Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu.

© Created in January 2001, Last revised: January 3, 2004

Persecution against the Romanian publishers.

With regard to this question brought forward by the Manifest of Bucarest. the Magyar students think to be able to attenuate with a little sophistry, the injustice done to the Roumanians.

« The liberal spirit of our press and of our Magyar citizens », says the Reply, « admits more than one fact that would be deemed impossible in other countries », etc.

These are phrases which have no more foundation of truth in them, than have all the other affirmations in the Reply of which we have already spoken.

The Magyar supremacy commits more than an injustice against the Roumanian press and our correspondants; it is really a mockery at the spirit of modern times; it is insulting to the most elementary principles of right and equity.

In the kingdom of Saint Etienne there exist two laws concerning the press, the one liberal for Hungary proper, the other absolute for Transylvania.

This despotic law bears the name of «Imperial Patent of the 27^th May 1852. »

It is not difficult to conceive that the second is directed exclusively against the Roumanians.

This becomes still more evident if we remark that not one Magyar publisher has been prosecuted in right of this despotic patent, whereas since the re-establishment of the Magyar constitution, the Roumanian publishers have had to suffer more than once from it.

The only advantage that the Roumanians derived from it for a certain time was, that the actions of the press were submitted to the Assize court. The territory on which the tribunals of Southern Transylvania were situated, had been comprised within the jurisdiction of the Assize court of Sibiiu.

In this old Saxon town, the majority of the inhabitants and consequently the jurymen were German, the rest were composed of Roumanians and Magyars, so that the journalists arraigned before this court, were there judged by their fellow countrymen, their equals, who themselves belonged mostly to the non-magyar nationalities and therefore were exempt from the modern fanaticism of the Magyar society. On the other hand, the Roumanians having their most populous and cultivated circles in the South of Transylvania, especially at Sibiiu and at Brasov, where from the earliest times the greater number of the Roumanian works had been published, the Assize court of Sibiiu might be considered as the natural tribunal of the Roumanian press.

Since 1880 and even since 1870, the Magyar government tried to suppress the voice of the Roumanian press of Transylvania by dint of lawsuits with it, but they did not succeed, although they brought to bear upon it the exceptional law of which we have already spoken, for the jurors of Sibiiu, not finding any crime in the writers being of Roumanian nationality and no other accusation being proved against them, regularly acquitted them and the more often unanimously. It is in this way that the editors G. Baritiu of the « Observatorul », N. G. Negrutiu of the « Cartile Sateanului» etc. were acquitted. Under such circumstances the Magyar government was obliged to content itself with suppressing the Roumanian papers which were published in localities under the jurisdiction of the Assize court of Hungary Proper, where the editors of the papers « Federatiunea » and « Albina » which appeared in Buda-Pesth have been several times condemned. It was not possible for these papers to continue long in the capital of the Magyar « civilization ». Crushed by lawsuits and by the expenses attending them they ceased to be published.

Such was the situation until 1884.

From this year dates the decision of the Tisza government to crush also at any cost the Roumanian press of Transylvania, as they had done that of Hungary. To begin with, they entered two actions against the editors of the « Observatorul » and the « Tribuna » of Sibiiu. The first trial took place December 3^rd 1884 and the second February 3^rd 1885 before the court of Assizes of Sibiiu. The motives for which they brought an action against them are characteristic. The « Observatorul » had written an article, in which it stated that the government was rumoured to have forbidden the «holding of a council of the Oriental Greek church of Hungary and of Transylvania, on account of its coinciding with the centenary of Horia (1784) and it complained very justly of this despotic caprice of the government. In the « Tribuna » on the other hand, an article had been published which in speaking of a criminal case judged by the tribunal of Sibiiu, represented that it was illegal and contrary to the interest of the accused that the proceedings should be carried on in Hungarian, which they (Germans) did not understand, any more than did the public.

It is natural that a Saxon jury should find in these articles no proof of the crime which was imputed to them, viz. agitation against the State, and therefore in both cases, the accused,. Mr G. Baritiu, editor of the «Observatorul» and Mr. Cornel Pop Pacurar, responsible editor of the «Tribunal) and Joan Slavici, author of the article incriminated, were acquitted.

Directly after, the « Magyar Public Opinion » took up arms against the jury of Sibiiu. The Magyar or Magyarizing papers began an unheard of agitation. « Nemzet » the principal paper of the government, wrote the day following the second trial February 4^th 1884, that the jurors of Sibiiu had made a demonstration against the State, « Pesti Hirlap » found that «the honour of the Magyar nation, the integrity of the Hungarian State, had no longer any defenders, counted for nothing in the eye of the law ». The « Pester Lloyd » the« Kolozsvari Közlöny », the » Egyctertes ». etc., in fact all the Magyar papers indiscriminately wrote in the same tone.

The same day February 4^th 1885, a question was brought before the Parliament by the Szekler deputy, baron Clasius Orban, who, in a speech interspersed with invectives against the Roumanians, whom he termed «hissing serpents and vipers warmed in our bosom» demanded of the government its intention as to the suppressing of the Assize court of Sibiiu.

In consequence of this motion, the government suppressed it.[1]

It would be impossible to describe the shouts of joy that were raised by the fanatics at this shameful brutality on the part of the government against the Roumanian press. For what does the suppression of the Assize court of Sibiiu signify? It signifies that since its suppression, the Roumanian press is no longer guaranteed by the Assize court. In fact, by the ministerial order quoted above, the power of the Assize court of Cluj has been extended to the circumscription of the ex-court of Sibiiu, and it is before the former that are now brought all the actions for libel against the Roumanians of the whole of Transylvania. Now Cluj is known to be the centre of the famous Kultur-egylet, where one meets with a society completely fanaticized by a furious and spiteful war against all that is Roumanian. The jurors of Cluj are no longer judges of the Roumanian press, for they are completely wanting in the first quality necessary to a judge, the exact appreciation of things. They are the political adversaries of the Roumanians. they judge acording to national or party interest; they are not simple citizens only, who have no other preoccupation than that of judging according to justice or as their conscience dictates. Since that time, the government need have no further solicitude than that of bringing actions against the publishers, being certain beforehand that the jury of Cluj will condemn them.

This is what the government aimed at, and hence the joy of the fanatics on hearing that the Assize court of Sibiiu was suppressed.

The aim of an institution may be best ascertained by the effect it produces. Also the best proof of the motive for which the Hungarian government has placed the Roumanian press under the jurisdiction of the Magyars of Cluj, is the exploits of this court It evidently results that the aim of the government was, to kill the Roumanian press which is opposed to «national politics » that is to say to magyarization.

When analysed, all political trials are arbitrary acts. For, to prosecute a man for his convictions always leaves one with the idea that he who prosecutes him is unjust. And, in reality, we see that in every Liberal State, political trials are abnormal things, and can only be justified by an extreme necessity, such as the endangering of the safety of the State.

The Hungarian State is also sufficiently liberal—with regard to the Magyar press; but to that of other nationalities, and especially with regard to the Roumanian press, it is the most intolerant in the world. This is what our Saxon fellow-citizens say upon this subject; « The Magyar press, and — we acknowledge it with joy, — the German Saxon press enjoy complete liberty in Hungary. » But against the Roumanian press, the attorneys-general of the kingdom of Hungary have for many years organized a regular campaign. The Magyar press and also the German may with impunity make the most violent accusations, but as soon as a Roumanian paper criticizes severely the Magyar tendencies in the question of nationalities, the attorney-general makes his appearance.

Is that justice? Is that an equal justice for all?

And this state of things is in no wise modified in favour of the Magyar government by the fact that the Roumanians, by their political attitude, and by the manner in which they fulfill their duty towards the country and the State, have not given the least pretext to the Magyars to be treated as they are. In spite of its rigour, the government has never been able to discover that the Roumanians have accomplished the smallest political or national act by illegal means! They have never formed plots or conspiracies; they have never committed political crimes; they have never had any secret agents. They have always paid unhesitatingly the contribution of money »nd men demanded of them and more than that of their own accord they have made, in comparison with their means enormous sacrifices for school and church. Their complaints and accusations have always been made in a legal manner; their political struggles, their opposition to the government, their resistance against the injustice they suffer; all have been carried on openly in public meetings, convoked according to established rules with all the necessary publicity, and only those means have been employed which the law and constitution allow.

Such being the general line of conduct of the Roumanian people, it was natural that the same should be strictly observed by the Roumanian press. Making use of the liberty allowed it and under the protection of the law, the Roumanian papers expressed the discontent which was felt among the people, and disapproving of the injustices committed by the government and legislation, struggled to obtain the rights claimed by the people they represented. But it has always been done in the most loyal manner. Consequently, it is evident that the aim of the government has not been to secure justice and public safety, but to persecute the Roumanians. To prove this, let us give the following facts:

Two actions for libel were tried on the 11^th of May 1886 before the Court of Assizes at Cluj, against the journalists Cornel Pop Pacurar, as responsible editor, and Joan Slavici, director of the paper « Tribuna » of Sibiiu; the former, as being the author of two incriminated articles, was condemned to one year's imprisonment, which he underwent at Nasaud; the latter, for having apposed his signature to the paper, was sentenced to pay a heavy fine. It would be too long, were we to reproduce here the articles upon which the accusation was grounded. We will only state that the leading feature of the articles and that which exasperated the jurors, was the following « this country belongs neither to the Magyars nor to the Roumanians, but is the common country of both». This was sufficient cause for an action to be brought against the journalists.

What is even more characteristic than the result of the action is the speech pronounced by the Attorney General to maintain the accusation. Appealing to the patriotism of the jury, he begged them to read between the lines, for they would find there a proof of the incentive to rebellion, for which cause they had been arraigned. « By reading between the lines» and by judging not according to a sentiment of justice, but according to the teachings of the pan-magyar gospel, it is in the nature of things that every non-magyar accused of political offences should be condemned.

It was the fate of the « Gazeta Transylvania» of Brasov in an action for libel which was also judged at Cluj, March 22^nd 1889. The editors of this paper, Dr Aurel Muresanu, as responsible editor, and Mr' Etienne Bobancu, as author of the article incriminated, feeling from the outset what the dispositions of the tribunal who were to decide upon their fate were, toward political adversaries, did not even defend themselves, and the more so, that in answer to the enquiry of Dr Aurel Murseanu, as to whether the jury understood Roumanian, he received a negative reply. M. Bobancu was condemned to 4 months imprisonment, which he underwent at Vacz.

Again in 1887, the Court of Assizes at Cluj entered an action for libel against Messrs Ioan Slavici and Septimiu Albini, the director and responsible editor of the « Tribune », of Sibiiu. This action was entered by the famous « Kultur-egylet » of Cluj, under pretext of outrage done to the president of the section of Mediasch of this Magyar reunion. The secretary general of the « Kultur-egylet» maintained the accusation! Mr Albini was condemned to 8 days' imprisonment and Mr. Slavici to 3 and both were fined. This sentence was received by the Magyar public with unanimous approbation. The Court of Buda-Pesth received this judgment and the plaintiff, an inferior official of Mediasch must have received orders to withdraw his complaint, as the trial was not continued. It would seem as if the High Court of Justice comprehended the uselessness of it, although the jury of Cluj did not understand these motives. They systematically condemned all those accused and for no matter what offence, — provided only that there were an accusation and that the defendant were a Roumanian!

In April 1888 another action for libel was brought against the « Tribuna ». This time the only person accused was Mr Ioan Slavici, for an article in which he had paraphrased an appeal made by Mr Trajan Doda a retired general, to the electors of the diet of the circle of Caransebes, in his capacity of deputy elected by them. As we shall see further on, for this appeal, an action for libel was entered against the general, in violation of the right of immunity of the deputies. They were necessarily obliged to drag before the tribunal Mr Slavici, who had appropriated and published the ideas of the general. Mr Slavici was condemned to one year's imprisonment which he underwent at Vacz and was fined 400 florins.

We pass over the lesser trials brought against the Roumanian papers before the Court of Assizes; they were all, with only one exception, condemned because the accusers were men holding office under government. We now reach 1890, the last year of political law suits. Two important ones took place, the first against the «Gaze ta Transylvaniei » of Brasov, the second against the « Tribuna » of Sibiiu.

In the former, the author of the article, Mr Trajan H. Pop, was condemned to one year's imprisonment which he underwent at Seghedin, and the director, Mr. Muresanu, to six weeks detention in the common prison of Cluj; both were sentenced to pay heavy fines. They were accused of attempting to « provoke disturbances », the first for having written, the second for having published a notice, in which they also expressed the opinion that Hungary does not belong only to the Magyars, and that those who try to monopolize it are usurpers.

The most celebrated political action for libel was that brought against the « Tribuna » and judged September 11^th 1890.

A village priest, Mr Jean Macaveiu, a Greek-catholic co-operator at Nasaud, provoked by a political article in the « Nemzet » of Buda-Pesth, had written two polemics, in which, examining in his turn, as the political paper had done, the events of 1848, he drew a parallel between the form of government of Kossuth in 1848 and the recent one of Tisza, and had come to this conclusion, that both had aimed at the destruction of the non-magyar nationalities, Kossuth by employing the gibbet and Tisza by magyarization. And in conclusion he declared that, it was only to be expected that the Roumanians who had opposed the form of government of Kossuth, would shed the last drop of their blood in-opposing that of Tisza.

They entered an action against him, as being the author of seditious articles;

the case was tried before the Court of Assizes at Cluj; the accuser made a violent speech, in which he spoke of everything except what concerned the accused. He discoursed at great length upon the revolution of 1848-49, terminating with the conclusion that the events of these memorable years are a glory to the Magyars and a shame to the Roumanians. This amounts to saying that for the Magyars it is a glory to have revolted against the throne which granted them a constitution, a government and a Magyar army. But for the Roumanians It is a shame, when forced by the atrocious cruelty of the Magyar hordes, to have opposed with lance and scythe in hand, the establishment of the Magyar supremacy, a shame to have defended their lives, their national existence, against the Magyar rebels!

One can understand that this way of speaking was only calculated to increase the fanaticism of the jury of Cluj, who afterwards pronounced unanimously a verdict of condemnation, by which Mr Jean Macaveiu was condemned to one year and a half's imprisonment in the State prison, which sentence he is undergoing at Seghedin, and Mr Septimiu Albini, as responsible director, in punishment for the publication of the said articles, was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment in the common prison, which he underwent in the prison of the tribunal of Sibiiu.

This is the result of the transfer of the Court of Assizes of Sibiiu to that of Cluj.

The courts of assizes of Hungary proper, especially those of Arad and Buda-Pesth, have also played their part in the persecution of the Roumanian journalists. Before them, many actions for libel have been tried, all of which have naturally terminated in the condemnation of the accused.

The most celebrated of all these cases is that of the retired general Trajan Doda, of Caransebes. Elected deputy of this electoral circle, he published October 14^th 1887, a manifest, by which he informed his electors that he accepted their mandate, but that he would not make use of it, that he would not take his seat in the Parliament, in order that the world and H. M. the emperor may see « that there is something rotten in the State » and « there is no room for the Roumanians in the ranks of the Hungarian constitution. »

For this manifest, an elected deputy, consequently a man protected by his right of inviolability, was dragged before the tribunals! During the interval between the accusation and the trial, he was seized with an attack of apoplexy, and could not attend the court on the day fixed upon for the trial to take place, September 17^th 1888. Notwithstanding which the case was heard in his absence, and without permitting his lawyer to defend him, the verdict was pronounced without the court having heard any one besides the accuser. What the attorney general's address to the Court was, may be judged of by the following phrase extracted from his speech: « By returning a verdict of guilty, you will fulfill not only your duty of judges, but also that of Magyars. »

In other terms, it is not only a question of an offence against a known law it is a question of a political adversary who upsets the plans of the Magyar policy.

It was natural that the general should be condemned; he was sentenced to 2 years of State prison and to pay a heavy fine.

In consequence of this condemnation, the general, an old man who had rendered so many services as a soldier and citizen to the throne, the country and the nation, was obliged at the end of his life to undergo vexations without number, cross examinations and medical enquiries, until H. M. by pardoning him put an end to this persecution against a man broken in health and wounded in his noblest sentiments.

By the same court-of assizes at Arad, Mr Stefan Albu of Resicza was condemned for an article which appeared in the « Romasche Revue » published then in Resicza, now in Vienna.

The attorney-general distinguished himself again on this occasion by affirming that « weeds such as the accused, must disappear from the bosom of the country, if necessary by force!

We need hardly add that the accused was condemned, but the Court having reversed the sentence, the case was heard again November 10^th 1888, before the Court of Assize of Buda-Pesth, and Mr Albu was condemned to pay a fine of 388 florins, and to an imprisonment of three months in the State prison of Vacz.

In short, that no national Roumanian paper should escape condemnation, an action was brought against the « Luminatorul » of Timisoara, on account of an article on the New Year, re-published from the « Buda-Pester Tagblatt » and, mutatis mutandis, adapted to the situation of the Roumanians. For this seditious offence the contributor of the said paper, Mr J. V. Barciani, remained six months in the prison of Seghedin, in pursuance of a verdict of condemnation given by the Court of Assizes at Arad.

We here remark that until now we have only spoken of political actions for libel. The limits of this chapter will not allow us to enter more fully on the subject, but there have been many other political actions, which, under the elastic head of « sedition » have been brought against several of the leading political Roumanians, for having pronounced discourses in public assemblies, delivered addresses, etc. [2]

The aim of this persecution against the press, and against political Roumanians, is, to forcibly stifle all national feeling, all acts of resistance against the politic of denationalization of the Magyar government.

We will conclude this chapter with the following appreciation of the question, given by our Saxon fellow-citizens.

The « Kronstadter Zeitung» of Brasov says: « In the action for libel tried a short time ago (the one brought against the « Gazeta Transylvaniei »,) we must remark this anomaly that the jury were judges in their own cause. For the article incriminated aimed at Magyarism, and the jurors . . . were all of Magyar nationality.

And of these men, called upon to sit as judges, it could not be expected that they would make complete abstraction of all personal sentiment, neither could they be expected to weigh only and judge only the simple facts submitted to them!!..

The jury must have felt outraged by the articles incriminated, and it was they who must give their verdict against their political and national adversaries.

The attorney general even incited the jury to avenge, so to say, the outrage done to Magyarism and consequently to the jury themselves.

The Magyars need not delude themselves with the vain hope that such explosions on the part of the press represent only the personal sentiments of the authors of these articles.

They do but give a form to the thoughts and feelings of the Roumanian people.

All the Roumanians agree with their writers on this subject.

Behind men like Muresianu, Pop, Slavici, Bobancu etc., there are three millions of Roumanians.

And it is not only the Roumanian people, but all the other nationalities of Hungary, who feel so profound a discontent with the political line of conduct adopted by the Magyars, with regard to the different nationalities.

Is it possible that the Magyars understand nothing ot the teachings of history?

Do they not know that the exasperation of a people has never been appeased by political persecution?[3]