Cologne, May 15. We still have to report on the latest paternal 
intentions of the subordinate knyaz in Potsdam? towards his 
“hereditary” subjects, acquired by plunder and traffic in people. We 
are referring to the newly imposed martial-law Charter,” this sole true 
promise of all the Hohenzollern promises, in which Prussian glory is 
at last revealed even to the most stupid and credulous simpletons in 
its fullest natural nakedness, divested of the last traces of its 
hypocritical comedian’s tinsel. 

The dispersal of the inoffensive Berlin Chambers, which were 
supposed to “revise” the imposed Constitution of December 5, was 
only, as is well known, the necessary preparation for the Russians’ 
entry into German territory. But the agreement arrived at between 
the Potsdam Bashkirs and the kindred dog-nosed Cossacks of the 
orthodox Tsar had another purpose besides that of the notorious 
Trinity’s campaign against Hungary,? in which Prussia, true to its 
cowardly, perfidious nature, stood at the gates like a police agent 
with orders for arrests, while the Austrian and Russian executioners 
were intended to institute the murder hunt within the country. The 
true aim of this Hohenzollern alliance was through the entry of the 
Russians to inspire the Potsdam hero with the necessary courage to 
take revenge on the revolution for the confession of cowardice wrung 
from him in March of last year. 

We have no need to make excursions into history in order to prove 
the innate and natural cowardice of the Hohenzollerns at all times, 
nor perhaps do we even need to go back to the ancestors of this noble 

* Frederick William IV.— Ed. 
> See this volume, pp. 430-31.— Ed. 

The New Martial-Law Charter 44] 

clan who ambushed unarmed travellers from behind bushes and 
hedges, and thus as highwaymen laid the foundations for the 
“splendour of the dynasty”. Nor do we need to recall the boastful 
campaign of Frederick William II against the French Republic, in 
which the great Hohenzollern was the first to turn tail thus betraying 
the German “imperial troops” in order together with Russia to set 
about a new rape of Poland; still less is it necessary for us to 
mention the pitiful role his successor, Frederick William III, played 
in the imperial wars before driving “His people” into battle with the 
aid of lying promises.* The history of the “March achievements” was 
only a continuation of the old “hereditary” cowardice and perfidy. 
The Agreement Assembly was the first concession made by this 
cowardice to the revolution, a concession which superseded the 
famous boasting about a “scrap of parchment” **'; the Assembly was 
dispersed when the fall of Vienna gave the reinvigorated Hohenzollern the necessary courage for that action. The imposed Constitution 
with the Chambers that were “to revise” the Constitution was the 
second act of cowardly hypocrisy, since the “unweakened Crown” * 
at that time still considered a few liberal concessions to be necessary. 
The [Second] Chamber was dismissed when the conspiracy with the 
Russian Tsar and master? had reached the desired conclusion. But 
only the actual entry of Russians into German territory, only the 
reliable proximity of the protecting Cossacks, gave the Hohenzollern 
the courage to come out with the latest plan: abolition of the last 
hypocritical “constitutional guarantees” by the introduction of the 
most unrestricted, most arbitrary sabre dictatorship, by the suspension of the old, even the pre-March, laws and Jaw-courts, by revenge 
with “gunpowder and lead” on the revolution for the cowardice of 
the Hohenzollerns proclaimed in the March concessions. 

That is the historical origin of the recently imposed martial-law 
Constitution. Let us now look at its content. 

Under Articles 1 and 2, “for the event of a disturbance” not only 
every commandant of a fortress can declare his fortress to be in a 
state of siege, but every “commanding general” can declare the whole 
area occupied by the army corps to be in a state of siege. 

“For the event of a disturbance”, c’est-d-dire, 1f the commandant or 
general sees fit to foresee the “event of a disturbance”. Or is it 
possible that the Hohenzollern Ministers, in whose stylistic exercises 
the most remarkably abundant lack of grammatical knowledge 
usually predominates, intended to say: “in the event of a distur2 See this volume, p. 419.— Ed. 
b Nicholas. I— Ed. 

bance”? The interpretation will be left to the well-tested understanding of the generals and commandants. 

“For the event of a disturbance’, therefore, a commandant can 
declare his fortress, and a commanding general a whole province, to 
be in a state of siege. The limits of this “event” are not defined. 
Whether the “event of a disturbance” must show itself within the 
fortress or province or needs only threaten the fortress or province 
from a greater or lesser distance—that, too, will have to be decided 
only by the “tact” of the general or the commandant, and “tact”, 
according to the weighty word of Lieutenant-General Tietzen, is the 
first requirement of a Prussian officer. 

But the power of the general ‘“‘for the event of a disturbance” has, 
on the other hand, been most remarkably restricted in the interests 
of all enthusiasts for the legal basis. Only “for the event of a war” are 
generals and commandants on their own initiative able to declare 
provinces and fortresses in a state of siege. “For the event of a 
disturbance”, however, according to Article 2 of the new Charter, 
the proclamation of a state of siege emanates from the Ministry; “for 
this event” the commandant has the right to declare his fortress, and 
the general his province, in a state of siege only provisionally, subject 
to being confirmed or (!) rescinded by the Ministry. A pleasant 
safeguard for subjects threatened by a disturbance! Do we not have 
“responsible” Ministers? Is not the “legal basis” saved by the merely 
“provisional power” of the commandant’s or general’s dictatorship, 
by the existence of a final instance in the person of the “responsible” 
Minister? True, under Articles 7 and 13 the “provisional power” of 
the commandant or general gives them the right provisionally to 
suspend the ordinary law-courts, provisionally to set up courts 
martial, which then, likewise provisionally, pass death sentences (Article 
8) and provisionally carry out the death sentences within 24 hours 
(Article 13, § 7). But the “legal basis” is always saved by the final 
confirmation of the “responsible” Minister—long live the legal 
basis! Our sole secret wish in this context is that the advocates of the 
legal basis should be the first to experience provisional execution in 
the name of God and His Majesty the Christian-Germanic subordinate knyaz. 

[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 300, May 17, 1849] 

Cologne, May 16. Cervantes somewhere talks about a worthy 
alguacil* and his clerk, who for the protection of public morality kept 

? A Spanish police agent.— Ed. 

two women of no ambiguous reputation.’ These obliging nymphs 
appeared at big fairs or other festive occasions in such attire that 
already from far off the bird could be recognised by its plumage. If 
they managed to entrap some new arrival they immediately 
contrived to inform their lovers of the hotel to which they had gone. 
The alguacil and his clerk then broke into the room to the immense 
fright of the women, created a jealous scene and allowed the 
stranger to escape only after long pleading and payment of a suitable 
monetary compensation. In this way they combined advantage for 
themselves with the interests of public morality, for the victim took 
care for some time not to give way to his improper inclinations. 

Like these guardians of morality, the Prussian heroes of order 
have a simplified procedure for ensuring normal tranquillity under 
martial law. The provocative dispatch of some pillars of legality 
reeking of liquor, a few provocative sabre blows among the people, 
and the rebellious desires thereby aroused in some remote town or 
village provide an opportunity for proclaiming a state of siege and 
thus safeguarding the whole province against further improper 
disturbances and cheating it of its last remnant of constitutional 
rights. 

Under Article 5 of the new martial-law Charter, on the 
proclamation of a state of siege the “military commander” can district 
by district invalidate Articles 5-7 and 24-28 of the latest “acquisitions” 
imposed in December. 

Let us see what still remains when we subtract from the March 
promises the Articles abolished by the imposition of the new 
martial-law Charter. “For the event of a disturbance” by the 
arbitrary decision of a “military commander” there cease to exist: 

Article 5 of the December Constitution: “‘ Freedom of the person is guaranteed.” 

Article 6: “The home is inviolable.” 

Article 7: “No one may be deprived of his legally appointed judge.” 

Article 24: “Every Prussian has the right etc. freely to express his thoughts.” 

Article 25: “Offences committed by word of mouth, writing etc. are punishable 
in accordance with the general penal laws.” 

Article 26: “If the author of a written work is known and within reach of the power 
of the court, the printer, publisher and distributor are not liable to punishment.” 

Article 27: “All Prussians have the right to assemble peacefully and without 
weapons in closed premises.” 

Article 28: “All Prussians have the right to unite in societies for purposes which do 
not contravene the penal laws.” 

As soon as a military commander proclaims a state of siege, “for 
the event of a disturbance’, “freedom of the person” is no longer 

@ M. Cervantes, “Coloquio de los perros” in Novelas ejemplares.— Ed. 

guaranteed, homes are no longer declared inviolable, the “legal” 
courts, freedom of the press, protection of printers, and the right of 
association, cease, and even the “societies” of the philistines—casinos 
and balls—whose “purposes do not contravene the penal laws”, 
can only exist par grace de M. le commandant, but not at all by 
“right”. 

At the same time Article 4 of the new martial-law Charter lays 
down that 

“with the proclamation of the state of siege” (pur et simple) “the executive power is 
transferred to the military commander, and the civil-administrative and municipal 
authorities must carry out the orders and commissions of the military commander”. 

By this paragraph all the usual forms of municipal and 
administrative government are safely abolished and the oxen of the 
snub-nosed, arrogant bureaucracy harnessed under the yoke of the 
sovereign military dictatorship as “lackeys for executing commissions’. 

Articles 8 and 9 contain the punishments by which the energetic 
Hohenzollern intends to defend his safety and order even when he is 
protected by bayonets and guns. This new penal law has at any rate 
the advantage of brevity over all the tediously agreed theories of law. 

Article 8: “Anyone who in a place or region declared to be in a state of siege is guilty 
of deliberate arson, of deliberately causing an inundation” (what prudence!), “or who 
uses open violence and dangerous weapons to attack or resist the military forces or 
representatives of the civil and military authorities, will be punished by death.” 

“Resistance to the military forces or representatives of the 
authorities”! The deeds of “My glorious army” are well known; it is 
known also that the worthy Pomeranians, Prussians and Upper 
Silesian Poles, who in the interest of unity are being so zealously 
grafted into the Western provinces, following the example of His 
Majesty, derive their courage only from the circumstances and after 
having disarmed the citizens, as in Dusseldorf, Breslau, Posen, 
Berlin, and Dresden, they crown the state of siege by the murder of 
unarmed men, women and children.? Hence the “hereditary” 
subjects of the Potsdam Bashkir knyaz are given the highly 
commendable freedom, after a state of siege has been proclaimed, 
either to allow themselves to be “lawfully” murdered by the 
courageous executors of the benevolence of the sovereign, or by 
offering “resistance” to allow themselves to be shot in accordance 
with martial law. 

* See this volume, pp. 429 and 435,— Ed. 

Ought we also to discuss the provisions of Article 9, by which the 
dissemination of reports which “mislead” the authorities and the 
violation of any “prohibition issued in the interests of public security” 
etc. are punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, and even the 
most ordinary police and gendarme functions are henceforth made 
more perfect in accordance with martial law? 

Ought we to deal with the cowardly perfidy with which the 
Hohenzollern sovereign, and his accomplices Simons-von der 
Heydt-Manteuffel decree the formation of courts martial consisting 
of three “senior officers” and two civil judges appointed by the military 
commander, in order to preserve the semblance of “legal” 
procedure in the eyes of the stupid bourgeois and yet at the same 
time to be sure of a conviction owing to the preponderance in the 
number of military executioners? 

Ought we to take note of the various provisions of Article 13 on 
“procedure at courts martial”, in which there is nowhere any 
mention of the testimony of witnesses, but under which judgment 
can obviously be pronounced in the spirit of the murderer 
Windischgratz “in accordance with the coincidence of circumstances” ? 

Ought we to take note of the provisions that there is no appeal 
against sentences of courts martial, that death sentences are merely 
confirmed by the “military commander” and are carried out within 
twenty-four hours, and lastly that even after the lifting of the state of 
siege, in cases where sentences of courts martial have not yet been 
carried out, the “ordinary courts” can only convert the court-martial 
punishment into a legally imposed punishment, but must “accept the 
fact as proven” and cannot decide on the correctness or incorrectness 
of the charge? 

Ought we, finally, to examine the last and best Article of this new 
Constitution which has been strengthened by the Cossacks, according to which “even apart from the state of siege”, consequently “not for 
the event of a disturbance’, Articles 5, 6, 24-28 of the December 
acquisition, “personal freedom”, “inviolability of the home”, 
“freedom of the press” and the “right of association” can be abolished 
district by district? 

After all these splendid things there is no need for us to express 
our heartfelt good wishes to all well-intentioned Prussians on the 
new, Solely true promises, on the finally true outburst of paternal 
benevolence resulting from the proximity of the Cossacks. We 
sincerely rejoice at this bloody castigation of the bourgeois who are 
so frantic for order, and of the miserable dolts who yearn for a basis 
of legality. 

But the people will soon feel that this new “acquisition” has filled 
its cup to overflowing, it will wreak vengeance on this lying cowardly 
race that plagues the land, and the Rhine Province above all will not 
let slip the long-desired hour when we shall cry out: Ga ira! 

The pitiful ranks of knights 
Will soon be riding off. 

They shall be offered a stirrup-cup 
From bottles of iron to quaff! ? 

Zeitung Nos. 299 and 300, May 16 time 

and 17, 1849