| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Trial for Libelling Deputies of the German National Assembly
| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 31 May 1849 |
Printed according to the newspaper
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 9
Proceedings of the session of the Police Court of the Royal Provincial Court in Cologne on May 29, 1849.
The persons here listed:
Georg Weerth, writer,
Dr. Carl Marx, formerly editor of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Joh. Wilh. Dietz, proprietor of a printing-press,
Hermann Korff, formerly responsible manager of the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung,
Arnold Bechtold, foreman at the Langen printing works,
Dr. Herrn. Becker, lawyer,
Dr. Ernst Dronke, writer,
were summoned as of today to answer charges of libelling deputies of the German National Assembly. Of the accused, only Dietz, Korff, Bechtold and Becker appeared; the court will therefore find against those absent in contumaciam.[1]
The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s office, State Public Prosecutor Boiling, set out the substance of the indictment. G. Weerth, he said, is accused: of having libelled Prince Lichnowski in the short novel entitled Leben und Taten des berühmten Ritters Schnapphahnski [Life and Deeds of the Famous Knight Schnapphahnski], printed in the literary section of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in the months of August and September last year, by imputing to him actions which, if they were true, would bring him into disrepute or render him liable for prosecution. Dr. Carl Marxis similarly accused of libelling Prince Lichnowski. In No. 95 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitungoî September 6, 1848, in an article dated Breslau, August 29, Prince Lichnowski was charged with having called upon the electors of his district not to elect any town-dweller as deputy, since such a man would only work for the alleviation of municipal taxes and the increase of rural taxes. The State Public Prosecutor read out some passages from this article and sought to show that it contained insults directed at Prince Lichnowski. Dr. Marx, as editor-in-chief, was necessarily liable for the content of this article, whose author he refused to name. Korff is accused of: 1) having libelled the German National Assembly deputy, Stedtmann, in the article dated Frankfurt, September 12 contained in No. 102, p. 4, col. 4 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of September 14, 1848, by imputing to him an action which, if it were true, would bring him into disrepute; and 2) having libelled the deputies in the German National Assembly in Frankfurt who voted approval of the armistice with Denmark,[2] by accusing them of having betrayed the nation, in the proclamation which was printed in No. 110, p. 4, col. 2 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of September 23, 1848. The two articles on which the charge is based were read out. In the first the deputy Stedtmann is specifically accused of incorporating false information in a report on a committee meeting, in the hope of being made a Minister. The indictment brought against Marx and Korff was also extended to include Joh. Wilhelm Dietz as printer of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The State Public Prosecutor attempted to derive his responsibility for the contentious article from Articles 25 and 26 of the imposed Constitution and from Article 60 of the Rhenish Penal Code. The indictment against Becker, Bechtold and Dronke similarly concerns libel of the deputies who voted for the armistice with Denmark. On September 20, 1848, here in the Eiser Hall a public meeting was held, at which the Malmö armistice was discussed. Dronke was a speaker at this meeting and declared that the deputies who had voted approval of that armistice had betrayed the nation. The meeting adopted this declaration and resolved to publicise it by having it printed and posted at street corners. Dr. Becker had passed the resolution in question to Bechtold for printing, and the latter had printed it.
The accused, questioned more closely by the presiding magistrate, made the following statements:
Dietz admitted having printed the contentious articles. He did not know who the authors were. He maintained, however, that he was not responsible for the content of those articles, since the editor and responsible manager of the newspaper were known and living in Prussia. If Dr. Marx had recently been expelled from the country, that was not his fault; the former had in any case been resident in Cologne throughout the investigation.
Korff conceded he was manager of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The contentious articles were accepted with his approval. His defence counsel, barrister Rath, sought to demonstrate that there was no libel in the articles concerned. He named their author and maintained that as a result his client was absolved of all responsibility.
Dr. Becker admitted having passed to Bechtold for printing the proclamation from the Eiser Hall, which had been sent to him by a messenger-boy from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The content of the proclamation in question had however been unknown to him as he had not been present at the proceedings in the Eiser Hall on September 20. As secretary of the Democratic Association[3] he was charged with attending to all material for printing, and that was why the manuscript had been sent to him. Moreover the proclamation had already been published by the Neue Rheinische Zeitungbefore he had passed the manuscript to Bechtold. The defendant declared that in certain circumstances he would be ready to assume responsibility for the contents of the proclamation. In his statement he also drew attention to the fact that the indictment had been brought at the request of the Imperial Minister of Justice. The indictment, he submitted, was not directed at specific persons but at a specific party. When he attempted to elaborate on this, the speaker was asked by the presiding magistrate, at the twice repeated instance of the State Public Prosecutor, to keep to the point at issue.
Bechtold admitted that he had read the manuscript received from Dr. Becker and had forwarded it for printing. His defence counsel, barrister Pheiffer, thereupon argued that as the author of the proclamation was known, the printer could not be punished. If the prosecution intended to adduce Article 60 of the Penal Code, it would have to demonstrate that the accused intended to libel the deputies, and the Public Prosecutor’s office had not even attempted to prove this. Moreover, the proclamation did not contain a libel in the legal sense, it did not contain any specific assertion which exposed the deputies to prosecution at law, nor to hatred and contempt; it only expressed a criticism of the resolution concerning the armistice.
Hereupon the State Public Prosecutor Boiling, in a lengthy speech, sought to justify the indictment and to refute the arguments used by the accused in their defence. In conclusion, he asked that the accused Weerth, Marx, Dronke, and Korff should each be sentenced to a three-month term of imprisonment and to a fine of 1,000 francs, and the remaining accused to a one-month term of imprisonment, and one-seventh of the costs to be imposed on each one of them.
Hereupon the court adjourned and after deliberations lasting about two hours pronounced judgment to the effect that Korff was sentenced to a one-month imprisonment for libelling the deputy Stedtmann, the charge against Weerth was dismissed because the accusations made in it were not specified, and the remaining accused were acquitted.
- ↑ In their absence.— Ed.
- ↑ See Note 92.
- ↑ The reference is to the Democratic Society in Cologne which was set up in April 1848 and included small businessmen, as well as workers and artisans. Marx, Engels and other editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung who formed the leadership of the Society strove to direct its activities towards a resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionary policy of the Prussian ruling circles and exposure of the liberal bourgeoisie’s “agreement” policy. In April 1849 Marx and his supporters, who had in fact begun to organise an independent mass proletarian party, found it necessary to separate from the petty-bourgeois democrats and so withdrew from the Democratic Society. At the same time, they continued to support the revolutionary actions of all the democratic forces in Germany.