The weight of the allegations concerning “grave disturbances,” and in general concerning the fatal consequences to the interests of the country brought about by the presence in Geneva of certain members of the Salvation Army, is considerably lessened by a close examination of certain dates. It has already been said that the Salvation Army held in Geneva during the months of December and January, seventy-three meetings, a certain number of which were accompanied by disturbances in the halls or in the streets. Let it be remembered, however, that it was on the 29th January that the Department of Justice and Police granted the Appellant her permission to reside in Geneva for a year. The exercises of the Salvation Army were suspended on the 2nd February, and the Appellant was expelled on the 12th February. Now, between these two dates (the 29th January and the 12th February) no disturbance had occurred of greater gravity than those which preceded those dates. A comparison of these dates shows that the disturbances mentioned by the Council of State in order to justify the expulsion of the Appellant had existed in the same degree before the 29th of January, the day on which her official permission of residence was granted to her. That is to say, that identical circumstances had not been previously judged by the Council of State to be of a nature to justify the withdrawal of her permission to reside in the Canton. The only new fact which had occurred was the pretended contravention of the decree of the 2nd February. (The Appellant refers to what has been already said on this subject.)

The Council of State then is found to be speaking in contradiction to itself in supporting a measure so grave as expulsion from the Canton on the ground of facts which before seemed to it insufficient to justify the withdrawal of the permission of residence. Thus we have the true measure of the value of the ground of accusation cited by the Council of State.