J e w i s h  R i t u a l -
M u r d e r :   a   H i s t o r i c a l   I n v e s t i g a
t i o n
Der jüdische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung
von Hellmut Schramm, Ph. D.

T i s z a - E s z l á r   1 8 8
2
------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 3
(p.178)

The coachman of the examining judge, sleeping in the
wagon-shed and awakened by the ceaseless yapping of the watchdog, checked
the premises. Near the main house, in the inner yard, he noticed three
persons, who had apparently been positioned as watchmen; they were making
signals in the direction of the street. In the corridor to Bary's
room, the coachman came upon two Jews in kaftans, who -- armed with
revolvers -- were conspicuously trying to get in the entrance door. When
challenged, the whole strange crew rushed to the yard gate. Two
kaftan-garbed Jews, pursued by the dog which was at their heels, swung
themselves over the garden fence and thereby a bunch of skeleton keys were
dropped. At daybreak, in the vicinity of the doghouse, a piece of meat was
found which the dog, however, had not accepted. A chemical analysis
yielded the fact that it was poisoned with arsenic.

After this
incident the examining judge was accompanied on his walks and travels by
secret police and his house guarded day and night. -- So much for the
essentials of the report of Marcziányi.

This assassination
attempt on Bary failed -- further such attempts seemed hopeless.
There still remained the main witness for the prosecution, the
sixteen-year-old Moritz Scharf!

On a motion of the examining
judge, Scharf junior had been taken into protective custody, since
he himself no longer felt safe with his racial comrades! Later, before the
court, this witness declared when questioned about this: "I was told that
they would kill me, because I have spoken the truth. . ." -- In the
decision of the examining judge of 27 May 1882, the text reads: ". . .with
consideration furthermore of the fact that according to the record of the
newspapers it has become public that he (Scharf, junior) has made
incriminating statements concerning his racial comrades, according to
which one can fear that, with the irritable mood of his racial
comrades. . .that they will harm him or try to corrupt him(33), and
keep him from making further depositions -- in consideration of this,
especially in his own interests and for the complete safety of his
person (179) Moritz Scharf will be
allowed until further notice to remain in official localities and stay
voluntarily in court custody."

Scharf had therefore been
brought into the Comitat House at Nyiregyháza; he even remained
there into August of the next year, not as a prisoner, but as a witness
standing under police protection, who was allowed to move freely besides,
who mixed with the families of the court officials there, was decently
clothed and cared for and who even received private tutoring! What didn't
the Jewish newspapers, the Pester Lloyd in the lead, fabricate:
that Scharf had been lodged in a pig sty and sadistically abused
and at the end had been nearly driven mad -- one recognizes here already
the intention of designating the later statements of Scharf as
those of one mentally disturbed -- which they [i.e., the Jews] certainly
tried to do.

How necessary the police protection in
Nyiregyháza was, emerges from the fact that attacks upon this
witness were planned several times. The castellan [one in charge of a
fortress or the security of public building] Henter, to whom Moritz
had been handed over, had been able to make detailed reports also about
this to the court. To go into detail about this here, however, would take
us too far from the main narrative.

These living witnesses they had
not been able to silence -- but the Protocol of the four
physicians, of 20 June 1882, still remained, which helped to
uncover the shameless subversions of the Jewish manipulators; it existed
and could thereby still bring unfavorable and incalculable factors to bear
against Jewry. This danger had been thoroughly recognized, for already,
five days after the first autopsy of the female body which had washed
ashore, the Jewish attorney Heumann applied to the court for an
exhumation and new dissection of the body, which this time was
supposed to be performed by "authorities" since "apparently irregularities
and violations of law" had occurred. This impertinent petition was
nevertheless rejected, and in the following period a struggle raged over
the handing over of the body, in which the court was defeated. On 7
December -- thus nearly a half-year after the burial -- the exhumation
actually took place, this time in the presence of the three Budapest
professorial "authorities" Schauthauer, Mihálkovics and (180) Belki. They declared that the scientific
tools necessary for them were not available at the location and proposed
the transportation of the body to Budapest. The Court of Justice finally
consented that a portion of the body would be transported there.
Although the body, as is clear from the 7 December 1882 protocol
itself, was found to be in a terrible state of decomposition, which
excluded any pronouncement, and the "corpse, powerfully contracted at the
knee joints and hips, fell into pieces at an attempt to straighten it
out,"(34) these
wonder-doctors managed, "in a round-about procedure"(35), to
produce a masterpiece of work "proving" the identification of Esther
Solymosi with the body washed ashore after "long yet necessary
digressions with a consulting of the earlier procedures"(36). The
expert opinion of the confidential agents of the court, therefore the word
of four physicians, was supposed to be "refuted," in that these
doctors were reproached with "lack of expert knowledge and carelessness in
the investigation of the necessary facts of the case," as was further also
written in the new expert opinion of the Herr University-professors, with,
of course, the modesty characteristic of their race: ". . .and it is no
immodesty if we credit ourselves in our special fields of
expertise with a more comprehensive vision, a more finely
developed feeling for the connection between subjects apparently
remote from each other, than the medical confidential agents of the
praiseworthy Nyiregyháza court, who might be honest men of
healing, but are not specialists in the fields which are at issue
here."

The comprehensive vision and finely-developed feeling of
this committee were, to be sure, amazing attributes, which made it
possible to reconstruct from a part of a split-open body, long gone
over into decomposition, a fourteen-year-old and, even in addition to
that, a definitely identified girl; these unusual talents of the chosen
authorities of a likewise Chosen People, made the hair of even the Court
of Justice of the Hungarian provincial seat stand on end! It ordered the
striking of a portion of the judicial documents simply in (181) those passages of this professorial expert
opinion which were conspicuously deceitful and at the same time made the
decision to deliver the report of the three professors and the remains of
the exhumation which had been retained, to the Hungarian National
Medical Council for verification, with no possibility of
appeal.

This superarbitrium [literally, "above
judgement/appeal" -- i.e., the findings of the Hungarian National Medical
Council] repeated in essential points the results of the first
expert opinion of the medical agents of the court and evoked, as Georg von
Marcziányi was able to determine, "the greatest
consternation in the circles of Jewry". Over the members of the
Hungarian National Medical Council, the Jewish press poured a veritable
deluge of insinuations and maledictions!

Nevertheless, after the
conclusion of these investigations, these documents were delivered to the
Head Prosecutor's Office; the head Prosecutor, Szeyffert, to whom
certainly no anti-Semitic leanings could be imputed, took over setting
down the charges in writing and transmitted them to the Court of Justice
at Nyiregyháza.

The Concluding Hearing in Nyiregyháza

The Tisza-Eszlár trial

On 19 June 1883 began the great concluding hearing,
after it had been postponed many times. The investigation had lasted over
fourteen months. Accused were fifteen Jews, to wit:

a) on a
charge of premeditated murder: the ritual-slaughterers Salomon
Schwarz and Leopold Braun, the teacher (cantor) Abraham Buxbaum and the
vagabond Hermann Wollner, "beggar without definite place of residence, who
already has a police record";
b) on a charge of participation
in murder: the temple servant Joseph Scharf, the estate owner in
Tisza-Eszlár, Adolph Junger, the worker Abraham Braun, the merchant Samuel
Lustig, the tenant Lazar Weißstein and the mohel [circumciser]
Emanuel Taub;
c) on a charge of accessories after the
fact: "because they have made an effort to frustrate the investigation
against the accused by assisting them," the five Jews who took part in
smuggling the body: the raftsmen Amsel (182)
Vogel and David Hersko, and also Yankel Smilovics, Martin Groß and Ignaz
Klein.

At their disposal stood not less than five, for the most
part Jewish/free masonic, "prominent" defenders; two defending attorneys
were members of the Hungarian Reichstag, who had been designated for the
"defense" on the basis that they had a mandate due to their connection to
"high politics"!

"It is a matter of an affair which could be
fraught with grave consequences for a few million human beings;
under these circumstances, one can claim that the number of five defending
counsel was too small rather than too large."(37) -- Next,
80,000 Fl. were made available for taking care of the "smaller expenses"
of the defense(38). At the
Jew Guttmann's, the head man of the Israelite Alliance (A.I.U.) in
Vienna, his own telegraphic equipment was set up. Between
Nyiregyháza and the Viennese Jew, his own telegraph connection was
thereby set up, so that the Jews were informed directly and as quickly as
possible of every word that was spoken, without the world outside -- not
even the authorities -- being able to learn anything. -- "A Christian
ought to demand it at once! I ask you, Herr Minister, whether you would
allow him this! I don't believe that you would. . ." (The Deputy
Schneider in the Austrian Reichsrat on the 10th of November,
1899.)

The hearing had 138 prospective witnesses. The President of
the Court of Justice was Franz von Kornis, and the state's attorney
was the many-times mentioned Eduard von Szeyffert. He had picked up
very definite instructions at Nyiregyháza. The Jewish press was
full of the praise of this man; Paul Nathan as well gives him a
good report card -- which already says it all! He writes: "Eduard von
Szeyffert dealt with this difficult task with perfect tact and
reaped for himself the boundless recognition of the educated (read:
Jewish!) world and -- what this means -- the deadly hatred of the (183) anti-Semites. . ." (39) The
mother of the victim was represented all the more cynically by these Jews,
and without a trace of sympathy: "The old woman Solymosi was a
tall, gaunt, bony woman of angular body type. During the hearings she
appeared in dark clothes, and a black scarf also framed her yellow,
parchment-like and expressionless face. There was something strangely
sad in observing these mummy-like features. There was no
emotion to be noted in her face and the single thing which seemed alive
was a pair of small blue eyes, which simultaneously gazed out at the world
stupidly and with a superstitious religiosity. No doubt: the
fundamental trait of character of this pitiable woman was a mixture of
stubborn, unshakable devoutness to God and to superstitions. It must
have been easy to awaken the imagination in her that she was an
instrument of God. At least she believed herself to be in a quite
special relationship to the Highest One. From God come the ideas about
the end of her daughter. . ." (40) -- That
is what a Jew was able to write in the year 1892 in the Germany of
Wilhelm, by the Grace of God.!

The charge was supported in its
essential points on the basis of the protocol statements of the
sixteen-year-old son of the temple servant Joseph Scharf,
Moritz, of the 21st/22nd of May 1882. In the public hearing
as well, Moritz Scharf repeated firmly and with certainty his
account already given before the examining judge. On the first day of the
hearing there was already a violent scene: "When Moritz Scharf had related
the story of the murder, the accused father began almost to rage against
the boy; there were frightful scenes, when the men, some of them quite
old, stood facing the young man, whom they regarded as the sole
author of their misfortune." (41) -- The
old man Scharf suddenly tried to fall upon his son, but was pushed
back again to the bench of the accused by the prison guards. Each of the
accused was invited to comment on the statements of the witness. The
Jewish teacher Buxbaum raged: "It (184)
is not true, what this one says, this dog, this louse!" -- Moritz replied
quietly: "You were present too, when Esther was murdered!" -- Buxbaum:
"What time was it?" -- Moritz: "Between eleven and twelve o'clock." --
Buxbaum, beside himself: "I was there? Pfui!" (He spit in the face of
Moritz.)

These scenes repeated themselves in the following days of
the hearing and took on an ever sharper tone. On the eighth day of the
hearing, Moritz was questioned by the Jewish defense counsel
Heumann about why he always walked about under guard; Moritz
replied: "Because the Jews would kill me, because I have said the
truth. . ." -- "If you had not "barked" (42) such
lies, then we would not be here" confirmed father Scharf resignedly
on another day. -- "For an entirely different reason this (the
investigation) could not be ended," the son said in defense of himself. To
this the Jewish defense counsel: "I ask the witness, Moritz Scharf,
why the investigation could not be ended and for what reason it lasted
thirteen months." -- The Jewish youngster rebuffed him with: "For
the reason that the Jews who remained behind in Tisza-Eszlár
dressed a corpse in the clothes of Esther Solymosi!"

After
he had become a witness to the horrifying events in the synagogue,
Moritz ran to his parents, to report to them the things he had seen
from his own terrible vantage-point. President Kornis: "What did
you say to your parents sitting at the table?" -- Moritz: "I told them the
situation which I'd seen." President: "What was the answer?" -- Moritz:
"My mother said that I should be quiet!" But the small boy Samu had
overheard something and blabbed it out, which is how the case was set in
motion!

Paul Nathan comments about his tribal associate who
had been struck from the race: "Good Heavens, a murder cannot, after all,
ruin the midday meal for a man, when one has a good appetite. . .Therefore
the family consumes its meal in peace and as pleasant dinner
conversation Mortiz reports (185) a little
joke which he has just seen. . .Now the midday meal is over ; Father,
Mother and son have until this point no cause to get excited because of
this little murder; they won't have any further disturbance of their
Sabbath mood. . .It is a truly idyllic murder, which has
played itself out without anxious preparations, without cautious weighing
things out, everything is entrusted entirely to the kindness of
Providence. Were a braggart to describe at the proper point in an
operetta a murder of the type which Moritz Scharf has, people
would break out in clear laughter" -- This is the "writer" Paul
Nathan!

At the remonstrance of his father ("he said to me
that 'to you, pork sausage tastes better than kosher food'"(43)
Moritz at last stated that he no longer wanted to be a Jew, that he
had gotten a horror of the Jewish religion. . . He could only
explain the murder of Esther to himself in this way, that the Jews had
to do this according to the doctrines of their religion(44). The
brother of the murdered girl, Johann Solymosi, remarked on the
evening after the disappearance of Esther, how a large number of
Jews, among them numerous foreign ones, came out of the temple and
walked over to the Jew Lichtmann. Just after midnight they left his
property again in a body and cautiously moved to the
temple.

Frau Bátori and her daughter Sophie remarked
that on the evening of 1 April light was burning in the synagogue
(45) in the
vicinity of which they lived, until late at night, which was otherwise
unusual. Around midnight the rear part of the temple was still
brightly lighted.

On the 16th day of the hearing, the peasant woman
Cseres from Tisza-Eszlár gave her account to the Protocol: "In the
night in which Esther disappeared, there was a great noise near us. . .I
looked out of the window and saw many Jews come and go. Later the
Jew Großberg came wringing his hands and called out: "God, what
have we done, what have we caused to happen!" A strange (186) Jew, according to his appearance a
Galician, answered Großberg: "Don't worry, nothing will come out of
it!"

The witness Sipoß, who was in service with Großberg at
the time of the disappearance of Esther, stated that on that
evening numerous Jews were on the Großberg property who had conversed
excitedly in Jewish dialect; she hadn't understood a word. When she
stepped into the room, old Großman immediately showed her out again with
the remark that they had "something" to discuss.

Furthermore, it
was established without objection that the Jews Schwarz, Braun and
Buxbaum had entered the locality already on 31 March, a day
before the murder of Esther and had taken accommodation with the
former ritual-slaughterers Taub and Jakob Süßmann
respectively.

Moritz Scharf had repeated his statement
before the court, that he had observed the murder through the keyhole of
the inner synagogue door; to the question of the President about how long
he had watched, the witness answered: "Three-quarters or even a whole
hour." Examining judge Bary had put this to the test at the
scene directly after the interrogation of Moritz, to see whether he had
actually been able to see what he had testified: that was the case. The
result was recorded at the scene. Now the Court of Justice undertook the
verification of this with the assistance of the state attorney and the
defense counsel; Moritz and his father were brought along. And see
-- there was almost nothing visible through the keyhole; only a narrow
strip of perhaps a half of a meter in the middle of the room was visible!
The witness had stated in the Protocols that he had looked through the
keyhole by bending only a little bit and had been able to see well. But
now it was established that the keyhole was located only 85 cm. above the
floor, which implied that Moritz could look through it only by
crouching over entirely and only for a few minutes; he claimed, however,
as we see in the Protocol from this local inspection, that when
Bary had taken him there, he did not need to bend over that way
then. The basic result of this local inspection was: ". . .It was further
determined that Moritz Scharf (187) did
not see the scene at the [time of] the inspection." One of the
Jewish defense counsel remarked: "With this inspection of the scene we
should have opened the whole case, then we need not have had to hear [the
case] for five weeks long!"

The defense had prudently been careful
not to arrange a local inspection at an earlier date, for in the
intervening time this ominous synagogue keyhole was repositioned in
such a clever fashion that at the later examination even the Chief
State's Attorney of Hungary, when he peered through it, according to his
own expression, actually "saw nothing"! (46) [This
trick was echoed by the O.J. Simpson case, and the transparent nonsense of
-- to anyone with common sense -- the well-remembered Jewish shysterism
of: if-the-glove-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit!]

There yet remained
to refute the expert opinion of the National Medical Council about the
body washed ashore, in order to be able to also set free the Jews
imprisoned on the charge of smuggling the body.

In the search for a
"European authority", whose name alone could cancel out all former expert
opinions, they selected Rudolph Virchow, the Professor and Director
of the Institute of Pathology at the University of Berlin, who had the
additional advantage of functioning as a semi-official
liberal-"progressive" Reichstag member. In his "statement of expert
opinion about the autopsy procedures in the Tisza-Eszlár criminal case" of
15 June 1883, Virchow, "the great friend of the Jews"(47) ,
actually had the last word, in that he pushed the "unreliability of the
autopsy protocol of the Drs. Trajtler and Kiß of the 19th
and 20th of June 1882 into a bright light," although he had not even
obtained one part of the body, but could base his opinion merely on the
statements of the Budapest experts. (188) Thus
fell the Superarbitrium of the National Medical Council from 16
March 1883.

In the arguments of the judgement of the first
stage we read: "There is circumstantial evidence, which with respect to
the fact that the Medical Council did not communicate the motivating
factors which are the basis of its expert opinion, so that one cannot know
on the basis of which anatomical data the Council deviated from the expert
opinion of the professors in the determination of the probable age of the
body, and furthermore, with respect to the fact that the body was found in
the undoubted clothes of Esther (!), allows the acceptance [of the
fact] that the body in question could be the corpse of Esther
Solymosi."

All was in tidy order: The missing girl had gotten
lost on her way -- although she of course, as a child of the village and
on a clear day besides, was familiar with every hill and dale -- fell into
the Theiß and after months was washed ashore as a well-preserved, well
cared-for corpse in faultlessly arranged clothes. . .

But just as
in the first days, the mother of the victim remained unswerving in [the
midst of] these intrigues; she had answered in response to all
questioning: "Gentlemen of the court, my mother's heart tells me that the
Jews, who are sitting on the bench of the accused, murdered my daughter.
The Jews came to me and have offered me a large sum of money if I
would make this voice of my heart be silent -- I cannot do it. . ." (H.
Desportes, p. 239)

The pronouncement of judgment was suddenly
hurried into: All accused were acquitted and insofar as they had
suffered economic injury by their long custody pending trial,
the state had to pay everything! "After great mistakes and errors the
Nyiregyháza Court of Justice lets justice rule, indeed, it scorns to
throw even the shadow of a suspicion upon the innocent prisoners"(48)

The
court President Kornis directed the following "conciliatory words"
toward the mockingly smiling gang of murderers: "I must admonish you, that
you, returning to your home hearth and (189)
Christian fellow-citizens, bring along peace and modesty and refrain from
any such provocation which could lead to the arousal of excited emotions
and to the disturbance of [your] peacefully living together. You
would not wish to ascribe the suffering and vexation you endured
(!) to the judge or to the court of Justice or, finally, to individual
citizens, but to the coincidence of circumstances. You might make friends
with the destiny which often interposes itself without mercy and heavily
in the course of life and which is often impossible to avoid even with the
greatest lawfulness and decency."(49) For the
mother of the victim, however, no one had a word of comfort; on the
contrary, she was helplessly abandoned to Jewish scorn and imprecations
still during the court hearing; according to her own statements, the Jews
had even finally claimed that she had abused Esther, and because of that
she had gone into the water. . .even ten years later Paul Nathan
could spit out at her in the filthiest manner!

"An uncanny shudder
quietly creeps over a person when he views the behavior of Jewry in this
cause célèbre : the Jews, who continuously throw out phrases about
humanitarianism, enlightenment, human rights, tolerance, and so on, and
who refer to the law with daring cynicism in all cases where they have
been righteously attacked -- the same law which they for the most part
hold in contempt and trample with their feet -- these Jews first
commit an atrocious ritual-murder, cowardly deny it with snide brow,
break out filthy obscenities about the pain of the grief-bowed mother,
abuse her under hypocritical pretexts, mislead the court, cunningly
cut the threads of the investigation, like hyenas dig half-decayed bodies
from their graves, switch them around, dress the false dead body in the
garments of the slaughtered one, mutually swindle each other for the sake
of ill-gotten gains, send death threats to judges performing their
duties, plan assassinations of the same, in order to get incriminating
court documents into their possession and will finally, (190) if all this doesn't help them and the iron ring
is contracting around them closer and closer, move on to corpse
desecration in the most disgusting and repulsive sense of the word, in
order to dispel the storm clouds drawing threateningly close above the
Jews! This is their humanitarianism, their enlightenment,
their morality, which they proclaim so hypocritically, standing
upon whose postulate -- built upon deceit and lies -- they have the
presumption to strive for religious tolerance, for tolerance for religious
rites like one of these rites which has come to the light of day in the
ritual-sacrifice murder in Tisza-Eszlár. . ."(50)

Both
of the higher stages confirmed the judgment of acquittal in full. As if on
signal, the entire body of accused Jews disappeared thereupon from
Hungary; Moritz Scharf, the "betrayer," went as a diamond polisher
to Amsterdam; the defense counsel, however, remained in the country
and nourished themselves "uprightly." One of the first "defenders," the
freemason Karl Eötvös, already rewarded before the trial with
payment on account of 80,000 Fl., became a great Hungarian landowner. .
.

Epilogue

The acquittal of the accused set lose in the Hungarian
people an enormous rage. Eötvös and his good friend, the Chief
State's Attorney Szeyffert, had to leave Nyiregyháza shortly after
the pronouncement of judgement in rash haste and in a closed wagon, under
the curses of the populace and pursued by a hail of stones. In all larger
cities of the nation, especially in Preßburg, Kaschau, Ödenburg, in
Budapest and in court locations themselves, serious clashes
occurred, Jewish shops were stormed, and in the comitats individual Jewish
properties went up in flames. Nevertheless, all these things only brought
water to the mills of Judah. . .On 11 September 1883, the already
mentioned court preacher Stöcker spoke at a meeting of his
Christian-social party in (191) Berlin about
the outcome of this trial; there he said, among other things (51): "The
trial of Tisza-Eszlár is decided, the accused were acquitted. . .virtuous
jurists, among them two state's attorneys, have assured me that
before the trial they had believed in the innocence of the accused,
after the decision however, they believe in their guilt;
they personally consider themselves fully convinced of the guilt of the
accused."

"I was in the country some time after the
pronouncement of judgement, and I have found no person who had the
slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused. . ." wrote Edouard
Drumont in his preface to the Geheimnis des Blutes
[Secret of the Blood] of Henry Desportes!

The peasant woman
Cseres said on the occasion of her interrogation in the public
hearing that it "was being spread about in Tisza-Eszlár that the
Christians are losing and the Jews are winning"; that the inhabitants of
the village had banded together and angrily discussed the Jewish
machinations and they were finally brought back to peace only by the
military. -- Their instincts, not warped by miseducation, had told them
that certain powers were at work to bend this judge's
decision!

These rumors already took on firmer shape in an "open
letter" which a later defender of the murder gang, the Jew Bernhard
Friedman, directed to the large Hungarian newspapers. In a letter of
19 September 1882 the text reads, in part: "One sees two outcomes
possible for this investigation. One says that the state attorney's
office will study the case and after there is no acceptable proof,
simply apply for cessation of the trial. But then one says the
matter will be taken from the vice-solicitor Bary and entrusted to
cleverer (read: to Jewish! -- the author) and more experienced hands, so
that the errors committed in the investigation can be
repaired if possible." In another passage of this letter it further
reads: "One other issue which will now likewise be decided is this,
whether, in case the royal State Prosecutor's Office should consider a
supplementary investigation necessary, (192)
Bary should also be entrusted with it despite the numerous errors
which he has committed -- or another man?

But Bary
had understood how to maintain his position with the same energy which he
had employed during the preliminary investigation. Thus actually only the
former of the two possibilities brought up by Jew Friedman remained
open. This was the road taken. Now, who is the great unknown "one"
who already could know all this already, nearly one full year before the
judicial decision? Paul Nathan can be consulted even for an answer
to one part of this crucial question, in that he forgets his talmudic, fox
like cunning in one passage in his treatment of the Jewish triumph in
Nyiregyháza and writes(52): "There
were in Hungary a number of people who took up the struggle with courage
and genius; by themselves, of course, they would have been defeated; but
in alliance with the public opinion of educated Europe, they triumphed,
and the truth triumphed."

We know this "educated Europe"
already from Damascus; the golden Internationale, which forms the "public
opinion" and prepares the Jewish "victory"! But today we have concrete
indications about it: the trial of Tisza-Eszlár became a
financial-political power-struggle between Jewish High-finance and
the nation of Hungary which was dependent upon it and which was already
heavily in debt to international High-finance in the eighties of the 19th
century -- and just at the time when the small village by the Theiß was
making news, Hungary was in the process of negotiating with the house of
Rothschild over settlement of its national debt, which was
burdened with an excessively high rate of interest. The completion of
this annuity-conversion was supposed to bring an annual savings of 2.5
million Gulden in interest to the economically beleaguered country. A few
days before the beginning of the main hearings at Nyiregyháza, the
Baron Albert Rothschild sent a sharply worded dispatch to the
Hungarian Finance Minister, Count Szapary; the gist of its contents
was that the money-market, (193)consisting
overwhelmingly of Jewish elements, along with the means which stood at its
disposal, would bring it to pass that "the Hungarian state notes would be
depressed to a level which would correspond with that of the Hungarian
pronouncement of law" -- This dispatch was also made known in the
press!

The Budapest representative of the House of Rothschild, the
Jew Goldschmidt, spoke in the days before the main proceedings of
the criminal trial as the agent of the "Alliance Israélite" with
the Hungarian Minister, Baron Bela Orczy -- after the "Anglo-Jewish
Association" in London had already meddled into this in an unheard
of fashion -- and stated to him categorically that they would like the
charges against the ritual-slaughterers dropped. Furthermore, he
threatened him with bringing an interpellation in the English
Parliament, and put to him the impertinent demand that the
acquittal of the accused had to occur not at the first stage of
appeal, but instead immediately at the first judicial
hearing!

On 20 July 1883 Justice Minister Pauler
received a telegram from Minister President Tisza, in which the
latter asked his Justice minister "to strictly control and to threaten
with dismissal if necessary" the Court President Kornis!

The
paper of the Minister President took up this inspiration and wrote: "The
Tisza-Eszlár case compromises Hungary! Other countries point their
fingers at Hungary. The world press pillories us daily. The
judgment of the outside world is sovereign, it cannot by appealed to
anyone. Who has brought this shame upon Hungary? Those very
people who have created the Tisza-Eszlár trial! We therefore simply ask:
Que usque tandem? (53) and
hereupon demand from them an answer, not in words, but in
deeds."

This battue then sufficed to cause the complete
collapse of the Court President, who up until then had remained unbiased,
and to acquit the already convicted Jews with words which were almost
apologetic, and in a manner of what one might call unseemly haste. Jewry
had gotten a "moral satisfaction" but the Hungarian state a Jewish
state loan! As emerges from the journal notes of Justice minister
Pauler (194) of 26 September
1883, after the conclusion of the trial, the finance-Jew Goldschmidt,
on the instruction of the Rothschilds, demanded that the Head State's
Attorneys Kozma and Szeyffert receive honors. Karl
Holz wrote of this infamy: "Both state's attorneys, who were at the
service of Jewry, who put the greatest obstacles in the way of the
straight course of the court proceedings, who had bent the law, were
supposed to be honored before the entire Aryan world to the joy of Israel
for this baseness by His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty!"

And
the Jewish paper Egyenlöseg still dared to write after the end of
the trial: "Would it be a wonder, if after so much terror, Europe would
turn from a nation which was so weak as not to resist
anti-Semitism?!"

Sixteen years later, in 1899, a sensational
incident occurred in the Austrian Reichsrat [state council]. The
anti-Semitic Deputy Schneider claimed, in a long speech, in which
he referred back to the blood-murder of Tisza-Eszlár among other things,
that the Hungarian Minister President Count Andrassy, who died in
1890, had himself admitted to him at that time, upon being asked, that
a Jewish blood-murder had occurred in Tisza-Eszlár. A tumultuous
scene ensued; the Jewish deputies wailed: "One can easily say that, since
Andrassy is dead. To whom did he say it?" -- Then the Deputy Prince
Liechtenstein arose and calmly maintained that in a conversation
relating to Tisza-Eszlár between himself and Andrassy, the latter had
stated the following: "Indeed, the Jews murdered Esther Solymosi,
but we could not admit that, otherwise 17,000 Jews would have been
slain in Hungary the next day -- and from where should we have gotten the
money(54)
then?"

Since the Deputy Liebermann von Sonnenberg(55) reported
this incident again in the German Reichstag on 7 February (195) 1901 as a political fact, concerning whose
importance he wanted to be clear, we have no reason to doubt the
historical genuineness of Andrassy's statement.

The responsible men
of one state therefore preferred to look on as the children of their
people bled to death unatoned for under the the ritual-slaughter knives of
Galician Jews, than that they do without money credited from Jewish banks
which these had first sucked out of their hosts!

According to the
classification of Paul Nathan, this category of people is to be
accounted part of "educated Europe". We will yet find rich opportunity to
subject this Europe to thorough consideration!

In this
connection one ritual-crime ought still to be mentioned as sequel,
which happened in 1895 likewise on Hungarian soil. On the
morning of 6 September of that year, in Honter Comitat in
Garam-Kis-Sallo, the farmer Johann Balars sent his
five-and-a-half year-old daughter Juliska with an errand to the
gin-shop Jew Ignatz Adler. The girl did not return. On the 10th
of September, thus shortly before the "great Day of Atonement," the
horribly mutilated child's body was discovered outside of the place. The
Jews had "reconciled" themselves with Yahweh!

A Catholic clergyman
composed a report about this in which the German translation reads: (56): "The
skin of the head and chest of the girl was flayed off. Cuts from
a long, sharp knife were recognizable The body was covered over and
over again with piercing wounds. The autopsy showed that the child had
been starved for several days; then the torture began which must have
transpired in such a way that the little girl was hung up by the feet
by iron hooks and had to go though the torment while
alive!

In the body and heart of the victim was not a drop
of blood to (196) be found. Neither on the
body nor on the clothes were there any blood spots.

At the time
when the girl disappeared, by the claim of many witnesses three wagons
of Jews arrived at Ignatz Adler's place, among them a
ritual-slaughterer."

The Jews remained, as always in
Hungary, unmolested; the Jew Adler was merely questioned as to whether he
had an enemy in the village, at which he named a rich farmer. This man and
his son, a butcher, were arrested, the latter for the reason that at his
place, as was normal for his profession, a bloody apron was found! The
entire populace unanimously accused the Jews of the murder. When the two
men arrested had also been set free again, the incident indeed proved how
far Hungary had come. Moreover, Ignatz Adler was so sure of himself
that he was able to bring suit for libel against the clergyman as
"Agitator-Chaplain" and against the Hungarian paper which ran his report!
Further, in Skurz (1884) and in Konitz (1900) non-Jewish
butchers had also been accused of this bestial ritual-slaughter crime; and
these accusations became a tried and true method!

Go to Chapter 4:
Skurz
Back to Table of
Contents

Copyright 2001 by R. Belser.
Reproduction in whole or in part without express written permission of the
translator is not permitted. All rights reserved.