THE many thousands of Swiss colonists who came to America in the eighteenth century directed their course mainly to Pennsylvania and Carolina, which they commonly believed to be parts of the West India Islands. Two colonies were founded under Swiss leadership, one in 1710, at New Bern, North Carolina, under Christoph von Graffenried, the other in 1732 at Purrysburgh, South Carolina, promoted by Jean Pierre Purry of Neuchâtel. These colonies encountered all the hardships of pioneer settlements, extremes of heat and cold, fevers incident to the breaking of new ground, hostility of the natives, deficiencies in material equipment. Emigrants of the eighteenth century, before their arrival in the land of hope, had to endure the perils of the sea for months with slight protection and provision, they faced at best a decimation of their numbers on the crowded ships that conveyed them across, they were too often the victims of fraudulent captains and agents, who robbed them and sold them into servitude. All these trials and difficulties were borne and overcome by the early Swiss in common with all other sturdy and heroic pioneers of the eighteenth century.

     But there is something distinctive about the emigration from Switzerland and that greater area of eighteenth-century emigration, the Palatinate and the upper Rhine country, the story of which has not been told. This is a record of hardship and obstruction at home, of barriers placed in the way of the emigrant by governments, of social ostracism, and of deprivation of all his rights and privileges. The home governments feared the loss of their people by emigration as much as they might by war or pestilence, and employed all means in their power to prevent it. For a study of this subject the materials found in the Swiss archives seem to be richer than those that have survived in the archives of the Palatinate and southern Germany, where in the eighteenth century the same policy prevailed of restricting, and if possible prohibiting, emigration. Conditions in Switzerland, therefore, may be assumed to illustrate also the situation for the German emigrant of the eighteenth century.

     The only occasion when a Swiss government of the eighteenth century encouraged emigration was at the very beginning, and by the Council of Bern. This happened in the following way: in the

years 1701-1704 the Bernese traveller Franz Ludwig Michel made two trips to the American colonies, visiting Pennsylvania and Virginia mainly, with the object incidentally of selecting a site for a colony. His manuscript report¹ on his journeys concludes with a draft of a petition to Queen Anne, proposing a Swiss settlement of from four to five hundred persons in Pennsylvania or Virginia under certain liberal conditions. The principal promoters of this plan were Georg Ritter and Rudolff Ochs,² who succeeded as early as 1705 in interesting the Council of Bern and the English envoy Aglionby in the scheme.³

     It is of importance to note the motives that impelled the government of Bern to take up the matter. Emigration of the virile and well-to-do elements of the population was not what they intended, but they saw an opportunity of ridding themselves of what seemed to them two very undesirable classes of people. One of these was a pauper element, the homeless Landsassen, squatters not citizens. The other was the sectarian class, Baptists, Anabaptists, or Mennonites (Wiedertäufer, Täufer). The latter particularly were considered a source of danger to both Church and State: their refusal to bear arms or hold office, their simplicity of worship and communistic tendencies, seemed to undermine the foundations of civil governments, of the Protestant and Catholic churches alike. The most terrible and relentless persecution by courts specially appointed (Täufer-Kammer) and spies tracking the suspected to their homes (Täufer-Jäger), executions by fire and water (drowning, with intended irony), compulsory service in foreign armies or on the galleys of the Mediterranean, could not stop the spread of the sectarian doctrines.

Deportation to the American colonies seemed to offer a hope of relief. Accordingly, the Council of Bern welcomed the opportunity offered by Ritter and Company, though they presented a double face, recommending America to the Mennonites as a place they could obtain an abundance of food, while at the same time warning others against Pennsylvania, a desert, in which food supplies were altogether lacking, and from which the government felt duty-bound to hold its people back until longer experience had been gained.⁴

     The expedition of Ritter did not start until March, 1710. We find an entry in the Ratsmanuale of Bern, that forty-five thalers a head were to be paid to Ritter for every Täufer he succeeded in bringing to America, and five hundred thalers more for another group of about one hundred emigrants (pauper class), who desired to go to America.⁵ The deportation of Ritter’s group of Anabaptists proved a failure, though every possible precaution had been taken to prevent their escape. The Dutch Mennonites objected strenuously to the deportation of brothers of their faith, and refused to allow any to be carried through their country for the purpose of transportation to America, unless it were of their own free will. Of the forty-three men and eleven women composing the Täufer group, thirty-two were released at Mannheim owing to age and sickness, the remaining twenty-two gained their liberty at Nimwegen.⁶

     Graffenried and Michel became members of the Ritter Company in 1710, the former’s connections with influential men in England, and the latter’s experience, being of value in rescuing the Bernese emigration scheme from complete failure. A total purchase of 17,500 acres was made and probably through the influence of the surveyor Lawson the land was located at the confluence of the Neuse and the Trent in North Carolina. At this time London was crowded with more than ten thousand Palatine emigrants desirous of being transported to the American colonies, and the problem of their sustenance and disposition was becoming very burdensome. Graffenried and Michel succeeded in getting about six hundred of them for their Carolina colony, and Graffenried had the privilege of choosing what seemed to him the most desirable persons. These and the remnant of Bernese emigrants made up several ship-loads of colonists for Graffenried’s new settlement. The fortunes of New Bern in its beginnings have been told by the facile pen of the founder

himself.⁷ He built better than he knew, under a luckier star than Peter Purry, whose town, so promising before the Revolutionary War, has left but a name in colonial history.

     From the point of view of aiding the government in the deportation of undesirables, the Ritter agency was a total failure. Such a scheme was again discussed by the Berner Rat in 1710,⁸ with a proposition to buy land in one of the American colonies for this purpose. But the plan was dropped, and never taken up again. There was a return to the original position on the subject of emigration, that contained in the prohibitory decrees of the seventeenth century,⁹ punishing returning emigrants with loss of property and citizenship.

     The old tradition forbade emigration. Leaving the country of one’s birth seemed equivalent to desertion, and as desertion from the ranks was paid for with loss of life, so emigration was punishable with loss of all that the state deemed worth having, citizenship, property, land- and home-rights. Banishment, social ostracism, refusal of permission to return, imprisonment for life if caught returning, these were the conditions on which the emigrant gave up his country. Characteristic is the categorical command in the Lutheran translation of Psalm xxxvii. 3: “Bleibe im Lande und nähre dich redlich”, which in the English version is an indefinite promise of reward for good deeds.¹⁰ Remain in the land of thy forefathers and earn an honest living therein, is the admonition which Luther reads out of the Psalmist’s text, and which is spoken out of his own heart. Emigration is sinful and its wages death, so judged the sixteenth, seventeenth, and most of the eighteenth century; the nineteenth introduced a more liberal view.

     There were some good reasons for the policy of restricting, if not prohibiting, emigration in the eighteenth century. An able-bodied emigrant meant the loss of a defender of the land, and of an agricultural or industrial worker. Especially in the smaller countries of Central Europe a large loss of population might mean political or economic ruin. An increase of population seemed the result of good government, a decrease an indication of unsuccessful or incapable rulers. Many governments, particularly in Switzerland, assumed a paternal attitude toward their subjects, caring for their material and spiritual welfare, or at least pretending to do so. They felt this duty very keenly when it was to their advantage. Hearing that many emigrants were lost at sea, and that many others met insuperable difficulties after their arrival in the American colonies, they warned their subjects in fatherly fashion, and soon forbade their leaving, to save them against themselves. Similarly the Protestant governments were very much concerned for the spiritual welfare of such as might in 1720 take service in a Catholic province,¹¹ or either church might object to its people going into a colony of sectarians. In 1716 the Ratsherren of Bern passed a resolution to allow only those to emigrate who could prove that they were well taught in religion (and were poor).¹² Thus they endeavored to save the souls of their people, and at the same time to prevent the spread of heretical doctrines.

     After the colonization scheme of 1710 had quickly come to an end at Bern, no further attempts were made for a decade. The initiative then twice came from the neighboring principality of Neuchâtel (Neuenburg). In 1720 a captain in the regiment Karrer by the name of Merveilleux (alias Wunderlich) attempted to secure recruits for service in (the island of) Mississippi. He seems to have succeeded in getting “several whole families of poor people”,¹³ but his scheme was vigorously opposed by Bern and other governments, partly owing to a distrust of overseas service, and partly on religious grounds, as described above. The other attempt was far more successful in course of time. It was the plan of Jean Pierre Purry of the firm Purry et Compagnie in Neuchâtel to found a colony in Carolina. He began to advertise as early as 1725 for three or four hundred workingmen of different professions, all Swiss Protestants of good reputation and manners, between the ages of twenty and

forty. In spite of his advertisements,¹⁴ spread broadcast and posted wherever possible, in which South Carolina was praised as one of the “finest countries in the universe”, Purry did not make much headway until about five years later. He also published a book descriptive of Carolina, which was feared with good reason by paternal Swiss governments. In 1732 Purry established his colony of Purrysburgh with ninety-three colonists, to which there were soon added several hundred more.¹⁵ The settlement had a prosperous beginning in comparison with many others, and is noted in colonial history for its experiment in silk growing and manufacture.

     Social and economic conditions favored an increase in emigration during the thirties and forties of the eighteenth century. In Bern, Zürich, Basel, Luzern, Appenzell, Fribourg, Vaud, and elsewhere, the ruling classes, often composed of a few patrician families, bore down heavily upon the city and country folk, depriving them of all possibility of rising above their wretched economic condition, and enacting offensive laws, such as those forbidding artisans to carry wares under the arcades (Lauben) of Bern, so that the patricians might walk through them in comfort, or closing the vegetable market to all but the noble class until 11 a. m. Rebellion was the consequence, but unfortunately victory always remained with the aristocrats until the French Revolution awakened the Swiss people to a united stand for their liberties.

     During this period Switzerland remained the recruiting ground for the powerful nations of Europe. Young Swiss noblemen found it a profitable business to equip and lead regiments in foreign armies, while their recruits, good soldiers who did not spare themselves, received none of the bounteous rewards. A large percentage of officers and men, however, never returned to their homes. Swiss fought against Swiss on the battlefields of Europe, in the War of the Austrian Succession, as often before. It was estimated that in 1740 about 69,000 Swiss mercenary soldiers served in foreign armies, about 22,000 in French, 2400 in Austrian, 13,600 in Spanish, 10,600 in Sardinian, 20,400 in Dutch service.¹⁶

     Add to these conditions periodic failures of crops, due to hail-storms and floods, as in the Bernese Oberland, and no sentimental ties nor governmental restrictions could restrain the desire for emigration. It is not surprising that at times this desire rose to a passion, that threatened to depopulate large sections and gave the governments good cause for alarm. Such an emigration epoch existed in Switzerland between 1730 and 1750, the high tide coming between 1734 and 1744.

     What started the movement it is difficult to say. Perhaps the continuous advertisements of J. P. Purry had the effect of touching the match to the powder-barrel. Perhaps favorable letters from colonists happy in the new country had been coming in for a long time, with the natural suggestion to follow after. At all events the emigration fever gave visible signs of becoming epidemic.

     Zürich acted quickly, issuing a decree, November 3, 1734,¹⁷ forbidding her people to travel to Carolina, preventing the sale of property by those wishing to emigrate, proclaiming punishment of agents enticing people to emigrate or distributing seductive literature. This was followed after a few months by the decree of January 29, 1735, which repeated the previous commands, and added sterner measures, deprivation of citizenship and land-rights forever, punishment also of the purchasers of property sold by emigrants, close watch over and severe punishment of persons enticing others to leave. The decrees were read from all the pulpits in town and country, they were posted in public places, yet Zürich, as the records show, found it necessary to let large numbers depart.

     Bern did not act as promptly, nor with the same decision. She hesitated before sending an order, July 6, 1734, to all the districts, warning against emigration to Carolina, restricting emigration to the homeless class and to sectarians, who were even to be assisted with funds to get away. The policy of 1710 seems still to have held sway in the minds of many of the Ratsherren, that of using America as a colony for deportation of undesirables. A letter is written to Untersee, urging the Amtmann to explain to those desirous of leaving, that the “printed book on Carolina” contains falsehoods; those who can not be persuaded to remain, shall be taxed five per cent. of the value of their property (a tax raised to 10 per cent. shortly after). In the meantime the gun-maker Striker (Stryger) of Steffisburg is suspected of being an emigrant agent, he is commanded to surrender his list of names, and in December he is banished from the country. Anxiously Bern inquires of Zürich, what she is doing to cure the

“emigration fever”. Zürich sends copies of her decrees forbidding emigration, whereupon Bern is roused to publish her first decree, January 12, 1735,¹⁸ warning her people of the Oberland against the trip to Carolina. It is a document altogether different from the Zürich decrees, in that it attempts to use persuasion rather than force. The Amtleute are to explain to those desirous of seeking their fortunes in Carolina, that the printed accounts on the subject are misleading, that the sea-journey is a long one, the change of air, the strange food, the lack of fresh water, occasion sickness and death among Swiss people, pirates on the sea sell them into slavery, and arriving in Carolina as paupers, they are obliged to sell themselves into servitude. Those who in spite of these warnings were determined to go, should not be prohibited from doing so, nor would they sacrifice the government’s good-will, except those who possessed means valued at over five hundred pounds, who should be compelled to give up their citizenship and land-right. Emigration was not to be prohibited, but made distasteful, and the country was to be guarded against loss, as when persons of the homeless class were put into the places of those citizens who had left the district. The records of the year 1735 at Bern show continuous emigration. Investigations concerning Carolina are ordered and reports are received. On February 3 a vote is recorded that no more passports shall be given to emigrants, but on March 2, on their petition, 322 persons are allowed to leave for the American colonies, and on the next day another group of emigrants from Oberhasli are given permission, provided they have means to the extent of five hundred pounds, defraying their expenses, and provided children left behind be cared for. On March 13 three ships are designated to transport the greater part (Hauptschwarm) of the emigrants.¹⁹ On March 17 a group are given back the ten per cent. tax which they had already paid. If any of them desire to return, they can still buy back their property. If children do not desire to go with their parents, they are to receive a part of the family property. March 23 a complaint is received from the financial agent May in London concerning the distressing condition of Swiss (especially from Bern, Zürich, Graubünden) emigrants arriving there. Money is voted to bring them back, with one exception, for whom a guinea is sent to continue her journey to America. April 25 some success is reported in keeping back a group of highlanders of Oberhasli and Interlaken, and advice is asked concerning methods of providing for them. But, a few months after, the commissaire in London reports that a number of

Bernese, desiring to go to Georgia, had arrived in England. On September 26 measures are taken against a certain person named Quinche of Neuchâtel, who is trying to entice people to go to Carolina (probably in the interests of Purrysburgh). This completes the record of the excitement at Bern for the year 1735. The pressure of emigration proved irresistible.²⁰

     A vacillating policy in regard to emigration continued at Bern for a number of years more. An optimistic view was recorded on May 5, 1738: The emigration tax (Abzug) should not be increased, first, because of the attention thereby directed to it and consequent dissatisfaction, secondly, because emigration was on the decline, “the RABIES CAROLINAE” had happily disappeared, and the people had allowed themselves to be persuaded by the sad fate of the best of the emigrants rather than by the paternal advice of the Ratherren.²¹ But emigration had by no means stopped, it was destined to flow again, triumphantly, especially after 1740. In 1741 Hans Riemensperger of Toggenburg is planning to induce people to go with him to Carolina and Georgia, and his arrest is ordered. Neuchâtel is warned against him. Peter Huber is under suspicion the following year, when the “emigration fever” seems to start anew. “Auswanderung wieder lebhaft im Gang”, is an entry in the record book on March 1, 1742. The Bernese highlanders are emigrating again in large numbers. Some are diverted from their purpose by offers of work in the French parts of the canton. In view of the danger the policy of Bern changes. A decree is issued April 26, 1742, forbidding all emigration to Carolina or elsewhere in America, under heavy penalties. A period of three months is allowed in which emigrants may return, after which loss of citizenship, landright, and property will be enforced. Property shall not be sent out of the country, but shall be forfeited to the community which the emigrant has left. Children under age (at the time of emigration) may return to their rights at any time, others shall be treated as agents attempting to entice people to emigrate. The decree yielded nothing in severity to those of Zürich published in 1734-1735 and re-enforced in 1739, 1741, and 1744.

     In spite of all exertions on the part of the government, so it is recorded February 17, 1744, people from the Oberland go to Carolina in hordes (haufenweise). They are allowed to go, but such as return are to be put into prison. Peter Inäbnit, returning from Carolina, is under suspicion and is thrown into prison. On the same day, March 17, 1744, eighty emigrants, who have already paid

their tax (Abzug), pass by the city of Bern in a boat. Other agents (Amerika-Werber) appear, Jakob Walder of the canton of Zürich, Jacob Joner of Basel, and others. Reports having appeared in newspapers that many thousands of emigrants had arrived in Basel ready to go to America and Nova Scotia, Bern requests Basel, Zürich, and other cantons, on June 26, to suppress such newspaper reports (whether true or false). Similarly a French paper of Bern is rebuked in 1750 (February 26), for publishing an article on Carolina and Pennsylvania, “where people make their fortunes”. In the same year, after a group from the Oberland has succeeded in getting a ship at Yverdun to take them over the lake, emigrants are thenceforth forbidden to take ship at this point. Letters are constantly searched for and confiscated; in 1753 the bearers of letters, Hans Zurflüh and Hans Wyss, are imprisoned for twenty-four hours, and then compelled to leave the country within a week.

     Preachers who came to Switzerland soliciting funds for churches or Bibles, or seeking ministers for churches in America, were thought to be especially dangerous, since they could not be punished by the laws, yet their presence had the effect of enticing people to emigration. Therefore they were given the consilium abeundi and to facilitate their speedy departure, their hotel and travelling expenses (to the border) were given them. This happened to Michael Schlatter (prominent organizer of Reformed churches in America) in 1751, and to Pastor Gasser (minister of the Reformed church at Santee Forks, South Carolina) in 1755, who shortly after was ordered to be arrested on the charge of influencing people at Interlaken. Thus the Ratsherren of Bern had troubles unceasing in the attempt to keep their people at home, and even in 1766 and later complained of losing their population.²²

     The government of Basel commonly allowed emigrants to pass on, though vigorous efforts were made to discourage wholesale emigration. As early as 1735 difficulties were created for emigrants

who wished to sell their property (Vergantung, or Ganten); the ten per cent. tax²⁵ also, and an additional sum for manumission in the case of those in bondage, were exacted, except that those whose possessions amounted to less than one hundred pounds²⁶ were released from all payments. Many there were who had not a penny, which circumstance is also faithfully recorded in the official lists,²⁷ sometimes with a spark of unconscious humor, as: Hans Jacob Märcklin from Dürnen has 1 wife, 4 children, and otherwise nothing (sonst nichts). Martin Gass from Rothenflue has 1 wife, 8 children, and nothing more (weiter nichts). The same list reports that: Hans Rudi Erb from Rotenflue is unmarried, has a bad face, and 130 pounds worth of property. To avoid the tax or for other reasons many emigrants left their homes in secret, leaving behind letters to their friends, or sending them regretful notice of their departure after having crossed the border. These are referred to as Heimliche Emigranten in the records of Basel.²⁸

     The decrees of Basel, finally forbidding emigration to America, resemble those of Zürich and Bern. The one of 1749, printed in full among the Documents²⁹ accompanying this article, prohibits the securing of an inheritance by anyone who has left the country; the emigrant is to be considered as “dead”, and bereft of rights. This mandate was renewed in 1771, and an additional decree was published in 1773, aimed particularly at crafty emigrant agents, attempting to collect inheritances for friends in America. The word Neuländer is here³⁰ used for Werber, agent. The petitions and records at Basel show that the high tide of emigration at that city occurred between 1734 and 1752; another wave started about 1767 and lasted until 1773, when it was interrupted by the Revolutionary War. Emigration started again, though feebly, in 1786.³¹

     The archives of Schaffhausen give evidence of emigration from that quarter in large numbers between 1734 and 1748. The Chronicle of the city (Harder Chronik) refers to this emigration several times, e. g., September 8, 1738:

     In June many poor people from neighboring districts, notably Merishausen and Reiat, emigrated to North America. When then also some

[of our] subjects at Rüdlingen and Buchberg made the unseasonable resolve to leave their fatherland and travel to far distant lands, and thus in thoughtless manner expose themselves to great discomfort and extreme wretchedness with repentance coming too late, the government “stepped in” and forbade emigration on penalty of the loss of land-right.

     The cantons of Aargau, Solothurn, and especially Graubünden also furnished a quota of emigrants in the eighteenth century, though the records have been lost. There was emigration also from Luzern and the forest cantons, though the emigration from Catholic was smaller than from Protestant cantons. Interesting plans were proposed from time to time, to employ those desiring to emigrate in some remunerative industry, or to use the undivided land (Allmend) or the forests (Hochwald) for the benefit of the hopelessly poor. Almost without exception, however, these plans were never put into execution, and in the very few cases when they were carried out, they lived only a very short time.³²

     The archives of Switzerland throw new light on the character and methods of the emigrant agent. Owing to the severe penalties placed upon the trade, he appears as a far more subtle individual than the traditional Neuländer. The latter (so he is generally depicted), having failed as a colonist and finding “emigrant-hunting” a far more profitable means of livelihood, affected the appearance of wealth, with his conspicuous attire and heavy gold watch and chain, and loudly proclaimed tales of easily acquired wealth, bearing forged letters in witness of his claims. Such a figure may have existed and flourished at the seaports of Europe and America, but he could not have survived longer than a day in the upper Rhine country or in Switzerland. Watchful eyes would have been upon him, and the reward would have been collected for his capture twice before he could have earned a single fee for bringing an emigrant to port. The successful emigrant agent was a person of an entirely different description, shrewd, tactful, inconspicuous, denying any purpose of his visit, except to collect a debt or inheritance for a friend in America. He was careful not to arouse suspicion, and grave information only when asked for it. A good view of his methods can be derived from the records at Bern and Basel of trials (Verhöre) of persons suspected of enticing emigrants. Two of these are of particular interest, the examination of Peter Huber at Basel and Bern in 1742, and of Peter Inäbnit at Bern, in 1744. The verbatim

reports of these trials, found in the archives of Bern and Basel, are published here for the first time, accompanying this article.³³

     Peter Huber was taken captive at Basel on the request of Bern. The examination at Basel reveals that he was a native of Oberhasli in the Bernese Oberland, about thirty years of age, and by trade a shoemaker. He was on his way back to Carolina, accompanied by his wife and two children, whom he had come to fetch the foregoing summer. One daughter had gone with him to Carolina on his first trip, about eight years before (1734), and she had remained in Carolina. To the question, whether he had any other travelling companions, he answered that his sister was bringing his baggage for him, and another woman, Barbara Horger, expected to go with him to Carolina. He denied knowing aught of the group of emigrants who had arrived at Basel, and affirmed positively that he had not urged anyone to make the journey with him. A number of emigrants at Basel were examined, one of whom declared that he had been enticed by Huber, but that now, yielding to the advice of the authorities, he would prefer to remain. All ten others denied that Huber had put the idea into their heads, and all but two insisted on being allowed to go. So far no damaging evidence was brought against Huber. He was then taken to Bern in custody, and subjected to a more searching trial., The questions show that a body of facts had been collected against him that might indeed arouse suspicion, but such was Huber’s skill in answering them, that he could not be convicted on the first examination. Some of the questions and answers were as follows:

     Q.: Could he [Huber] deny, that he had desired to take some people away with him?

     A.: He had desired to take no one away, except his sister, and the foreigner Jacob Lanu, who had worked in the mines for seven years. The latter had frequently approached him asking to be taken along, but he [Huber] had refused, saying that such a thing was prohibited. The inspector of the mines had, however, told Lanu that, being a free man, he could go wherever he wished. [Lanu was not a Bernese subject.]

     When Lanu was confronted with Huber, contrary to his previous statement, he declared that Huber had not enticed him, but that he wanted to go on his own free will.

     Q.: Did not Peter Scherz of Aeschi come to him [Huber] at Unterseen, and ask, whether a weaver could with wife and children make a living in Carolina?

     A.: Scherz had come to him at Zollbrück, crossed the lake and spent the night with him, but that he [Huber] had told him there were enough weavers in Carolina, moreover that Scherz had not enough money for so long a journey. Subsequently he had received two letters from Scherz, which he had not answered.

     Q.: Whether he did not urge Hans Aebiger to go to Carolina?

     A.: Aebiger had come to him and asked how the hunting was in Carolina? Upon this he had described the country. Aebiger also asked him about a gun, which Aebiger offered him.

     Aebiger affirmed, when examined, that Huber had awakened in him the desire to emigrate, and especially in his wife, who left him no peace about it, but that he was willing to remain, rather than incur the ill-will of the government. Several others also were examined.³⁵ Those who decided to remain, perhaps in order to better their chances with the authorities, threw the blame on Huber, while those who were firm in their resolution to go, exonerated Huber from any attempt to entice them.

     After a number of other questions on individual cases, the court declared that it was very plain that Huber had enticed the poor people by praising Carolina; he should therefore confess in order to secure more gracious treatment. Thereupon Huber boldly affirmed, that he had spoken nothing but the truth; he had given up his citizenship and land-right, and had enticed no one; no person would dare to confront him with such a charge. Huber was remanded to prison.

     A few days later a slip of paper was discovered, which Huber had thrown out of the prison window, and on which he told those who were still minded to travel with him to Carolina, to go and tarry for a while in the neighboring Neuchâtel; as soon as he was set free he would come to them and take them along with him to Carolina. Upon this new evidence Huber was tried again. The examiners skillfully concealed their discovery at first, in the hope of extracting more information, and cautioned him to adhere strictly to the truth.

     Q.: What route had he [Huber] taken on his previous journey to Carolina?

     A.: By way of Burgundy [i. e., Neuchâtel-Besançon], and France to Calais.

     Q.: Why then did he take a different route this time, and go by way of the Brünig Pass, Unterwalden, Basel?

     The question was a critical one, for there was suspicion, that he was taking people from the Oberland by the mountain route to Lucerne, and thence to Basel, keeping them out of the jurisdiction

of Bern. Otherwise they would have to come by way of Thun and pass Bern, on the way to Neuchâtel.

     A.: He had intended to take his former route, but in order to avoid suspicion, and being followed by emigrants, he preferred the other route.

     Q.: Whether he did not know that people had gone ahead to Basel to await him there?

     A.: No, he had heard that one or another had gone down from the Oberland, but where they intended to go he did not know, except in the case of Barbara Horger, who accompanied him.

     Q.: He should tell truthfully, whether this was not a plan, to meet at Basel, and then go together to Carolina?

     A.: No! He had nothing to do with those people, for he expected to take his usual route from Basel by land to Calais, while those people were going to take the Rhine route, and a ship had already been engaged for them.

     Q.: Was he [Huber] not in possession of a wooden vessel [hölzernes Geschirr], the top of which would hold drink, and the bottom of which could be used for concealing letters?

     A.: Yes, such a one was made for him by Hans Roth in Carolina, and could be found in his baggage.

     Q.: Had he not given Landsvenner Sterchi³⁶ at Zollbrück a ring and seal, by which he could recognize letters coming from him?

     A.: No! He had, however, brought with him a letter of Peter Zaugg in Carolina to Sterchi; he knew not if anything of the sort were contained therein.

     Q.: Since he [Huber] had thus far been very obstinate in denying answers to questions, at the same time had assured the court, that he would gladly confess all that was true, they wished now to see how earnestly he loved the truth: Did he not, the day before yesterday, throw [from his prison window] toward a woman of his part of the country [Oberland], a piece of paper, on which was written, that those that still had a desire to travel with him, should go to Neuchâtel and tarry there a while, that he hoped his case was not so bad that he might not soon be free, and when at liberty he would come and in passing take them with him, they would then directly be in Burgundy, and could pass on unhindered?

     A.: At this question he seemed altogether terrified, looked about him to one side and another, and for some time did not know what to say, and the tears came to his eyes. Finally he answered: Yes! He could not deny this; he had thought, that when once free and finding these people outside of the jurisdiction of Bern, he could take them along without doing any wrong, but he confessed being grievously at fault in this, and humbly besought God’s and Their Graces’ pardon. [Act. March 21, 1742.]

     Huber was taken back to prison, but was evidently set free soon after, and banished forever, perhaps under threat of the death penalty if he were caught attempting to return. We learn from the testimony of Peter Inäbnit, two years later, that Huber arrived in Carolina with a small number of emigrants, perhaps with more than the examinee was willing to state.

     Peter Inäbnit (Imäbnit, In Äbnit, or Im Äbnit), brought to trial in 1744, was not so fortunate. He lost his life in the venture, though equally clever and perhaps better instructed, for Inäbnit left Carolina after Huber had returned, and probably received directions from him. Peter Inäbnit had left Switzerland in 1734 with his parents and their children, when he was still under age. He was therefore privileged to return to his home in Grindelwald, and could lawfully remain there if he wished, for the law debarring an emigrant from all rights did not apply to his children leaving under age. It was very clever on the part of Inäbnit to declare that he wished to live in Switzerland, and not return to Carolina. He was about twenty-five years of age in 1743, when he reappeared in the Oberland, to collect some money from a relative in his native town of Grindelwald. He was observed moving from place to place, notably in the districts of Hash and Interlaken, whence most of the emigrants had always come. He also visited Reichenbach (located near Bern on the peninsula of the river Aare), then the seat of the English envoy. He had been seen surrounded by large crowds of people, especially on Sundays, and he was asked all sorts of questions by them, but was moderate in his speech. He was also reported to have brought letters from Carolina. For all of these circumstances he was under suspicion, and was soon brought before a court for examination.³⁷

     Many a prisoner fell a victim to his inquisitors on the initial question, why have you been taken captive? Not so, Peter Inäbnit. He expressed ignorance and surprise.

     Q.: Why was he still remaining in the country, though his business must have been settled long ago?

     A.: He expected to remain in Switzerland. In Carolina he had lived nine years, and suffered from illness all but the first two, for that reason he did not like the country, and did not expect to return.

     Q.: There were reasons to doubt this, for it was known, that he had come with a very different purpose; he should tell squarely, whether he had not come to entice some of his countrymen, and engage them to go with him to Carolina?

     A.: God forbid! He had not come to take anybody with him.

     Q.: How could he explain, that wherever he appeared in the Oberland, crowds of people gathered about him, and since then it was found that a great many desired to emigrate?

     A.: Of that he knew nothing, but he could tell no other reason, than that they wanted to hear something about how their relatives in Carolina were getting along.

     Q.: Had he not praised the country, or talked about it to anyone?

     A.: To many who asked out of curiosity, he had spoken about the nature of the country, but no one could prove, that he had advised anyone to go there.

     Q.: Whether he did not write a letter to the English envoy with this intention?

     A.: At this he was somewhat taken aback. Finally he confessed having written the letter,³⁸ saying he never intended delivering it to the envoy, but merely wished to satisfy those who urged him to do so. No sensible person, said he, would ever think, that anything could be accomplished in this way.

     Q.: Would he deny having been at Reichenbach, in order to speak with the envoy?

     A.: To be sure, he had been there, but had had no audience with the envoy.³⁹

     Q.: Whether he did not, at Grindelwald, station himself in the churchyard on Sundays, and commend Carolina to the people?

     A.: He never staid long in the churchyard, but many people came to him in the inn, but he told them nothing more than what they asked about Carolina.

     Q.: Whether he had not brought letters from Carolina, that undoubtedly gave a favorable enough account of the country?

     A.: Yes. Eight letters, one to Grindelwald, and seven to Oberhasli.

Questioned about the letters in another examination, he said he knew not the contents, except that Christen Brauen wrote to his father that he had arrived safely, but not having had sufficient means, he had been obliged to serve for four years. People in Carolina, Inäbnit declared, had tried to overload him with letters, but he had refused except in behalf of his nearest friends, because only trouble came of it.

     Q.: Who had told him to write to the English envoy?

     A.: He could not tell, but he had been urged from many quarters.

     Q.: Why did he wish to speak to the English envoy personally?

     A.: He wanted to offer his services, since he had heard that the English resident desired a servant who could speak English. But he did not succeed in seeing him.

     Q.: What had he told the people about Carolina, making so many of them anxious to go there?

     A.: He had not said anything specially about it, except in answer to questions; moreover, he had neither praised nor blamed the country, but of course told them what the conditions were, and that over there as here, whoever brought nothing was in a bad way, and although as a carpenter he had earned 15 batzen a day, he did not wish to go back, because he could not pull through very well.

     Q.: Had not in the preceding year Peter Huber taken people to Carolina? [An attempt to connect him with the convicted agent.]

     A.: There were nine or ten persons who arrived with him, but he [Huber] could not have derived any benefit therefrom, especially since some, for their travelling expenses, had to serve those who had released them from the ship.

     Q.: He should once for all tell the truth, and say, whether he had not been sent expressly to bring people into the country?

     A.: No, he had merely wished to see his fatherland again, and remain here, or in Germany.

     The document goes on to say, that after the prisoner, in spite of expostulations, threats of torture, and confrontation with the executioner, had refused further statement or confession, he was taken up to the torture-chamber and once more vehemently urged, and threatened with the application of torture-nevertheless he adhered firmly to his previous statements, viz., that he had not come to entice anyone to go to Carolina, that he did not know what was contained in the letters he brought with him, that he himself did not intend to return to Carolina, and no one could charge that he had lured anyone to go, on the contrary he had rather advised against than in favor of emigrating. For the rest he realized that he was in the power of the high authorities, they could do with him whatever they wished, however he begged that they graciously give him his liberty. Upon that he was condemned to stand in the stocks, and then banished forever. This was in February, 1744.

     In spite of his cleverness, courage, and firmness, Peter Inäbnit failed, for he lacked the quality of caution. He made the mistake of writing too many letters, dangerous instruments, for they could easily get into the wrong hands. Instead of leaving Switzerland at once, he was discovered at Basel during the following month, and brought once more to Bern. There he was forced to confess that he had written letters to Hans Nägeli, Christen Brunner, and Hans Müller, instructing them how to go about preparing for the journey to Carolina. He claimed that he was greatly urged to do so, was under the influence of drink, and believed he was doing no wrong, since he was banished anyway (not a convincing argument). He confessed having written also to Grindelwald for the money which

was coming to him, and to his cousin Christen Feller, near Thun, inviting him to go with him to England to visit a relative. Concerning the letter from Philip Wild of Rotterdam,⁴⁰ he explained that the blacksmith Jacob Ritschard⁴¹ had for several years back planned to go to Carolina, and had requested him to write for information to Rotterdam, which he did, asking Wild to reply to Ritschard. For himself he had done nothing, and was not minded to go back to Carolina, and no one could bear witness against him, saying that he had enticed anyone. Therefore he prayed for his release. This was on March 27, 1744.

     The court sent Peter Inäbnit back into confinement. His prison was one of those picturesque old towers still standing in the city of Bern, the one still known as the Käfigturm (the cage-tower, i. e., prison-tower). The prisoner had many friends, and they were willing to aid him. They brought him food and wine; a tool for boring was smuggled in to him and a rope, by which he planned to let himself down and make his escape. Unfortunately an accident prevented the successful issue of his daring venture. The rope seems to have been securely fastened, but either the rope broke or the prisoner lost his hold. He was discovered lying bleeding and unconscious at the base of the tower. The abettor of emigration was carried to a neighboring inn, but never recovered speech or consciousness from after nine in the evening, when he was found, until seven in the morning, when he died. No sympathy was wasted on him by the rulers of Bern. “Owing to clearly proven and partly confessed crimes of the deceased, the body was ordered to be buried under the place of public execution”, thus abruptly ends the chronicle of the career of Peter Inäbnit.⁴²

     Both men, Peter Huber and Peter Inäbnit, will be pardoned for their crimes by the American historian. Though dangerous to the interests of their home governments, they were indispensable helpers in the building up of the new colonies, of a new people. They were

unselfish in the main, aiding the poor to a condition of self-support, and their friends to social and economic betterment. There were many agents who were not of as high character, e. g., Jacob Joner, whose selfishness and greed led him to attempt to acquire the inheritance of a fellow-countryman, as his trial at Basel in 1750 proved.⁴³ There were agents good and bad, and their activities were far more hidden, their methods far more subtle than has generally been supposed.

     Next to emigrant agents, letters from colonists with favorable comments on the new country were considered the greatest danger. Letters of this kind as early as 1711 have survived.⁴⁴ and these were probably not the first⁴⁵ These letters are typical for most that follow, telling of the agricultural wealth, the opportunities for cattle-raising, the liberty of body and soul, the high wages, also the hard work but sure returns. They do not conceal the perils of the sea, the loss of life, the scarcity of spiritual guidance, comforts, and pleasures, but all these drawbacks fade away in the presence of the heroic pioneer spirit, the colonial optimism, that pervade the letters. The example of one successful pioneer has greater force than the discouragement of half-a-dozen that fall by the wayside. The effect of such letters was not fully realized until the great waves of emigration set in during the early thirties of the eighteenth century. Then all possible causes of the “emigration-fever” were searched into, and letters were discovered to be a disease-breeding germ, if not the responsible bacillus. Measures were at once taken for their capture and extermination, letters were hunted and kidnapped, the bearers and recipients were punished if they refused to give them up. A few illustrations of governmental action will suffice. In 1737 Hans Georg Striker wrote a report on Carolina for Lieutenant Rubi in Thun; this letter was ordered to be seized and laid before the government of Bern.⁴⁶ In 1742 Peter Stoker’s letters from Carolina were demanded of him. In the same year a letter from Carolina addressed to Daniel Kissling of Wattenwyl was ordered to be surrendered by the Ratsherren of Bern. On March 4, 1744,

the police of Bern were instructed to prevent the luring of emigrants by means of letters; it was the same day on which Bern asked Basel to take Peter Inäbnit prisoner. A fine of thirty pounds was to be inflicted on anyone who would not surrender such a letter without delay. On April 29, 1752, letters from Pennsylvania were ordered to be opened and copied. Anything unfavorable to the colonies should be published in the next issue of the annual calendar (Der Hinkende Bote).⁴⁷ The policy was widespread of suppressing the favorable passages of letters and publishing whatever was damaging. Thus one of the most critical, in parts vituperative, epistles,⁴⁸ one written by a disappointed woman, Esther Werndtlin, the widow of Pastor Götschi (who died shortly after arriving in Philadelphia), was printed and widely circulated by Zürich and Basel.⁴⁹ Basel ordered (April 2, 1738) that copies be sent to all the country districts, to the preachers in every parish, and be made known to every subject desirous of emigrating to Pennsylvania. The number of letters with tidings of fortunate experiences in America was undoubtedly very much greater, judging by the mass of letters contained in the state-archive of Basel. Most of these unquestionably were confiscated letters,⁵⁰ held in the archives to prevent their circulation. It is not surprising, therefore, that Peter Huber (the country-folk of the Bernese Oberland were noted for their cleverness) carried letters in the false bottom of a drinking-vessel, specially constructed for the purpose of concealing written messages.

     The policy of suppressing favorable news was also forced upon the newspapers. On October 8, 1736, the Council of Bern gave the following order: “Since the Avis-Blättlin [Intelligencer] has recently brought an article on Carolina, the editor is directed in the future not to publish any more reports on Carolina and the condition of the emigrants there. In any case nothing favorable about them shall be printed.”⁵¹ On February 6, 1738, the Avisblätter of Bern and Lausanne are commanded not to publish any of the reports coming from the neighboring Neuchâtel, in view of the propaganda coming from there.⁵²

     A further danger existed in the numerous books and pamphlets descriptive of the American colonies. The earliest actually received encouragement from Swiss governments, because information was desired. Thus Kocherthal’s report, and Ochs’s Amerikanischer Wegweiser (1711) were welcomed, and the latter rewarded. But though at that time emigration was not feared, even these did not fail to arouse a protest, as in the booklet: Das verlangte und nicht erlangte Canaan bei den Lust-Gräbern . . . absonderlich dem . . . Kocherthalerischen Bericht wohlbedächtig entgegen gesetzt (1711). Later it became the general practice to reply to every book that gave a favorable account and gained a circulation. Thus the eulogistic account of Carolina published in 1734: Der nunmehro in der Neuen Welt vergnügt und ohne Heim-Wehe lebende Schweitzer, provoked the equally curious book: Neue Nachricht alter und neuer Merkwürdigkeiten, enthaltend ein vertrautes Gespräch und sichere Briefe von der Landschafft Carolina und übrigen Englischen PflanzStädten in Amerika (1734). The latter was in effect a denial of the one that went before, and was widely circulated by the governments to counteract the influence of its predecessor. Another booklet adopting the catching dialogue form of the Neue Nachricht and equally impressive in its warnings against the American colonies, was Der Hinckende Bott von Carolina, oder Ludwig Webers von Wallissellen Beschreibung seiner Reise von Zürich gen Rotterdam (1735), suggested by the unfortunate experiences of Pastor Götschi’s group of emigrants from Zürich. The Neu-Gefundenes Eden (1737) was followed in the same year by Christholds Gedanken, bey Anlasz der Bewegung, welche die bekannte Beschreibung von Carolina, in Amerika, in unserm Land verursacht. In this a Kingdom is named superior to the New Eden, toward which there is a beautiful voyage without sea-sickness, where there is eternal peace instead of wars, and where there is a great and just king, better than any ruler on this earth-and the reader is cautioned not to lose this Kingdom, which he might do by yielding to the seductions of the New Eden.⁵³

     The large amount of attention given to emigration, and the severe restrictive measures adopted by the Swiss governments of the eighteenth century, indicate that they were not contending for a mere abstract principle, but were dominated by the fear of an ever-present danger. It was not to them a question of losing a few hundred people annually, but of depopulation of whole country districts, as was threatening in the case of Eglisau in the canton of

Zürich, or Oberhasli in the highlands of Bern. Had this panic fear sufficient foundation in fact? This question is difficult to answer, owing to the lack of accurate statistics. In the decade from 1753 to 1763, which was a period of only moderate emigration, about 10,000 persons left the canton of Bern, 4000 of whom were men entering foreign military service, and 6000 men and women emigrating to other countries.⁵⁴ The loss of 1000 persons annually was at least appreciable. The fact also, that recruiting in foreign regiments was constantly draining the country of men, undoubtedly made the governments more eager to stop the leakage caused by emigration.

     The only accurate statistics which the writer was able to find in the Swiss archives, bearing on the question of the number of Swiss who came to, the American colonies in the eighteenth century, was a carefully compiled list of emigrants from the canton of Zürich during the years 1734-1744.⁵⁵ The list furnishes names, with dates, home districts and destinations, and claims to be complete. The total number it records is 2300. This one reliable source furnishes a reasonable basis for an estimate of the total emigration to America in the eighteenth century. If there were 2300 names of recorded emigrants from the canton of Zürich, we must add about two hundred more for secret migration (those leaving without permission); this would give Zürich 2500. Since the canton of Bern was more populous, and emigration very prevalent, we may assign to Bern the number 3000. Basel in proportion to her population might be given 1500. Other cantons whose archives contain most evidences of emigration in the eighteenth century are: Aargau, Schaffhausen, Graubünden, and Solothurn. Together they probably equalled Zürich in population, therefore the number 2500 would fairly represent their emigration. The remaining cantons, mostly Catholic, did not have as large an emigration in the eighteenth century, if we can trust the fact that very few records of emigration from those quarters appear. The number 2500 would perhaps more than do them justice, though the population represented is more than three times that of Zürich. This would give a total of 12,000 emigrants for all of the Swiss cantons during the period 1734-1744. Now, these eleven years represent the high tide of Swiss emigration to the American colonies. It is not likely that the total emigration for the eighteenth century was more than twice this figure, judging by the records in the archives. It is the writer’s opinion, therefore,

that the emigration from Switzerland to the American colonies in the eighteenth century amounted to something like 25,000 persons, though the discovery of additional data might change this estimate to a figure above or below the one assumed.

     Numerical estimates of eighteenth-century emigration appear strangely diminutive when compared with the statistics of the nineteenth century. The United States reports, running back to 1820, show a total Swiss immigration up to 1910 of over 250,000. A strong current set in about 1816, during a period of economic depression (das Hungerjahr). The emigration from Switzerland fluctuated in the nineteenth century. From hundreds annually it rose to over 1500 in 1828, dropped, and rose again to about 1400 in 1834: starting again strongly in 1852 with nearly 3000, it rose to 8000 in 1854, dropped to 4500 in 1855, and much lower in succeeding years, until the high-water mark came in the eighties, beginning with over 6000 in 1880, and reaching the crest in 1883 with 12,751. From 1880 to 1886, over 61,000 Swiss arrived in the United States. Recently the average has been about 3000 annually. The embargo upon emigration was removed by the Swiss cantons in the nineteenth century. Periodic conditions of overpopulation, failure of crops, and hard times, recurring in certain districts, showed plainly that, far from being a cause of fear, emigration might prove an advantage to a vigorous people increasing rapidly, yet confined within narrow borders. Complaints from seaport towns in France, Holland, and Germany, calling attention to the congregating of masses of poor people waiting to embark, and subsequently the objections of the United States to the deportation of undesirable classes, brought about a regulation of emigration from Switzerland. The policy was adopted, neither to encourage nor to discourage emigration, but to let it take its course, and to protect the emigrant against the selfishness of speculators, and the consequences of his own ignorance. The business of transporting the emigrant was left in the hands of agencies, who were required to secure a license and to obey the laws. In 1880 the Federal Emigration Bureau (Eidgenössisches Auswanderungsamt) was established at Bern to control the licensed agencies, to enforce justice and provide helpful information. This represents the modern solution of a problem so exasperating to the cantonal governments of the eighteenth century.

ALBERT B. FAUST.