No. 302.
Mr. Rublee
to Mr. Fish.
Berne, September 28, 1875. (Received October 14.)
Sir: In my dispatch No. 230, of the 2d of July last, relating to the controversy which had arisen between the federal authorities and the government of the canton of Berne, on the subject of the continued enforcement of the decree of the cantonal government expelling certain Roman Catholic cures from the districts of the Bernese Jura, I informed you that the period originally fixed by the Federal Council for the revocation of the decree in question had been extended, in order to allow the canton an opportunity to adopt further legislation, with a view to the repression of the popular disturbances, which, it was apprehended, might follow the return of the remittent ecclesiastics. At the recent session of the grand council of the canton of Berne, a measure was accordingly adopted having this object in view. It is called a law for the punishment of disturbances of religious peace.
As the passage of this act is an incident of considerable importance in the history of the controversy going on in Switzerland between the civil power and the Roman Catholic clergy, and the measure itself a somewhat extraordinary piece of legislation to have originated in a republic where freedom of speech and religious toleration have long been cherished, I subjoin a summary of the proposed law.
Section 1 provides that whoever shall incite the members of one re-ligous sect (confession) or religious society to hostility against the members of another, in such a manner as to jeopardize the public peace, shall be punished by a fine of not more than 1,000 francs or by imprisonment for not more than one year.
[Page 565]Section 2 declares that any ecclesiastic or other religious functionary who, in performing, or on the occasion of performing, religious or pastoral services, shall make political or civil affairs, the institutions or decrees of the state, the subject of a publication or discussion, in such a manner as to jeopardize the public peace or order, shall be punished by a fine of not more than 1,000 francs and by imprisonment for not more than one year.
Section 3 prohibits ecclesiastics, or other religious functionaries, not regularly installed in a parish of a church recognized by the state, from the exercise of spiritual functions in a religious society, and from any activity in schools, whether public or private: 1. If such ecclesiastics belong to a religious order prohibited by the state; 2. If it be shown that they have openly resisted the regulations and decrees of the state, so long as such resistance is continued.
Section 4 provides that, for the performance of any episcopal act within the territory of the canton by a foreign church dignitary, the authorization of the conseil d’etat is required, which may only be given for a definitely-limited period and for the performance of specific acts, (for example, confirmations,) and cannot be delegated. Violations of this section are punishable by a fine of not more than 2,000 francs or by imprisonment for not more than two years.
Section 5 prohibits religious processions or other religious ceremonies except in the churches, chapels, houses of prayer, (Bethauser, a designation for places of worship belonging to certain sects not recognized by the state,) private buildings, and houses containing the dead, with these exceptions: 1, services in the field as authorized by the military laws or orders of the military authorities; 2, funerals, (under regulations to be hereafter announced;) 3, religious discourses, prayers, and singing having no tendency to endanger public order. Violations of this section are punishable by a fine not exceeding 200 francs, or by imprisonment not exceeding sixty days.
Section 6 authorizes the police to dismiss meetings or gatherings of religious societies at which, whether by the participants therein or by third persons, the public order is disturbed, or anything is done subversive of morals. Offenders under this section will be punished by a fine not exceeding 200 francs, or by imprisonment for not more than sixty days.
Section 7 relates to the trial of offenders under the law, and creates an exceptional jurisdiction by denying a trial by jury, and providing that the accused shall be tried before the president of the district court in the first instance, and before the chamber of police of the court of appeals in the second instance. It is further provided that imprisonment under this law shall not be regarded as infamous.
The second and the fifth sections in particular have been severely criticised, and have aroused serious apprehensions among the Protestants, who see therein a menace to their own liberties as well as to those of the Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, the measure was ultimately adopted in the grand council by a vote of 118 to 26. Before becoming a law it must receive the sanction of the people of the canton. A vote will be taken upon it on the 31st of next month; at present, however, no one doubts but that it will be approved by a large majority.
One may regret to witness in the legislation of a Swiss canton the arbitrary and intolerant spirit which seems to characterize this measure without forgetting the provocations on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy which have given rise to it.
In the canton of Geneva several measures have been adopted within [Page 566] the past two months breathing the same spirit. There, not only have drocessions and other religious manifestations in the streets and highways been interdicted, but fines or imprisonment are prescribed, not merely for those with their accomplices who occasion disorder, but for those who give provocation for disorder at religious meetings held in a private domain, (dans une propriété privée.) The wearing of an ecclesiastical dress in the streets has been forbidden, while in the absence of any official definition, much doubt is expressed in regard to what constitutes an ecclesiastical dress. The several corporations of sisters of charity and of petites sœurs des pauvres of the canton have been also dissolved, with no other effect than to cause their members to re-organize just across the French boundary, but very near the city of Geneva, where they carry on their work, whether it be of charity or of proselytism, with added zeal and consideration in view of their recent trials.
I have, &c.,