Agreement Debate on the
Valdenaire Affair
No. 63, 2 August 1848
Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
** Cologne, 1 August. We again have a number of agreement sessions to catch up on.

In the session of 18 July, the motion to summon Deputy Valdenaire was debated. The central division proposed acceptance. Three Rhenish lawyers rose in opposition.

First, Herr Simons of Elberfeld, former state prosecutor. Herr Simons thought he was still before the assizes or the correctional police court; he appeared as public prosecutor and delivered a formal plea against Herr Valdenaire and in favour of justice. He said: the matter is before the indictment senate, it will be speedily decided there, and either Valdenaire goes free or he is referred to the assizes. If the latter happens, “it is highly desirable that the matter should then not be torn apart and that the final judgment should not be delayed.” For Herr Simons the interest of justice, i.e. the convenience of indictment senates, state prosecutors and assize courts, ranks higher than the interest of liberty and the inviolability of the representatives of the people.

Herr Simons then casts suspicion, first on Valdenaire’s witnesses, and then on Valdenaire himself. He declares that “no talent of any kind” will be taken from the Assembly by his absence, and then declares him unqualified to sit in the Assembly as long as he has not cleared himself of every suspicion of plotting against the government or of rebellion against the armed power. As far as talent is concerned, according to the logic of Herr Simons, nine-tenths of the estimable Assembly could be arrested just as well as Herr Valdenaire without any talent being taken from it; and in relation to the second argument, it indeed does Herr Simons the highest honour that he never hatched “plots” against absolutism, nor got himself guilty of “rebellion against the public power” on the March barricades.

After Herr Gräff, Valdenaire’s substitute, had irrefutably proved that no suspicion rested on Valdenaire, nor was the act in question unlawful (it consisted in having helped the legally constituted civic guard, which, with the consent of the magistrate, occupied the barricades of Trier, in the exercise of its functions), Herr Bauerband rises in support of the public ministry.

Herr Bauerband also has a very weighty scruple: “Would not the summoning of Valdenaire prejudice the future verdict of the jury?” A profound consideration, rendered even more insoluble by the simple remark of Herr Borchardt: whether the non-summoning of Valdenaire would not equally prejudice the jury? The dilemma is really so profound that a thinker even of greater force than Herr Bauerband might vainly spend years to solve it. Perhaps only one man in the Assembly is strong enough to solve the riddle: Deputy Baumstark.

Herr Bauerband pleads on for a while as broadly and confusedly as possible. Herr Borchardt replies briefly. After him, Herr Stupp rises, also to say against Valdenaire so much: that he has “nothing (!) to add in any respect” to the speeches of Simons and Bauerband. This is naturally sufficient reason for him to speak on until the call for the end of the debate interrupts him. Herr Reichensperger II and Herr Wencelius speak briefly in favour of Valdenaire, and the Assembly decides, as is known, to summon him. Herr Valdenaire has played the trick on the Assembly of not complying with this call.

Herr Borchardt moves: in order to prevent the imminent execution of death sentences before the Assembly has pronounced on Herr Lisiecki’s motion for the abolition of the death penalty, they might decide on this motion after eight days.

Herr Ritz thinks this precipitate procedure is not parliamentary.

Herr Brill: If we, as I hope, decide in a short time on the abolition of the death penalty, it would certainly be very unparliamentary if someone were beheaded in the meantime.

The President wants to close the discussion, but already the popular Herr Baumstark is on the tribune, with blazing gaze and the blush of noble indignation on his face:

“Gentlemen, allow me to say a serious word! The subject with which we are dealing is not of such a kind that one goes to the tribune and speaks so briefly of beheading as of an unparliamentary thing! (The Right, to which beheading appears highly parliamentary, bursts into a stormy bravo.) It is a subject of the greatest, most serious significance (Herr Baumstark, as is well known, says that of every subject on which he speaks). Other parliaments ... the greatest men of legislation and science (i.e. ‘all state philosophers from Plato down to Dahlmann’) have themselves occupied themselves with it for 200–300 years (each?) and if you want to burden us with the reproach of passing over so important a question with such levity ... (Bravo!) Nothing urges me but conscience ... the question is, however, too serious ... in truth a matter of eight days more cannot matter here!”

The serious word of the noble Deputy Baumstark turns, by sheer greatest, most serious significance of the subject, into the most frivolous levity. Indeed, is there a greater frivolity than, in accordance with the apparent intention of Herr Baumstark, to debate the abolition of the death penalty for 2–300 years and in the meantime to go on merrily beheading? “In truth a matter of eight days more cannot matter here” and a few heads falling in that time just as little!

The Minister-President declares, by the way, that it is not intended to have death sentences carried out for the time being.

After a few acute regulatory scruples of Herr Schulze of Delitzsch, Borchardt’s motion is rejected, whereas an amendment by Herr Nethe is adopted, which recommends speed to the central commission.

Deputy Hildenhagen moves: Until the relevant draft law is presented, the President shall close every session with the solemn formula: “But we are of the opinion that the Ministry must most zealously expedite the presentation of the new Municipal Law.”

This elevating proposal was unfortunately not made for our bourgeois times. “We are no Romans, we smoke tobacco.” The attempt to chisel the classic figure of an Appius Claudius from the raw material of Herr President Grabow and to apply the solemn ceterum censeo to the municipal ordinance fell through amid “immense mirth”.

After Deputy Bredt of Barmen had put three interpellations in a fairly gentle tone to the Minister of Commerce: on the unification of all Germany into one customs territory, and into a shipping union with navigation dues, finally on provisional protective tariffs; after he received to these questions from Herr Milde likewise quite gentle, but also quite insufficient replies, Herr Gladbach closes the session. Herr Schütze from Lissa had intended to move a call to order against him on account of his energetic language on the occasion of the disarming of the free corps, but had withdrawn the motion. Herr Gladbach, however, challenges the valiant Schütze and the entire Right with great nonchalance, and to the great annoyance of the old Prussians tells a droll anecdote about a Prussian lieutenant who, having fallen asleep on his horse, rode among the free corps. These greeted him with the song: “Sleep, little child, sleep,” and were therefore to be put before a court-martial! Herr Schütze stammered a few words as indignant as they were incoherent, and thereupon the session was adjourned.