The Magyar Struggle

* Breslau, January 10. If, in the most gracious New Year’s wish, the Prussian military has been most flatteringly praised for its “full discipline” and “noble conduct”, we for our part are merely doing our duty when we point out that civil officials have won at least equal renown. In this instance we are certain to find the principal hero of the following story – Senior Government Councillor Kieschke, who a few weeks ago was appointed Royal Prussian Censor for Kreuzburg and the surrounding district – among the most highly praised. Herr Kieschke’s heroic deed appears in the *A. Od. Ztg.* in the following manner:

“Although I should have cause enough to demand that a higher authority call Herr Senior Government Councillor Kieschke, the present civil commissioner during the state of siege in this locality, to account for an act which he perpetrated in my house, I nevertheless refrain from doing so for certain reasons and deem it more expedient to make the whole matter public in strict accordance with the truth:

In consequence of a newspaper article inserted by the local estate owner, Herr v. Paczinsky, which allegedly contained slanders and suspicion against my son, suggesting that he stood at the head of the rebels here, Herr Senior Government Councillor K. and more than 30 soldiers, accompanied by our district councillor and the acting chief of police, fell upon my house on the 17th inst. in order, as I was informed after the affair had run its course, to search for writings dangerous to the state. – After my son had, with little difficulty, succeeded in clearing himself of all suspicion, and after all the chambers and corners in my house had been ransacked and all writings present had been taken, despite the fact that nothing suspicious could be found, Herr Senior Government Councillor K. did not content himself with this, but directed threatening and blustering phrases at my son. Convinced of our innocence, my wife stepped forward and said: ‘If my son has incurred guilt, you may put him in fetters.’ – These few words enraged Herr Senior Government Councillor K. to such a high degree that he flung my wife about, struck her in the back with both fists, so that she flew across the whole room and was barely able to keep her feet. – Although we are only simple, plain country folk, we know very well that a royal civil commissioner during a state of siege is obliged to refrain from all personal violence in his district, even where it is deserved, and, if necessary, must employ military force for the purpose. That Herr Senior Government Councillor K., however, also subjects innocent persons to his malicious arbitrariness is something I leave to the public to judge. Herr Senior Government Councillor K. may truly thank my composure alone that the law of the house was not applied to him as he was threatened. Should Herr Senior Government Councillor K., perhaps, wish to excuse this unseemly act with an excess of zeal in the execution of the laws, I must doubt this, for, as I learned the day after, he lost all the files relating to this execution. I fear, generally, that all investigations which Herr Senior Government Councillor K. may undertake in a manner similar to that in my house are unlikely to lead to any desired result, and I would therefore advise him, another time, first to seal all writings found in the presence of witnesses and only then to take them into custody. On this occasion I cannot refrain from according due recognition to the dignified behaviour of our district councillor, Herr Graf von Monts, in contrast to what has been mentioned above.

Reinersdorf, December 25, 1848.
Wahnitz, master carpenter.”

Hamburg, January 4. Under this date the *Deutsche Reichszeitung* brings the following details concerning Karl Heinzen’s failure in his Hamburg candidacy for the Frankfurt Parliament. A “letter from Fritz Hecker, in which he speaks of the said Heinzen with truly sovereign contempt,” circulated in Hamburg. This letter originally appeared in the German *New-Yorker Staatszeitung* of August 24; Hecker says of himself in it that he is a man who for twelve years has ceaselessly fought for the rights of the German people and has gladly sacrificed the most brilliant lot and a considerable fortune for his convictions. Now this Heinzen comes along, so crude, so venomous, so mendacious, to revile, belittle and cast suspicion on him, while from north and south, east and west of Germany and Switzerland the most touching proofs of love and esteem are accorded him. And (Hecker’s letter is dated Muttenz, July 31, 1848) Heinzen wrote those belittling letters in the *New-Yorker Schnellpost* “at a time when this man appeared to maintain friendly relations with me.” Herr Hecker emphasises that he never served a prince, while Herr Heinzen was a “princely mercenary” and, a young, robust, vigorous fellow, has lived on political alms for years. “For a healthy, robust man, for a man who passes himself off as a genius, like Herr Heinzen, it would not have been difficult, had he really possessed the intellectual greatness he would like to claim for himself, to support himself by his own efforts instead of laying claim to support for years for the sake of political faith; the republic is and ought to be a state of labour; only labour confers honour.

Where then was Herr Heinzen in the stormy days of the German revolution? Why did he not travel by the shortest route to the Rhine province and there organise and lead the insurrection; why did he wander about behind the frontier marks of Germany, while the rest of us carried the republican banner through tempest and snow, on steep mountain paths and in deep valleys, and exposed ourselves to the enemy’s bullets? Why did the great dictator not speed on wings of storm into the German land? Why did he not show himself in Hüningen until the unfortunate outcome was already in sight?” To be sure, Heinzen had been grievously insulted by Hecker; the latter had told him in an exchange of words that he, Heinzen, was no publicist, that he lacked the genius and the knowledge for it, and thereby the monstrous conceit of this man was wounded beyond all remedy. Money matters also play a part; the refugees finally broke off all association with Heinzen. Hecker depicts our election candidate in the following words: “Herr Heinzen manifestly suffers from the following incurable maladies: from the idea, peculiar to limited minds, that he is the greatest man in Europe and is stamped to be a dictator; from the very un-republican characteristic of wanting to live well on the support of others instead of putting himself in a position, through labour, to refuse alms; and, finally, through boundless arrogance and coarseness, wherever he comes, to pick quarrels and to operate with all means against others who do not bow to his ‘greatness’ and do not acknowledge him as the sublimest Unique One.” – This little flattering recommendation has done Herr Heinzen great damage, all the more so since competent judges admit that “Fritz” did not paint too darkly.

Italy. * Bologna, December 31. The two popular circles here, by means of an energetic popular address, have most decisively disavowed the municipal council’s adherence to the Pope’s latest protest. The address was drafted at an extraordinary session of the circles, under the protection of the Zambeccari battalion, renowned for its revolutionary enthusiasm, adopted amid stormy jubilation and then carried, amidst the cheers of the people, to the president of the municipal council, Senator Zucchini, who asked for twenty-four hours to consider the concluding demand of the address: “Let the municipal council revoke its decision or abdicate.” In the meantime the Prolegate had already had the junta’s decree on the convocation of the Constituente posted up.