"Neue Rheinische Zeitung" — Trial against Gottschalk and Comrades

Trial against Gottschalk and Comrades

["Neue Rheinische Zeitung" No. 175, 22 December 1848]

*
Cologne, 21 December. This morning the trial against Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser began before the extraordinary assizes here.

The defendants were escorted, closely confined like the most common criminals, from the new prison to the courthouse, where a not inconsiderable 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 grants a certain class the privilege of seeing the jurors chosen from its midst. The drawing up of the jury lists gives the government a monopoly of selecting from the privileged class those individuals who suit it. The District President, you see, draws up a list of individuals to a certain number, which he picks out from the jury lists of the entire administrative district; the judicial representatives of the government purge this list down to 36, if our memory does not deceive us. At the moment of the actual formation of the jury, finally, the public prosecutor’s office is entitled to purge the final list, the result of class privilege and a double governmental distillation, for the third time and to weed it out down to the last necessary dozen.

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

The conscience of the jurors, we will be told, the conscience—can one demand a greater guarantee? But, mon Dieu, conscience is bound up with a person’s knowledge and whole mode of existence.

A republican has a different conscience than a royalist, a possessor a different conscience than one without possessions, a thinking person a different conscience than a thoughtless one. A person who has no qualification for being a juror other than the property qualification, has the conscience of the property qualification.

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

If, then, the jury as it is now constituted appears to us as an institution for upholding the privileges of a few and by no means as an institution for securing the rights of all; if, especially in the present case, the public prosecutor’s office has made the most extensive use of its power to purge the last dozen names offensive to it from the final list—we nevertheless do not doubt for a moment the acquittal of the defendants. Our guarantor is the indictment. One believes one is reading an ironically composed defence brief by Gottschalk and his consorts.

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

A workers’ association exists in Cologne. Gottschalk was president, Anneke and Esser committee members of this association. The workers’ association, the indictment instructs us,

“had a special organ, the Arbeiterzeitung, edited by Gottschalk, and whoever had no opportunity to attend the meetings themselves could recognise from this paper the dangerous tendencies of the association, flattering to the proletariat, working towards communism and the overthrow of the existing order”.

Tendencies, then, could be recognised, but no unlawful facts.
Proof: Until Gottschalk’s arrest, etc., the public prosecutor’s office did not bring any charge against the Arbeiterzeitung, and after Gottschalk’s arrest it was condemned only once—in the monster trial of the local public prosecutor’s office, namely the complaint of the local public prosecutor’s office for insulting the local public prosecutor’s office.

“The Arbeiterzeitung itself,” however, the indictment admits, “does not appear to have endeavoured to gloss over anything in its reports on them” (on the proceedings of the workers’ association, its committee meetings and its branch associations).

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

The only thing that can be found against the workers’ association is what can be found against the Arbeiterzeitung—the unpopular tendency of this association. Do the March gains also include—tendency trials, trials against tendencies that have remained mere tendencies? So far our September laws have not yet been enacted. Gottschalk and his consorts were also by no means arrested and placed under indictment on account of unlawful reports of the Arbeiterzeitung or unlawful proceedings of the workers’ association. The indictment makes no secret of this. It was not the previous activity of the workers’ association that set the judiciary in motion, but—listen:

“Between 14 and 17 June of this year a congress of delegates from a number of democratic associations that had sprung up in Germany was assembled in Frankfurt. Gottschalk and Anneke, as delegates, represented the Cologne workers’ association. This congress, as is known, publicly declared for the democratic republic, and the local authorities here expected an echo of the movement there, when a general meeting of the workers’ association was again announced for Sunday, 25 June, at the Gürzenich.”

The local authorities expected an echo of the Frankfurt movement. But what movement had actually taken place in Frankfurt? The democratic congress had publicly declared for the unpopular tendency of the democratic republic. An “echo” of this “tendency” was expected, then, and they wanted to enter into combat with this echo.

As is well known, the democratic congress in Frankfurt, and the central committee appointed to execute its decisions, sat in Berlin without being challenged by the governments.

The German governments, therefore, despite the unpopular tendency, had 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 his consorts on unlawful ground. To constitute this opportunity, the police commissioners Lutter and Hünnemann were ordered by the police directorate into the general meeting of the workers’ association at the Gürzenich on 25 June and “particularly instructed to observe the occurrences there”. In the same general meeting there happened to be “the bookbinder Johann Maltheser”, who, as the indictment sighs, “would have been 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 junior barrister v. Groote”, who gives Anneke’s speech in the general meeting “in the greatest detail, since he took notes in the meeting itself”.

As one can see: on 25 June the Cologne authorities expected a crime to be committed by Gottschalk and his consorts. All police precautions for establishing this eventual crime had been taken. But once the authorities “expect”, they do not want to have waited in vain.

“From the reports” of the police commissioners ordered to establish an expected crime, and of other accomplices,

“on 2 July the state authority took occasion to request an investigation against Gottschalk and Anneke on account of the inflammatory speeches held by them” (should read expected) “in that public meeting. On 3 July their arrest took place, along with the seizure of their papers.

On 5 July, after several witnesses had been examined by that time and more detailed information had been received, the investigation was extended to the entire previous activity of the leaders of the workers’ association and thereby against several members of the same, namely against the cooper Esser, etc. What the investigation against the defendants has produced 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 produced—we shall prove it tomorrow from the indictment itself—is that the movement expected on 25 June was confined to a movement of the authorities—this echo of the Frankfurt movement—that Gottschalk and his consorts had to do penance with six months’ close detention on remand for the authorities’ disappointed expectation of 25 June.
Nothing more dangerous than to disappoint the expectations of the state authority to deserve 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 was staged on 25 June shows us the state authority as the sole creator of this criminal drama, the investigation documents offer us an opportunity to admire the astute dexterity with which it spun out the prologue over six months.

We quote verbatim from: “Der Politische Tendenzprozeß gegen Gottschalk und Konsorten”, published by M. F. Anneke. Verlag der “Neuen Kölnischen Zeitung.”

“After the investigation had lasted about five to six weeks, it was declared closed by the examining magistrate Leuthaus, who had taken the place of Herr Geiger, promoted to police director. After perusing the files, however, the state prosecutor Hecker submitted new requests, which the examining magistrate also entertained. After about 14 days the preliminary investigation was closed for the second time. After Herr Hecker had once again studied the files at his leisure, he again submitted a number of new requests. The examining magistrate refused to entertain them, as did the Chamber of the Court. Herr Hecker appealed to the Indictment Chamber, and this instance ruled that some of the requests were to be granted, while others were to be rejected. Among the latter, for example, was the request to draw, on the basis of a mere 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, into the investigation.

After the investigation had been happily spun out this far and could no longer be extended conveniently, the Chamber of the Court ordered on 28 September the transmittal of the files to the Indictment Chamber. The latter confirmed the indictment on 10 October, and on 28 October the Procurator General signed the indictment.

The ordinary quarterly assizes, which had begun on 9 October, had thus been happily missed for this trial.

After 27 November an extraordinary assize was appointed. This too was to be missed if possible. The files of the preliminary investigation were, namely, sent to the Ministry of Justice with the request that the trial be referred to another assize court. The Ministry of Justice, however, found no sufficient ground, and towards November the defendants Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser were finally referred to the extraordinary assize here on 21 December.”

During this long prologue the first examining magistrate, Geiger, had been promoted to acting police director, and the state prosecutor Hecker to chief prosecutor. Since Herr Hecker, in the latter capacity, was transferred from Cologne to Elberfeld shortly before the beginning of the extraordinary assize, he will not appear before the jury at the same time as the defendants—

["Neue Rheinische Zeitung" No. 176, 23 December 1848]

Cologne, 22 December. Which day was it on which the General Assembly, convened to ascertain an “expected” crime, took place on the Gürzenich? It was 25 June. 25 June was the day of the final defeat of the Paris June insurgents. On which day did the state authorities submit their petition against Gottschalk and his associates? On 2 July, i.e., at the moment when the Prussian bourgeoisie and the government then allied with them, in vengeful arrogance, believed the moment had come to finish off their political opponents. On 3 July, Gottschalk and his associates were arrested. On 4 July, the present counter-revolutionary ministry entered the Hansemann ministry, in the person of Ladenberg. On the same day, the Right of the Berlin Assembly of Agreement ventured a coup d’état, by summarily reversing a resolution on Poland adopted by a majority, in the same sitting, after a part of the Left had drifted away.

These dates speak volumes. We could furnish the testimony of witnesses that a “certain” person remarked on 3 July: “The arrest of Gottschalk and his associates has made a favourable impression on the public.” Yet it suffices to point to the issues of the *Kölnische*, the *Deutsche* and the *Karlsruher* papers of those dates to convince oneself that in those days it was not the “echo” of the imaginary “Frankfurt movement”, but rather the “echo” of the “Cavaignac movement” that reverberated a thousandfold in Germany and, inter alia, in Cologne.

Our readers will recall: On 25 June the Cologne authorities “expected” an echo of the “Frankfurt movement” on the occasion of the General Assembly of the Workers’ Association on the Gürzenich. They will also recall that the investigation against Gottschalk and his associates took its point of departure not from an actual crime committed by Gottschalk, etc., *before* 25 June, but solely and exclusively from the authorities’ *expectation* that on 25 June a tangible crime *would* finally take place.

The expectation of 25 June is disappointed, and all at once 25 June 1848 turns into the year 1848. The accused are charged with the *movement of the year 1848*. Gottschalk, Anneke, Esser are accused,

“*in the course of the year 1848*” (just consider the elasticity of this expression) “in Cologne, of having formed, *or at any rate*” (note well), “*or at any rate*, of having, by speeches in public assemblies, printed writings and posted placards, incited to outrages and *such purposes, a conspiracy* aimed at changing and overthrowing the government concerned and stirring up a civil war by inducing the citizens to arm themselves against one another”.

That is to say: of having *formed* a conspiracy “*or at any rate*” of not having “formed” a conspiracy. But then nonetheless “to outrages and *such* purposes”. That is, to outrages or some such stuff! Splendid style, that of the jurists!

Thus runs the committal sentence of the Prosecution Division.

In the concluding formula of the indictment itself the *conspiracy is dropped*, and “*accordingly*” Gottschalk, Anneke and Esser are charged,

“*in the course of the year* 1848, by speeches in public assemblies and by printed writings, of having *directly* incited their fellow citizens to *violent* change of the state constitution, to

armed insurrection against the royal power and to the arming of one part of the citizens against the other, without these incitements having had any success, however – a crime against Article 102, in conjunction with Articles 87, 91, of the Criminal Code.”

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

For the gentlemen to be able to speak of a “*violent change of the state constitution*”, they would *first* have to prove that a *state constitution existed*. The Crown has proved the opposite by sending the Assembly of Agreement to the devil. Had the compromisers been more powerful than the Crown, they might have provided the proof *in the reverse manner*.

Now as regards the incitement “to *armed* insurrection against the royal power and to the *arming* of one part of the citizens against the other”, the indictment proves it:

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

Ad 1. The *speeches* provide the indictment with the following corpus delicti 〈evidence〉:

In the sitting of 29 March, *Esser* finds in the “*republic*” the “*remedy for the sufferings of the workers*”.
*Incitement to armed insurrection against the royal power!*

*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 replies to them: “They should learn to *unite*, to distinguish their friends from their disguised enemies, to enable themselves to *manage their own affairs for themselves*.”

Obvious *incitement to armed insurrection against the royal power and to the arming of one part of the citizenry against the other!*

The indictment sums up its evidence in the following words:

“The witnesses examined on these earlier assemblies, members and non-members, express themselves on the whole only in praise of Gottschalk and Anneke, especially the former. He had always warned against excesses, sought to calm the masses rather than to incite them. At the same time, he did, of course, point to the republic as the ultimate goal of his strivings, which, however, was to be attained not by a street brawl, but only by winning over the majority of the people to the view that there was no salvation but the republic. By thus going out, as one clearly sees, to undermine the foundations of the existing order gradually, he understandably had his hands full often enough in curbing the impatience of the raw mob.”

Precisely because the accused *calmed* the masses instead of *inciting* them, they *plainly* showed their wicked tendency, *gradually to undermine the foundations of the existing order*, i.e., to make a use, in a *legal* manner, of the freedom of the press and the right of association that was *distasteful* to the authorities. And that is what the indictment calls: “*Incitement to armed insurrection against the royal power* and to the *arming of one part of the citizens against the other*”!!!

Finally we come to the general assembly of *25 June*, “expected” by the authorities. Concerning it, says the indictment, “*detailed evidence is available*”. And what does this detailed evidence yield? That Gottschalk reported on the Frankfurt events; that the merger of the three democratic associations in Cologne was debated; that Gottschalk held a “closing speech” which particularly captured the attention of the Knight of Malta and the junior barrister von Groote, and which ended with the “pointe”: “Perseverance demands more courage than hitting out. One should wait until the reaction takes a step which presses towards the proclamation of the republic.”
*Obvious incitement to armed insurrection against the royal power and to the arming of one part of the citizens against the other!!!*

As for *Anneke*, according to the indictment

“*nothing further occurs* than that during the debate *on the merger of the three associations*” (the three democratic associations of Cologne) “he spoke very vehemently in favour of this merger, also addressing the assembly as *citizens republicans*”.

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

And the form of address “*citizens republicans*”! The gentlemen the Knight of Malta and von Groote may have felt insulted by this address. But does not General v. Drigalski address himself and the Düsseldorf citizenry as: “*citizens communists*”?

If one looks at this net yield of the “expected” general assembly of 25 June, one understands that the state authorities had to take refuge in the *course of the year 1848*, and this they do, in fact, by informing themselves about the movement of this year through the seizure of letters and printed writings, e.g., confiscating three issues of the “Arbeiter-Zeitung”, which were to be bought for four pfennigs a piece in every street.

From the letters, however, they convince themselves of what a “political fanaticism” prevails in Germany in the year 1848. A letter from Professor Karl Henkel of Marburg to Gottschalk appears to them particularly “fanatical”. By way of punishment they denounce this letter to the government of Electoral Hesse, and they have the satisfaction of seeing that the professor is investigated.

But as a final result, it emerges from the letters and printed writings that in 1848 all kinds of fanaticism were astir in people’s heads and on paper and that, in general, events occurred which, like one egg to another, resemble “armed insurrection against the royal power and the arming of one part of the citizenry against the other”.

But Gottschalk and his associates are busy with all this stuff, while the state authorities first get to know the “echo” of this astonishing movement through the confiscation of the printed writings and letters of the accused!