[Rheinische Zeitung No. 312, November 8, 1842] 

Cologne, November 7. We have not considered it appropriate 
when discussing the question of the Communal Reform to take 
into account what has appeared on the subject in the provincial 
papers, and in particular in the Kolnische Zeitung. We shall easily 
justify ourselves if we show by an example the approximate 
strength of the argument which has been advanced in defence of 
the separation of the urban and rural communities. 

The Supplement to No. 309 of the Koélnische Zeitung adduces 
under the heading “Summing Up” the authorities for the affirma- 
tive and negative answers to the question of separation. Among 
other curiosities we find as grounds against the separation “some 
newspaper articles”, and in favour of the separation “lkewise 
newspaper articles”, just as newspaper articles have “likewise” 
appeared in favour of censorship. In any case we must mention 
with the greatest praise a devotion which considers an article a 
ground for the mere reason that it is a newspaper article as indeed 
a very uncritical, but despite its comical tone, rare recognition of 
the periodical press. Credit for an equally praiseworthy ingenuous- 
ness by no means attaches to the juxtaposition of two other 
authorities for and against the separation of the urban and rural 
communities. Said to have been against this separation is the 
Provincial Assembly of 1833, which moreover was prevailed upon 
by a single energetic personality, and accordingly therefore only 
this personality was against the separation; in favour of the 
separation was the whole Provincial Assembly of 1827 with the 
exception of one vote; but, honourable Summing Up, if the 1833 
Provincial Assembly is only worth as much as the single personality 
which it followed, then what rules out the possibility that the 1827 

Provincial Assembly is worth less than the single vote which it 
opposed; and yet the Provincial Assembly, which is so hesitating, so 
unable to depend on itself, still remains an authority! If further 
the petitions from Cologne, Aachen and Koblenz are adduced as 
petitions for the separation of the urban and rural communities 
because these petitions are limited to Cologne, Aachen and 
Koblenz, in the best of cases this can prove only the limitation of 
these petitions, but by no means their reasonableness; besides, 
having in their initial haste grasped so little the generality of the 
question and considered the interest of the whole province, these 
cities have just as little conceived their particular reform in any 
kind of opposition to the general reform. They made a petition 
only for themselves, but by no means against the province. We 
admired immediately at the beginning the comical ingenuousness 
of the “Summing Up”, and although it does not preserve this 
quality throughout but, as we have just heard, could not but 
occasionally lapse into small intentional subtleties, this comicality 
and ingenuousness nevertheless victoriously reasserts itself in the 
end. Said to be in favour of the separation of the city and the 
countryside are also 

“the remaining cities of the Rhine Province, whose petitions are unknown as far 
as their content is concerned, but which in making their requests could presumably 
only speak for themselves, since no single locality can be the organ of a whole 
province”. 

So not only a newspaper article in the abstract is an authority, 
but even the decided mediocrity of a “presumably only” can 
puzzle out the unknown content of the remaining cities’ petitions. 
That this prophet who is called “presumably only” is a false 
prophet is proved by the petition of the city of Trier. At the end 
of the “Summing Up” emerges the inner ground which is the real 
ground for a separation of the city and the countryside. What is 
wanted is not only to separate the city from the countryside, but to 
separate the individual cities from one another and from the 
province, to separate the province from its own intelligence. A 
single locality could not be the organ of a whole province? 
Correct. The single locality must not be the whole organ, but it 
must be a part of this organ, and hence must be for its part the 
organ of the whole and general interest. And does not such a view 
remove all possibility of even a single city communal system? If a 
single locality cannot be the organ of the whole province, can a 
single citizen be the organ of a whole city? This citizen, as follows 
from the argument advanced above, can only request something 
for himself, and not for the whole city, and since the whole city 

consists only of single citizens, nothing at all can be requested for 
the city as a whole. The “Summing Up” ends with what the 
separation of the city and the countryside must in general end 
with if it is to be consistent, with making not only the city, not only 
the province, but even the state itself impossible. Once the 
particular is to be asserted in hostile opposition to the general, in 
the end all political and social institutions must be made to 
disappear before the ultimate indivisible particular, the single 
individual in his physical appetites and aims. The troops that the 
“Summing Up” puts into the field on its side resemble, with few 
exceptions, Falstaff’s recruits: all they are good for is to fill the 
breach with the corpses of thoughts.* Enough of the grave-digger 
business! 

Finally, a well-intended recollection of the Kolnische Zeitung. For 
the first time a sense of modesty and mistrust of its own strength 
has crept into the leading article, although it is otherwise accus- 
tomed to behave as if it were the criterion de omnibus rebus et de 
quibusdam aliis.” Not for the first time, but indeed for all time can 
the Kolnische Zeitung become convinced on this occasion of the 
untenability of its editorial principle. Since all unpaid contributors 
are welcome, a few fingers with an itch to write and set in motion 
by a mediocre brain suffice to falsify the expression of public 
opinion. When one casts a glance at the columns of the Kélnische 
Zeitung, one would think the view favouring the separation of the 
city and the countryside is predominant in the Rhine Province. 
But if one casts a glance at the Rhine Province, one would think 
the Rhine Province is not predominant in the Kolnische Zeitung. 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 316, November 12, 1842] 

Cologne, November 11. Our appeal to the Rhineland “provincial 
papers” regarding the communal reform question did not fail to 
produce results. The Koélnische Zeitung found itself moved to dip 
its issue of Nov. 11 into a false bright instead of the usual twilight 
colour and to recognise, though with unmistakable ill humour, 
hesitant reservations, suspicious side-glances, and deliberate am- 
biguity, the equal rights of town and countryside. Today once 
again we seize the opportunity to make the Koélnische Zeitung 
conscious of its state of mind and will not abandon the pleasant, 

though fantastic hope that it will renounce its point of view as 
soon as it has gained consciousness of its point of view. 

“Incidentally,” the Kolnische Zeitung concludes its article today, ‘‘as regards the 
communal system question, which has such a high claim to the general interest, the 
editorial board of the Kolnische Zeitung considers it appropriate to state that in this 
respect also it pays allegiance to the principle of equality of rights but considers it 
its duty to give as free scope as possible to discussion of the forms in which an 
improvement of the present situation, which is thoroughly unfree and acknowl- 
edged by all parties to be no longer tolerable, is to be effected.” 

The Kolnische Zeitung has so far not carried a single article about 
the forms in which the communal reform is to be effected while 
maintaining the principle of equality of rights. It was therefore 
impossible for us to fight a non-existent opponent. Or does the 
Kolnische Zeitung consider that the “separation of town and 
countryside”, a separation which a number of its articles suggested 
should be simulated legally by means of a separate communal 
system, is likewise one of the forms in which the principle of 
equality of rights is crystallised? Does it hold that the established 
inequality of rights is a form of equality of rights? The struggle in 
the Kolnische Zeitung centred not on the different forms of one 
and the same principle, but rather on the difference of the 
principle itself, and, indeed, in this struggle, if we consider the 
articles of the Kd6lnische Zeitung, according to that paper’s own 
suggestion, as mere articles, i.e., according to their numerical 
mass, most of the troops belonged to the opponents of equality. 
We said to the Kolnische Zeitung: Be honest, do not falsify the 
expression of public opinion, fulfil the calling of a Rhineland 
paper, which is to represent the spirit of the Rhineland, disregard 
personal considerations, in a vital question for the province close 
your columns to all individual opinions which have the defect of 
wishing to assert a separate attitude in opposition to the will of the 
people. And how does the Kolnische Zeitung reply! 

It finds it “appropriate” to pay allegiance to the principle of 
equality of rights in relation to the communal reform, a “finding 
appropriate” that will be considered very clever in respect of the 
Rhine Province, and not precisely as a proof of the inventiveness 
of the Kolnische Zeitung. Alongside this moderate allegiance to the 
spirit of the province, however, the Kolnische Zeitung considers it 
its “duty” to give as free scope as possible to discussion of the 
“forms” of the communal reform, among which forms it also 
includes the forms of “inequality”. This “devotion to duty” will be 
found appropriate from the standpoint of its private interests and 
private considerations, however inappropriate this standpoint itself 

is. To cut off all hiding places for the Kdélnische Zeitung, which 
creeps into concealment behind the difference between form and 
content, we pose the categorical question whether it declares an 
inequality of town and countryside legally established by means of 
a separate communal system to be a “form” of equality of rights 
and believes it can continue to keep its columns open to pretences 
of such equality as a mere question of form. Tomorrow we shall 
return to the article of the Kélnische Zeitung in question. 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 317, November 13, 1842] 

Cologne, November 12. The article in No. 314 of the Rheinische 
Zeitung on the question of the communal system, which has such a 
high claim to the general interest,” is nothing but an avant-propos to 
the detailed discussion of communal equality for town and country 
which is being carried on in our supplement.? The Kélnische 
Zeitung introduces its reference to this, that is, to the matter 
itself, with “Incidentally”, just as the worker at the craftsmen’s 
banquet begins his speech with “In general”, but this must not 
at all diminish the merits of the Kolnische Zeitung in respect of 
originality, since we recognise it rather as a habit of the paper, 
a habit which is just as original as praiseworthy, that in dealing 
with a question of general interest it “incidentally” touches also on 
the “matter itself”. This method of treatment, which is somewhat 
intentional, possesses a wonderful elasticity which makes the most 
curious misunderstandings possible and for a third party even 
probable as the proper understanding of the matter. 

So the Ko6lnische Zeitung begins its article in question of 
November 4° with the anecdote that a “neighbouring paper”, 
namely, the Rheinische Zeitung, has called on “all Rhine Province 
papers to join forces against the threat, allegedly coming from 
Berlin, to the equality before the law of urban and rural 
communities” and issued the common slogan: “Equality for all, 
for townspeople and for peasants.” The Kolnische Zeitung declares 
itself prepared to take up this slogan 

“insofar as by equality is understood not the foolish dream of the Communists, but, 
as we presume, the only possible equality, equality of rights”. 

This cunning side-glance at the communist dreams would have 
been just as impossible as the magnanimous presumption of our 
non-communist tendency would have been unnecessary had the 
Kolnische Zeitung begun its report with the matter itself, with the 
fact that the Rheinische Zeitung wants an equal communal system for 
town and countryside and even designates this equality expressly 
in the article quoted as “equality of rights of urban and rural 
communities”. But if the Kélnische Zeitung were to see this equality 
itself as communist foolishness, then it would simply have to be 
referred to its own credo introduced by the Catonic “Caeterum”.?* 

The ridiculous communist side-cut is not enough. The Kolnische 
Zeitung considers it necessary to associate another confession of 
faith with that of equality of rights. 

"But,” it says, “we must admit that we cannot at all share the concern that the wise 
government of Frederick William IV is contemplating an infringement of equality of 
rights in the Rhineland. Before we believe this we must be presented with facts and 
not with assertions, which, we hope, are without any foundation.” 

With this clumsy and perfidious insinuation imputing to us 
fears of and the spreading of rumours about an intentional infringe- 
ment of equality of rights in the Rhineland by the wise govern- 
ment of Frederick William IV, the Kolnische Zeitung flees from the 
field of argument to the field of suspicion and denunciation and 
convinces us anew that the impotence of understanding seeks as a 
last resort to assert itself through impotence of character, through 
the vain recklessness of demoralisation. What is the insinuation of 
the Kolnische Zeitung based on? Basing ourselves on information 
from Berlin, we reported that the Rhineland deputies to the 
Central Commissions’ had before them a draft of a communal 
system which did not recognise the equality of town and coun- 
tryside; we recommended that in this case the Rhine press should 
adopt the attitude and energy of truth.‘ 

If the government submits to the opinion of the Rhineland 
deputies a communal system which separates town and 
countryside, it follows from this simple fact that the government, 
far from having any concealed intention, rather entertains the 
complete conviction that by such a separation it will not infringe 
equality of rights in the Rhine Province. If the Rhine press, the organ 
of the Rhine Province, is convinced that the province is of 

No. 314, November 10, 1842.— Ed. 

the opposite view, it follows just as simply that it must prove that a 
common communal system for town and countryside is a necessary 
consequence of equality of rights in the Rhine Province; or is it 
not even a duty of the press to the government not only to express the 
popular conviction without consideration for the exceptional opini- 
on of single individuals, but also to prove the reasonable content 
of this conviction? 

Finally, it is more than indecent on the part of the Kolnische 
Zeitung to bring the All-high person of His Majesty into 
controversies of this kind. It needs really a minimum of intellig- 
ence and a maximum of irresponsibility to make any political 
discussion impossible in a purely monarchical state by the simple 
and easy manoeuvre of disregarding the true content of the dis- 
cussion, bringing in a personal relationship to the monarch and 
thereby turning every objective debate into a debate on a question of 
confidence. We expressed the hope that all Rhine Province papers 
would represent the view of the Rhine Province, because and 
insofar as we entertain the unshakeable conviction that His 
Majesty would not refuse to recognise the great significance of the 
general view of the Rhine Province, even if our Berlin information 
is grounded— which we have no occasion to doubt—even if the 
Rhine deputies approve a separation of town and countryside, 
which can appear to be all the less beyond all doubt* since just 
recently the articles of the Kdélnische Zeitung proved that not all 
Rhinelanders are capable of understanding and sharing the 
conviction of the vastly overwhelming majority. 

The Rheinische Zeitung advanced the slogan of equality of rights 
for town and countryside, and the K6lnische Zeitung accepted 
this slogan with the cautious condition that by “equality of rights” 
we understand equality of rights and no communist dream. The 
Rheinische Zeitung accompanied the Berlin information with an 
appeal to the feelings of the Rhine Province papers, and the 
Kolnische Zeitung denounces it for suspicions concerning His 
Majesty’s intentions. The Rheinische Zeitung called on the various 
editorial boards of our provincial papers to sacrifice individual 
considerations and preconceived opinions to the Fatherland, and 
the Kolnische Zeitung comes out with a flat, entirely unexplained 
recognition of equality of rights for town and countryside, a 
recognition whose formal merit it itself nullifies, by declaring the 
“separation” of town and countryside to be a “form” of equality 

of rights. Is it possible to write in a more illogical, unprincipled 
and wretched manner? Is it possible to proclaim more clearly 
freedom with the lips and unfreedom with the heart? But the 
Kolnische Zeitung knows the Shakespeare saying: 

“\.. to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten 
thousand” ,? 
and the Koélnische Zeitung did not succumb to the temptation to be 
one out of ten thousand. 

Finally, a word about the “separation of town and countryside”. 
Even apart from general grounds, the law can only be the ideal, 
self-conscious image of reality, the theoretical expression, made 
independent, of the practical vital forces. In the Rhine Province 
town and countryside are not separated in reality. Therefore the 
law cannot decree this separation without decreeing its own 
nullity.