[Rheinische Zeitung No. 15, January 15, 1843] 

From the Mosel, January. Nos. 346 and 348 of the Rheinische 
Zeitung contain two articles of mine, one of which deals with the 
distress due to lack of firewood in the Mosel region, and the other 
the special sympathy of the Mosel population for the royal Cabinet 
Order of December 24, 1841, and for the resulting greater 
freedom of the press.'”? The latter article is written in coarse, and, 
if you like, even rude tones. Anyone who often has to hear directly 
the ruthless voice of want among the surrounding population easily 
loses the aesthetic tact by which his thoughts can be expressed in 
the most elegant and modest images. He may perhaps even 
consider it his political duty for a time to speak in public in the 
popular language of distress which in his native land he had no 
chance of forgetting. If, however, it is a question of proving that 
he speaks the truth, this can hardly mean proving literally every 
word, for in that case every summary would be untrue and, in 
general, it would be impossible to reproduce the meaning of a 
speech without repeating it word for word. Thus, for example, if 
it was said: “the cry of distress of the vine-growers was regarded 
as an insolent shrieking’, then to be fair one could demand only 
that this expressed an approximately correct equation. That is to 
say, it should be proved that there is an object which to a certain 
extent measures up to the summary description “insolent shriek- 
ing”, and makes this a not inappropriate description. If such a 
proof is given, the question is no longer one of truth but only of 
precision of language, and it would be hard to give more than a 
problematic judgment on extremely subtle nuances of linguistic 
expression. 

The occasion for the above remarks of mine was provided by 
two rescripts of Oberprasident von Schaper in No. 352 of the 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 333 

Rheinische Zeitung, dated “Koblenz, December 15”, in which a 
number of questions are put to me concerning my two articles 
mentioned above. The delay in the publication of my reply is 
due primarily to the content of the questions themselves, since a 
newspaper correspondent, in transmitting with the utmost conscienti- 
ousness the voice of the people as he has heard it, is not at 
all obliged to be prepared to give an exhaustive and motivated 
account of the occasions and sources of his report. Apart from the 
fact that such work would require much time and resources, the 
newspaper correspondent can only consider himself as a small part 
of a complicated body, in which he freely chooses his particular 
function. While one is perhaps more concerned to depict his 
impression of the distressed state of the people obtained directly 
from their statements, another, who is a historian, will discuss the 
history of the situation which has arisen; the man of feeling will 
describe the distress itself; the economist will examine the means 
required for its abolition, this itself being one problem which can 
be treated from different aspects: sometimes more on a local scale, 
sometimes more in relation to the state as a whole, etc. 

Thus, with a lively press movement, the whole truth will be re- 
vealed, for if the whole appears at first only as the emergence of 
a number of different, individual points of view which—some- 
times intentionally, sometimes accidentally —develop side by side, 
in the end, however, this work of the press will have prepared for 
one of its participants the material out of which he will create 
a single whole. Thus, gradually, by means of a division of labour, 
the press arrives at the whole truth, not by one person doing 
everything, but by many doing a little. 

Another reason for the delay in my reply is that the editorial 
board of the Rheinische Zeitung required further particulars after 
my first report. Similarly, after the second and third reports, it 
asked for additional data, and also the present concluding report. 
Finally, the editorial board, on the one hand, demanded that I 
myself indicate my sources, and, on the other hand, held up the 
publication of my reports until it had itself, by some other means, 
received confirmation of my data. * 

Further, my reply appears anonymously. In this respect I am 
guided by the conviction that anonymity is an essential feature 
of the newspaper press, since it transforms the newspaper from an 
assemblage of many individual opinions into the organ of one 

* While confirming the above statements, we point out at the same time that the 

various mutually explanatory letters made it necessary for us to present a combined 
account. — Editorial Board of the Rheinische Zeitung. 

mind. The name of the author would separate one article from 
another as definitely as the body separates one person from 
another, and would thus completely suppress the function of 
being only a complementary part. Finally, anonymity ensures 
greater impartiality and freedom, not only of the author, but also 
of the public, since the latter sees not who is speaking, but what he 
is saying. Free from an empirical view of the author as a person, 
the public judges him solely by his intellectual personality. 

Since I do not mention my own name, in all my detailed reports 
I shall give the names of officials and communities only when 
quoting printed documents that are available in bookshops, or 
when mentioning names will harm no one. The press is obliged to 
reveal and denounce circumstances, but I am convinced that it 
should not denounce individuals, unless there is no other way of pre- 
venting a public evil or unless publicity already prevails throughout 
political life so that the German concept of denunciation no longer 
exists. 

In concluding these introductory remarks I think I am entitled 
to express the hope that the Herr Oberprasident, after acquaint- 
ing himself with my whole exposition, will be convinced of the 
purity of my intentions and will attribute even possible mistakes to an 
incorrect view of things, and not to an evil disposition. My exposi- 
tion itself should show whether I have deserved the serious accusa- 
tion of slander and of intent to excite dissatisfaction and discontent, 
even in the present case of continued anonymity, accusations 
which are the more painful coming from a man who is regarded 
with particularly great respect and affection in the Rhine Province. 

To facilitate a survey of my reply, I have set it out under the 
following headings: 

. The question of wood distribution. 

. The attitude of the Mosel region to the Cabinet Order of December 
24, 1841, and to the resulting greater freedom of the press. 

. The cankers of the Mosel region. 

. The vampires of the Mosel region. 

Proposals for a remedy. 

FOO wD 

A 
THE QUESTION OF WOOD DISTRIBUTION 

In my article “From the Mosel, December 12” in No. 348 of the 
Rheinische Zeitung, I referred to the following circumstances: 

“The community of several thousand souls to which I belong is the owner of 
most beautiful wooded areas, but I cannot recollect an occasion when members of 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 335 

the community derived direct advantage from their property by sharing in the 
distribution of wood.” 

On this, the Herr Oberprasident comments: 

“Such procedure, which does not accord with legal provisions, can only be motivated 
by quite exceptional circumstances”, 

and at the same time he demands, in order to verify the facts of 
the case, that I name the community. 

I frankly admit: On the one hand, I believe that a procedure 
which does not accord with the law, and therefore contradicts it, can 
hardly be motivated by circumstances, but must always remain 
illegal; on the other hand, I cannot find that the procedure 
described by me is illegal. 

The instruction (dated: “Koblenz, August 31, 1839”) on the 
management of wooded areas belonging to communities and insti- 
tutions in the Koblenz and Trier administrative districts, issued 
on the basis of the law of December 24, 1816, and the royal 
Cabinet Order of August 18, 1835, and published in the Supple- 
ment to No. 62 of the official organ of the royal administration in 
Koblenz —this instruction states literally the following in § 37: 

“In regard to the utilisation of material in the wooded areas, as a rule as much 
must be sold as is required to cover forest costs (taxes and administrative expenses). 

“For the rest, it depends on the decision of the communities themselves 
whether the material is sold by auction to cover other needs of the community, or 
whether it is distributed among the members of the community, wholly or in part, 
gratis or for a definite fee. However, as a rule, firewood and material for making 
household articles are distributed in natura, but building timber, if it is not used for 
communal buildings or to assist individual members of the community in cases of 
damage by fire, etc., is sold by auction.” 

This instruction, issued by one of the predecessors of the Herr 
Oberprasident of the Rhine Province, seems to me to prove that the 
distribution of firewood among the members of the community is 
neither made obligatory by law nor prohibited by it, but is only a 
question of expediency. Hence in the article in question also, 
I discussed only the expediency of the procedure. Accordingly, the 
basis for the Herr Oberprdsident’s demand to know the name of the 
community disappears, since it is no longer a question of investigat- 
ing the administration of a particular community, but only of a mod- 
ification to an instruction. However, I do not object to the editorial 
board of the Rheinische Zeitung, in the event of a special demand 
from the Herr Oberprasident, being empowered to name the com- 
munity in which, to the best of my recollection, there has been no wood 
distribution. Such information would not be a denunciation of the lo- 
cal authorities but could only promote the welfare of the community. 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 17, January 17, 1843] 
B 

THE ATTITUDE OF THE MOSEL REGION TO THE CABINET 
ORDER OF DECEMBER 24, 1841, AND TO THE RESULTING 
GREATER FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 

In regard to my article from Bernkastel dated December 10, in 
No. 346 of the Rheinische Zeitung, where I asserted that the Mosel 
population, in view of its particularly difficult situation, welcomed 
with exceptional enthusiasm the greater freedom of the press 
afforded by the royal Cabinet Order of December 24 last year, the 
Herr Oberprasident makes the following comment: 

“If this article has any meaning, it can only be that hitherto the Mosel 
population had been forbidden to discuss publicly and frankly its state of distress, 
the causes of it and the means to remedy it. I doubt that this is so, for in view of 
the efforts of the authorities to find a remedy for the admittedly distressed state of 
the vine-growers, nothing could be more desired by the authorities than a 
discussion, as public and frank as possible, of the conditions prevailing there.” “I 
should, therefore, be greatly obliged if the author of the above article would be so 
good as to point out specially the cases where, even before the appearance of the 

royal Cabinet Order of December 24 last year, the authorities prevented a frank, 
public discussion of the distressed state of the inhabitants of the Mosel region.” 

The Herr Oberprasident further remarks: 

“In addition, I think that I can in advance certainly describe as untrue the 
assertion in the above-mentioned article that the cry of distress of the vine-growers 
was for a long time regarded in higher quarters as an insolent shrieking.” 

My reply to these questions will take the following course. I shall 
try to prove: 

1) that, first of all, quite apart from the powers of the press 
prior to the royal Cabinet Order of December 24, 1841, the need 
for a free press necessarily arises from the specific character of the 
state of distress in the Mosel region; 

2) that even if there were no special obstacles to a “frank and 
public discussion” before the appearance of the above-mentioned 
Cabinet Order, my assertion would be no less true, and the 
particular sympathy of the Mosel population for the royal Cabinet 
Order and the resulting greater freedom of the press would 
remain equally understandable; 

3) that in actual fact special circumstances prevented a “frank and 
public” discussion. 

From the whole context it will then be seen how far my 
assertion: “For a long time the desperate state of the vine-growers 
was doubted in higher quarters, and their cry of distress was 
regarded as an insolent shrieking”, is true or untrue. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 337 

As regards 1. In investigating a situation concerning the state one 
is all too easily tempted to overlook the objective nature of the 
circumstances and to explain everything by the will of the persons 
concerned. However, there are circumstances which determine the 
actions of private persons and individual authorities, and which 
are as independent of them as the method of breathing. If from 
the outset we adopt this objective standpoint, we shall not assume 
good or evil will, exclusively on one side or on the other, but we 
shall see the effect of circumstances where at first glance only 
individuals seem to be acting. Once it is proved that a phenome- 
non is made necessary by circumstances, it will no longer be 
difficult to ascertain the external circumstances in which it must 
actually be produced and those in which it could not be produced, 
although the need for it already existed. This can be established 
with approximately the same certainty with which the chemist 
determines the external conditions under which substances having 
affinity are bound to form a compound. Hence we believe that by 
our proof “that the necessity for a free press follows from the 
specific character of the state of distress in the Mosel region” we 
give our exposition a basis that goes far beyond anything personal. 

The state of distress in the Mosel region cannot be regarded as a 
simple state of affairs. At least two aspects of it have to be 
distinguished: the private aspect and the state aspect, for the state 
of distress in the Mosel region cannot be considered to lie outside 
the state administration any more than the Mosel region can be 
considered to lie outside the state. Only the mutual relation between 
these two aspects provides the actual state of the Mosel region. In 
order to show the nature of this mutual relation, we shall report 
an authentic exchange of opinion, certified by documents, between 
the respective organs of the two sides. 

In the fourth issue of Mitteilungen des Vereins zur Forderung der 
Weinkultur an der Mosel und Saar zu Trier there is a report of 
negotiations between the Finance Ministry, the government at 
Trier and the board of the above-mentioned Society. A document 
presented by the Society to the Finance Ministry contains, among 
other things, a calculation of the income from the vineyards. The 
government at Trier, which also received a copy of this document, 
asked for an expert opinion on it from the chief of the Trier 
Cadastre Bureau, tax inspector von Zuccalmaglio, who, as the 
government itself says in one of its reports, seemed to be spe- 
cially suitable because he 

“took an active part at the time when the registers of incomes from vineyards 
in the Mosel region were compiled”. 

We shall now simply put side by side the most striking passages 
from the official opinion of Herr von Zuccalmaglio and the reply of 
the board of the Society for the Promotion of Viticulture. 

The official reporter: 

In the official report covering the past decade, 1829-38, the cal- 
culation of the gross income per morgen? of vineyards in com- 
munities belonging to the third class as regards payment of wine 
tax is based on: 

1) the yield per morgen; 

2) the price at which a fuder” of wine is sold in the autumn. 

The calculation, however, is not based on any precisely verified 
data, for 

“without official intervention and control it is impossible for either an individual 
or a society to collect privately trustworthy information on the quantity of wine 
obtained by all the individual property owners over a specified period in a large 
number of communities, because many owners may be directly interested in concealing the 
truth as far as possible”. 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“We are not surprised that the Cadastre Bureau does its utmost to defend the 
procedure practised by it; nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the argument 
which follows”, etc. 

“The chief of the Cadastre Bureau tries to prove by figures that the registered 
yields are everywhere correct; he says also that the ten-year period assumed by us 
cannot prove anything here”, etc., etc. ‘““We shall not argue about figures, for, as he 
very wisely says in the introduction to his remarks, we lack the requisite official 
information. Moreover, we do not regard it as necessary, since his entire calculation 
and argument based on official data can prove nothing against the facts we have 
presented.” “Even if we admit that the registered yields were quite correct at the 
time of their compilation, or even that they were too low, it is impossible 
successfully to contest our statement that they can no longer serve as a basis under 
the present lamentably changed circumstances.” 

The official reporter: 

“Hence not a fact appears anywhere justifying the assumption that the 
registered yields from vineyards, based on assessments in the recent period, are too 
high; but it would be quite easy to prove that the earlier assessments of vineyards 
of the rural and urban districts of Trier and of the Saarburg district are too low, 
both in themselves and compared with other crops.” 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“A man crying out for help finds it painful when in reply to his well-founded 
complaint he is told that during compilation the registered yields could have been 
put higher rather than lower.” 

“Moreover,” the reply points out, “the Herr Reporter, despite all his efforts to 
reject our data, could hardly refute or correct anything in our figures of income; 
therefore he has tried only to quote different results as regards expenditure.” 

* Morgen— German measure of land equalling approximately "lq hectare.— Ed. 
Fuder—large measure for wine, approximately 1,000 litres. — Ed. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 339 

We want now to indicate some of the most striking differences 
of opinion between the Herr Reporter and the board of the 
Society on the question of calculating expenditure. 

The official reporter: 

“In regard to point 8, it should be particularly noted that the removal of the 
usual lateral shoots, or what is called Geitzen, is an operation recently introduced by 
only a few owners of vineyards, but nowhere, neither in the Mosel nor the Saar 
region, can it be regarded as part of the customary method of cultivation.” 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“The removal of lateral shoots and the loosening of soil, according to the chief of 
the Cadastre Bureau, was only recently introduced by a few owners of vineyards”, 
etc. That, however, is not the case. ““The vine-grower has understood that, to save 
himself from going under completely, he must not fail to try anything that could in 
some degree improve the quality of the wine. For the prosperity of the region, this 
attitude should be carefully encouraged, instead of being repressed.” 

“And who would think of putting the cost of potato cultivation at a lower figure 
because there are some cultivators who leave the potatoes to their fate and God’s 
goodness?” 

The official reporter: 

“The cost of the. barrel indicated in point 14 cannot at all enter into the 
valuation here, since, ‘as has already been pointed out, the cost of the barrel is not 
included in the quoted prices of wine. If then the barrel is sold together with the 
wine, as is usually the case, the cost of the barrel is added to the price of the wine 
and thus the value of the barrels is reimbursed.” 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“When wine is sold, the barrel is included, and there is not and even could not 
be the slightest question of its reimbursement. The rare cases when the innkeepers 

of our town buy wine without the barrel cannot be taken into account when 
viewing the situation as a whole.” “It is not the same with wine as with other goods, 
which lie in a warehouse until they are sold and the packing and dispatch of which 
then take place at the expense of the purchaser. Since, therefore, the purchase of 
wine tacitly includes that of the barrel, it is clear that the price of the latter must be 
included in the production costs.” 

The official reporter: 

“If the figures of yields given in the supplement are corrected to correspond to 
the official data on them, but the calculation of costs is accepted as correct even in 
all parts, and only the land and wine taxes and the cost of the barrels (or 
expenditures given in points 13, 14 and 17) are omitted from these costs, the result 
is as follows: 

Gross INCOME ......eceseeeeee 53 talers 21 silver groschen 6 pfennigs 
Costs — not 
including 13, 

1S end PT cassie ttc 39” bye <2 " 0 
Net income... 14 talers 16 silver groschen 6 pfennigs 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“The calculation as such is correct, but the result is incorrect. We based our 
calculation not on supposed figures, but on figures which express the actual 
amounts involved, and we found that if from 53 talers of actual expenditure 48 

talers representing the actual and only income are subtracted, there remains a loss 
of 5 talers.” 

The official reporter: 

“If, nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the state of distress in the Mosel 
region has considerably worsened compared with the period before the inaugu- 
ration of the Customs Union, and that in part even a real impoverishment is 
to be feared, the reason for it should be sought exclusively in the former too high 
yields.” / } ; 

“Owing to the previously existing quasi-monopoly of the wine trade in the 
Mosel region and the rapid succession of good wine years in 1819, 1822, 1825, 
1826, 1827 and 1828, an unprecedented luxury developed there. The large sums of 
money in the hands of the vine-grower induced him to buy vineyards at enormous 
prices and to plant new vineyards at excessive cost in places that were no longer 
suitable for viticulture. Everyone wanted to become an owner, and debts were 
incurred which previously could easily be covered by the income from a good year, 
but which now, with the present unfavourable economic situation, are bound to 
ruin completely the vine-grower who has fallen into the hands of usurers.” 

“One consequence of this will be that viticulture will be confined to the better 
holdings and will again, as formerly, come more into the hands of the rich 
landowners, a purpose to which it is most suited owing to the large initial 
expenditure involved. The rich landowners, too, can more easily withstand 
unfavourable years and even at such times have adequate means to improve 
cultivation and to obtain a product which can stand up to competition with that 
from the now opened countries of the Customs Union. Of course, during the first 
years this cannot take place without great hardships for the poorer class of vine-growers, 
most of whom, however, had become owners of vineyards in the previous 
favourable period. However, it should always be borne in mind that the earlier 
state of affairs was an unnatural one for which the imprudent are now paying. The 
state ... will be able to confine itself to making the transition as easy as possible for the 
present population by appropriate measures.” 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“Truly, one who only fears possible poverty in the Mosel region has not yet seen 
that poverty which, in its most ghastly form, is already deep-rooted and daily 
spreading among the morally healthy, tirelessly industrious population of this 
region. Let no one say, as the chief of the Cadastre Bureau does, that it is the 
impoverished vine-growers’ own fault. No, all of them have been struck down to a 
greater or lesser degree: the prudent and the imprudent, the industrious and the 
negligent, the well-to-do and the indigent; and if things have now gone so far that 
even the well-to-do, the industrious and the thrifty vine-growers are compelled to 
say that they can no longer provide themselves with food, then the cause is 
evidently not to be sought in them. 

_ “It is true that in the favourable years the vine-growers bought new plots at 
prices higher than usual and that they incurred debts, calculating that their 
incomes, as they saw them, would suffice gradually to pay them off. But it is 
incomprehensible how this, which is proof of the enterprising and industrious spirit 
of these people, can be called luxury, and how it can be said that the present 
position of the vine-growers has arisen because the earlier state of affairs was an 
unnatural one, for which the imprudent are now paying. 

“The chief of the Cadastre Bureau asserts that people who, according to him, 
were previously not even property owners (!!), tempted by the unusually good 
years, increased excessively the total of vineyards, and that the only remedy now lies 
in reducing the number of vineyards. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 341 

“But how insignificant is the number of vineyards which can be adapted for 
growing fruit or vegetables, compared with the majority which, apart from grapes, 
can produce only hedges and bushes! And can it be that this highly respectable 
population, which is crowded into such a relatively small area because of viticulture, 
and is so courageously struggling against misfortune, does not even deserve an attempt 
to alleviate its distress so that it can hold out until more favourable circumstances 
enable it to rise again and become for the state what it was before, namely, a source 
of income the equal of which is not to be found on any area of equal size apart 
from the towns.” 

The official reporter: 

“It is, of course, quite understandable that the richer landowners, too, take 
advantage of this distress of the poorer vine-growers in order to obtain for 
themselves all possible alleviations and advantages by a vivid description of the 
former happy state of affairs in contrast to the present less favourable, but 
nevertheless still profitable, position.” 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 18, January 18, 1843] 

The reply of the board of the Society: 

“We owe it to our honour and our inner conviction to protest against the 
accusation that we take advantage of the distress of the poorer vine-growers in 
order to obtain for ourselves all possible advantages and alleviations by means of 
vivid descriptions. 

“No, we assert—and that, we hope, will suffice for our justification —that we 
were far from having any selfish intention, and that all our efforts were directed 
towards making the state aware, by a frank and truthful description of the conditions 
of the poor vine-growers, of a situation the further development of which is bound 
to be dangerous for the state itself! Anyone who knows the transformation which 
the present pitiful position of the vine-growers has already increasingly brought 
about in their domestic life and industrial activity, and even as regards morality, 
cannot but shudder at the future when he thinks of a continuance or even increase 
of such distress.” 

It has to be admitted, first of all, that the government could not 
come to a decision but must have vacillated between the view of its 
reporter and the opposing view of the vine-growers. Bearing in 
mind, further, that the report of Herr von Zuccalmaglio is dated 
December 12, 1839, and the answer of the Society is dated July 
15, 1840, it follows that up to this time the view of the reporter 
must have been, if not the sole, at any rate the prevailing view of 
the government collegium. In 1839, at least, it was still counter- 
posed to the Societys memorandum as the government’s judg- 
ment and therefore, as it were, a résumé of the governmental 
view, for if a government is consistent its latest opinion can surely 
be regarded as the sum total of its earlier views and experience. In 
the report, however, not only is the state of distress not recognised 
as general, but there is no intention of remedying even the admitted 
state of distress, for it is stated: “The state will be able to confine 
itself solely to making the transition as easy as possible for the 
present population by appropriate measures.” Under these cir- 

cumstances, transition must be taken to mean gradual ruin.* The 
ruin of the poorer vine-growers is regarded as a kind of natural 
phenomenon, to which one must be resigned in advance, seeking 
only to mitigate the inevitable. “Of course,” it is stated, “this can- 
not take place without great hardships.” The Society, therefore, 
also raises the question whether the vine-growers of the Mosel 
do not even deserve “an attempt’ to save them. If the government 
had held a decisively opposed view, it would have modified the 
report at the outset, since the report makes a definite statement on 
such an important question as the task and decision of the state in this 
matter. Hence it is evident that the distressed state of the vine-growers 
could be admitted without there being any effort to remedy it. 

We cite now yet another example of the kind of information 
given to the authorities about conditions in the Mosel region. In 
1838, a highly placed administrative official travelled through the 
Mosel region. At a conference in Piesport with two district 
presidents, he asked one of them what the vine-growers’ situation 
was like as regards property and received the reply: 

“The vine-growers live too luxuriously and if only for that reason things cannot 
be going badly with them.” 

Yet luxury had already become a story of former days. We only 
incidentally point out here that this view, which coincides with the 
official report, has by no means been generally abandoned. We 
recall the statement from Koblenz published in Supplement I of 
the Frankfurter Journal No. 349 (1842), which speaks of the alleged 
state of distress of the Mosel vine-growers. 

The above-quoted official view is reflected, too, in the attitude 
of higher quarters, which throws doubt on the “desperate” state 
of the vine-growers and on the general nature of the distress, 
hence also on its general causes. The reports of the Society quoted 
above contain, inter alia, the following replies of the Finance 
Ministry to various petitions: 

“Although, as the market prices for wine show, the owners of Mosel and Saar 
vineyards included in the first and second classes as regards taxation have no cause 
for dissatisfaction, nevertheless it is not denied that vine-growers whose products are 
of inferior quality are not in an equally favourable position.” 

In a reply to a petition for remission of taxation for 1838, it is 
stated: 

“In reply to your representation sent here on October 10 of last year, we have 
to inform you that the petition for a general remission of the entire wine tax for 

aA pun on the German words Ubergang, which means “transition,” and 
Untergang, which means “ruin.” — Ed. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 343 

1838 cannot be entertained, since you do not belong to the class which is most in 
need of consideration and whose state of distress, etc., is explicable by quite other causes 
than taxation.” 

Since we wish to construct our exposition solely on factual mate- 
rial, endeavouring, as far as we can, to present only facts in a general 
form, we shall first of all make clear the general ideas underlying 
the dialogue between the Trier Society for the Promotion of Viticul- 
ture and the government’s reporter. 

The government has to appoint an official to give an expert 
opinion on the memorandum presented to it. It naturally appoints 
an official who has the greatest possible knowledge of the subject, 
preferably therefore an official who himself took part in regulat- 
ing the situation in the Mosel region. This official is not averse to 
finding in the complaints contained in the document in question 
attacks on his official understanding and his previous official 
activity. He is aware of his conscientious performance of his 
duty and of the detailed official information at his disposal; he 
is suddenly faced with an opposing view, and what could be more 
natural than that he should take sides against the petitioner, and 
that the intentions of the latter, which could of course always be 
bound up with private interests, should seem to him suspicious, and 
that therefore he should suspect them. Instead of using the data 
in the memorandum, he tries to refute them. In addition, the 
obviously poor vine-grower has neither the time nor the education 
to describe his condition; hence the poor vine-grower is unable to 
speak, whereas the vine cultivator who is able to speak is not 
obviously poor, and therefore his complaints seem unfounded. 
But if even the educated vine-grower is rebuked for not having 
the official understanding, how could the uneducated vine-grower 
hold his own against this official understanding! 

For their part, private persons who have observed the real 
poverty of others in the full extent of its development, who see it 
gradually coming closer even to themselves, and who, moreover, 
are aware that the private interest they defend is equally a state 
interest, and is defended by them as a state interest, these private 
persons are not only bound to feel that their own honour has been 
impugned, but consider also that reality itself has been distorted 
under the influence of a one-sided and arbitrarily established 
point of view. Hence they oppose the overweening presumption of 
officialdom; they point out the contradiction between the real 
nature of the world and that ascribed to it in government offices, 
contrasting the practical proofs to the official proofs. And, finally, 
they cannot avoid suspecting that behind total misconception of 

344 ‘Karl Marx 

their account of the actual state of affairs, which is based on 
well-founded convictions and clear facts, there is a selfish inten- 
tion, namely, the intention to assert official judgment in opposi- 
tion to the intelligence of the citizens. Consequently, they conclude 
also that the expert official who comes into contact with their 
conditions of life will not give an unprejudiced description of 
them, precisely because these conditions are partly the result of his 
activities, whereas the unprejudiced official, who could give a 
sufficiently impartial judgment, is not an expert. When, however, 
the official accuses private persons of elevating their private affairs 
to the level of a state interest, private persons accuse the official of 
degrading the state interest to the level of a private affair of his 
own, from which all others are excluded as being mere laymen. In 
this way even the most patent reality appears illusory compared 
with the reality depicted in the dossiers, which is official and 
therefore of a state character, and compared with the intelligence 
based on this official reality. Hence to the official only the sphere 
of activity of the authorities is the state, whereas the world outside 
this sphere of activity is merely an object of state activity, 
completely lacking the state frame of mind and state understanding. 
Finally, in the event of a notoriously bad situation, the official puts 
the main blame on private persons who, he alleges, are themselves 
responsible for their plight, while he refuses to allow any attack on 
the excellence of administrative principles or institutions, which are 
themselves official creations and no part of which he is willing to 
relinquish. The private person, on the other hand, conscious of his 
industriousness, his thrift, his hard struggle against nature and social 
conditions, demands that the official who is supposed to be the sole 
creative force of the state should put an end to his distress, and, 
since that official claims he can put everything nght, that he should 
prove his ability to remedy the bad situation by his activity, or at 
least recognise that institutions which were suitable at a certain time 
have become unsuitable under completely changed circumstances. 

The same standpoint of superior official knowledge and the same 
antithesis between the administration and the object administered 
are repeated within the world of officialdom itself. We see that the 
Cadastre Bureau, in its judgment on the Mosel region, is mainly 
concerned with asserting the intallibility of the Cadastre, and just 
as the Finance Ministry maintains that the evil is due to “quite 
other” causes than “taxation”, so the administration will find that 
the basis of the distress lies not at all in itself, but outside itself. Not 
intentionally, but necessarily, the individual official who is in closest 
contact with the vine-grower sees the state of things as better 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 345 

or other than it actually is. He thinks that the question whether 
things are all right in his region amounts to the question whether 
he administers the region correctly. Whether the administrative 
principles and institutions are good or not is a question that lies 
outside his sphere, for that can only be judged in higher quarters 
where a wider and deeper knowledge of the official nature of things, 
i.e., of their connection with the state as a whole, prevails. He 
may be most honestly convinced that he himself administers well. 
Hence either he will find the situation not so entirely desperate 
or, if he does find it to be so, he will look for the reason outside 
the administration, partly in nature, which is independent of man, 
partly in private life, which is independent of the administration, 
and partly in accidental circumstances, which depend on no 
one. | 

The higher administrative bodies are bound to have more 
confidence in their officials than in the persons administered, who 
cannot be presumed to possess the same official understanding. 
An administrative body, moreover, has its traditions. Thus, as 
regards the Mosel region too, it has its once and for all established 
principles, it has its official picture of the region in the Cadastre, it 
has official data on revenue and expenditure, it has everywhere, 
alongside the actual reality, a bureaucratic reality, which retains its 
authority however much the times may change. In addition, the 
two circumstances, namely, the law of the official hierarchy and 
the principle that there are two categories of citizens —the active, 
knowledgeable citizens in the administration, and the passive, 
uninformed citizens who are the object of administration — these 
two circumstances are mutually complementary. In accordance 
with the principle that the state possesses conscious and active 
existence in the administration, every government will regard the 
condition of a region— insofar as the state aspect of the matter is 
concerned —as the result of the work of its predecessor. Accord- 
ing to the law of hierarchy, this predecessor will in most cases 
already occupy a higher position, often the one immediately 
above. Finally, every government is actuated, on the one hand, by 
the consciousness that the state has laws which it must enforce in 
the face of all private interests, and, on the other hand, as an 
individual administrative authority, its duty is not to make institu- 
tions or laws, but to apply them. Hence it can try to reform not 
the administration itself, but only the object administered. It 
cannot adapt its laws to the Mosel region, it can only try to 
promote the welfare of the Mosel region within the limits of its 
firmly established rules of administration. The more zealously and 

sincerely, therefore, a government endeavours— within the limits 
of the already established administrative principles and institutions 
by which it is itself governed—to remove a glaring state of distress 
that embraces perhaps a whole region, and the more stubbornly the 
evil resists the measures taken against it and increases despite the 
good administration, so much the more profound, sincere and decisive 
will be the conviction that this is an incurable state of distress, which 
the administration, i.e., the state, can do nothing to alter, and 
which requires rather a change on the part of those administered. 

Whereas, however, the lower administrative authorities trust the 
official understanding of those above them that the administrative 
principles are good, and are themselves ready to answer for their 
dutiful implementation in each separate case, the higher adminis- 
trative authorities are fully convinced of the correctness of the 
general principles and trust the bodies subordinate to them to 
make the correct official judgment in each case, of which, more- 
over, they have official proofs. 

In this way it is possible for a government with the best intentions 
to arrive at the principle expressed by the government’s reporter 
in Trier in regard to the Mosel region: “The state will be able to 
confine itself solely to making the transition as easy as possible for the 
present population by appropriate measures.” 

If we look now at some of the methods which have transpired 
and which the government has used to alleviate the distress in the 
Mosel region, we shall find our argument confirmed at least by 
the history of the administration which is accessible to all; on the 
secret history, of course, we cannot pass judgment. We include 
among these measures: remission of taxes in bad wine years, the advice 
to go over to some other cultivation, such as. sericulture, and, finally, the 
proposal to limit parcellation of landed property. The first of these 
measures, obviously, can only alleviate, not remedy. It is a tem- 
porary measure, by which the state makes an exception to its rule, 
and an exception which does not cost it much. Moreover, it is not 
the constant state of distress which is alleviated, it is likewise an 
exceptional manifestation of it, not the chronic sickness to which 
people have become accustomed, but an acute form of it which 
comes as a surprise. 

In regard to the other two measures, the administration goes 
outside the scope of its own activities. The positive activity which it 
undertakes here consists partly in instructing the Mosel inhabitants 
how they themselves can come to their own aid, and partly in 
proposing a limitation or even denial of a right they previously 
possessed. Here, therefore, we find confirmed the train of thought 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 347 

we described above. The administration, which considers that the 
distressed state of the Mosel region is incurable and due to 
circumstances lying outside the scope of its principles and _ its 
activity, advises the Mosel inhabitants so to arrange their life that it 
is adapted to the present administrative institutions and that they 
are able to exist in a tolerable fashion within them. The vinegrower 
himself is deeply pained by such proposals, even if they 
only reach him by rumour. He would be thankful if the government 
carried out experiments at its own expense, but he feels 
that the advice that he should undertake experiments on himself 
means that the government is refusing to help him by its own 
activity. He wants help, not advice. However much he trusts the 
knowledge possessed by the administration in its own sphere, and 
however confidently he turns to it in such matters, he credits 
himself just as much with the necessary understanding in his own 
sphere. But limitation of the parcellation of landed property 
contradicts his inherited sense of right; he regards it as a proposal 
to add legal poverty to his physical poverty, for he regards every 
violation of equality before the law as the distress of right. He 
feels, sometimes consciously; sometimes unconsciously, that the 
administration exists for the sake of the country and not the 
country for the sake of the administration, but that this relation- 
ship becomes reversed when the country has to transform its 
customs, its rights, its kind of work and its property ownership to 
suit the administration. The Mosel inhabitant, therefore, demands 
that, if he carries out the work which nature and custom have 
ordained for him, the state should create conditions for him in 
which he can grow, prosper, and live. Hence such negative devices 
come to nought when they encounter the reality not only of 
the existing conditions, but also of civic consciousness. 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 19, January 19, 1843] 

What then is the relation of the administration to the distress in 
the Mosel region? The distressed state of the Mosel region is at the 
same time a distressed state of the administration. The constant state of 
distress of part of the country (and a state of distress, which, 
beginning almost unnoticed more than a decade ago, at first grad- 
ually and then irresistibly develops to a climax and assumes ever 
more threatening dimensions, can well be called constant) signifies 
a contradiction between reality and administrative principles, just as, on 
the other hand, not only the nation, but also the government regards 
the well-being of a region as a factual confirmation of good admi- 

nistration. The administration, however, owing to its bureaucratic 
nature, is capable of perceiving the reasons for the distress not 
in the sphere administered, but only in the sphere of nature and 
the private citizen, which lies outside the sphere administered. The 
administrative authorities, even with the best intentions, the most 
zealous humanity and the most powerful intellect, can find no solu- 
tion for a conflict that is more than momentary or transient, the 
constant conflict between reality and the principles of administra- 
tion, for it is not their official task, nor would it be possible, despite 
the best intentions, to make a breach in an essential relation or, if 
you like, fate.2 This essential relation is the bureaucratic one, both 
within the administrative body itself and in its relations with the 
administered body. 

On the other hand, the private vine-grower can no more deny 
that his judgment may be affected, intentionally or unintentionally, 
by private interest, and therefore the correctness of his judgment 
cannot be assumed absolutely. Moreover, he will realise that there 
are in the state a multitude of private interests which suffer, and 
the general principles of administration cannot be abandoned or 
modified for their sake. Furthermore, if it is asserted that there is 
distress of a general character and that the general well-being is 
endangered in such a manner and to such an extent that private 
misfortune becomes a misfortune for the state and its removal a 
duty which the state owes to itself, the rulers regard this assertion 
of the ruled in relation to them as inappropriate; for the rulers 
consider they are in the best position to judge how far the welfare 
of the state 1s endangered and that they must be presumed to 
have a deeper insight into the relation between the whole and the 
parts than the parts themselves have. Furthermore, individuals, 
even a large number of them, cannot claim that their voice is the 
voice of the people; on the contrary, their description of the 
situation always retains the character of a private complaint. 
Finally, even if the conviction held by the complaining private 
persons were the conviction of the entire Mosel region, the latter, 
as an individual administrative unit, as an individual part of the 
country, would be, in relation to its own province as also in rela- 
tion to the state, in the position of a private person whose convic- 
tions and desires should be judged only by their relation to the 
general conviction and the general desire. 

In order to solve this difficulty, therefore, the rulers and the 

* A pun on the German words Verhdltnis, which means “relation”, and Verhangnis, 
which means “fate” — Ed. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 349 

ruled alike are in need of a third element, which would be political 
without being official, hence not based on bureaucratic premises, 
an element which would be of a civil nature without being bound up 
with private interests and their pressing need. This supplementary 
element with the head of a citizen of the state and the heart of a citizen 
is the free press. In the realm of the press, rulers and ruled alike 
have an opportunity of criticising their principles and demands, 
and no longer in a relation of subordination, but on terms of equal- 
ity as citizens of the state; no longer as individuals, but as intellectual 
forces, as exponents of reason. The “free press”, being the product 
of public opinion, is also the creator of public opinion. It alone can 
make a particular interest a general one, it alone can make the 
distressed state of the Mosel region an object of general attention and 
general sympathy on the part of the Fatherland, it alone can mitigate 
the distress by dividing the feeling of it among all. 

The attitude of the press to the people’s conditions of life is 
based on reason, but it is equally based on feeling. Hence it does 
not speak only in the clever language of judgment that soars 
above circumstances, but the passionate language of circumstances 
themselves, a language which cannot and should not be demanded 
of official reports. The free press, finally, brings the people’s need 
in its real shape, not refracted through any bureaucratic medium, to 
the steps of the throne, to a power before which the difference 
between rulers and ruled vanishes and there remain only equally 
near and equally far removed citizens of the state. 

If, therefore, a freer press became essential owing to the specific 
state of distress of the Mosel region, if it there became an urgent, 
because actual, need, it is obvious that no exceptional obstacles to 
the press were required to create such a need, but that, on the 
contrary, an exceptional freedom of the press was required to 
Satisfy the existing need. 

As regards 2. The press which deals with the affairs of the 
Mosel region is in any case only a part of the Prussian political press. 
Hence, in order to ascertain its state before the promulgation of the 
frequently cited Cabinet Order, it will be necessary to take a quick 
glance at the state of the whole Prussian press before 1841. Let us 
listen to a man whose loyal frame of mind is generally recognised: 

“General ideas and matters,” says David Hansemann in his book Preussen und 
Frankreich, second edition, Leipzig, 1834, p. 272, “develop quietly and tranquilly 
in Prussia, and do so the more unnoticed because the censorship does not permit any 
thorough discussion in Prussian newspapers of political and even economic questions 
concerning the state, however decent and moderate their formulation. A thorough 
discussion can only mean one in which arguments and counter-arguments can be 

put forward. Hardly any economic question can be discussed thoroughly unless its 
connections, with internal and external policy are also examined, for there are few 
questions, perhaps none at all in the case of economic questions, in which such 
connections do not exist. Whether this exercise of the censorship is expedient, 
whether the censorship could be exercised in any other way in the present state of 
the government in Prussia, is not the question here, suffice it that such is the case.” 

It should be recalled, further, that § 1 of the censorship decree 
of December 19, 1788, already stated: 

“It is certainly not the intention of the censorship to hinder a decent, earnest 
and modest investigation of the truth or otherwise impose any unnecessary and 
burdensome constraint on writers.” 

In Article II of the censorship decree of October 18, 1819, it is 
stated again: 

“The censorship will not prevent serious and modest investigation of truth nor 
impose undue constraint on writers.” 

Compare with this the introductory words of the censorship 
instruction of December 24, 1841 1%: 

“In order already now to free the press from improper restrictions, which are 
against the intentions of the All-Highest, His Majesty the King, by a supreme order 
issued to the royal state ministry [...] has been pleased to disapprove expressly of any 

undue constraint on the activity of writers and [...] empowered us to direct the 

censors anew to due observance of Article II of the censorship decree of October 
18, 1819.” 

Finally, let us recall the following statement: 

“The censor can very well permit a frank discussion also of internal af- 
fairs—-The undeniable difficulty of determining the correct limits in this matter 
should not deter the censor from endeavouring to comply with the true intention of 
the law, nor mislead him into the kind of anxiety which has already only too often 
given rise to misinterpretations of the government's intention.” 

In view of all these official declarations, it is clear that the 
question why censorship obstacles have occurred despite the wish 
of the authorities that conditions in the Mosel region should be 
discussed as frankly and publicly as possible, becomes instead the 
more general question: why, in spite of the “intention of the law’, the 
“government’s intention,” and, finally, the “intentions of the All- 
Highest”, should the press in 1841 admittedly still have to be freed 
“from improper restrictions”, and the censorship in 184] have to be 
reminded. of Article II of the 1819 decree? As regards the Mosel 
region in particular, the former question should not ask what 
special obstacles to the press have occurred, but what special measures 
in favour of the press should be taken by way of exception to ensure 
that this partial discussion of internal conditions is as frank and 
public as possible. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 35] 

The clearest indication of the inner content and character of 
political literature and the daily press prior to the above-mentioned 
Cabinet Order is contained in the following statement of the 
censorship instruction: 

“In this way it may be hoped that both political literature and the daily press will 
realize their function better, adopt a more dignified tone, and in future will scorn to 
speculate on the curiosity of their readers through communication of baseless reports 
taken from foreign newspapers, etc., etc. ... It is to be expected that thereby greater 
sympathy for the interests of the Fatherland will be aroused and thus national feeling 
enhanced.” 

From this it seems to follow that, although no special measures 
prevented a frank and public discussion of conditions in the Mosel 
region, nevertheless the general state of the Prussian press itself 
was bound to be an insurmountable obstacle both to frankness | 
and to publicity. If we sum up the above-quoted passages from 
the censorship instruction, they tell us that: the censorship was 
excessively anxious and an external barrier to a free press, that 
hand in hand with this went the internal narrowness of the press, | 
which had lost courage and even abandoned the effort to rise 
above the horizon of novelty, and that, finally, in the nation itself 
sympathy for the interests of the Fatherland and national feeling had 
been lost, that is to say, precisely the elements which are not only 
the creative forces of a frank and public press, but also the 
conditions within which a frank and public press can operate and 
win popular recognition, recognition which is the breath of life of 
the press, and without which it hopelessly pines away. 

Hence, although measures taken by the authorities can create an 
unfree press, it is beyond the power of the authorities, when the general 
state of the press is unfree, to ensure that special questions are 
discussed as frankly and publicly as possible. Under such condi- 
tions, even frank statements which might happen to be made on 
particular subjects in the columns of the newspaper would fail to 
evoke any general sympathy, and would therefore be unable to 
achieve any real publicity. . 

In addition, as Hansemann rightly remarks, there is perhaps not 
a single question of the state economy in which connections with 
internal and external policy do not exist. Hence the possibility of a 
frank and public discussion of conditions in the Mosel region 
‘presupposes the possibility of frank and public discussion of the 
whole of “internal and external policy’. Individual administrative 
authorities were so powerless to ensure this possibility that only the 
direct and decisive expression of the will of the King himself could 
play a determining and lasting role here. 

If public discussion was not frank, frank discussion was not 
public. Frank discussion was limited to obscure provincial sheets, 
whose horizon, of course, did not go beyond their area of 
circulation and, as shown above, could not do so. To characterise 
such local discussions, we shall quote a few extracts from the 
Bernkastel Gemeinniitziges Wochenblatt of different years. In 1835 it 
stated: 

“In the autumn of 1833 in Erden, a person from another place made 5 ohms* of 
wine. In order to fill the barrel (fuder), this person bought an additional 2 ohms at 
a price of 30 talers. The barrel cost 9 talers, the grape-pressing tax amounted to 7 
talers 5 silver groschen, the harvesting of the grapes 4 talers, cellar rent 1 taler 3 
silver groschen, payment for the cooper 16 silver groschen. Therefore, without 
counting cultivation costs, the total expenditure was 51 talers 24 silver groschen. 
On May 10, the barrel of wine was sold for 41 talers. It should be noted also that 
this wine was of good quality and was not sold from sheer necessity, not did it fall 
into the hands of usurers” (p. 87). “On November 21 in the Bernkastel market, ar 
ohm of 1835 wine was sold for 14 silver groschen — fourteen silver groschen—and on 
the 27th of the same month 4 ohms together with the barrel were sold for 11 talers; 
moreover, it should be noted that on the previous Michaelmas the barrel had been 
bought for 11 talers” (p. 267, ibid.). 

On April 12, 1836, there was a similar item. 
We should like to quote also some extracts from 1837: 

“On the first of this month in Kinheim, in the presence of a notary there was 
sold by public auction a young, four-year-old vineyard containing about 20Q 
vine-stocks, correctly trained on stakes. It cost the buyer 1°/p pfennigs per stock, 
under the usual conditions of payment. In 1828, the same vine-stock there cost 5 
silver groschen” (p. 47). “In Graach, a widow surrendered her ungathered grape 
harvest for half of the wine yield and she received for her share one ohm of wine, 
which she exchanged for 2 lbs. of butter, 2 lbs. of bread and 1/y lb. of onions” (No. 37, 
ibid.). “On the 20th of this month there was a forced sale by auction here of 8 
fuders of 1836 wine from Graach and Bernkastel, part of it from the best sites, and 1 
fuder of 1835 wine from Graach. The sale (barrels included) yielded a total sum of 
135 talers 15 silver groschen, so that the wine cost the buyer about 15 talers per 
fuder. The barrel alone could have cost 10-12 talers. What is left for the poor 
vine-grower to pay for the cost of cultivation? Is it then impossible to remedy this 
terrible distress?!! (Letter to the Editor)” (No. 4, p. 30). 

We have here, therefore, merely a simple relation of facts, 
sometimes accompanied by a brief elegiac epilogue. Precisely 
because of their artless simplicity they can produce a shattering 
effect, but they could hardly even claim to be a frank and public 
discussion of conditions in the Mosel region. 

If then an individual or even a considerable part of a population 
falls victim to a striking and terrifying misfortune and no one 
discusses this calamity, if no one treats it as a phenomenon worthy 

2 One ohm is about 100-150 litres.— Ed. 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 353 

of being thought about and discussed, the unfortunate victims are 
bound to conclude either that the others are not allowed to speak 
about it, or that they do not want to do so because they consider 
the importance attached to the matter illusory. Even for the most 
uneducated vine-grower, however, the recognition of his misfor- 
tune by others, this spiritual participation in it, is an urgent need, 
if only because he can conclude that when all give thought to it 
and many speak of it, soon some will do something about it. Even 
if a free and open discussion of the Mosel conditions had been 
permitted, no such discussion took place, and it is clear that people 
believe only in what actually exists; they do not believe in a free 
press which might exist, but only in a free press that actually 
exists. The Mosel inhabitants, of course, had felt their distress 
before the appearance of the royal Cabinet Order, and indeed had 
heard doubts expressed about this distress, only they did not see any 
discussion of it by a public and frank press. After the appearance 
of the Cabinet Order, on the other hand, they saw such a press 
spring up, as it were, out of nothing. Thus their conclusion that 
the royal Cabinet Order was the sole cause of this movement of the 
press, in which, for the reasons mentioned above, they took such 
an exceptional interest, owing directly to their actual need, this con- 
clusion seems to have been at least a very popular one. Finally, it 
seems that, apart from the popularity of this opinion, a critical 
examination would lead also to the same result. The introduction 
to the censorship instruction of December 24, 1841, states: 

“His Majesty the King has been pleased to disapprove expressly of any undue 
constraint on the activity of writers and, recognising the value and need of frank and 
decent publicity ... etc.” 

This introductory statement assures the press of a special royal 
recognition, hence a recognition of its state significance. That a single 
word from the King could have such an important effect and was 
welcomed by the Mosel inhabitants as a word of magical power, as 
a panacea against all their tribulations, seems only to testify to the | 
genuinely royalist disposition of the Mosel population and to their 
thankfulness expressed in no niggardly fashion, but in overflowing 
measure. 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 20, January 20, 1843] 

As regards 3. We have tried to show that the need for a free 
press necessarily arose from the specific character of the conditions in 
the Mosel region. We have shown further that prior to the 
appearance of the royal Cabinet Order this need could not be 
satisfied, if not because of special constraints imposed on the press, 

13* 

at any rate owing to the general state of the Prussian daily press. 
Lastly we shall show that as a matter of fact special circumstances 
have been hostile to a frank and public discussion of conditions in 
the Mosel region. Here, too, we must in the first place stress the 
point of view by which we have been guided in our exposition and 
recognise the powerful influence of general conditions on the will 
of the acting persons. In the special circumstances which prevented 
a frank and public discussion of the state of affairs in the Mosel 
region we ought not to see anything but the factual embodiment and 
obvious manifestation of the above-mentioned general conditions, 
namely, the specific position of the administration in regard to 
the Mosel region, the general state of the daily press and of public 
opinion, and, finally, the prevailing political spirit and its system. 
If these conditions were, as seems to be the case, the general, invis- | 
ible and compelling forces of that period, it hardly needs to be 
shown that they had to take effect as such, and were bound to be 
manifested in facts and expressed in separate actions which had the 
semblance of being arbitrary. Anyone who abandons this objective 
standpoint falls victim to one-sided, bitter feelings against indi- 
vidual personalities in whom he sees embodied all the harshness of 
the contemporary conditions confronting him. 

Among the special obstacles to the press we must include not 
only individual difficulties due to censorship, but equally the special 
circumstances which made censorship itself superfluous because 
they did not allow the object of censorship to come into being 
at all, even tentatively. When the censorship comes into obvious, 
persistent and sharp conflict with the press, it can be concluded 
with a fair certainty that the press has achieved vitality, character 
and self-assurance, for only a perceptible action produces a percep- 
tible reaction. When, on the other hand, there is no censorship 
because there is no press, although the need for a free and therefore 
censurable press exists, one must expect to find a pre-censorship in 
circumstances which have suppressed by fear the expression of 
thought even in its more unpretentious forms. 

We cannot aim at giving a full description of these special 
circumstances even in an approximate form. It would mean describ- 
ing the whole history of the period since 1830 insofar as it con- 
cerns the Mosel region. We believe we shall have fulfilled our task » 
if we prove that the frank and public word in all its forms—in spoken 
form, in written form, and in printed form, print not yet censored as 
well as that already censored—has encountered special obstacles. 

Depression and despondency, which in any case shatter the 
moral strength required by a distressed population for public and 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 355 

frank discussion, were especially aroused by the court sentences 
imposed “for insult to an official in the performance of his duty or in 
connection with his duty’, which necessarily followed numerous 
denunciations. 

This kind of procedure is still fresh in the memory of many 
Mosel vine-growers. One citizen, particularly liked because of his 
good nature, jokingly remarked to the maidservant of a district 
president, who the evening before had busily applied himself to the 
bottle when celebrating the King’s birthday in joyful company: 
“Your master was a bit tiddly last night.” For this innocent remark he 
was publicly brought before the police court at Trier, but, as might 
have been expected, he was acquitted. 

We have chosen this particular example because a simple con- 
clusion necessarily follows from it. Each district president is the 
censor in the chief town of his district. The district president’s 
administration, however, together with that of the official bodies 
subordinated to him, will provide the principal subject-matter for 
the local press, because it is the latter’s immediate concern. If in 
general it is difficult to be the judge in one’s own case, incidents 
of the kind mentioned above, which testify to a pathologically 
sensitive notion of the inviolability attaching to an official position, 
make the mere existence of the district president’s censorship a 
sufficient reason for the non-existence of a frank local press. 

If, therefore, we see that an ingenuous and innocent utterance 
can lead toan appearance before the police court,a written form of 
free speech, a petition, which is still a long way from publicity by the 
press, has the same police-court result. In the former case, frank 
speaking is prevented by the inviolability attaching to an official 
position, in the latter case by the inviolability of the laws of the land. 

Following a “Cabinet Order” of July 6, 1836, which stated, 
among other things, that the King? was sending his son to the 
Rhine Province to acquaint himself with the conditions prevailing there, 
some cultivators in the Trier administrative district were inspired 
to request their “deputy to the Provincial Assembly” to draw up a 
petition to the Crown Prince? on their behalf. At the same time 
they indicated the various items of their complaint. In order to 
increase the importance of the petition by a larger number of 
signatures, the deputy to the Provincial Assembly‘ sent to the 
environs a messenger who obtained the signatures of 160 peasants. 
The petition read as follows: 

4 Frederick William III.— Ed. 
> Who became Frederick William IV in 1840.— Ed. 
© Valdenaire.— Ed. 

“We, the undersigned inhabitants of the circuit ... of the Trier administrative 
district, being informed that our gracious King is sending us His Royal Highness 
the Crown Prince to acquaint himself with our position, and in order to spare His 
Royal Highness the trouble of hearing complaints from a number of separate 
persons, herewith authorise our deputy to the Provincial Assembly, Herr ..., most 
humbly to submit to His Royal Highness, His most gracious Majesty’s son, the 
Crown Prince of Prussia, that: 

“1, When we are unable to sell our surplus products, especially as regards cattle 
and wine, it is impossible for us to pay the taxes, which in all circumstances are too 
high; for which reason we desire a considerable reduction of the same, since 
otherwise we have to give the tax-collectors our goods and chattels, as shown by the 
attached (it contains an order from a tax-collector to pay 1 reichstaler 25 silver 
groschen 5 pfennigs). 

“2. That His Royal Highness should not judge our situation from the evidence 
of innumerable, much too highly paid, officials, pensioners, persons with special 
remuneration, civilian and military personnel, rentiers and industrialists, who, 
owing to the fall in the price of our products, are able to live in the towns cheaply 
in a luxury such as is not to be found, on the other hand, in the poor hut of the 
cultivator, who is overwhelmed by debts, and this contrast arouses his indignation. 
Whereas previously there were 27 officials receiving 29,000 talers, there are now 63 
officials, excluding those on pension, who are paid a total of 105,000 talers. 

“3. That our communal officials should be elected, as was previously the case, 
directly by members of the community. 

“4, That the tax offices should not be closed for hours on end during the day, 
but should be open at all times, so that the cultivator who, through no fault of his 
own, arrives a few minutes late, does not have to wait five to six hours, even having 
to freeze all night in the street or stand in the burning sun all day, since the official 
should always be ready to serve the people. 

“5. That the provision in §12 of the law of April 28, 1828, renewed by the 
official gazette of His Majesty's Government of August 22 last, which makes it a 
punishable offence to plough within two feet of the ditch at the edge of roads 
going through cultivated land, should be annulled and the owners allowed to 
plough their whole land right up to the road ditch, so as to prevent this land from 
being stolen from them by the highway custodians. 

“Your Royal Highness’ most humble subjects.” 

(Signatures follow.) 

This petition, which the deputy to the Provincial Assembly 
wanted to hand personally to the Crown Prince, was accepted by 
someone else with the express promise that it would be given to 
His Royal Highness. No reply to it was received, but court 
proceedings were instituted against the deputy to the Provincial 
Assembly as the initiator of a petition containing “insolent, dishon- 
ourable accusations against the laws of the province”. As a result of this 
charge, the deputy to the Provincial Assembly was sentenced in 
Trier to six months’ imprisonment with costs. This punishment, 
however, was amended by the appeal court so that only the part 
relating to costs was left in force, on the grounds that the conduct 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 357 

of the accused was not quite free from indiscretion and therefore 
he was responsible for the case being brought against him. The 
contents of the petition itself, on the other hand, were acknowledged 
to be not at all punishable. : 

Partly because of the aim of the Crown Prince’s journey, and 
partly because of the official position of the accused as a deputy to 
the Provincial Assembly, the petition in question was bound to be 
magnified in the eyes of the whole environs into a specially 
important and decisive event and to attract public attention in the 
highest degree. Taking this into account, the consequences cannot 
be said to have encouraged a public and frank discussion of the 
conditions in the Mosel region or to have made probable any 
wishes of the authorities on this subject. 

We come now to the real obstacle to the press, to prohibitions 
imposed by the censorship. From what has been said above, it is 
evident that such prohibitions are bound to be rare, since attempts 
at a censurable discussion of the Mosel conditions have been a 
rarity. 

The minutes of a council of elders, which, besides some eccentric 
statements, contained also some frank speaking, were not allowed 
to be printed owing to the censorship exercised by the district 
president. The discussion took place in the council of elders, but the 
minutes of the council were drawn up by the burgomaster. His 
introductory statement was as follows: 

“Gentlemen! The Mosel region between Trier and Koblenz, between the Eifel 
and the Hundsriicken, is outwardly very poor because it is entirely dependent on 
viticulture, which has been dealt the death-blow by the trade agreements with 
Germany. The above-mentioned region is also spiritually poor”, etc. 

Finally, yet another fact can be adduced to show that when a pub- 
lic and frank discussion did overcome all the above-mentioned 
obstacles and by way of exception managed to get into the columns 
of a newspaper, it was treated as an exception and subsequently 
suppressed. Several years ago an article by Herr Kaufmann, professor 
of cameralistics at Bonn University, “on the distressed state of the 
vine-growers in the Mosel region, etc.” was printed in the Rhein- 
und Mosel-Zeitung. After three months, during which it had been 
reprinted in various newspapers, it was banned by order of the 
government and the ban is still in force. ; 

I think I have now sufficiently replied to the question of the 
attitude of the Mosel region to the Cabinet Order of December 10, 

to the censorship instruction of December 24 based on this order, 
and to the subsequent freer movement of the press. It only remains 
for me to substantiate my assertion: “For a long time the 

desperate state of the vine-growers was doubted in higher quar- 
ters, and their cry of distress was regarded as an insolent 
shrieking.” The statement in question can be divided into two 
parts: “For a long time the desperate state of the vine-growers was 
doubted in higher quarters” and “Their cry of distress was 
regarded as an insolent shrieking”. 

The first proposition, I think, requires no further proof. The 
second one: “Their cry of distress was regarded as an insolent 
shrieking”, cannot be deduced directly from the first, as the Herr 
Oberprasident does by giving it the form: “Their cry of distress 
was regarded in higher quarters as an isolent shrieking.” Inciden- 
tally, this interpolation, too, holds good, insofar as “higher quar- 
ters” and “official quarters” can be taken as equivalent in meaning. 

That one could speak of a “cry of distress’ of the vine-growers, 
not in a metaphorical sense, but in the strict sense of the word, is 
evident from the information we have given above. That, on the 
one hand, this cry of distress was declared to be without justifica- 
tion and the description of the distress itself regarded as a glaring 
exaggeration prompted by bad, selfish motives; and that, on the 
other hand, the complaint and the petition of those suffering 
distress were regarded as “insolent, dishonourable accusations 
against the laws of the province”’—these propositions have 
been proved by a government report and criminal proceedings. That, 
furthermore, an excessive outcry, which does not correspond 
to the true state of affairs and is exaggerated from bad motives, 
involving insolent accusations against the laws of the pro- 
vince—that such an outcry is identical with a “shrieking”, and 
indeed an “insolent shrieking”, cannot at least be regarded as a 
far-fetched or dishonest assertion. That finally, therefore, one side 
of the identity can be put in place of the other seems simply to 
follow as a logical consequence.