To the Magistrate of the City of Turin

E II, 812

He clarifies his point of view regarding a complaint made by a young man from the Oratory against cleric Giuseppe Mazzarello.

Turin, 18 April 1865

To the Magistrate of the City of Turin,

Considering the summons to be served on cleric Mazzarello, assistant in the bookbinders workshop of the house known as the Oratory of St Francis de Sales; having likewise seen those to be served on the young men Federico Parodi, Giovanni Castelli, and Giuseppe Guglielmi, and having carefully considered their content, Father John Bosco, director of this establishment, in the desire to resolve the matter with the least possible disturbance to the urban magistrate, believes he can intervene on behalf of all in the case concerning the young man Carlo Boglietti, and is ready to give the widest satisfaction to whomever it may concern.

Before mentioning the fact in question, it seems appropriate to note that Article 650 of the Criminal Code seems entirely unrelated to the subject matter at hand, since, if interpreted in the manner claimed, the urban magistrate’s court would be introduced into the domestic regime of families, and parents and those acting in their stead would no longer be able to discipline their children. Nor would it prevent insolence and insubordination, which would be seriously detrimental to public and private morality.

Furthermore, in order to keep certain young people, mostly sent by the government authorities, under control, it was possible to use all means deemed appropriate and, in extreme cases, to call in the police, as has been done on several occasions.

Turning now to the case of Carlo Boglietti, it must be stated with regret but in all honesty that he was repeatedly warned in a fatherly manner, but proved not only incorrigible, but also insulted, threatened and cursed his assistant, the cleric Mazzarello, in front of his companions.

That assistant, who was very gentle and meek by nature, was so frightened that from then on he was always ill and never able to resume his duties, and he still lives today in poor health.

After that incident, Boglietti fled the house without saying anything to his superiors, to whom he had been assigned, and only made his escape known through his sister when he learned that he was to be handed over to the police. This was not done to preserve his honour.

Meanwhile, his companions continued the scandal, and it was necessary to expel some of them from the establishment and, with regret, hand others over to the public security authorities, who took them to prison.

It is with the utmost regret that we see a young miscreant insulting and threatening his superiors and having the audacity to bring before the authorities those who have devoted their lives and possessions to his own good. It seems that public authorities should always come to the aid of private authorities, and not the other way around.

Should you wish to conduct a detailed examination of the facts and witnesses named, there are no objections, provided that Carlo Boglietti introduces into the proceedings a solvent individual who will be responsible for any costs that may be incurred and who will be liable for any serious consequences that may arise.

In the meantime, a request is made for compensation for the damage suffered by the assistant in terms of his honour and person, at least until he is able to resume his normal activities.

And that the costs of this case shall be borne by him. That neither Carlo Boglietti nor Mr Stefano Caneparo, his relative or advisor, should return to the aforementioned establishment to repeat their acts of insubordination and cause further scandal, as they have done on previous occasions.

Fr John Bosco