand Army which I have attended one stands out with peculiar vividness—a meeting held under the auspices of the men of the Grand Army of Jewish creed in the temple in Forty-fourth Street—Temple Emanu-El—to welcome the returnedveterans of the Spanish-American war of Jewish faith.
“When in Santiago, when I was myself in the army, one of the best colonels among the regular regiments who did so well on that day, and who fought beside me, was a Jew. One of the commanders of the ships which, in the blockade of the Cuban coast, did so well, was a Jew.
“In my own regiment I promoted five men from the ranks for valour and good conduct in battle. It happened by pure accident, for I know nothing of the faith of any one of them, that these included two Protestants, two Catholics, and one Jew; and while that was a pure accident, it was not without its value as an illustration of the ethnic and religious make-up of our nation and of the fact that if a man is a good American, that is all we ask, without thinking of his creed or his birthplace.
“In the same way, when I was Police Commissioner in New York, I had experience after experience of the excellent servicedone—an excellent work needing nerve and hardihood, excellent work of what I may call the Maccabee type in the Police Department under me, by police officers of Jewish extraction.
“Let me give you one little incident with a direct bearing upon this question of persecution for race or religious reasons. You may possibly recall, I am sure certain of my New York friends will recall, that during the time I was Police Commissioner a man came from abroad—I am sorry to say, a clergyman—to start an anti-Jewish agitation in New York, and announced his intention of holding meetings to assail the Jews. The matter was brought to my attention.
“Of course, I had no power to prevent those meetings. After a good deal of thought I detailed a Jewish sergeant and forty Jewish policemen to protect the agitator while he held his meetings; so he made his speeches denouncing the Jews protected exclusively by Jews, which I always thought was probably the most effective answerthat could possibly be made to him, and probably the best object lesson that we could give of the spirit in which we Americans manage such matters.
“Now let me give you another little example dealing with a Russian Jew, an experience I had while handling the Police Department, and that could have occurred, I think, nowhere else than in the United States.
“There was a certain man I appointed under the following conditions: I was attracted to him by being told on a visit to the Bowery branch of the Young Men’s Christian Association that they had a young fellow there, a Jew, who had performed a feat of great note in saving people from a burning building, and that they thought he was just the type for a policeman. I had him called up and told him to take the examination, and see if he could get through. He did, and he passed.
“He has only been an excellent policeman, but he at once, out of his salary, proceeded to educate his younger brothers and sisters, and he got either two or three of his old kinsfolk over from Russia, through the money he had saved, and provided homes for them.
“I have given you examples of men who have served under me in my administration of the Police Department in New York and my regiment. In addition thereto, some of my nearest social friends, some of those with whom I have been closest in political life, have been men of Jewish faith and extraction. Therefore, inevitably, I have felt a degree of personal sympathy and personal horror over this dreadful tragedy, as great as can exist in the minds of any of you gentlemen yourselves.
“Exactly as I should claim the same sympathy from any one of you for any tragedy happening to any Christian people, so I should hold myself unworthy of my present position if I failed to feel just as deep sympathy and just as deep sorrow and just as deep horror over an outrage like this doneto the Jewish people in any part of the earth.
“I am confident that much good has already been done by the manifestations throughout the country, without any regard to creed whatsoever, of horror and sympathy over what has occurred. It is gratifying to know—what we would, of course, assume—that the Government of Russia shows the feelings of horror and indignation with which the American people look upon the outrages at Kishineff, and is moving vigorously not only to prevent their continuance, but to punish the perpetrators.
“That government takes the same view of those outrages that our own government takes of the riots and lynchings which sometimes occur in our country, but do not characterise either our government or our people.
“I have been visited by the Russian Ambassador on his own initiative, and in addition to what has been said to Secretary Hay, the Russian Ambassador has notified mepersonally, without any inquiry upon my part, that the Governor of Kishineff has been removed; that between three hundred and four hundred of the participants in the outrages have been arrested, and he voluntarily stated that those men would be punished to the utmost that the law would permit.
“I will consider most carefully the suggestions that you have submitted to me and whether the now-existing conditions are such that any further official expression would be of advantage to the unfortunate survivors, with whom we sympathise so deeply. Nothing that has occurred recently has had my more constant thought, and nothing will have my more constant thought, than this subject. In any proper way by which beneficial action may be taken it will be taken, to show the sincerity of the historic American position of treating each man on his merits as a man, without the least reference to his creed, his race, or his birthplace.”
The following is the translation of a letter from Count Leo Tolstoy to a Jew who had asked his opinion concerning the outrages in Kishineff:
“I have received your letter. I had already received several similar letters. All the writers request me, as you do, to express my opinion on the events at Kishineff. It seems to me that these appeals are based on a misunderstanding. My correspondents supposed that my words carried weight, and I am therefore begged to express my opinion on an event so important and so complicated in its origins as the crime committed at Kishineff. The misunderstanding consists in demanding from me the work of a publicist, whereas I occupy myself exclusively with a single definite question, having nothing incommon with contemporary events—viz., the question of religion and its application to life. To request from me the public expression of my opinion on contemporary events is as illogical as it would be to demand such expression from any other specialist who makes use of contemporary events to illustrate his views. I cannot, like a publicist, even if I thought it would be useful, express my opinions on everything that occurs, no matter how important it may be. If I did so I should have to speak hurriedly and without reflection, repeating what has been said by others, and then my opinions would cease to have the importance for the sake of which their expression is sought.
“As regards my views on the Jews and on the horrible doings at Kishineff, they ought, it would seem, to be clear to all who would interest themselves in my conception of life. I cannot regard the Jews other than as brothers whom I love, not because they are Jews, but because, like ourselves and everybody else, they are sons of the one God the Father. Such love needs no effort on my part, for I have met and known many excellent people among the Jews. My attitude towards the Kishineff outrage is likewise defined by my religion and my conception of life. When I read the first accounts in the newspapers, even before I knew of the horrible details which afterwards came to light, I realised the full horror of what had occurred and was filled with a profound pity for the innocent victims of the barbarity of the mob, mingled with astonishment at the bestial ferocities of these pretended Christians and disgust and loathing towards the so-called educated people who stirred up the mob and sympathised with its doings. But what I felt most deeply was horror at the criminals who were really responsible for all that had occurred, horror at our Government, with their clergy, who keep the people in a state of ignorance and fanaticism, and with their bandit horde of officials. The outrages at Kishineff are but the direct resultof the propaganda of falsehood and violence which our Government conducts with such energy. The attitude of our Government towards these events is only one more proof of the brutal egoism which does not flinch from any measures, however cruel, when it is a question of suppressing a movement which is deemed dangerous, and of their complete indifference (similar to the indifference of the Turkish Government towards the Armenian atrocities) towards the most terrible outrages which do not affect Government interests.
“This is all I can say with regard to the events at Kishineff, but it has all been said long ago by me. If you ask me what, in my opinion, the Jews ought to do, my answer in that case, as in others, is the logical outcome of that Christian teaching which I strive to understand and to follow. For the Jews, as for all men, one thing, and one thing only, is necessary for salvation; to follow as closely as may be the universal rule, ‘Do unto others as you would thatothers should do unto you.’ They should fight the Government not by violence—that weapon should be left to the Government—but by virtuous living to the exclusion not only of all violence towards their neighbours, but of all participation in violence, even when called upon by the Government instruments of violence for their own advantage. This is all I can say with regard to the horrible events at Kishineff; all this is very old and is well known.”
Maxime Gorky, the Russian novelist, wrote the following letter to the Kishineff Relief Committee:
“Russia has been disgraced more and more frequently of recent years by dark deeds, but the most disgraceful of all is the horrible Jewish massacre at Kishineff, which has awakened our horror, shame, and indignation. People who regard themselvesas Christians, who claim to believe in God’s mercy and sympathy, these people, on the day consecrated to the resurrection of their God from the dead, occupy the time in murdering children and aged people, ravishing women, and martyring the men of the race that gave them Christ.
“Who bears the blame of this base crime, which will remain on us like a bloody blot for ages? We shall be unable to wash this blot from the sad history of our dark country. It would be unjust and too simple to condemn the mob. The latter was merely the hand which was guided by a corrupt conscience, driving it to murder and robbery. For it is well known that the mob at Kishineff was led by men of cultured society. But cultivated society in Russia is really much worse than the people, who are goaded by their sad life and blinded and enthralled by the artificial darkness created around them.
“The cultivated classes are a crowd of cowardly slaves, without feeling of personaldignity, ready to accept every lie to save their ease and comfort; a weak and lawless element almost without conscience and without shame, in spite of its elegant exterior. Cultivated society is not less guilty of the disgraceful and horrible deeds committed at Kishineff than the actual murderers and ravishers. Its members’ guilt consists in the fact that not merely did they not protect the victims, but that they rejoiced over the murders; it consists chiefly in committing themselves for long years to be corrupted by man-haters and persons who have long enjoyed the disgusting glory of being the lackeys of power and the glorifiers of lies, like the editor ofBessarabetzof Kishineff and other publicists. These are the real authors of the disgraceful and awful crime of Kishineff. To all the shameful names hitherto given to these repulsive men must be added another, and the well-deserved one, of ‘instigators of pillage and murder.’ These hypocrites, with the name of God on their lips, who preach in Russian societyhatred of the Jews, Armenians, and Finns, to-day heap base and cowardly calumnies upon the corpses of those killed through their influence, and they shamelessly continue their hateful work of poisoning the mind and feeling of the weak-willed Russian society.
“Shame upon their wicked heads! May the fire of conscience consume their decayed hearts, covetous only of lackey-like honours and slavishly obsequious to power!
“It is now the duty of Russian society that is not yet wholly ruined by these bandits, to prove that it is not identified with these instigators of pillage and murder. Russian society must clear its conscience of part of the shame and disgrace by helping the orphaned and desolated Jews and assisting these members of the race which has given to the world many really great men and which still continues to produce teachers of truth and beauty in spite of its oppressed condition in the world.
“Come, therefore, all who do not wantthemselves to be regarded as the lackeys of the lackeys, and who still retain their self-respect; come and help the Jews!”
A Reuter’s telegram from St. Petersburg dated the 13th of June, stated:
“The famous Orthodox priest, Father John of Kronstadt, whose fiery condemnation of the Kishineff massacre was published in a Liberal newspaper of St. Petersburg, has published the following statement in the anti-Semitic journalZnamya, the new St. Petersburg organ of M. Kroushevan, formerly editor of theBessarabetz:
“To my beloved brethren of Christ in Kishineff: From the newspaper accounts that followed those first published about the Kishineff catastrophe, I have come to the conclusion that the Jews themselves werethe cause of those disorders and the wounds inflicted and the murders committed on April 6 and 7 [old style]. I have arrived at the conclusion that it is the Christians who have suffered in the end, and that the Jews have been doubly repaid for their losses and injuries by their own brethren and others. I know this from letters which I have received from my people, who have lived for a long time in Kishineff who are well acquainted with the state of things there, and who are most trustworthy. Therefore I say to Kishineff Christians, forgive the reproach which I cast upon you alone on account of the horrors perpetrated. From letters of eye-witnesses I am convinced that one cannot lay all the blame upon the Christians, who were incited to the disorders by the Jews, and that the latter are mainly responsible for the catastrophe.”
No Russian newspaper of any influence, with the exception of theNovoye Vremya, has attempted to palliate the massacre, or to lay the blame for it on the Jews.
Simon of Trent, from an article of Dr. Bloch in theOesterreichische Wochenschrift, No. 42, October the 20th, 1899. (Freely translated.)
Simon of Trent, from an article of Dr. Bloch in theOesterreichische Wochenschrift, No. 42, October the 20th, 1899. (Freely translated.)
The case of the alleged ritual murder of the child Simon of Trent is the most important example of its kind, and is therefore frequently quoted by anti-Semites. I have given the history of the case in theOesterreichische Wochenschrift. The ViennaVaterlandof the 17th October, and Pastor Deckert in theDeutsches Volksblattdiscuss my articles, but carefully avoid mentioning theOesterreichische Wochenschrift. In May, 1893, the ViennaVaterlandwas obliged to publish several articles from my pen, contradicting the statements made by PastorDeckert. In an article of May the 30th, 1893, I called attention to a fact which throws a glaring light upon the history of the case: Some days before the murder of the child, during the Easter week of 1475, Bernardinus de Feltre, whilst preaching in Trent against the Jews, expressed himself to the following effect: “And with these cursed Jews you are on a friendly footing? You say, although without the true faith, they are good people? But I tell you that even before the Easter will have come to an end they will have given you a proof of their kindness.” (Cf.Wadding, “Annales Minorum,” XIV. p. 132). Bernardinus thus predicted the murder days before it happened. His prophecy was naturally fulfilled. On Thursday in Passion Week, March the 23d, Simon, the 28-months’-old son of the tanner Andreas, disappeared. Bernardinus accused the Jews, and on Saturday the body of a child was discovered in the house of Samuel. The Jews themselves informed the Bishop Hinderbach, in consequence of which information all of them, including women and children, were imprisoned.
In his article of the 17th of October, Pastor Deckert maintains that: “It is not true that the confessions made by the Jews were obtained by means of torture, and that they had been tortured whilst there were absolutely no indications of their guilt.” Pastor Deckert is right. There were proofs against them, proofs of a very extraordinary nature. As soon as the bishop saw the body of the child he exclaimed: “This is the work of the Jews!” (Acta Sanc., II., March 24, p. 497), and swore to have revenge. He entrusted the prefect of the town, Johann de Salis, with the conduct of the action. The latter put the richest Jews to (an ordeal?) trial, and the wounds having begun to bleed as soon as the Jews approached the body, which is always the case, as experience teaches (experientia compertum est), when a murderer approaches his victim, this fact was a convincing proof of the guilt of theJews. There was also another “proof” against the Jews. In the prison of Trent a converted Jewish criminal, Johann de Feltre, was detained. By accusing his former coreligionists he could hope for freedom; and he became a witness, ready to say anything and everything against the Jews. Pastor Deckert maintains that “it is not true that the confessions of the Jews were obtained in consequence of tortures only.”
I have refuted his statement with his own words. On p. 21 of his article he himself states: “only torture could make them confess; without tortures they would have confessed nothing.” The Jews were submitted for several days to the most inhuman tortures, and only thenconfessed. This is proved by the contents of the letters of the Bishop addressed to the Pope: “The accused Jews have been tortured for several days (per pluries dies torti et interrogati), but have confessed nothing”; and in another place the Bishop writes: “Although muchhas been done against the Jews, a fortnight has passed without any result.”
Had the prisoners confessed at the first, second, or third application, the official would not have employed so many variations of torture.All the alleged confessions had therefore been obtained by means of terror and tortures of the most cruel character.
The sufferings of the martyrs are related in the letters of the Bishop addressed to the Pope:
“On the 30th day of March (Vienna Acts, fol. 51) Samuel was ‘examined’ for the first time; he was, however, sent back to prison to ‘recover’ (animum repetendi), which term means in judicial language that he hadfainted. On the following day (March 31st) he was undressed, and with his feet and hands tied, hoisted up on a rope and kept suspended in the air, his limbs being thus turned out of their joints. As, however, he still persisted in maintaining his innocence, he received ‘una cavaletta’ (a leap), in other words, he was quickly lowered and pulled up again; then the cord on which he was suspended was ‘touched,’i. e.,beaten, and he was made to ‘leap’ several times. The victim having swooned, the torture ceased. It was continued, with several variations of exquisite cruelty, on the 3d of April.
On the 4th day (April the 7th) the procedure was resumed; and as the victim exclaimed: “If I were to confess my guilt, I would only be telling a lie,”a wooden peg was attached to his leg, whilst he remained suspended in the air, thus considerably augmenting the pain. Then apan filled with fire and brimstone was held to his nose.
He still maintained his innocence, until at last, mad with pain and suffering, heconfessedthat he and Tobias hadstrangledthe boy. This admission, clearly contradicting the blood accusation, was all that could be obtained from him. Samuel was kept imprisoned for two months (up to June the 7th) whilst the other Jews werebeing “examined.” Evidently Samuel must have retracted his confession of the 8th of April, as the following excerpt from the Acts will show:
Wednesday, June the 7th, in the torture chamber.
Wednesday, June the 7th, in the torture chamber.
Invited to speak the truth and informed that all his companions had confessed their guilt, he replied that if they had done so they had told a lie. The prefect of the town having been informed that the drinking of holy water made criminals confess their guilt, Samuel was made to drink a spoonful of consecrated water.
He persisted, however, in maintaining his innocence. Then two hot boiled eggs were put under his shoulder-blades. Asked to speak the truth, he promised to do so, but in presence of the prefect and the captain of the town only. Left alone with these two gentlemen, he asked them to promise him, “that he would only (!) be burnt and not have to die any other death.” That is the manner in which he was made toconfesshis guilt. In spite of his mad self-accusations he was asked again to tell “the truth better still” (Interrogates, quod melius dicat veritatem, minante eidam Samueli, quod si non dicat veritatem, ponetur ad cordam. Qui Samuel respondit, quod vult dicere veritatem, quia ex quo confessus est mortem pueri, vult confiteri aliqua), and was threatened with new tortures. On the 21st of June he was burnt alive. All the other victims were treated in the same manner, even those who had accepted baptism.
Israel, son of Mohar of Brandenburg, was arrested on the 27th of March, tortured from the 12th to the 21st of April, and having expressed the wish to be baptised was freed. On the 26th of October, however, he was again arrested, tortured several times, and killed on the wheel on the 19th of January. This sentence was due to the fact of his having given evidence before the Papal Legate, the Bishop of Ventimiglia at Roveredo, relating to the “examination” of the accused. In No. 128 of the ViennaVaterland(May the 10th, 1893) I proved that the Duke and the Council of Venice sent two eminent “jurisconsults” from Padua to Trent to investigate the manner in which the accused were examined. The learned doctors were maltreated by the mob. An “Apostolic note” issued by Pope Sixtus IV., on the 10th of October, 1475, prohibits, under punishment of excommunication, the claim that the child Simon of Trent was a martyr. It is not proved, says the “note” that the child Simon had been murdered by the Jews (nihil adhuc certum compertumve nostro judicio aut approbatum de quodam puero Simone Tridentino per Judæos, ut dicitur, interfecto). The Pope appointed the Legate, Bishop of Ventimiglia, Giovanni dei Giudici, to investigate the case. The investigation took place at Roveredo, in 1476, and the innocence of the Jews was proved. An Zelinus, a citizen of Trent, proved that a certain Swiss, Zanesus, living in Trent, and an enemy of the Jews, was the actual murderer of the child. That thePapal Legate had clearly established the innocence of the Jews is manifest by the acts of the case, dated: October the 20th and 29th, and November 2d, 1475, and April 3d, 1476.
It was natural, therefore, that with regard to this case Pope Paul III., in a Bull of May the 12th, 1540, declared the blood accusations to be nothing but the result of hatred and envy, and of covetousness due to a desire to seize and appropriate the possessions of the Jews. The Bull further prohibits, under the severest punishment of the Church, the revival of such accusations in the future.
INTERPELLATION ADDRESSED BY DR. BYK, DR. RAPPOPORT, AND COLLEAGUES TO HIS EXCELLENCY, THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, VIENNA.
INTERPELLATION ADDRESSED BY DR. BYK, DR. RAPPOPORT, AND COLLEAGUES TO HIS EXCELLENCY, THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, VIENNA.
The false and terrible accusation that the Jews require blood of Christians for their religious rites and ceremonies has been systematically disseminated, for the last fewmonths, all over Austria. The immediate cause of the movement was the Polna case of the murder of Agnes Hruza. A Jew has been accused of the crime, but although his guilt has not yet been proved, the circumstance has been used by a prejudiced party, hostile to the Jews, and ritual murder suggested. At the trial the public prosecutor, representing the government, public morality, and the law, placed himself under the influence of that accusation by the use of the words, “the well-known motives of the crime.” The president of the court found no words of protest against the blood legend, which was made use of, in presence of an excited crowd, for party purposes. Although there was no ground and no corroboration for the accusation, the belief gained popularity, thanks to the attitude of these organs of justice. That the unrestrained spread of such a terrible accusation must bring about disastrous consequences, is self-evident. No law and no power are strong enough to protect thosewho require the blood of innocent human victims for their religious rites. The whole extent of the danger was perceived centuries ago, and Popes and temporal (non-religious) rulers, especially kings of Poland, strongly prohibited the raising and spread of the false accusation. This was done by the Popes: Innocent IV. (in the “Bulls” of May the 28th, 1247; July the 5th, 1247; and September the 22d, 1258); Gregory X. (October the 7th, 1272); Martin V. (February the 20th, 1422); Michael V. (November the 5th, 1447); Paul III. (May the 12th, 1540); who, availing themselves of their fullest authority, most emphatically, and under pain of the severest punishment of the Church, forbade the Christians to raise blood accusations against the Jews. The example of the Popes was followed by the kings of Poland: Jan Albrecht in his edict of 1496; Zygmunt I., 1514; Zygmunt II., August, 1548; Stephen Batory, 1576 and 1580; Zygmunt III., 1592; Wladystan IV., 1663; Jan Kazimir, 1694; Michael I., 1696; August II., 1763; August III., 1763, and Stanislaus August, 1765; commanded eternal silence (æternum silentium) in regard to the calumny of the blood accusation, under the penalty of “pœna talionis.” In Bohemia, where the case of Huelsner occurred, the Kings Ottokar II. (March 29th, 1254; and August 23d, 1268); Wenzel II. (1300); and Ladislav IV. (May the 15th, 1454), issued similar decrees. In other countries special laws, relating to the blood accusation, have been enacted. The condition of the present Austrian legislation makes the promulgation of special laws unnecessary. Unfortunately, however, the law is powerless against the extravagant excesses of the press; and thus daily, in various languages, the legend of the ritual murder is spread among all classes of society.
In the face of the above facts, we beg to submit the following questions:
(a) Is your Excellency aware of the existing evil?
(b) What measures does your Excellency propose to take, with a view to put an end to it?
Dr. Byk, Dr. Rappoport, Piepes-Poratynski, Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Trachtenberg, Dr. Kolischer, Yaworski, Bilinski, Dziednszycki, Gorski, David Abrahamovicz, Dielemba, Struszkiewicz, Gizowski, Moysa, Wladimir Gniewosz, Bogdanowicz, Pientak, Milewski, Dr. Walewski, Ratowski, Lewicki, Roszkowski, Henzel, Popowski, Weigel, Kareis, Auspitz, Straucher, Tittinger, Sokolowski.
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Germany.
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Germany.
We have received a pitiable complaint from the Jews of Germany. They say that some nobles, lay and ecclesiastical, and other powerful and notable men within your cities and dioceses, designing to seize and usurp their goods unjustly, devise againstthem impious counsels and invent diverse pretexts. Without considering that testimonies to the Christian Faith have proceeded from their records and that the Sacred Scripture among other precepts of the Law says: “Thou shalt not kill,” and forbids them at their Passover ceremonies to touch any dead flesh, they falsely accuse the Jews of using in these same ceremonies the body of a murdered child, thinking that the said practice is required by their Law, whereas it is clearly contrary to their Law. And they cast upon the Jews, with malicious intent, any corpse that by chance is discovered at any place. Attacking them with these and other inventions, and without formal accusation, confession or conviction, and in despite of the privileges conceded to the Jews by the clemency of the Holy See, they despoil them of their goods (contrary to the law of God and to justice), and they visit them with hunger, imprisonment, and so many calamities and afflictions, punishing them with diverse punishments (evencondemning many of them to shameful death) that the Jews, living under the rule of the said princes, notables, and powerful men in worse plight than were their fathers under Pharaoh in Egypt, are compelled to leave places where they and their ancestors have dwelt from time immemorial. Hence, in fear of extermination, they have thought it necessary to have recourse to the protection of the Holy See. Now, therefore, being unwilling that the Jews should be unjustly harassed (for God in his mercy awaits their conversion, seeing that, on the testimony of the Prophet, it is believed that the remnant of them is destined to be saved), we order that you show yourselves favourable and well disposed to them, and whenever you find any violent attempt made against them, with respect to the matters mentioned above, by the prelates, nobles, and powerful men aforesaid, you shall see that the matter is treated according to law, and shall not in future permit the Jews to be improperly molested on these or similar charges by anypersons whatever. Those who molest them you shall summarily restrain by your ecclesiastical censure.
To the Archbishop of Vienna.
To the Archbishop of Vienna.
Divine justice has not cast down the Jewish people without preserving the remnant of them for salvation. Therefore, it is an act of zeal that deserves no commendation, or of cruelty that is worthy of detestation, when Christians, either through greed for wealth or thirst for blood (disregarding the merciful nature of the Christian Church, which allows the Jews to live in its midst and to practise their own rites), plunder, torture, and slay them without trial. Now, the Jews living within your province have lately brought before the Holy See a pitiable complaint. They say that certain prelates and nobles of the province, desirous of having a pretext for cruelty towards them, have accused them of the death of a girl who issaid to have been found secretly murdered near Valréas, that they have inhumanly committed some of them to the flames without legal trial or confession, while they have despoiled others of all their possessions and driven them away, and that—against the wont of the Mother who, herself free, brings forth children that they may be children of freedom—they have compelled their children to be baptised against their will. Now, since we are unwilling to tolerate such things—as, indeed, we could not do without transgressing the will of God—we hereby command you to deal according to law with such attacks on the Jews, of the nature that has been described above, as are made by bishops, nobles, and rulers. You shall not permit the Jews to be unjustly ill-treated on these or similar grounds, and you shall restrain the evil-doers by the summary use of ecclesiastical censures.
POPE INNOCENT IV. (25th September, 1253).
Moreover, in order to counteract the wickedness and greed of evil men, we decree that no one shall harm, or trespass on, the cemeteries of the Jews, or shall dig up dead bodies to obtain money, or shall charge them with using human blood in their ceremonies. Though they are ordered in the Old Testament to use no blood at all—not to mention human blood—yet many Jews have been killed at Fulda and in many other places on suspicion of having used human blood. By the authority of these presents we strictly forbid such actions in the future. If any man, having become acquainted with the purport of this decree, contravenes it—we pray that such a thing may not happen—let him be exposed to the danger of losing his office or rank, or let him be punished by excommunication, unless he makes suitable amends for his presumption; but we wish this protection of ours to be given only tothose who use no devices for the subversion of the Christian faith.
Since Jews cannot bear testimony against Christians, we decree that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall be of no avail unless there is a Jew bearing testimony among them. For it sometimes happens that Christians lose their children, and Jews are charged by their enemies with taking them away and killing them and using their hearts and blood for religious purposes; the fathers of the children, or other Christians, in hatred of the Jews, hide the children away, so that they may cause trouble to the Jews and gain money from them for relieving them from their trouble, and in order that they may most falsely assert that the Jews have secretly stolen and murdered the children and that they use the blood for religious purposes, whereas their law strictly forbids them touse blood for ceremonial purposes, or to taste it, or to eat the flesh of animals with cloven hoofs, as has been many times demonstrated at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith. On charges of this kind Jews have often been seized and imprisoned unjustly. We decree that in such cases the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be admitted; that Jews imprisoned on this empty charge shall be liberated; that they be not imprisoned in future on this empty charge unless (which we cannot believe) they are found in the act.
(Signed by the Pope, four cardinals, and two bishops).
It sometimes happens that many Christians, in order that they may extort money from the said Jews and deprive them of their goods and substance and cause them to be killed, invent pretexts and assert (attimes of plague and other calamities) that the Jews have poisoned the wells and mixed human blood with their unleavened bread: they say that it is in consequence of these crimes, which they unjustly ascribe to the Jews, that the calamities are caused. Hence the population is moved against the Jews and massacres them and persecutes and afflicts them in many ways.
Some persons have ventured to make the untruthful assertion that the Jews are unable to celebrate certain of their festivals without using the liver or heart of a Christian.
To the Clergy of Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland.
To the Clergy of Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland.
We have heard with displeasure, through the complaints of the Jews inyour parts, that various ... towns, nobles, and powerful men among you, being jealous of the Jews and hostile to them, and blinded by hatred and envy, or, as is more probable, by greed, and wishing to have a pretext for depriving them of their goods, falsely charge them with slaying your children and drinking their blood, and committing many other horrible crimes specially directed against our faith. Thus they attempt to arouse the feelings of simple Christians against the Jews, and it often results that the Jews are not only robbed of their property, but are even murdered.
THE END