Year: 1868

The Peth correspondent of the London
Times reports curious trial of press Of
fense by Hungarian jury. He says:


You will remember Kossuth's letter to
the electors of Waitzen last August, in
which he declined accepting their trust,
and stated the reasons which induced him
to do so. The letter was published in the
Magyar Ujsdg, the organ of the Radical
party, whose editor is a member of the
Diet-Boszormenyi. Six thousand copies
were printed for gratuitous distribution
all over the country, aud general appeal
was made to circulate the document as
much as possible.


The letter was one long accusation and
condemnation of what had been done in
1867. According to it, the compromise
by which Hungary had coalesced political
ly with the Austrian monarchy was nearly
self-destruction there was no longer a
Hungarian kingdom, but only a Hunga-
rian province-no Parliament, but only a
provisional Diet" Among others this
phrase occurs: "True, and l say nothing
new, for have proclaimed it in both hem
ispheres and in the presence of thousands,
L believe the rule of the House Of Austria
Incompatible with the independence and
self-government Of my county.


As the letter was signed, and the law
orders the action to be brought in the first
instance against the writer, the first indict-
ment assumed that, as the writer was
abroad, it could not be ascertained whether
he had really written the letter which ap-
peared under his name; the House was
therefore asked TO allow the action to be
brought against the editor of the paper,
who was a member. Just in time letter
was put in, by which Kossuth acknowledged
himself as the author, and the indictment
had to be Withdrawn. Another was made,
saying that, as the author was abroad and
could not be reached, the action was against
the responsible editor. A committee of
eleven members had to examine the request
and report. The minority was for arraign-
ing, first, Kossuth, and only when he did
not appear, to bring the action against the
editor. The majority held the indictment
good, and the House indOrsed their opinion.


AT the trial (the accused being absent,
and not represented by counsel) the pub
lie prosecutor, or Kings Advocate, put in
his plea, and developed his case. When
ever one of the incriminating passages is
quoted, the audience, at least part of it,
gives signs of assent or cheers, on which
the President declares that he would have
the court cleared if these manifestations
continue. At the end of the plea thechair-
man of the electoral district of Waitzen is
called as a witness, and declares that the
letter was not sent by him to the paper,
and that it appeared without his knowledge.
After these the Kings Advocate summed
up the whole case in long but well-turned
speech, and asked the jury to declare the
accused guilty-frst of an offense against
the person OF the sovereign-and, second
ly, of agitation against the connection OF
Hungary with the rest of the monarchy,
as contemplated by the Pragmatic Sane
ton, one of the fundamental laws of the
kingdom.


The President of the court then put the
questions, and the jury, after retiring for
half an hour, brought a verdict of guilty
on both heads, with eleven against one
vote


The court, in consideration of the cir
cumstance that the letter having been pub
lished in haste, the publisher may not have
seized all its bearings, instead of inAicting
the punishment of four years imprison'
ment and 6500 aorins fine, only condemned
the accused to one years imprisonment
and a fine of 1000 horius.