Minutes of the General Meeting of Shareholders of the Rheinische Zeitung. February 12, 1843

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The joint meeting of the shareholders of the Rheinische Zeitung and the editorial board was held in the Cologne casino and lasted for six hours—from 10 a. m. till 1 p. m. and from 5 p. m. till 8 p. m. The debates were so long because of a sharp struggle between the moderate-liberal majority of the meeting who were prepared to denounce the radical-democratic views expounded by the newspaper and to have the petition couched in a tone of loyalty, and those who stood for firm defence of the right of the opposition press to exist. The latter were headed by Marx and upheld his policy as editor. The record of Marx’s statements was very brief. Marx and his followers, however, succeeded in persuading the meeting to refrain from officially denouncing the trend of the newspaper (the petition denounced only the sharp tone of its statements), and this gave the radicals grounds for signing it despite its extremely moderate form.

Brief reports of the meeting were carried in the Aachener Zeitung No. 46, February 15, and in the Frankfurter Journal No. 52, February 21, 1843.

The minutes of the general meeting of the shareholders were later published with insignificant changes in the book Rheinische Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte der politischen Bewegung 1830-1850, Essen, 1919, Bd. 1, S. 436-47. The present volume reproduces the minutes according to the book of minutes.

Proceedings of the Extraordinary General Meeting of February 12, 1843:

Present:

Herr	Renard,		responsible editor
“	G.	Jung	managers
“	D.	Oppenheim
“	Dr.	Fay,	Chairman of the Board of Directors
“	“	Claessen	members of the Board of Directors
“	“	Stucke
“	“	Thomé
Assessor		Bürgers	members of the Board of Directors
Barrister		E. Mayer
Herr		Haan
	Dr.	Marx
Herr	H.	Kamp
Herr		Karl Stein
	“	Leist,	Councillor of the Court of Appeal
	“	J. J. von Rath
	“	Dr. D'Ester
	“	Dr. Haass
	“	A. W. Esch
	“	A. Oppenheim
	“	G. Mallinckrodt
	“	F. G. Heuser
	“	J. Mülhens
	“	Plassmann
	“	Ph. Engels
	“	K. Heinzen
	“	L. Camphausen
	“	Georg Heuser
	“	Kaufmann
	“	J. Herstatt
	“	J. Boisserée
	“	W. Boisserée
	“	Boismard
	“	S. B. Cohen
	“	J. De Jonge
	“	Christians von Overath
	“	J. W. Dietz
	“	Kühn
	“	Karl Engels
	“	Rüb
	“	T. Göbbels
	“	J. Horst
	“	von Hontheim
	“	J. Herrmanns
	“	H. Hellwitz	(represented by L. Herz)
	“	F. Bloemer, lawyer	(represented by Ref. Scherer)
	“	W. Kühn
	“	M. Morel
	“	J. Müller
	“	A. Ochse-Stern
	“	B. Reichard
	“	J. P. von Rath
	“	J. Ritter
	“	C. Reimbold
	“	A. Rogge
	“	J B . Rick,	on his own behalf and representing notary Bendermacher
	“	Dr. Stucke,	representing C. Baumdahl “ J. F. Sehlmeyer
	“	Seligmann,	lawyer
	“	V. Vill
	“	E. Vahrenkamp
	“	Ch. Welker
	“	A. Zuntz-Bonn

The Chairman of the Board of Directors, Herr Fay, opened the meeting with a speech in which he stated that the ministerial edict which was the occasion for the present meeting was an outcome of the conflict of principles between the bureaucratic state authorities and public opinion. The people demand to share in legislation, on the strength of laws and promises, on the strength of the past period from 1807 to 1815, and of the hopes and wishes newly awakened at the beginning of the rule of Frederick William IV. This friction between the people and the state authority is manifested in the press, and the ministerial edict is directed against this manifestation in general. Herr Oppenheim stressed that the ban on the Rheinische Zeitung seemed completely unjustified, since prior to November 12 last year there had been no warning, indeed not the slightest indication of anything of the kind. Herr Oppenheim then read out the edict of Oberpräsident Herr Schaper of November 12, as well as the further notifications made through Präsident Herr Gerlach in accordance with the instruction of the Oberpräsidium and the subsequent reply of the responsible editor, Herr Renard, and finally the petition of the last named to the Oberpräsidium with the subsequent reply of the Oberpräsident on November 19, 1842.

The editorial board made no reply to the last edict because it has always been, and still is, most firmly convinced of the falsity and illegality of the premises advanced by the Oberpräsidium in connection with the permit granted to the Rheinische Zeitung. Herr Oppenheim then read out the order of Präsident Herr Gerlach of January 24 of this year, pointed out the illegality of the measures taken by the ministries, and left it to the discretion of the general meeting to discuss and adopt appropriate measures against this illegality. This’ illegality itself was analysed in more detail in the, memorandum next read by Herr Dr. Ciaessen, for which purpose he quoted and elucidated the Cologne government order of November 17. Herr Fay invited the meeting to open the discussion and to adopt decisions, and he informed the meeting of a discussion which had taken place within the Board of Directors, as a result of which the Board as a whole “put on record” the declaration which follows. Herr Dr. Haass opened the discussion with the following statement:

Ten days ago a number of shareholders met at the Bomel Hof and drafted a petition; I signed that petition and wish to know the result.

Herr Oppenheim replied that the lists had not yet all been received.

Herr Hontheim. We all aim to ensure that the Rheinische Zeitung will be able to continue in existence. What measures should be adopted to ensure that the ministerial decision is retracted? The speaker does not wish to discuss the question of legality or illegality. Even if the edict of January 21 were rescinded, the Rheinische Zeitung would still continue to appear disagreeable to the ministries. According to the existing laws, the permit that has been granted can always be withdrawn, and the ministries would certainly decide on such a withdrawal. The question arises whether steps in a sense conforming to the wishes of the ministry would be compatible with the honour of the shareholders. In the first place, this purpose might be achieved by the resignation of certain members of the Board of Directors, by the appointment of a new editorial board. The speaker does not want to dwell on the subject of trend, but says: "We have to dispute with a government authority and must keep to the legal standpoint. Let a member of the Board of Directors state his opinion on how it would be possible to make to the ministry such concessions as would ensure a continuance."

Herr Jung. We cannot very well know what concessions the ministry will demand. The Rheinische Zeitung is a party which must be accepted freely and wholly. If we respond to the wishes of the ministry, we shall have to begin a new life in contradiction to the previous one, and only a few members of the Board would agree to that. A retraction of the ministerial edict could only be expected as a result of petitions from the whole province.

Herr Marx believed the question could be clarified by reading the official article which follows, and he expressed his view that the trend would have to be altered if one wished to come to an understanding with the prevailing liberal sovereignty. Herr Ciaessen. I agree with the opinion of Herr Hontheim as regards the continuance of the newspaper, but do not believe that a change of editors would lead to the goal. Herr Hontheim has acknowledged that the ministerial rescript contains a formal defect. But he believes that it is possible for the minister to correct this defect at any time. The memorandum which I read out shows that the withdrawal of a permit which has been granted entirely contradicts the spirit of Prussian legislation and the intentions of His Majesty. His Majesty has stated that a consistent opposition is permitted to exist. On behalf of the Board of Directors, gentlemen, I put the proposal to you that the memorandum which has just been read, supported by the petition which follows, should be submitted to the supreme decision of His Royal Majesty.

Herr Ciaessen then read the petition.

I believe that I can assume, gentlemen, that your views in regard to the point of law are in agreement with the motives of the memorandum. The only question, gentlemen, is whether other steps to preserve the Rheinische Zeitung ought to be decided upon.

Herr Leist asked why the memorandum had not been sent in November.

Herr Oppenheim replied that there had been no reason to believe that the censorship ministries would ever [require] such an assurance as a condition for discussing actually existing difficulties.

Herr Bürgers. I believe that I am expressing a general conviction when I say that the motive which guided us in founding the Rheinische Zeitung was to have an entirely independent newspaper.

In order to ensure that independence, managers and a Board of Directors were elected by the shareholders. The trend represented by the managers and the Board, as pondered in their minds and felt in their hearts, had to be given expression. We decided to express and represent clearly and freely the principles we hold to be most expedient for the welfare of the Fatherland. These principles have come into conflict with the principles of the present government. This trend has resulted in the suppression of the newspaper by force. I now ask, will the original independent frame of mind of the company be maintained? Even if the majority does not agree with the way in which the trend is carried out, there will surely be no conflict over the guiding principle.

Herr Kamp. If I have understood Herr Hontheim correctly, he believes that a discussion of legality or illegality could not yield any result. I share this view and am in favour of a petition to His Majesty. But I cannot say that I agree with the version which has just been proposed. It seems to me that the main question today is whether the shareholders approve the trend and principles, in regard to content and form, which the Rheinische Zeitung has followed up to now. Mention was made earlier of the opposition press. I can conceive of such a press only in a constitutional state, and not in our monarchical state. We owe our freedoms to an act of grace, and if we use this freedom with moderation, our views will often find gracious acceptance. In speaking to me, many high-placed officials have praised the trend of the Rheinische Zeitung, but censured its tone, form, blunt mode of expression. If the shareholders now approve the tone, it will have to be maintained. If they do not approve the form and tone, this disapproval will easily lead to a change that will please the ministers.

We all desire a frank discussion of home and foreign affairs. Let the meeting only decide how this frank discussion should be understood.

Jung. The general meeting has no right to criticise the form of frank discussion. The managers are the business leaders of the Rheinische Zeitung. The newspaper has prospered in its present form, it has gained a surprising number of readers with astonishing rapidity. That is the result of the work of the present leaders; hence from the commercial standpoint we certainly stand justified. However, I do not want in any way to reject a discussion of the trend. I repeat, gentlemen, our newspaper was and had to be a partisan newspaper, from the point of view both of conviction and of commercial interest. The result that has been achieved was possible only along the lines that were adopted. The Rheinische Zeitung has become the citadel of the liberal tendency in Germany. But without passion there can be no struggle. Then no call, whether to go forward or back, is of any avail; in battle it is the moment that decides. Singly, gentlemen, you cannot reproach us with anything. Either you reject us entirely, or you accept us.

Herr Seligmann. The Rheinische Zeitung does not seek any financial gain, but only to represent a definite trend. Hence the meeting is entitled to ask the managers: Have you represented our trends?

The Leipziger Zeitung, gentlemen, has been suppressed by an order of His Majesty.²¹⁷ How much more is the suppression of the Rheinische Zeitung bound to have taken place with the agreement of His Majesty.

Under these circumstances, I do not expect any success from a petition. I tell you frankly that it is my conviction that the Rheinische Zeitung has not been in accord with the just demands of the state authority. We must now retreat within the bounds marked out for us by the state. Proceeding from this standpoint we can then claim the right to further development. Since in fighting for principles we have failed to take account of the obtaining situation, the general meeting today must demand from the managers that they return to within the bounds set to free discussion by the authority. If the present managers do not want to do this, the general meeting must elect new managers. We must promise here to return to the above-mentioned bounds in order to ensure the continuance of the newspaper.

Herr Oppenheim. We all want, if possible, to ward off the blow struck at the Rheinische Zeitung. According to the express wording of the Statute, we are not entitled today to criticise the trend of the Rheinische Zeitung. The shareholders have renounced the right to determine the trend. The general meeting is empowered only to renew the Board of Directors. Even the most zealous supporters of the Rheinische Zeitung will surely admit that at times the form has been somewhat blunt and has given offence in Berlin. The proposal of the last speaker would result in the dissolution of the company. It seems to me that we can and must modify the petition. If the sword of authority is directed against us, we must submit. Let us acknowledge on the steps of the throne that we shareholders do not approve the somewhat blunt character of the newspaper, but that we claim for ourselves the rights that exist, and on this basis request His Majesty to lift the ban.

It can surely be presumed that such a petition will secure the desired decision.

We can indeed safely expect that the managers and the Board will in future avoid bluntness.

Herr Mûlhens. I must insist that the company should declare whether it agrees with the trend of the newspaper and the form in which it is carried out. Only then will it be possible to draft a petition in a particular spirit.

Herr Oppenheim. How can we decide on the trend by a majority vote? The managers and the Board of Directors can reject such a decision. But what would a disapproval of the present trend lead to? The present Rheinische Zeitung would perish and another newspaper quite alien to the present so successful one would take its place.

The question now is what wisdom dictates in order to ensure continuance.

Herr Mülhens. I am firmly convinced that the result of a vote will be unanimous approval of the trend. Only the form can be a matter for dispute.

Herr Leist. Is the editorial board still of the opinion that it is impossible to make any change in the form? If it is, then I oppose any petition to His Majesty as a completely useless step.

It must surely be possible for men who are confident of the truth of their convictions to express them in warm and persuasive terms instead of caustic and sarcastic language. I do not fail to recognise the difficulty of modifying the language of certain personalities.

Bürgers. The view that the reason for the suppression of the Rheinische Zeitung is to be sought in its form seems to me erroneous. There is not a word of that in the ministerial edict. Quite different accusations are cast at us. One could presume that these principles were advanced merely as an excuse and that nevertheless the form was the real reason for the ban. But, unfortunately, everything that has taken place in the entire life of the state over the past year proves that the trend which has raised the Rheinische Zeitung as its standard is everywhere being consistently suppressed and reduced to silence. I am convinced that the ministerial edict must either meet with the complete disapproval of the King or the Rheinische Zeitung with its present principles must cease to exist.

Bürgers. Gentlemen, we are concerned for something higher than money. We have sought to assert a principle. This principle we cannot renounce.

Haan. Whatever the views, in any case wisdom requires that the shareholders should censure the bluntness of form.

Hontheim. Herr Bürgers has stated that it is not the form, but errors of trend, that the ministries condemn. We as shareholders have only two parties: the managers and Board of Directors and the ministries. Can these two parties unite without giving up something of their basic principles? The theme for this has been given by the proposal advanced by Dr. Claessen. Should the petition, as presented to us, be signed or should it perhaps be modified? I propose as an amendment that the shareholders intercede with the ministers to secure that the Rheinische Zeitung be allowed to continue to exist under the present double censorship for a further three months from April 1.

Herr Camphausen. It will be inevitable to have to bring personal influence to bear in the Residency. Only in this way can we learn the demands of the ministry.

Herr Mayer. The Board of Directors sees nothing offensive in adopting the wise course of disavowing the blunt tone of the Rheinische Zeitung. But how can we make an application for a further three months’ existence to the ministers whose edict has attacked our honour, our rights, in the severest possible way? In its present shape, indeed, the Rheinische Zeitung is so crippled that its continued existence in this shape can only destroy the reputation it once won.

Herr Haass. I repeat the question of a previous speaker whether the managers and members of the Board of Directors will not allow their view to be modified in any way by the clearly expressed opinion of the general meeting. No sacrifice should be made that could threaten the honour of the leading persons. I am against any personal intervention in Berlin. Such a step would certainly be fruitless. The ministry will not accept instruction. The time is not yet ripe for that.

Herr Kaufmann. We all want to preserve the newspaper. To blame the trend will get us nowhere. I should like justificatory grounds to be inserted in the petition.

Herr Heinzen. I think that the company is in agreement on the following points: that the rights of the shareholders have been infringed by the ministerial edict, even if we do not approve the trend represented by the managers and the Board. The newspaper's trend can be discussed at the next general meeting, which has to renew the Board of Directors. If we assume that the Board has done wrong, it will be a matter of offering the ministries guarantees now, and the prospect of these guarantees can be held out by reference to the forthcoming new elections. This is the sole guarantee we can offer. I propose that the following be inserted in today's petition.

Herr Seligmann. Gentlemen, I propose that the plan of a petition to the King be dropped altogether, and that, instead of a direct petition to the King, a petition be made to the censorship ministries and submitted through Herr von Gerlach. The censorship ministries will certainly not decide without previous consultation. If we keep to the regular procedure through the chain of instances, loss of time is inevitable. A direct petition seems to me unconstitutional, because we would be bypassing the lower instances and applying at once to the highest instance. This unconstitutional step would offend the ministries. Therefore I propose that a petition be made to those ministries, all the more because there is no hope that His Majesty will disapprove of the steps taken by his ministries.

Herr Kamp. Let us consider first of all the competence and powers of the shareholders. We were told this morning that the shareholders have to decide only on the commercial circumstances of the company. Now the shareholders are being attributed further rights in accordance with the Statute. Let us first establish the rights of the shareholders. I move that a decision be taken whether the shareholders are authorised to adopt a decision on the trend of the newspaper.

Herr Oppenheim. The shareholders are entitled to draw up a petition in any sense they choose. If it is to be drawn up in a way that is incompatible with our honour, with our convictions, it cannot be demanded that we should sign it. It seems to me that from the standpoint of the shareholders’ interests the moment for a disapproving statement has been badly chosen. Although one may condemn the blunt form, one should bear in mind that the freer development of the press is still new, and that mistakes are inevitable in every new institution.

Herr Haass. I should like to see no opposition between managers, Board of Directors and shareholders. Let us seek to bring about a development of all interests for the good of the institution.

Herr Oppenheim. We are quite prepared to put the composition of the petition in your hands, without thereby making you responsible for any action taken by the administration.

Herr Leist. The rights of the shareholders have been conceived too narrowly. In accordance with the Statute, the general meeting has the right to judge the Board of Directors, and indirectly the managers.

Herr Oppenheim. I did not want to deny the shareholders’ right to criticise thé administration, but I do deny their right to intervene in the measures of the administration.

Herr Jung. The general meeting can very easily say in the petition that it wishes to use its influence with the editorial board in order to bring about a change in the sense desired by the ministry.

Herr Kamp. For that very reason there must first be a decision on the powers of the general meeting.

Herr Jung. The general meeting cannot compel the managers to conform to a particular trend. The general meeting can only exert its influence indirectly, through the election of the Board of Directors.

Herr Ciaessen. The managers have stated that they are prepared to resign if the ministry demands concessions that are incompatible with their convictions, in the event of the general meeting approving these concessions. I permit myself to propose the following amendment to the petition submitted this morning.

Herr Haass. The general meeting is entitled to express approval or disapproval, and I must speak out most definitely for the maintenance of this right.

Herr Seligmann. Hitherto the Rheinische Zeitung has endeav-oured to spread constitutional ideas and to achieve participation of the masses in legislation, and should the masses today have no right to exert influence? The administration is only a derivation of the will of the general meeting and this will can always be asserted.

Herr Camphausen. I, too, believe that the managers and the Board have not had a sufficiently clear conception of their powers and those of the general meeting. I am of the opinion that the competence of the general meeting is far more extensive than the managers believe, but I do not attach any practical importance to the question. If on some occasion a general meeting were to express disapproval, I believe the result would always be the same, whether its competence were disputed or not. The question will only be: Does the general meeting want to accept the petition with or without amendments?

Herr von Hontheim. The right of the general meeting to take decisions cannot, I think, be disputed. In the Statute, of course, nothing is laid down about the trend, nothing as to whether the trend of the shareholders should be realised by the management. But such a premise is provided by the matter itself. I consider Herr Heinzen's proposal the most suitable now for giving effect to the powers of the shareholders. Nevertheless that proposal seems to me impracticable because we shall hardly find new members for the Board of Directors. I repeat my proposal that the ministry should be asked to permit a three months' extension from April 1st. I think that the double censorship can be no obstacle whatever to the continued existence of the newspaper.

Herr Fay. We have not assembled here in order to interpret the Statute. We have gathered here in order to decide on definite steps and measures. First of all then, I put the question: Should a petition be addressed directly to the King?

The meeting unanimously replied to this question in the affirmative.

Herr Fay. Should the memorandum read out today be submitted along with the petition?

By a majority vote the general meeting resolved to adopt the memorandum.

Herr Fay. Should the petition be adopted in its present form, or should it be modified by amendments?

The general meeting decided first of all to put to the vote the amendments raised in the discussion.

In accordance with this decision, Herr Dr. Ciaessen proposed the following amendment.

By a majority vote, the general meeting approved the insertion of this amendment.

Dr. Marx, Jung and Bürgers opposed this amendment.

Herr Kamp moved that the passage referring to the company’s considerable financial sacrifice be deleted. Herr Kamp abstained from voting on this amendment.

Herr Fay then moved that the petition be voted on, inclusive of the amendment put forward.

The general meeting decided by a majority vote to adopt the petition as thus modified.

Herr Fay. Will the general meeting now express its opinion whether the petition should be presented personally to His Majesty by a deputation, or whether it should be sent through the post? Herr Fay moves that, in the event of the general meeting declaring for presentation by a deputation, a commission be elected to negotiate with the members of the company delegated to form the deputation.

Herr Kamp has no hope of any success from the deputation.

Herr Jung. I entirely agree with Herr Kamp. The ministry will demand concessions to which we cannot agree, and put forward greater demands to a deputation than if the matter were handled in a different way.

Herr Claessen declares in favour of a deputation, since that would also settle the question of Herr Hontheim’s amendment concerning the request for a three months’ stay of execution.

Herr von Rath declared for the deputation in order thereby to achieve at any rate an extension of the period.

Herr Bürgers. The reputation of the newspaper in the eyes of the public will certainly be endangered by a deputation. Opinion on the step taken by Herr Brockhaus in Berlin is already a sufficient criterion in this respect.

Herr von Hontheim moved that one of the friends of the Rheinische Zeitung be entrusted with the presentation of the petition in Berlin.

Herr Camphausen. I do not share Herr Bürgers’ view. Moreover it does not seem to me necessary to endow the deputation with plenipotentiary powers.

Herr von Hontheim. Everything will depend on the selection of the persons.

Herr Fay. I put it to the vote whether the petition should be presented by a deputation.

Herr Haass supported the motion of Herr von Hontheim.

Herr Jung. I do not regard it as a misfortune if the Rheinische Zeitung ceases on April 1, even if the ban is lifted later. The Rheinische Zeitung as such would then arise anew in its true nature and would certainly at once regain its readership. But it will surely lose its readers if it continues a drab and impotent vegetative existence dependent on gracious permission and a double censorship.

Von Hontheim considered that it was a matter for the managers and the Board to decide whether to send a deputation or not, and also that the choice of the persons concerned should be left entirely to them.

In the voting on whether a deputation should be appointed or not, 61 votes were cast for the appointment of a deputation, and 53 votes against. Accordingly, it was decided by a majority vote to appoint a deputation.

In accordance with this decision, the general meeting commissioned the managers to send a deputation at the company’s cost. The managers accepted this commission with the reservation that they would send the petition in writing if they were unable to find a suitable deputation within the next eight days.

Following this decision, the chairman, Herr Fay, declares today’s meeting closed.

Cologne, February 12, 1843

G. Mevissen, in charge of the minutes

M. Kaufmann, K. Stucke, Wilhelm Boisserée, Heinzen, H. Haan,

I. Bürgers, G. Fay, G. Mallinckrodt