Prussian Finance under Bodelschwingh and Consorts

Cologne, February 16. The Minister v. Bodelschwingh, “dismissed” in March, is hurrying out of his previous obscurity back into the light: v. Bodelschwingh has been elected deputy to the Second Chamber. A worthy choice on the part of the Teltow Peasant Association. If the democratic press has hitherto occupied itself little with ex-ministers and other ex-people, it is now time to throw light on the earlier doings of this sort of people. We recall to the memory of our readers—and to that of the public prosecutor—the official conduct of Herr v. Bodelschwingh as finance minister.

Herr v. Bodelschwingh became finance minister in the spring of 1842 and held this post until 3 May 1844.
He was fond of talking about his official conduct. He was a friend of “openings”. Thus on 24 October 1842 he opened to the committees of the Estates that “the finances in Prussia are subject to a limited publicity, namely that which is brought about by the triennial publication of the state budget in the Law Gazette.” He further explained the manner in which a Prussian state budget is drawn up. It was based “in the main on average calculations from the administrative results of the three years preceding the time at which the budget was drawn up.”

On 26 October the same Herr v. Bodelschwingh further opened that revenue had risen by more than 5 1/2 million thalers in the last seven years and that a further increase was to be reckoned upon. (Staatszeitung, Nos. 306 and 307.) At that time one had to believe the Finance Minister, because the “limited publicity” enveloped Prussian finances in an impenetrable darkness. Now, however, one must at the very least doubt the truth of the assurances given at that time by the Finance Minister, because more recent times have revealed quite a bit about the earlier financial administration.

The finance budgets published in the Law Gazette are supposed to be based on the average calculations of the special budgets of the individual branches of the administration, which are drafted according to the actual revenue of the preceding three years. If this is correct, then every budget in the Law Gazette must contain the approximate average of the actual revenues and expenditures of the previous years. If this is not the case, then the budget is, according to Herr v. Bodelschwingh’s own declaration, false—a false public document.

In 1844 a budget was published in the Law Gazette (p. 96) which was countersigned by Herr v. Bodelschwingh. This budget closes in revenue as well as in expenditure with 57,677,194 thalers. The average revenue and expenditure for the preceding years must therefore have been that high. In fact, however, both revenue and expenditure in the preceding years were far higher. The government later communicated to the members of the First United Diet the results of the financial administration for 1840-46.

According to these,
revenue expenditure
1843 73,822,589 thalers 79,102,787 thalers
1842 73,876,338 " 75,269,431 "
1841 71,987,880 " 74,185,443 "
219,686,807 thalers 228,557,661 thalers
The correct average sum of the revenues was thus 73,228,953 thalers, that of the expenditures 76,186,553 thalers. Herr v. Bodelschwingh, therefore, gave both revenue and expenditure too low, and that by concealing annually 15,551,737 thalers in revenue and 18,509,364 thalers in expenditure. To be sure, these sums might alter somewhat if precisely calculated, inasmuch as the three-yearly average calculations of the special budgets for the individual branches of the administration are not drawn up entirely afresh with every budget draft and may go back beyond 1841, namely to 1838. No significant reduction in the concealed sums will, however, ensue from that; for in 1840 the annual revenue once again amounted to 71,059,475 thalers and the expenditure even to 77,165,022 thalers. For the years 1839 and 1838 we lack official data. Since, however, under the same financial legislation and in peacetime the revenues of the state do not change suddenly but only gradually, one may assume with certainty that the state revenues in 1838 and 1839 came to at least 70 million thalers.

The finance budget of Herr v. Bodelschwingh is therefore false, as presumably were many of those of his predecessors and of his two successors up to 1848. Herr v. Bodelschwingh must have known that he was publishing something incorrect. The actual circumstances of the state budget were not unknown to him. The deviations from the truth were, moreover, so conspicuous that even Regierungsrath Bergius of Breslau, and after him Bülow-Cummerow, publicly pointed to these inaccuracies in advance, without even knowing the accounts. To be sure, had Herr v. Bodelschwingh come out with the truth, his openings and speeches before the committees of the Provincial Diets would have met with quite a different reception. He could swagger under the “limited publicity” of Prussian finances, whereas with full publicity only disgrace and reproaches would have awaited him. He spoke with satisfaction of the increase in revenue of 5 1/2 million thalers, but concealed the fact that from 1840 to 1843 expenditure exceeded revenue by 14,976,601 thalers. Although the country had had to raise 290,746,082 thalers in these four years, these large sums were still unable to cover the excessive expenditure of 305,722,683 thalers. Such expenditure without war, without adequate representation of industrial and commercial interests abroad, without a fleet, without appreciable promotion of agriculture and trades at home! Royal prestige buildings, favourites among the officials, gifts to Junkers and bureaucrats, and the army with its parades and reviews, had cost the country enormous sums. Now, of course, Herr v. Bodelschwingh was not the man to admit that. He therefore drew up a false budget so as to persuade the people that less was being collected and less spent.

The preparation of false budgets, however, is and remains a hazardous undertaking. The Prussian laws prescribe heavy penalties for such offences in office. The finance budgets published in the Law Gazette are, namely, public documents. No one will doubt that. For the issuing of false public documents by state officials, the Prussian Landrecht, to be sure, has laid down no special penalty. A rescript of 3 June 1831 (v. Kamptz’ Jahrbücher, Vol. 37, p. 407) directs, however, that against such acts the penalties for fraud and, as the case may be, for offences in office are to be applied. The Prussian courts have since then also adjudged accordingly. On offences in office the Prussian Landrecht, Part II, Title 20, § 333, provides as follows:

“He who wilfully acts contrary to the precepts of his office shall be forthwith cashiered and, moreover, according to the nature of the offence and the damage caused, shall be sentenced to a proportionate fine, imprisonment or fortress confinement and declared incapable of holding any public office.”

Cashiering, declaration of incapacity for all public offices, together with a fine or deprivation of liberty, is therefore what awaits the framer of false budgets under the law.—If Herr v. Bodelschwingh cannot clear himself of the most urgent suspicion of having published a false budget, it is the duty of the judge to impose these penalties upon him. We call upon him and upon the public prosecutor to clarify the matter.

The fine, imprisonment, or fortress confinement is to be determined according to the nature of the damage caused. The damage which Herr v. Bodelschwingh, in conjunction with his predecessors and successors in office, has inflicted on the country is so great, of such magnitude, as only ministers and other highly placed persons can inflict on an entire people. We propose here to ascertain its amount, and we note at the same time that on this occasion we immediately encounter a new violation of office by the ministers.

The Cabinet Order of 17 January 1820 fixes the expenditure required for the Prussian state budget at 50,863,150 thalers. It then reads literally: “The sum above assumed by Me as required for the current administration may under no conditions be increased. The heads of the individual administrations are personally responsible to Me for this, and the entire State Ministry is so all the more especially as the sum granted by Me will, on the whole, suffice for the purposes set out in the budget statements hitherto.” What is understood by the “current administration requirement” is made plain and clear by the further context, inasmuch as “current administration” is opposed to the administration of the state debt. Expenditure of the current administration means all those payments from the state treasury which are not used for interest on or redemption of the state debt. As we have seen, according to the Cabinet Order of 17 January 1820, which to this day has not been repealed, they are never to exceed the sum of 50,863,150 thalers. The Cabinet Order was published in the Law Gazette of 1820, and it has never been doubted that orders published in this manner had the force of law in Prussia before the proclamation of the constitutional monarchy. Any exceeding of the legally fixed sum is therefore a violation of law, an offence in office on the part of the ministers.

The accounts concerning the state budget for 1840-46 communicated to the First United Diet, and the synopses of the results of the financial administration in the year 1847 placed before the now dissolved National Assembly, furnish proof that all the ministers from 1840 to 1847 violated their duty in every year.

In every year they spent more, and significantly more, on current administration than they were legally entitled to spend. For the sake of better continuity we shall now speak no longer of Herr v. Bodelschwingh alone, but of all the finance ministers from 1840 to 1847. These were in particular: Count Alvensleben, from 1835 to 1842; v. Bodelschwingh, from 1842 to 1844; Flottwell, from 3 May 1844 to 16 August 1846; and v. Düesberg, from that time until the fall of the ministry through the March revolution. All these ministers are equally implicated. The simple presentation of the facts will make clear how a sequence of derelict high officials ruins the incipient prosperity of a country.

Current expenditure, i.e. annual expenditure after deducting the portion applied to the state debts, could legally not exceed 50,863,150 thalers, as we have seen.

In 1840, however, the amount spent was 77,165,022 thalers.
From this there are deducted:
a) for debt redemption 8,579,345
b) the amount allegedly delivered
to the state treasury 613,457
 Total 9,192,802 thalers.
Thus current administration expenditure remains 67,972,220 thalers.
Accordingly, in this year 17,109,070 thalers were illegally spent.
In 1841 the amount spent was 74,185,443 thalers,
and of this, for the state debts and to the
state treasury 14,419,563 thalers.
Thus for current administration 59,765,880 thalers.
Hence 8,902,230 thalers beyond the illegal
50,863,150 thalers.
In 1842 the amount spent was 75,269,431 thalers.
Of this, nothing was delivered to the state treasury,
and the sum applied to the state debts was 8,684,865 thalers.
Current expenditure therefore remains 66,584,566 thalers.
Hence 15,721,416 thalers more than the legal amount.
In 1843 the expenditure is 79,102,787 thalers.
For the state treasury and for the state debts
the sum applied is 8,261,981 thalers.
The expenditure of current administration accordingly
amounted to 70,840,806 thalers.
Beyond the legal amount of 50,863,150 thalers.

issued 19,977,656 thaler.
In 1844 the expenditure amounts to 78,243,308 thaler.
Deducted from this for the state treasury and for interest and redemption of debt 9,252,605 thaler.
so that current expenditures remain 68,990,703 thaler.
that is 18,127,553 thaler more than the 50,863,150 thaler.
In 1845 the expenditure is 77,903,361 thaler.
Nothing is paid into the state treasury.
For the state debts 7,267,082 thaler are expended.
The current expenditure is thus 70,636,279 thaler.
Hence 19,773,129 thaler more than the statutory
50,863,150 thaler.
In 1846 the expenditures are 78,562,335 thaler.
Nothing is remitted to the state treasury, and
7,423,831 thaler are expended on the state debts.
Current administrative expenditures remain 71,138,504 thaler.
Hence 20,275,354 thaler more than the statutory
50,863,150 thaler.
In 1847 the expenditures amounted to 80,392,730 thaler.
From this there is deducted 6,207,650
as expenditures for relief of distress and
7,209,192
for the state debt administration, total 13,416,842 thaler.
Thus current administrative expenditures remain 66,975,888 thaler.
Hence 16,112,738 thaler more than the statutory 50,863,150 thaler.
Total 135,999,646 thaler.
Almost one hundred and thirty-six million thaler have been squandered unlawfully in the last 8 years under the administration of Ministers Alvensleben, Bodelschwingh, Flottwell and Düesberg from the public funds, i.e. from the wealth of the people, from the earnings of the poor! And these people walk around with stars and decorations, occupying, like Flottwell, still high state offices! Recently it was reported in the daily press that a justice commissioner – he was considered a Democrat – was imprisoned on the charge of not having duly handed over 50 thaler. 50 thaler and 136 million.
It may be that the sum fixed in 1820 no longer corresponded to the requirements of the state in more recent times. But then the government should have come forward openly and legally established a new budget. This, however, it neither desired nor dared to do. It did not desire it because of its absolutist lusts, it did not dare it because it had to shrink from laying bare the financial administration. Reviews with Queen Victoria, christenings, weddings, churches, the Bishopric of Jerusalem, the old, half-forgotten writings of Frederick II, knightly castles, helmets, Guards lieutenants, Junkers, priests and bureaucrats, etc., etc. – what role these plagues of the people play and have played in Prussian finances is something it is not good for the people to know. Thus the Prussian mismanagement was continued in secret and the ministers themselves became criminals in the face of the positive law. To be sure, they have not yet found a judge.
How the Prussian financial management under Frederick William IV has exhausted the resources of the public coffers is shown by the following summary.
1840. Balance from previous years 16,949,157 thaler.
Annual revenue 71,059,475 ″
Total 88,008,632 ″
Deduct annual expenditure 77,165,022 ″
Remaining balance 10,843,610 ″
1841. Balance from previous years 10,843,610 ″
Annual revenue 71,987,880 ″
Total 82,831,490 ″
Deduct annual expenditure 74,185,443 ″
Remaining balance 8,646,047 ″
(The budget drawn up by Alvensleben in the Statute Book closes with 55,867,000 thaler in revenue and expenditure!)
1842. Balance from previous years 8,646,047 ″
Annual revenue 73,876,338 ″
Total 82,522,385 ″
Annual expenditure 75,269,431 ″
Remaining balance 7,252,954 ″
1843. Balance from previous years 7,252,954 ″
Annual revenue 73,822,589 ″
Total 81,075,543 ″
Annual expenditure 79,102,787 ″
Remaining balance 1,972,756 ″
1844. Balance from previous years 1,972,756 ″
Annual revenue 75,976,613 ″
Total 77,949,369 ″
Annual expenditure 78,243,308 ″

Deficit of 293,939 ″
1845. Annual revenue 77,025,034 ″
Deduct the deficit from 1844 293,939 ″
Remain 76,731,095 ″
Annual expenditure 77,903,361 ″
Thus deficit 1,172,266 ″
1846. Annual revenue 75,721,698 ″
Deduct the deficit from 1845 1,172,266 ″
Remain 74,549,432 ″
Annual expenditure 78,562,335 ″
Thus deficit 4,012,903 ″
(The first United Diet is convoked by the patent of February 3. It, however, grants no credit.)
1847. Annual revenue 79,518,543 ″
Deduct the deficit from 1846 4,012,903 ″
Remain 75,505,640 ″
Annual expenditure amounts to 80,392,730 ″
Thus deficit 4,887,090 ″
To cover the most necessary expenditures, 4,000,000 thaler are taken from the state treasury and thereby the revenue is brought to 83,518,543 thaler. Thus with a deficit in the general state treasury and with the emptying of the state treasury, the old administration began the year 1848. The cash balance has diminished in the 8 years 1840/47 from 16,949,157 to a deficit of 4,887,090, i.e. by 21,836,247 thaler. Revenues in the 8 years amounted to 598,988,170 thaler.
Expenditures 620,824,417 thaler.
Deficit thus precisely the just calculated sum of 21,836,247 thaler.
This diminution of the balances is not to be denied, even though the government seeks to cover it up by carrying over revenue and expenditure remnants from one year to the next, and in such a way that, where there is already a deficit, an apparent active balance is still entered in the accounts. Thus in “peace”, in “tranquillity”, in “order”, Prussian finances were ruined by the Prussian government. When the movements of the year 1848 came and the money market suffered, the state could be no support for private individuals, but had, in this depressed period, to demand new sacrifices for its own continued existence. The bourgeois gentlemen have to thank the Prussian ex-ministers and their accomplices for this. If these had committed no illegalities in office, then instead of the deficit 136 million thaler in cash would have been available and credit could then have been maintained. This is the damage caused, of which Section 333 of the Prussian Criminal Code speaks.
Deficit in the general state treasury, and what revenues! We have found for each year a revenue of over 71 to nearly 80 million. But these are only the net revenues, the surpluses of the various special administrations after deduction of administrative costs. In the case of taxes, customs, the postal service, forests, etc., all salaries, office costs, etc., pertaining to these administrative branches are deducted beforehand and only the remaining residual is entered as revenue. And yet the country has had to raise the salaries and office costs for the tax, forest, postal, etc., officials just as well as the gratuities and gifts to the senior presidents and commanding generals. These administrative costs, deducted beforehand, are estimated in the budget for 1847 at 20,887,541 thaler. If one adds these, the annual revenues amounted to between 90 and 100 million, the annual expenditures even to over 100 million thaler. Such sums the people raised and for that, empty public coffers!
The Cabinet Order of January 17, 1820 contained, as we have seen, a directive for the official conduct of the ministers. Herr von Bodelschwingh has, one cannot assume otherwise, acted counter to this directive knowingly and willingly. He has thus once again incurred the penalty of the already cited Section 333, Title 20, Part II, of the Prussian General Land Law. The law imposes upon him cassation, a fine or imprisonment in a fortress, and the declaration of incapacity to hold any public office. Since the damage he has caused to the country is of the greatest kind, the highest legally permissible custodial sentence must also be applied against him.
The ex-ministers von Alvensleben, Flottwell and von Düesberg are in exactly the same situation.
That these gentlemen ex-ministers are obliged to compensate the country for the damage caused to it, i.e. the 136 million thaler unlawfully expended, follows already from the civil laws. In addition to this, the criminal law, according to Section 341, Title 20, Part II, of the Prussian General Land Law, decrees:
“Whenever an official cannot make good the damage caused to the state or to a third party by wilful dereliction of duty, he shall, after having served his sentence, be kept at work in a public institution until the compensation for the damage is rendered in one way or another.”

Another trifle! In administrative surpluses were paid into the state treasury:
From the administration of 1840 613,457 thaler.
 ″ ″ ″ 1841 2,837,000 ″
 ″ ″ ″ 1843 1,000,000 ″
 ″ ″ ″ 1844 2,000,002 ″
total 6,450,459 thaler.
According to the accounts of the state treasury, however, only 6,423,332 thaler have been remitted to the state treasury fund from administrative savings since July 1, 1840. In the general state treasury, therefore, 27,127 thaler more have been entered as expenditure on the state treasury than was received by the latter. Herr von Alvensleben, Herr von Bodelschwingh, Herr Flottwell and Herr von Düesberg, where have the 27,127 thaler remained? They have not, by any chance, been embezzled?
Will a public prosecutor and a panel of judges be found for the gentlemen ex-ministers? In the meantime, Herr von Bodelschwingh is a member of the Second Chamber!