Cologne, December 21. This morning the trial of Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser began before the special assizes here. The accused, like the commonest criminals, were closely confined and escorted from the new prison to the court building, where quite a considerable armed force was lodged.

Our readers know that we see in the jury, as it is now organised, anything but a guarantee. The property qualification confers on a definite class the privilege of seeing jurymen drawn from its own midst. The drawing up of the jury lists allows the government the monopoly of sifting out from the privileged class those individuals who suit it. For the government president, indeed, prepares a list of individuals up to a fixed number, which he extracts from the jury lists of the whole administrative district; the judicial representatives of the government purge this list down to 36, if our memory does not deceive us. Finally, at the moment of the actual constitution of the jury, it devolves on the public prosecutor’s office to purge the last list—the result of class privilege and a double governmental distillation—for the third time and to weed it out down to the necessary last dozen.

It would be a real miracle if such a constitution of the jury did not directly throw accused who have openly opposed the privileged class and the existing state power into the absolute power of their most ruthless enemies.

The consciences of the jurymen, we shall be told, the conscience—is a greater guarantee demanded? But, mon Dieu, conscience is bound up with a person’s knowledge and whole mode of existence.

Karl Marx

A republican has a different conscience from a royalist, a propertied man a different conscience from a propertyless one, a thinking man a different conscience from one who does not think. A man who has no calling to be a juryman other than the property qualification has the conscience of the property qualification.

The “conscience” of the privileged is precisely a privileged conscience.

If, therefore, the jury court as it is now constituted appears to us as an institution for the assertion of the privileges of a few and in no way as an institution for the securing of the rights of all; if, especially in the present case, the public prosecutor’s office made the most extensive use of its power to weed out from the last list the last dozen names displeasing to it – we nevertheless do not doubt for a moment that the accused will be acquitted. Our guarantee is the indictment. One fancies one is reading an ironically written defence speech by Gottschalk and his consorts.

Let us sum up this indictment, which finds an analogue only in the indictment against Mellinet and consorts (the Risquons-Tout trial in Antwerp).

There exists in Cologne a workers’ association. Gottschalk was president, Anneke and Esser committee members of this association. The workers’ association, the indictment instructs us, “had a special organ edited by Gottschalk, the *Arbeiterzeitung*, and whoever had no opportunity to attend the meetings themselves could recognise from this paper the dangerous tendencies of the association, flattering the proletariat and working towards communism and the overthrow of the existing order.”

Thus tendencies could be recognised, but no illegal facts. Proof: Until Gottschalk’s arrest, etc., the prosecution brought no charge against the *Arbeiterzeitung*, and after Gottschalk’s arrest it was condemned only once – in that monster trial of the local prosecution, namely the suit of the local prosecution for insulting the local prosecution.

“The *Arbeiterzeitung* itself,” however, the indictment admits, “seems not to have troubled itself to veil anything in its reports thereof (of the proceedings of the workers’ association, its committee meetings and its branch associations).”

If, therefore, the *Arbeiterzeitung* could be prosecuted because of its “reports” on the proceedings of the workers’ association, then the workers’ association could not be prosecuted because of its proceedings themselves.

Against the “workers’ association” nothing more exists than what exists against the “*Arbeiterzeitung*” – the objectionable tendency of this association. Do the March gains also include – tendency trials, trials against tendencies that have remained mere tendencies? As yet, our September laws have not been promulgated. Nor were Gottschalk and consorts by any means arrested and put in a state of accusation because of illegal reports of the *Arbeiterzeitung* or illegal proceedings of the workers’ association. The indictment makes no secret of this. It was not the past activity of the workers’ association that set justice in motion, but – hear this:

In the days from 14 to 17 June of this year, a congress of deputies from a number of democratic associations that had sprung up in Germany assembled in Frankfurt. Gottschalk and Anneke represented the Cologne Workers’ Association as deputies. This congress, as is known, declared itself publicly for the democratic republic, and the authorities here expected an echo of that movement when a general meeting of the workers’ association was announced once more for Sunday, 25 June, in the Gürzenich.

The authorities here expected an echo of the Frankfurt movement. But what movement had taken place in Frankfurt? The democratic congress had declared itself publicly for the objectionable tendency of the democratic republic. An “echo” of this “tendency” is therefore expected, and they wanted to enter into battle with this echo.

As is known, the democratic congress at Frankfurt, and the central committee appointed to execute its decisions, sat unmolested by the governments in Berlin.

The German governments were therefore compelled, despite the objectionable tendency, to recognise the legality of the Frankfurt congress and of the organisation of the democratic party ordered by it.

But the Cologne authorities “simply expected” an echo of the Frankfurt movement. They expected an opportunity to catch Gottschalk and consorts on illegal ground. To constitute this opportunity, the police headquarters detailed “police commissars Lutter and Hühnermund” on 25 June to the general meeting of the workers’ association in the Gürzenich, and “specially instructed them to observe the occurrences there”. In the same general meeting there happened to be present “the bookbinder Johann Maltheser”, who, as the indictment sighs, “would be a principal witness if he had not been in the pay of the police authority”, i.e. in other words, if he were not a paid police spy. Finally, here appeared, probably out of pure patriotic fanaticism, the “Referendary v. Groote”, who “gives Anneke’s speech at the general meeting in the fullest detail, since he took it down during the meeting itself”.

Karl Marx

One sees: on 25 June the Cologne authorities expected a crime to be committed by Gottschalk and consorts. All police precautions to establish this possible crime had been taken. Once the authorities “expect”, however, they do not want to have waited in vain.

“From the reports” of the police commissars and other accomplices commanded to establish an expected crime, “the state authority on 2 July took occasion to apply for an investigation against Gottschalk and Anneke on account of their inflammatory speeches held (it should mean: expected) in that public meeting. On 3 July their arrest, along with the seizure of their papers, took place.

On 5 July, after a number of witnesses had been examined by that time and further information had come in, the investigation was extended to the whole previous activity of the heads of the workers’ association, and thereby to several members of the same, in particular to the cooper Esser, etc. What the investigation against the accused has yielded relates partly to their speeches in the workers’ association, partly to their papers and the printed matter distributed by them.”

What the investigation has really yielded – we shall prove it tomorrow from the indictment itself – is – that the movement expected on 25 June was limited to a movement on the part of the authorities – this echo of the Frankfurt movement – that Gottschalk and consorts had to do penance with six months’ strict investigatory imprisonment for the authorities’ disappointed expectation on 25 June. Nothing is more dangerous than to disappoint the expectations of the state authority when it hopes to earn a lifesaving medal for the fatherland. No one likes to be disappointed in his expectations, least of all the state authority.

If the whole manner in which the crime of 25 June was staged shows us the state authority as the sole author of this criminal drama, the investigatory record affords us an opportunity to admire the astute dexterity with which it spun out the prologue over six months.

We quote verbatim from: “The Political Tendency Trial against Gottschalk and consorts, published by M. F. Anneke. Verlag der Neuen Kölnischen Zeitung.”

After the investigation had lasted about 5 to 6 weeks, it was declared closed by the examining magistrate Leuthaus, who had taken the place of Herr Geiger, promoted to police director. The state prosecutor Hecker, however, after perusing the files, submitted fresh applications, on which the examining magistrate also acted.

The Trial of Gottschalk and His Associates

After about 14 days, the preliminary investigation was closed for the second time. After Herr Hecker had once again leisurely studied the files, he once more submitted a number of fresh petitions. The examining magistrate refused to entertain them, and the Chamber of the Council likewise refused. Herr Hecker appealed to the Indictment Senate, and this instance ordered that some of the petitions be allowed, while others, on the other hand, be rejected. Among the latter was, for example, the petition to draw into the investigation, on the basis of a bare list of names of persons from all parts of Germany which had been found in Anneke’s wallet, all these persons, some 30 or 40 in number.

After the investigation had been happily spun out thus far, and could not conveniently be stretched any further, the Chamber of the Council ordered on September 28 the transfer of the files to the Indictment Senate. The latter confirmed the indictment on October 10, and on October 28 the Public Prosecutor General signed the bill of indictment.

The regular quarterly assizes, which had begun on October 9, were thus successfully missed for this trial.

An extraordinary assize was scheduled for after November 27. This too was to be missed wherever possible. The files of the preliminary investigation were, namely, sent to the Ministry of Justice with the request to transfer the trial to a different assize court. The Ministry of Justice, however, found no sufficient grounds, and towards November the accused Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser were finally transferred for December 21 to the local extraordinary assize.

During this long prologue, the first examining magistrate, Geiger, was promoted to Acting Police Director and the Public Prosecutor, Hecker, to Chief Public Prosecutor. As Herr Hecker, in this latter capacity, was transferred from Cologne to Elberfeld shortly before the commencement of the extraordinary assize, he will not appear before the jury simultaneously with the accused.

* Cologne, December 22. What day was it on which the general assembly called to record an “expected” crime took place in the Gürzenich? It was June 25. June 25 was the day of the definitive defeat of the Paris June insurgents. On which day did the state authorities file their charges against Gottschalk and his associates?

On July 2, i.e. at the very moment when the Prussian bourgeoisie and the government then allied with it, in revenge-thirsty arrogance, believed the moment had come to make an end of their political opponents. On July 3 Gottschalk and his associates were arrested. On July 4 the present counter-revolutionary ministry entered the Hansemann ministry, in the person of Ladenberg. On the same day, the Right in the Berlin Agreement Assembly ventured a coup d’état by overturning, without further ado, in the same sitting, a resolution adopted by a majority regarding Poland, after a part of the Left had absconded.

These facts speak for themselves. We could furnish witness proof that a “certain” person remarked on July 3: “The arrest of Gottschalk and his associates made a favourable impression on the public.” Yet it suffices to refer to the numbers of the *Kölnische*, the *Deutsche* and the *Karlsruher* newspapers from the dates indicated to convince oneself that in those days not the “echo” of the imaginary “Frankfurt movement”, but rather the “echo” of the “Cavaignac movement” resounded thousandfold in Germany and, among other places, also in Cologne.

Our readers remember: On June 25 the Cologne authorities “expected” an echo of the “Frankfurt movement” on the occasion of the general assembly of the Workers’ Association in the Gürzenich. They further remember that the investigation against Gottschalk and his associates took its point of departure not from an actual crime of Gottschalk, etc., prior to June 25, but solely and exclusively from the expectation of the authorities that on June 25 a seizable crime would finally take place.

The expectation of June 25 is disappointed and suddenly June 25, 1848, is transformed into the year 1848. The movement of the year 1848 is laid to the charge of the accused. Gottschalk, Anneke, Esser are accused “of having, *in the course of the year 1848* (one should consider the elasticity of this expression!) made a plot in Cologne for the purpose of altering and overturning the government in question and of provoking a civil war by inciting citizens to arm against one another, *or at least* (attention!) *or at least* of having, through speeches in public assemblies, through printed writings and posted placards, incited to outrages and suchlike purposes”. That is to say: Made a plot “*or at least*” made no plot. But then “to outrages and suchlike purposes”. I.e. to outrages or some other such stuff! Splendid style, the legal one!

Thus runs the committal order of the Indictment Senate.

In the operative part of the bill of indictment itself the plot is dropped and “therefore” Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser are accused:

“of having, *in the course of the year 1848* through speeches in public assemblies, as well as through printed writings, directly incited their fellow citizens to the violent alteration of the constitution, to armed insurrection against the royal authority and to the arming of one part of the citizens against another, without, however, these incitements having had any success – crime against Article 102, in conjunction with Articles 87, 91 of the Penal Code.”

And why did the authorities not intervene in the course of the year 1848 before the second of July?

In order, incidentally, that the gentlemen might speak of a “*violent alteration of the constitution*”, they would first of all have to furnish proof that a constitution existed. The Crown has proved the contrary by driving the Agreement Assembly to the devil. Had the Agreement deputies been more powerful than the Crown, they might perhaps have proved it the other way.

As for the incitement “to armed insurrection against the royal authority and to the arming of one part of the citizens against another”, the bill of indictment proves it:

1) by speeches of the accused in the course of the year 1848,
2) from unprinted,
3) from printed writings.

Ad. 1) The speeches provide the bill of indictment with the following *corpus delicti*:

At the meeting of May 29 Esser finds in the “Republic” the “remedy for the sufferings of the workers”. Incitement to armed insurrection against the royal authority! Gottschalk declares that “the reactionaries will bring about the republic”. Some workers complain that they have not enough “to keep body and soul together”. Gottschalk answers them: “They should learn to unite, to distinguish their disguised friends from their enemies, to make themselves capable of ordering their own affairs themselves.”

Manifest incitement to armed insurrection against the royal authority and to the arming of one part of the citizenry against the other!

The bill of indictment sums up its evidence in the following words:

“The witnesses who have been heard concerning these earlier assemblies, members and non-members, express themselves on the whole only in praise of Gottschalk and Anneke, particularly the former. He always warned against excesses, sought rather to calm the masses than to incite them. At the same time he certainly pointed to the republic as the ultimate goal of his endeavours, which was, however, to be reached not through a street brawl, but only by winning over the majority of the people to the view that there is no salvation outside the republic. While thus, as can be clearly seen, he aimed at gradually undermining the foundations of the existing order, he understandably often enough had trouble curbing the impatience of the raw mob. –”

Precisely because the accused calmed the masses instead of inciting them, they clearly showed their malign tendency gradually to undermine the foundations of the existing order, i.e. to make use, in a lawful manner, of the freedom of the press and the right of association in a way displeasing to the authorities. And this is what the bill of indictment calls: “Incitement to armed insurrection against the royal authority and to the arming of one part of the citizens against the other”!!!

Finally comes the general assembly of June 25, “expected” by the authorities. Concerning it, says the bill of indictment, “detailed depositions are on hand”. And what do these detailed depositions show? That Gottschalk reported on the Frankfurt events; that the unification of the three democratic associations in Cologne was debated; that Gottschalk delivered a “concluding speech” which especially captivated the attention of the Maltese knight and Referendary von Groote and which ended with the “punchline”: “Perseverance requires more courage than striking out. One must wait until the reaction takes a step which pushes towards the proclamation of the republic.” Manifest incitement to armed insurrection against the royal authority and to the arming of one part of the citizens against the other!!!

Now as regards Anneke, according to the bill of indictment, “nothing further occurs than that, in the debate on the unification of the three associations (the three democratic associations of Cologne), he spoke very vehemently in favour of this unification, likewise addressing the assembly as ‘Citizen Republicans’.”

A speech in favour of the “unification” of the three democratic associations in Cologne is manifestly “incitement to the arming of one part of the citizenry against the other”!

And the address “Citizen Republicans”! The gentlemen Maltese knight and von Groote may have felt offended by this address.

But does not General von Drigalski address himself and the Düsseldorf citizenry as: Citizen Communists?

If one considers this net yield of the “expected” general assembly of June 25, one understands that the state authority had to take refuge in the course of the year 1848, and this it does, indeed, by informing itself about the movement of this year through the seizure of letters and printed writings, e.g. confiscating 3 numbers of the Workers’ Newspaper, which were to be bought for 4 pfennigs a copy in every street.

From the letters, however, it convinces itself of the “political fanaticism” which reigned in Germany in the year 1848. Particularly “fanatical” appears to it a letter from Professor Karl Henkel of Marburg to Gottschalk. By way of punishment, it denounces this letter to the government of Electoral Hesse, and it enjoys the satisfaction that an investigation is conducted against the professor.

The final result that emerges from the letters and printed writings, however, is that in 1848 all sorts of fanaticism were running riot in heads and on paper, and that in general events took place which resemble “armed insurrection against the royal authority and the arming of one part of the citizenry against the other” like one egg another.

And Gottschalk and his associates occupy themselves with all this stuff, while the state authority first becomes acquainted with the “echo” of this amazing movement through the confiscation of the printed writings and letters of the accused!

Nr. 176, December 23, 1848
Neue Rheinische Zeitung.