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 a pan filled with fire and brimstone was held to his nose.
He still maintained his innocence, until at last, mad with pain and suffering, he confessed that he and Tobias had strangled the 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 were being “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.
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 to confess his 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 Vienna Vaterland (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 the Papal 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.
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 few months, 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 those who 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: