“From the outset, it” (the Rheinische Zeitung)“ pursued such a reprehensible course” 
etc. “Unmistakably,” it is stated, “the intention continued to prevail in the 
newspaper to attack the basis of the state constitution, to develop theories which 
aim at undermining the monarchical principle, to maliciously cast suspicion on the 
actions of the government in the eyes of the public, to incite some estates of the 
nation against others, to arouse dissatisfaction with the existing legal conditions, 
and to promote very hostile trends against friendly powers. Its views on alleged 
defects of administration, apart from the fact that they were mostly without 
foundation and largely devoid of thoroughness and expert knowledge, were not 
couched in a serious, calm and dignified tone, but marked by malicious hostility 
towards the state and its administrative forms and organs.” 

It is obvious that a trend does not become reprehensible merely 
because the government declares it to be so. Even the Copernican 
system of the universe was not only found reprehensible by the 
supreme authority of the time, but was actually condemned. 
Furthermore, it is everywhere the law that the accuser should 
provide the proof. Finally, there is attributed to the Rheinische 
Zeitung the “unmistakable intention” of committing the crimes laid 
to its charge. But an intention only becomes recognisable, and the 
more so unmistakable, when it has been realised in acts. 

But if even for a moment we were to concede (what, however, 
we expressly deny) that all the accusations of the ministerial 
rescript were well founded, the result nevertheless would be that 
in their present indefinite and ambiguous formulation they would 
provide just as much and just as little reason for a ban on any 
newspaper whatever as for a ban on the Rheinische Zeitung. 

First of all, it is said that there prevailed in the Rheinische Zeitung 
“the unmistakable intention to attack the basis of the state 
constitution”. It is well known, however, that there unmistakably 
prevails a great diversity of opinion on the Prussian constitution 

and its basis. Some deny that the basis has any constitution, others 
that the constitution has any basis. 

One view is held by Stein, Hardenberg, Schon, another one by 
Rochow, Arnim, and Eichhorn. Hegel in his day believed that he 
had laid the basis for the Prussian constitution in his philosophy of 
law, and the government and the German public concurred in this 
belief. One way by which the government proved this was the 
official dissemination of his writings; the public, however, did so by 
accusing him of being the philosopher of the Prussian state, as one 
can read in the old Leipzig conversational dictionary. What Hegel 
believed at that time, Stahl believes today. In 1831, by a special 
order of the government, Hegel lectured on the philosophy of law. 

In 1830, the Staats-Zeitung declared that Prussia was a monarchy 
surrounded by republican institutions. Today it says Prussia is a 
monarchy surrounded by Christian institutions. 

In view of this great diversity of opinion on the Prussian 
constitution and its basis, it seems natural that the Rh. Z. also 
should have its opinion, which of course may differ from the cur- 
rent view of the government, but which nevertheless can quote in its 
favour both Prussian history and many elements of the present- 
day life of the state as definitively highly placed authorities. 

Far from intending to attack the basis of the Prussian constitu- 
tion, therefore, the Rh. Z., on the contrary, was convinced that it 
was attacking only deviations from this basis. | 

In regard to the banning of the Rh. Z., an official article in the 
Allgemeine Konigsberger Zeitung described Prussia as a state of 
liberal sovereignty. '** This is a definition which is not to be found 
in Prussian law and allows of all possible interpretations.. 

_ “Liberal sovereignty” can be understood in two ways: either that 
freedom is merely the personal frame of mind of the King, and 
therefore his personal quality, or that freedom is the spirit of 
sovereignty, and is therefore realised, or at least should be real- 
ised, also through free institutions and laws. In the former case 
we have a despotisme éclairé,* and the person of the prince is contrast- 
ed to the state as a whole as to a mindless and unfree material. 
In the latter case, and this was the view of the Rh. Z., one does not 
confine the prince within the bounds of his personality, but regards 
the whole state as his body, so that the institutions are the organs in 
which he lives and acts, and the laws are the eyes by which he sees. 

Further it is said to have been the intention of the Rh. Z. “todevel- 
op theories which aim at undermining the monarchical principle”. 

* Enlightened despotism.— Ed. 

Marginal Notes to Accusation of Ministerial Rescript _ 363 

Once again, the question arises: What is to be understood by the 
“monarchical principle”? The Rh. Z., for instance, maintained that 
the predominance of distinctions between the estates, one-sided 
bureaucracy, censorship, etc., contradicted the monarchical princi- 
ple, and it has always tried to prove its assertions, and has not put 
them forward as mere ideas. In general, however, the Rh. Z. has 
never given special preference to a special form of state. It was 
concerned for a moral and rational commonweal; it regarded the 
demands of such a commonweal as demands which would have to 
be realised and could be realised under every form of state. Hence 
it did not treat the monarchical principle as a principle apart; it 
treated monarchy rather as the realisation of the state principle in 
general. If this was an error, it was not an error of underestima- 
tion, but of overestimation. 

Further, the Rh. Z. has never tried maliciously to cast suspicion 
on the actions of the government in the eyes of the public. On the 
contrary, it is out of goodwill that it has tried to cast suspicion on 
those measures of the government itself that are contrary to the 
spirit of the people. Furthermore, it has never abstractly counter- 
posed the government to the people; on the contrary, it has 
considered defects of the state to be just as much defects of the 
people as of the government. 

As far as thoroughness and expert knowledge are concerned, as 
also the tone of the Rh. Z., at least not a single newspaper in 
Germany has shown more thoroughness or expert knowledge. As 
for its tone, it is truly serious, calm and dignified, compared with 
the rowdy tone of the servile (conservative)* journals. In this 
respect, the Rh. Z. has been accused, not unjustly, of unpopularity, 
of being too scientific in its form, which directly contradicts the 
ministry’s accusation. 

No more has the Rh. Z. tried to incite some estates of the nation 
against others; on the contrary, it has tried to incite every estate 
against its own egoism and limitations, it has everywhere brought 
civic reason to bear against estate unreason, and human love 
against estate hatred. Moreover, if it has sinned in this respect, it 
has only committed a sin that is sanctioned by the law and usage 
of the Rhine Province. 

The reproach of having wanted to “arouse dissatisfaction with 
the existing legal conditions” cannot in this indefinite formulation 
even be regarded as a reproach. 

* “(conservative)” has been inserted above the word ‘“‘servile” in the manus- 

cript.— Ed. 

Even the government has tried to arouse dissatisfaction with the 
existing legal conditions, for example with the old Prussian 
marriage situation. All reform and revision of the law, all 
progress, rests on such dissatisfaction. 

Since legal development is not possible without development of 
the laws, and since development of the laws is impossible without 
criticism of them, and since every criticism of the laws sets the 
mind and therefore also the heart of the citizen at variance with 
the existing laws, and since this variance is experienced as 
dissatisfaction, it follows that a loyal participation of the press in 
the development of the state is impossible if it is not permitted to 
arouse dissatisfaction with the existing legal conditions. 

The reproach that the Rh. Z. persecutes loyal organs by 
unworthy ridicule, which is obviously intended to refer to the 
newspaper controversy, cannot provide grounds for a ban. From 
all sides, the Rh. Z. has been denounced, has had mud cast at it, 
and been attacked. It was its duty to defend itself. Moreover, there 
is no official press. 

The Rh. Z. has not insulted foreign powers,’ but has only 
condemned their insults against Germany. In this respect it has 
merely pursued a national policy. As far as the states of the German 
Confederation are concerned, it has only expressed the view 
of the majority of the representatives of the people in these states. 

As regards religion, the newspaper has treated it in accordance 
with Article II of the 1819 censorship decree, that is to say, it has 
opposed religious truths being fanatically transplanted into politics 
and the confusion of ideas '*° arising therefrom. 

II 

If the Rh. Z. had wanted to promote systematic opposition to the 
government, it would have had to employ entirely opposite tactics. 

It would have flattered the prejudices of the Rhine Province, 
instead of opposing them. Above all, it would have paid homage 
to its religious prejudices and have exploited the antithesis between 
North-German and South-German culture after the manner of the 
ultramontane, instead of introducing North-German culture in 
the Rhine Province. 

It would have based itself on French, and not German, theories. 

It would have put forward the provincial spirit with its special 
limitations in opposition to the idea of state unity; hence, like 
Gorres, it would above all have taken the provincial assemblies 
under its protection. 

Marginal Notes to Accusation of Ministeria] Rescript 365 

It would have considered that all that was good came from the 
estates while all that was bad came from the government, as ordinary 
liberalism does. In its criticism of the Rhine estates it would not have 
laid stress on the general wisdom of the government in contrast to 
the private egoism of the estates,'*° as it has done in contrast to many 
Rhine liberals. Lastly, it would have joined in the chorus of other 
newspapers and demanded extended rights for the commissions, 
instead of describing such a demand as contrary to the interests of 
the state. 

Ill 

Finally, it is strangely exaggerating to speak of the malice of the 
whole tendency, since in that case 
. the fight for the Customs Union, 

. for Prussia in the matter of the Russian cartel,!*° 

. for Prussian hegemony, 

. the constant reference to Prussia as the progressive state, 

. the praise of Prussian popular institutions, such as the army, 
administration, etc., 

would likewise be ill-intentioned. 

Neither has the Rh. Z. one-sidedly opposed the bureaucracy. On 
the contrary, it has brought the influence of the latter to bear: 

1. against Bulow-Cummerow, | 

2. against the romantic trend. 

On the contrary, it was the only liberal newspaper which 
recognised also the good aspect of the bureaucracy, as well as the 
good aspect of the old Prussian legislation. 

Thus, the Rh. Z. alone has defended the main principle of the new 
divorce law, in contradiction to almost all other newspapers. 

Thus, lastly, it was the first and almost the sole newspaper to 
welcome the Cabinet Order on corrections? as a progressive step.'*! 

We cite these examples only to prove that the Rh. Z. has not 
conducted a systematic, abstract opposition, but has always asserted 
only what it was convinced was rational, from whatever side it 
proceeded. 

Or & 09 NO =