Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu.

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

APPENDIX XXI

THE DEFENCE OF FATHER HLINKA BEFORE THE COURT OF PRESSBURG.

(4 may, 1908.)

[I have devoted Chapter XVIII. to the case of Father Hlinka, which typifies the treatment meted out to the Slovak leaders. But I do not wish the reader to be entirely dependent upon my presentment of the case, and hence, in order that he may form a personal impression of Father Hlinka, I have reproduced his portrait as my frontispiece, and I here give a translation of the speech which he delivered in his own defence before the Court of Pressburg. For my own part, I would endorse Father Hlinka's facts more readily than his epithets. But wider licence may be allowed to the victim than to the aggressor; and I would ask those who may be inclined to take offence at his apparent egotism, to recall the noble defence of St. Paul before Festus.]

"I have to confess that I am faced with a heavy task. I have to defend a man who stands a priori condemned, a fortress from which the last soldier has withdrawn and the last shot has been fired. I myself am this man, my innocence the fortress whose defence I must undertake. It is really quite unnecessary for me to speak after my esteemed counsel, who has proved my case with such telling words and arguments. Not even I myself could put my case so convincingly as he ... But since it is no ordinary criminal that stands before you . . . but an 'agitator-in-chief,' the real culprit of the Csernova murder, and so on — the Public Prosecutor, in his indictment, has dished up every imaginable fact about my person save what is honourable or laudatory, who even went so far as to describe me as a coward who in demagogic fashion incites the 'credulous masses' and persons of limited intelligence, who instead of bearing the responsibility for his own deeds sends 'a person called Cifersky,' 'the fraudulent Bielek,' or 'the swindler Dúbravský' to answer for him. To-day I answer him in his own way, though I know that my speech is only likely to act as oil upon the fire of the national struggle. And if I knew before­hand that my speech would earn me the gallows, I still would not be silent; I shall tell the truth publicly — the truth which none save the Public Prosecutor can doubt — for what I do, I do from love of my country and from absolute conviction. We expect for our action no thanks, no increase of salary, but persecution and years of imprisonment. And yet I say the truth publicly, that he may know that he has to do with men of honour.

"I do not fly away, Mr. Fiscal, nor do I send a Cifersky or a Bielek, nor even the editor of the Ludové Noviny in my place. Here I stand, although I could have escaped from the prying eyes around me. Honour is more to me than liberty, or even life itself. Which of the many patriots of to-day would have acted like me, I leave to the Fiscal to decide. But as I do not desire to try the patience of the Court, I will turn to the indict­ment itself, and will briefly refute the charges of the Fiscal.

"The Fiscal holds me responsible for all Hungary's evils: accord­ing to his account I have incited all Europe against the Magyars, I was the cause of the bloodbaths of Panad and Csernova, it was I who roused the poet Björnson, above all, I am responsible for the 750 assemblies in Bohemia.[1] I sold the fatherland, I caused the emigration of our people and incited our workmen against the aristocracy. My answer to this is as follows: — First, the Fiscal charges me with lack of patriotism, without bringing for­ward a single proof of so grave a charge. I hope to prove the contrary. I do not look upon patriotism as a virtue, but as a duty, and never boasted of my patriotism, but always did my duty towards the fatherland and towards society. I set little value on empty speeches and do not serve my country with pompous phrases. To work for the fatherland and above all for the people is worth more than continual speeches about gallant ancestors. I am ready to enter the field with any one in defence of my country, above all with the Public Prosecutor. . . . He even threw doubt upon the duties of my calling, which I never learnt from the Codex Penále, least of all from King's Counsel, but from my Master in Nazareth and from the book of life which is called the Gospel. Would I stand here to-day and listen to the insults of the Public Prosecutor, if I were really not disposed to fulfil my duties, if I did not love the Slovak people, Slovak culture and my native town ? Should I have already breathed the prison air for close on half a year ? Assuredly not. Had I not chosen, the Public Prosecutor might have brought the severest charges, the court might have passed the severest sentence, and yet in neighbouring Marchegg or Göding its hand would have been powerless against me. But since in my heart there dwells a greater strength than that of gendarmes or of jails, I came here of my own free will. Since I am subject to the law, which does not rest upon bayonets and cannot arbitrarily be changed, I presented myself in the consciousness of my innocence. I am a man as other men, and understand what freedom means ; I have an equal right to live, and know how to value the comforts of life. And yet — I freely choose two years' imprisonment among socialists, duellists and criminals. When I heard my condem­nation by the courts ... I left the orator's platform where success awaited me, I left the company of educated men, and freely delivered myself up ; so that my enemies were astonished that I, who the day before had been close to the Bavarian frontier, appeared on November 30 at eight o'clock at the prison of Szeged, after a journey of thirty-six hours. And then the Public Prose­cutor talks of cowardice. . . .

"Of the slanders which he has directed against my priestly character, I will not speak here, for that does not belong to this court. Let him but inquire, and if he has one spark of feeling, he will confess that I have done my due share as priest, in church and school, in society and also in politics. I have always struggled against the stream of the world, and combated evil and immor­ality ; I always respected the dignity of my order and staked my person for the general good. Truth and the people have ever been my guiding stars, and so too shall I act in the future. This is what I would recommend to the public prosecutors, and to the Magyarophil priests (Magyaron pap). Let these gentlemen go less often to the club, to social functions, to ' tarok ' parties, let them devote more of their time outside office hours to the education of the people, and less to political action against the people ; then assuredly no one, neither Juriga nor Hlinka, not even the most sacrosanct agitator, will ever estrange the people from them. But if the people has to look for these Mag-yarone priests, not in't he school, in the church, or in the confessional, but in the casino (club), at the skittles alley or on excusions, then the coldness and aversion of the people is not to be ascribed to us, but to themselves and their own behaviour. The Public Prose­cutor charges me with my lectures in Bohemia, Moravia and Austria, indeed I have no hesitation in asserting that to-day's trial is the reward for these lectures. To this charge, too, my reply shall be brief. I gave my lectures publicly, on the cultural needs of the Slovaks ; thousands listened to me, and I was not afraid to speak with a full sense of my responsibility. In Vienna I even invited the correspondent of certain Budapest newspapers, that he might convince himself with his own eyes and ears as to whether I was inciting against the Magyars or my fatherland. He did actually attend my lecture, and informed the Budapest journals that the Devil is not so black as he is painted. Hlinka, he said, is not so dangerous as he is described, for he speaks only of the spiritual necessities of the Slovaks. Of the contents of my speeches I can only say, ' Ask those who heard me.' So far as the fact of my journeys is concerned, I may reply, what is permitted to Paul, is not forbidden to Saul. It was from the Magyars themselves that I learned this habit. If Eugene Zichy goes to the Caucasus or Siberia to seek his kinsmen, if the Magyars often look across to their brother Csangos in the Bukovina, why may not I too regard such action as natural? Our Minister of Education always goes to international and interparliamentary conferences, and not always to his own or his country's honour.[2] My visit was paid at the invitation of my friends — Czechs and Austrian Slovaks — is that a crime or an offence ? If so, let me be prosecuted for it. Whether our Magyar brothers may like it or not, the fact remains eternally true that we Slovaks form with the Czechs a single race, a single culture, a single nation. Till the most recent times we had a common language, and even to-day our Protestants use the Bohe­mian language in their churches. Quite other views has more than one great Magyar patriot held on this question — men like Széchenyi, Deák, Mocsáry. . . . Let me quote the words of Széchenyi. 'Let every one remain loyal to his mother tongue, never renounce the language which he speaks at home, and carry it with him to his grave. . . . Only a worthless fellow who has no faith and no God, forgets his fatherland and turns away from the sound of his mother tongue.'

"Gentlemen of the jury, the question of the Nationalities is an universal question, even a world-question. It lies at the root of national, psychological, even economic movements. It cannot be solved by money fines and terms of imprisonment, any more than Christianity and other world problems. It is not to be solved by fire and iron, for to-day, gentlemen, such methods are no longer possible, and great masses of the population clamour for a solution. As a proof of this you have Zohor, Csernova, Lucski, Hrustin, and the pathetic case of Spis. And it is growing with every day : it is a commencement of spiritual life. And for this reason it would be incredibly narrow to attempt the solution of this question by imprisoning the leaders of so natural a movement, for petty or material reasons. That is pure absurdity and unreason. It is true that every movement has its material side, but not as an end in itself, merely as a means. It is true that bread, personal interests, seats for Parliament, banks and other 'affairs' play their part in a movement, even in the most sacred. . . . But to ascribe to a single man the whole movement, as does the Fiscal, is a frivo­lous slander. One could say the same of the patriotic movement of the Magyars, though the Fiscal would doubtless raise an ener­getic protest. But we act according to our principles, and what the one has, the other has an equal right to. At whose door will the Fiscal lay the Ruthene, the Czech, the Irish, the Finnish questions ? Or does he regard Siczynsky's[3] act as prompted by greed of gain, when we know that he gave his last ten crowns to the coachman who drove him to prison, for, as he said, 'I know the gallows await me, so I need no money' ? Do you not see in this a certain psychological connexion ? This mistaken act of a fiery young man suggests anything save mere greed of gain, for prison or gallows I do not regard as gain.

"These are political questions, which have their root in the soul of man. Let the Fiscal only pay us Slovaks a visit, and he will realize that a great deal depends on the Nationalities Question ; if he were to study the soul of the people, he would see a complete transformation, and a whole array of problems — industry, the land question, and so on — all of which depend on this question, and he who solves this cruel question most happily, is the greatest patriot. The Fiscal dismisses it simply with the word 'Panslavism,' although he cannot believe this charge him­self. 'Panslavism,' to quote the words of Mocsáry, ' is nothing more nor less than a bogey behind which those who made it laugh in their sleeves.' Whether this true patriot spoke the truth, I leave to the Fiscal to judge. To us this question means our civilization ; we are proud of this culture of ours, or I may say of this natural right, and will part from it under no circumstances, and who dare blame us for this ?

"Gentlemen of the jury, surely in the history of the Hungarian people the period of the Renaissance is the noblest — the period when men struggled for culture. Do not these struggles supply Magyar history with its most splendid scenes, and yet who speaks in condemnation of them or treats them as prompted by sordid gain ? Meet out then to us the same measure ; for what the Magyar, the Frenchman, the German feels, inspires us Slovaks too. I know well that it is the most delicate of questions, in which education, race, public opinion and preconceived ideas are hard to overcome. But where the most sacred treasures are at stake, we might fairly expect from the Public Prosecutor greater objectivity and more readiness to credit our motives. He is very much mistaken if he thinks that these are words of cowardly fear of prison; not merely do we not fear it, but it has to be endured. Moreover we know well that the struggle of the nationalities is the fiercest of the twentieth century . . . for here the strong seeks to exterminate the weak, and the one finds in the other a greater foe than even a murderer. Against such a man all is allow­able, all is justified, as may be seen in the speech of the Public Prosecutor. Yet these things bring no man to anything but injury. If we judge thus, I can easily understand why the Fiscal finds in me not a man and a brother, but an ordinary and dangerous criminal; and I neither desire nor intend to argue with him about it. I remember too the proverb, 'Do not to others as you would not be done by.' But I protest most energetically against his charges of sordid and material motives, for I have sacrificed all my means to my convictions and principles, which is more than the Fiscal can say.

"In the matter of Csernova, my defender has already given an adequate answer; I merely need to endorse his account of the origin of the church in Csernova and my relation to it. This only would I add — that during the trial of that affair I was al­ready in the power of the law, in prison : if then the Court had wished, it could easily have summoned me to Rózsahegy, and therefore the matter does not fall to be discussed here, the more so as I appealed to the Public Prosecutor of Rózsahegy to hold me responsible if necessary. Instead of doing this, he held me up to obloquy as the originator and cause of this lamentable affair. The President of the court asked every defendant and witness, 'Did not Hlinka prompt you?' They searched the houses of my relatives, used my correspondence as evidence, sent my sister to prison, persecuted the whole family; and yet the result was that even Mr. Chudovszky had to confess that I had nothing to do with the massacre of Csernova, and hence despite all his efforts could not be brought to trial. It was physically impos­sible ; for though Magyar newspapers had it that I had been seen in woman's clothing inciting the people, I had in reality for a fortnight before this terrible event been on the other side of the frontier, as thousands of people could bear witness. I first heard the dreadful news in Göding, where I gave a lecture that very day. This is my answer concerning Csernova, and I shall gladly bear the brunt of the charge, even if the state prison which has been described as so pleasant should be converted into my life­long prison. 1 have always followed a straight path, and this I shall continue to do, yielding to no fear and courting no advances.

"And now at length I have reached the true subject of the trial, the two articles which I wrote. But since the Public Prose­cutor has said little or nothing about them, I too will not be long. I merely wish to defend these two articles by saying, 'Tolle et lege': take and read them, gentlemen of the jury, and the trial can only end in my acquittal. I will briefly describe their genesis and aim, but before I do this, I must answer the Fiscal's charge that when I wrote the article 'Rózsahegy in state of siege,' I sought to evade my responsibility by flight. Here the Fiscal is very far wrong. The examining magistrate at Szeged called me to him, showed me the Ludové Noviny and asked me whether I had written the article in question. As it was only signed with the pseudonym 'Meštan' (townsman), I could not in my excite­ment remember, for over three months had elapsed, and I have written a great number of articles for the Ludové Noviny. I therefore declined to take the responsibility of the article, until the court showed me the MS. ; when some weeks afterwards it was shown to me, I acknowledged it, although I knew what was in store for me, I need not have done so, since I had . . . written it as a private letter, not to the editor, and how it came into the paper I do not know. Nor do I inquire, simply in order that the Fiscal may see how I fly away, and that the new editor of the Ludové Noviny may not have to escape abroad. To-day the Fiscal has Andrew Hlinka before him, and not the shoemaker Cifersky or Dubravsky — which gives him no small pleasure, since now patriotic laurels will be his. The article 'Rózsahegy in state of siege' was based on the following incident: — We organized in Rózsahegy and its neighbourhood ten meetings of electors in favour of Universal Suffrage. The szólgabiró forbade them all, and Rózsahegy and the villages round about were occupied by troops. We ourselves wanted to discuss the steps to be taken, but scarcely had we met together when three gendarmes forced their way into the room and prevented us. I protested to the szógalbiró against this injustice, and interpellated in the county assembly. The szólgabiró answered: 'For you there exists no right.' I wrote of these abuses to my friend, who then published it in the paper. These are the circumstances by which the matter should be judged.

"Are we to regard it as fair treatment of the people that the single family of Palugyay should portion out the whole county of Liptó. Wherever one looks, there are none but Palugyays. I would ask you, gentlemen, to consider what it means for the administration, when in one county[4] ten Palugyays hold office : —

Maurice Palugyay, as High Sheriff.

Julius Palugyay, as Vice-Sheriff.

Armand Palugyay, as director of the Board of Orphans.

Arpád Palugyay, as notary.

Gašpar Palugyay, as registrar.

Aladár Palugyay, as castellan.

John Palugyay, as clerk to the Board of Orphans.

Alois Palugyay, as clerk to the Vice-Sheriff.

Paul Palugyay, as szólgabiró.

"When all these belong to one family, there can be no question of control or administration, and the people groan under the pressure of these men. It is easy to realize how these gentlemen are capable of acting towards the people, when they send gen­darmes to the leaders, to the educated and independent citizens, who are placed absolutely at their mercy, and whose lives, liberty and rights are in their hands. It was of these abuses, gentlemen of the jury, that I wrote, with the purest intentions of serving the general well-being. I mention the names of those against whom Liptó has the weightiest complaint; if then there can be any question of incitement against a class, then this was directed solely against the Palugyay family and was a condemnation of acts which deserved publicity. These gentlemen naturally describe themselves as patriots and defenders of the fatherland, but on the properties of these aristocrats there are no schools. Mr. Rákovsky has none on his property, which includes Nagy and Kis Stiavnicz; in the former the State has provided a school, but from the latter village the children have to walk an hour in all weathers to the school of Ludrova. In Nemes Ludrova the gentry have no school. On Joachnova, the property of Mr. Zoltán Turansky, an all-powerful agrarian, there is also no school. Not even in Turika, his home and birthplace, is there a school, or he would have to pay a heavy rate. But this is exactly what the gentry do not like; theirs are fame, government, the county assembly — the burdens and taxes are the people's.

"Oh, these social conditions, so suited to the middle ages ! here flourishes the slavery of the modern era. With us in Liptó the daily wage of a woman for 14 to 16 hours' work is 48 heller (5d.), while the man earns at most a crown (10d.). There are la­bourers among us who serve their masters for 80 crowns a year, receiving in addition some cabbages, 10 kilogrammes of dripping and 10 of salt, and a patch of potato field. On these a poor Slovak has to live with his wife and a pack of children. His dwelling is a wretched hovel, for which his wife must work 100 days at the busiest time, so that there is no time to think of clothes, school, or culture of any kind whatever. These 100 days the woman must work for nothing, but lest she should die of hunger at her work, she receives two heller for her breakfast and two heller for her afternoon meal (in all one halfpenny per diem). If the woman does not die during these 100 days, it is only due to her enduring and sturdy constitution, for she has to work in summer from 3 o'clock in the morning till 9 o'clock at night, and during harvest even longer. At other times she receives a wage of 24 heller (2¹/₂d.) a day, so that she is better off than the man, who receives 20 heller (2d.) a day — for his yearly wage of eighty crowns works out at this rate.

"All this, gentlemen, is no mere fairy tale, but stern reality; those who would convince themselves of it, need only to go to Turika to the fields of Mr. Turansky, or to Paludza to the fields of the Palugyays. This is the state of affairs among the Slovaks in the twentieth century. Whose duty is it to speak out in such a case ? Only the priest can do so, for he is independent and has no family. But woe to him if he does it! He fares as I have fared, and his fate is many years of prison. But that these gentry may more easily prolong these unjust conditions, they don their attilas and denounce us as agitators and Panslavs. And for these there is room enough in Vácz and Szeged, were they even innocence itself and did they bring with them a whole array of principles and liberties. Our patriotic labours are declared illegal, and we are persecuted as agitators, as to-day's trial clearly shows.

"My second article 'Perhaps the last word' I wrote as a fare­well on entering prison. It is a conventional custom among all races and nations that the parting friend grasps for the last time the hands of his comrades and calls to them a last 'God speed.' But to me this was not allowed, because the sentence found me abroad. I wished to bid my own people farewell, under the impres­sion of the events in Csernova, where whole families had been shot down or cast into prison. In my article I described why I had been condemned and must endure two years' imprisonment. And this was an incitement against the Magyar nationality ? I have now dwelt six months among Magyars, I hear nothing disagree­able from them, and get along with them quite well; the Magyar local papers write of me sympathetically and kindly. I myself wrote an article in a Magyar newspaper, to the effect that I can come to terms with the Magyars, that the Magyar nation and people have never harmed me. In it I talk of the ecclesiastical author­ities, who are to blame for the melancholy state of affairs in Rózsa­hegy ; and I mention by name Rákovszky, Sonderlich, Chudovzky and Soos, who are entitled to demand satisfaction from me. Son­derlich, the notary, who has conducted the affairs of the town in such a way that it has debts of 2,400,000 crowns (£100,000), which of course the people have to pay: Chudovszky, who threw me into imprisonment pending trial, because I refused to vote him a free lodging in the Town Hall: Rákovszky, with whom not long ago I went hand in hand in founding societies and holding meetings.[5] To-day, because I ventured to act independently, I have become obnoxious to him, and he clamours, 'Crucify him.'

"And are these men to be regarded as Magyars ? Assuredly not; and therefore my article was not written against Magyars, and I may claim my acquittal.

"Gentlemen, I have reached the end of my defence, and I have only one thing more to say. . . . Before you withdraw to deliber­ate and pronounce upon me the momentous verdict . . . which will decide whether I am to be shut off still longer in prison from my calling, I have one request to make to you in the name of truth and of my own person. Dismiss, I beg of you, all personal factors and impressions, and forget for a moment the massacre of Csernova and the articles which were written against me, forget the speech of the Fiscal about my journey in Bohemia, and take my two articles in your hands. Read them and judge them, and I am convinced that your verdict will set me free, Above all, consider that the author of these articles was Andrew Hlinka, 'the enemy of the Magyars,' but the friend and priest of the people: that they were written under the pressure of the local clique, by one who was groaning, and still groans, under the blows which they had dealt. Remember that every word and every line was written by a lover of the people ; and the truth will surely find its way into your hearts. As you enter this hall, tie the bandage of the Goddess Justitia before your eyes, and think that these articles were written not by any nationalist or leader of the people, but by a man who can form an impartial political opinion of you — and then pronounce your decision. And if even then you doubt, turn in spirit, I beg you, to Kufstein, to Munkács, to Döbling. Do not forget the asylum of Döbling, where sixty years ago the greatest Magyar, Count Stephen Széchenyi, found his tragic end. You will see that for this freedom, in whose name you may deprive me of the precious gift of freedom, a Mariassy, a Zichy, a Batthyány, a Széchenyi, suffered there, and that in these cells, beneath the load of fetters, Freedom springs into being. These feelings naturally kindle pain in our hearts, but in this pain the people finds its greatest treasure. With tolerance and neigh­bourly love your verdict will be an acquittal: and should your decision after all be unfavourable, I turn to the learned Judge, and would point out that I have been punished with a heavy sentence for a small offence ; I therefore would beg him to weigh the circumstances under which my articles saw the light, and the punishment which he assigns will then be moderate. And now, gentlemen, I await your decision."