"Neue Rheinische Zeitung" – The German Central Authority and Switzerland

The German Central Authority and Switzerland

["Neue Rheinische Zeitung" No. 153, 26 November 1848]

 *
Cologne
, 24 November. In the comedies of the last century, especially the French ones, there is never any lack of a servant who amuses the audience by getting a thrashing, kicks and cuffs at every moment, and, in scenes of special effect, even kicks on the backside. The role of such servants is certainly not a grateful one, but it is still an enviable one compared with a role which is a standing feature on our Frankfurt Reich theatre: the role of the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs. The servants in the comedy have at least one means of revenge – they have wit. But the Reich Minister!

Let us be just. The year 1848 brings no roses to any Minister of Foreign Affairs. Palmerston and Nesselrode have so far been glad to be left in peace. The high-flown Lamartine, who with his manifestos even moved German old maids and widows to tears, has had to slink shamefacedly aside with pinions crushed and plucked. His successor, Bastide, who only a year ago, in the *National* and the obscure *Revue nationale*, as official war-trumpeter, poured out the most virtuous indignation over Guizot’s cowardly policy, now sheds silent tears every evening over the perusal of his œuvres complètes de la veille [collected works of the eve (of the revolution)] and over the bitter thought that he is daily sinking more and more into the Guizot of the honest republic. All these ministers, however, have one consolation: if things have gone badly for them on the grand scale, they have been able to take their revenge on the small scale, in Danish, Sicilian, Argentine, Wallachian and other out-of-the-way questions. Even the Prussian Foreign Minister, Herr Arnim, when he concluded the unpleasant

Danish armistice, had the satisfaction of not only being the dupe but also making someone else the dupe, and that someone was – the Reich Minister!

In fact, the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs is the only one of them all who has played a purely passive role, who has received blows but dealt out not a single one. From the very first days of his assumption of office he has been the chosen scapegoat upon whom all the colleagues in the neighbouring states have poured out their gall, upon whom they have all taken vengeance for the petty vexations of diplomatic life, of which they too have had to bear their share. He was oppressed and afflicted, and he opened not his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter. Where is the man who can say that the Reich Minister has turned a hair of his head against him? Truly, the German nation will never forget Herr Schmerling for having dared, with such resolution and consistency, to take up again the traditions of the old Holy Roman Empire.

Shall we further demonstrate the long-suffering valour which Herr von Schmerling has displayed by a register of his diplomatic successes? Shall we revert to Herr Max Gagern’s journey from Frankfurt to Schleswig, that worthy counterpart to the late “Sophia’s Journey from Memel to Saxony”? Shall we dig up once more the whole edifying history of the Danish armistice? Shall we discuss the abortive offer of mediation in Piedmont and Herr Heckscher’s diplomatic study trip at the expense of the Reich? It is unnecessary. The facts are too recent and too striking for them merely to need mentioning.

But everything has its limits, says the German philistine, and in the end even the meekest must show that he has teeth. Faithful to this maxim of a class which our gentlemen statesmen declare to be the great well-disposed majority in Germany, Herr von Schmerling too has at last felt the need to show that he has teeth. The sacrificial lamb sought a scapegoat and at last believed it had found one in Switzerland. Switzerland – barely two and a half million inhabitants, republicans into the bargain, the refuge from which Hecker and Struve invaded Germany and seriously perturbed the new Holy Roman Empire – can one find a better and at the same time less dangerous opportunity of proving that “Great Germany” has teeth?

Forthwith an “energetic” note was addressed to the Bern Vorort concerning the machinations of the refugees. The Bern Vorort, however, replied to

“Great Germany” in the name of “Little Switzerland” equally energetically, in the consciousness of its good right. But this by no means intimidated Herr Schmerling. The hair on his teeth grew with astonishing rapidity, and already on 23 October a new, even “more energetic” note was drafted and handed to the Vorort on 2 November. In it Herr Schmerling already threatened the naughty Switzerland with the rod. The Vorort, even quicker off the mark than the Reich Minister, replied only two days later with the same calm and resolution as before, and now Herr Schmerling is going to put his “measures and arrangements” against Switzerland into effect. He is already busily engaged with this, as he has declared in the Frankfurt Assembly.

If this threat were an ordinary Reich farce such as we have already seen so many of this year, we should not waste a word on it. But since our Reich Don Quixotes, or rather Reich Sanchos in the administration of the foreign affairs of their island of Barataria, can never be given credit for enough incomprehension, it could easily come about that we get involved in all sorts of new complications through this Swiss difference. Quidquid delirant reges, etc. [whatever folly the kings commit – the Greeks must pay for it. Horace, *Epistles*, Book I, Epistle III].

Let us therefore take a closer look at the Reich note to Switzerland.

It is well known that the Swiss speak German badly and write it not much better. But as regards style, the reply note of the Vorort is a rounded Goethean masterpiece compared with the schoolboyish, clumsy German of the Reich Ministry, which is perpetually at a loss for an expression. The Swiss diplomat (it is said to be the Federal Chancellor Schiess) seems intentionally to have kept his language especially pure, fluent and cultivated, so as to create an ironic contrast in this respect with the note of the Reich Regent, which certainly would not have been worse drafted by one of Jellachich’s red-coats. There are sentences in the Reich note which are quite unintelligible, and others which are of consummate awkwardness, as will be seen below. But are not precisely these sentences written in the
“language of forthrightness
which the government of the Reich Regent will always make its duty in intercourse between nations”?

Herr Schmerling fares no better as far as the content is concerned. Right in the first paragraph he recalls

“the fact that the German note of 30 June of this year was discussed in the Diet for several weeks, before any reply was given, in a tone which at that time would have rendered it impossible for a representative of Germany to remain in Switzerland”.

(Here is a specimen of the style at once.)

The Vorort is good-natured enough to prove to the “government of the Reich Regent” from the minutes of the Diet that these “several weeks of” debates are limited to a single short negotiation on
one single
day. One sees how our Reich Minister, instead of looking up the documents, prefers to trust to the stores of his confused memory. We shall find further proofs of this.

Incidentally, the government of the Reich Regent can find in this obligingness of the Vorort, in its readiness to assist its weak memory, a proof of Switzerland’s “friendly and neighbourly sentiments”. In truth, had it presumed to speak in similar fashion in a note about the English parliamentary debates, Palmerston’s dry insolence would have shown it the door in quite a different way! The Prussian and Austrian envoys in London can tell it what was publicly discussed about their respective states and notes without any human being ever thinking that their stay in London was made impossible thereby. These schoolboys want to teach Switzerland the law of nations and do not even know that of the proceedings of sovereign assemblies only
that
concerns them which is resolved upon, not that which is spoken! In the same note these logicians assert that “Switzerland will know that attacks on the freedom of the press could not emanate from Germany” (merely to print these lines in the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung* is enough to ironise them bitterly) – and they even want to interfere with the freedom of debate of what were then the highest Swiss authorities!

“There is no dispute over principles. The issue is not the right of asylum, nor freedom of the press. Switzerland will know that attacks on these rights cannot emanate from Germany. It has repeatedly declared that it will not tolerate their abuse; it has recognised that the right of asylum must not become a trade for Switzerland” (what is that supposed to mean?), “a state of war for Germany” (the right of asylum a state of war – what German!), “that a distinction must be drawn between a shelter for the persecuted and a lurking-place for highwaymen.”

“A lurking-place for highwaymen!” Have Rinaldo Rinaldini and all the robber captains of the Abruzzi published by Gottfried Basse in Quedlinburg crossed the Rhine with their bands to plunder the Baden Oberland on the first opportunity? Is Karl Moor on his way from the Bohemian forests? Has Schinderhannes also left a brother’s son who, as “nephew of his uncle,” intends to continue the dynasty from Switzerland? Far from it! Struve, who is sitting in a Baden gaol, Frau Struve and the few workers who
unarmed
crossed the border – these are the

“highwaymen” who are supposed to have had, or still to have, their “lurking-places” in Switzerland. The Reich authority, not content with the prisoners on whom it can wreak its revenge, so far abandons all decency that it hurls abusive epithets across the Rhine after those who have happily escaped.

“Switzerland knows that she is not expected to undertake press persecutions, that the talk is not of newspapers and fly-sheets but of their
authors
, who, close to the border, by day and night, are waging a base smuggling war against Germany by the mass importation of incendiary writings.”

“Importation!” “Incendiary writings!” “base smuggling war!” The expressions become more cultured, ever more diplomatic – but has not the government of the Reich Regent “made the language of forthrightness its duty”?

And indeed, its language is of a remarkable “forthrightness”! It does not expect Switzerland to undertake press persecutions; it does not speak of the “newspapers and fly-sheets” but of “their
authors
”. These are to be put a stop to. But, honest “government of the Reich Regent”, when in Germany proceedings are taken against a paper, for example against the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung*, are they concerned with the paper, which is in the hands of the whole world and can no longer be withdrawn from circulation, or with the “authors”, who are locked up and brought before the courts? This worthy government demands no persecutions against the press, only against the
authors
of the press. Honest soul! Wondrous “language of forthrightness”!

These authors “are waging a base smuggling war against Germany by importing inflammatory writings en masse”. This crime of the “highway robbers” is truly unforgivable, the more so as “it is committed by day and by night”, and that Switzerland tolerates this is a flagrant violation of international law.

From Gibraltar, whole shiploads of English goods are smuggled into Spain, and the Spanish priests declare that from there the English “are waging a base smuggling war against the Catholic Church by importing Protestant incendiary writings”, e.g. Spanish Bibles of the Bible Society. The manufacturers of Barcelona curse just as much about the base smuggling war that is waged from there against Spanish industry by the importation of English calicoes. But let the Spanish envoy merely complain about this, and Palmerston would reply to him: Thou blockhead <Du Dummkopf>, it is precisely for that reason that we took Gibraltar! Hitherto, all other governments have possessed too much tact, taste and reflection to complain about smuggling in diplomatic notes. But the naive government of the Imperial Regent speaks the “language of straightforwardness” so thoroughly that it declares, in all candour, that Switzerland has violated international law because the Baden frontier guards do not keep proper watch.

“Finally, Switzerland cannot be in the dark about the fact that the right of foreign countries to guard against such injustice cannot depend on whether the Swiss authorities lack the power or the will to prohibit it.”

The government of the Imperial Regent seems completely “in the dark about the fact that the right” of Switzerland to leave everyone in peace who submits to the laws of the land, even if he should be waging a base smuggling war etc. by importing etc., “cannot depend on whether the German authorities lack the power or the will” to prevent this smuggling. Let the government of the Imperial Regent take to heart Heine’s reply to the Hamburg citizen who lamented to him about the great fire:

Get yourselves better laws,
And better fire-engines—

<H. Heine, “Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen”, Caput XXI>

and it will no longer need to make itself ridiculous by the straightforwardness of its language.

“Only the facts are in dispute,” it continues, and so we shall at last, besides the base smuggling war, hear some other significant facts. We are curious.

“The High Vorort demands, pleading lack of knowledge, that it be given definite proof of occurrences capable of substantiating the charges brought against the Swiss authorities.”

Obviously a very reasonable demand on the part of the High Vorort. And will the government of the Imperial Regent most willingly comply with this fair demand?

Not at all. Just listen:

“But a contradictory procedure between governments about notorious matters is not in the custom of nations.”

There you have a blunt lesson in international law for the arrogant little Switzerland that thinks it can treat the government of the Imperial Regent of great Germany just as saucily as the little Denmark of yore. It should take a lesson from the Danish armistice and become more modest. Otherwise it might fare the same.

When the extradition of a common criminal is requested by a neighbouring state, one enters into a contradictory procedure, no matter how “notorious” the crime may be. But a contradictory procedure, or rather the mere proof of guilt that Switzerland demands before it takes action—not against common criminals who have crossed the border, nor against refugees, no, against its *own* officials elected by democratic popular vote—this proof “is not in the custom of nations”! Truly, the “language of straightforwardness” does not belie itself for a moment. One cannot admit more straight out that one has no evidence to produce.

And now comes a hail of questions, in which all these notorious facts are enumerated.

“Does anyone doubt the doings of the German agitators in Switzerland?”

Certainly nobody, any more than about the doings of Herr Schmerling in Frankfurt. That the German refugees in Switzerland are generally “up to something” is clear. The only question is, *what* they are up to, and obviously Herr Schmerling himself does not know, otherwise he would say so.

“Does anyone doubt the refugee press?”

Certainly nobody. But Herr Schmerling himself explains that attacks on press freedom could not come from Germany. And if they did come, Switzerland would truly know how to repulse them. What then does this question mean? If we translate it from the “language of straightforwardness” into German, it means nothing more than: Switzerland is to abolish press freedom for the refugees. A un autre, Monsieur de Schmerling! <Tell that to someone else, Herr von Schmerling>

“Is Germany to prove the pilgrimages to Muttenz before Europe?”

Certainly not, cunning “government of the Imperial Regent”. But to prove that these pilgrimages were the cause of Struve’s incursion or perhaps of some other undertaking that gives more grounds for complaint against Switzerland—to prove that would bring no shame upon the government of the Imperial Regent, but all the more difficulties.

The Vorort is once more so obliging as to do more than “is in the custom of nations”, and remind Herr Schmerling that the pilgrimages to Muttenz were precisely in honour of Hecker, that Hecker was *opposed* to the second incursion, that he even went to America in order to quell all doubts about his intentions, that prominent members of the German National Assembly were among the pilgrims. The Vorort is delicate enough, even vis-à-vis Herr Schmerling’s indelicate note, not to mention the last and most telling reason: namely that the “pilgrims” did, after all, return to Germany and could have been called to account there at any moment by the government of the Imperial Regent for any punishable act, for all their “doings” in Muttenz. That this did not happen proves best that the government of the Imperial Regent has no data incriminating the pilgrims, that it therefore is still less able to reproach the Swiss authorities in this respect.

“Or the meetings on the Birsfeld?”

The “language of straightforwardness” is a fine thing. Anyone who, like the government of the Imperial Regent, has “made this language his duty in international intercourse”, need simply demonstrate that meetings in general, or even meetings of refugees, have taken place on the Birsfeld, in order to be able to accuse the Swiss authorities of gross violation of international law. Other mortals would, of course, first have to show what occurred at these meetings that was contrary to international law. But these are “notorious facts”, so notorious that, I wager, there are not three readers of the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung* who even know what meetings Herr Schmerling is talking about.

“Or the arming of the mischief-makers who are allowed to carry on their doings along the frontier, in Rheinfelden, Zurzach, Gottlieben and Laufen?”

Thank God! At last we learn something more specific about the “doings” of the refugees. We did Herr von Schmerling an injustice when we thought he did not know what the refugees were doing. He not only knows *what* they are doing, he also knows *where* they do it. *Where* do they do it? In Rheinfelden, Zurzach, Gottlieben and Laufen along the frontier. *What* do they do? “Carry on their doings!”

“They carry on their doings!” A colossal violation of all international law—their doings! What does the government of the Imperial Regent do, so as not to violate international law—perhaps “its misdoings”?

But Herr von Schmerling speaks of “armings”. And since among the towns where the refugees carry on their doings to the terror of the whole Reich, several belong to the canton of Aargau, the Vorort takes it as an example. It again goes out of its way, it again does more than “is in the custom of nations”, and offers to prove by means of a “contradictory procedure” that at that time only 25 refugees lived in the canton of Aargau, that only 10 of them took part in Struve’s second free-corps raid and that these, too, crossed into Germany unarmed. That was the entire “arming”. But what does that signify? The other 15 who stayed behind were precisely the most dangerous. They obviously stayed behind only to continue “carrying on their doings” without interruption!

These are the weighty charges of the “government of the Imperial Regent” against Switzerland. It has nothing else to bring forward, nor need it do so, since “it is not in the custom of nations” etc. If Switzerland is shameless enough not yet to be crushed by these charges, then the “resolutions” and “measures” of the government of the Imperial Regent will not fail to have the crushing effect. The world is eager to learn what these resolutions and measures will be like, all the more eager since Herr Schmerling carries them out in the greatest secrecy and will not disclose any further details even to the Frankfurt Assembly. The Swiss press, however, has already proven that any reprisals Herr Schmerling can take must have a far more detrimental effect upon Germany than upon Switzerland, and according to all reports the Swiss look forward to the “measures and resolutions” of the Imperial Regent’s government with the greatest humour. Whether the ministerial gentlemen in Frankfurt will maintain the same humour, particularly when English and French notes intervene, remains to be seen. Only one thing is certain: the affair will end like the Danish war—with a new discomfiture, which this time, however, will strike only *official* Germany.