Cologne, July 19. We had thought that today we might be able to 
amuse our readers once again with the agreement debates, in 
particular to present to them the brilliant speech of Deputy 
Baumstark,* but events prevent us from doing so. 

Charity begins at home. When the existence of the press is 
threatened, even Deputy Baumstark is abandoned. 

Herr Hansemann has submitted to the Agreement Assembly a 
provisional press law. The paternal solicitude of Herr Hansemann 
for the press calls for immediate consideration. 

In former times the Code Napoléon was beautified by the most 
edifying headings of the Prussian Law. Now, atter the revolution, 
this has been changed: now, the Prussian Law is enriched by the 
most fragrant blossoms of the Code and the September Laws. Du- 
chatel, of course, is no Bodelschwingh. 

We have already several] days ago given the main points of the 
press Bill.? No sooner had a defamation trial given us the chance to 
prove that Articles 367 and 368 of the Code pénal stand in starkest 
contradiction to freedom of the press, than Herr Hansemann 
proposes not only to extend them to the entire kingdonr but also to 
make them three times worse. We rediscover in the new draft all that 
has already become dear and valued to us by practical experience: 

We find it prohibited—on pain of imprisonment from three 
months to three years—to make a charge against anybody which 
would make him punishable by law or merely “expose him to public 
contempt”. We find it prohibited to demonstrate the truth of the 
matter in any other way than by a “valid legal document”, in short, 
we rediscover the most classical monuments of the Napoleonic 
despotism over the press. 

Indeed, Herr Hansemann keeps his promise to let the old 
provinces share in the advantages of Rhenish legislation! 

Paragraph 10 of the Bill tops all these regulations: in the case of 
calumny directed at state officials in respect to the exercise of their 
official duties, the ordinary punishment may be increased by half. 

If an official in the exercise or on the occasion (4 l’occasion) of the 
exercise Of his duties is insulted in words (outrage par parole), the 
punishment under Article 222 of the Penal Code is a prison sentence 
of from one month to two years. Despite the benevolent efforts of 
the Public Prosecutor’s office, this article has hitherto not been used 
against the press, and for very good reasons. In order to remedy this 
situation, Herr Hansemann has transformed this article into the 
above-mentioned Paragraph 10. In the first place, “on the occasion” 
is transformed into the more convenient “in respect to the exercise 
of their duties”. Secondly, the troublesome par parole is changed to 
par écrit. In the third place, the penalty is trebled. 

From the day when this Bill becomes law, Prussian officials may 
relax. If Herr Pfuel brands Polish hands and ears with lunar caustic 
and the press publishes it—four and a half months to four and a half 
years imprisonment! If citizens are inadvertently thrown into prison 
even though it is known that they are not the right ones and the press 
communicates this fact—four and a half months to four and a half 
years imprisonment! If Landrdte turn themselves into commis 
voyageurs for reaction and collectors of signatures for royalist 
addresses and the press unmasks these gentlemen—four and a half 
months to four and a half years imprisonment! 

From the day when this Bill becomes law, officials may with 
impunity carry out any arbitrary act, any tyrannical and any unlawful 
act. They may calmly administer beatings or order them, arrest and 
detain people without a hearing; the press, the only effective control, 
has been rendered ineffective. On the day when this Bill becomes 
law, the bureaucracy may celebrate a festival: it will have become 
mightier, less restrained and stronger than it was in the pre-March 
period. 

Indeed, what remains of freedom of the press if that which deserves 
public contempt can no longer be held up to public contempt? 

According to the laws hitherto in force the press could at least 
adduce facts to back up its general assertions and accusations. This 
will now come to an end. The press will no longer report, it will be 
allowed merely to speak in general phrases so that well-meaning 
people from Herr Hansemann down all the way to the beer-parlour 
politicians will have the right to say that the press is merely reviling 
and is not proving anything! Precisely for this reason the press is 
being prohibited from offering proofs! 

We recommend, by the way, that Herr Hansemann make the 
following addition to his well-meaning draft. He should also declare 
it punishable to expose the officials to public ridicule besides 
penalising their exposure to public contempt. This omission might 
otherwise be painfully regretted. 

We will not go in detail into the paragraphs dealing with obscenity 
or the regulations concerning confiscations etc. They surpass the 
creme of the press legislation of Louis Philippe and the Restoration. 
We do want to mention just one regulation: under Paragraph 21, the 
Public Prosecutor may request the confiscation not only of materials 
already printed but even of a manuscript which has only just been 
handed over for printing, if its contents condone a crime or offence that 
is liable to official prosecution! What a wide field of activity for phi- 
lanthropic prosecutors! What a charming diversion to be able to go 
at any time to newspaper offices and demand to be shown for 
examination any “manuscript which has just been handed over for 
printing” since it might just be possible that it condoned a crime 
or offence! 

Compared with this, how odd seems the solemn paragraph of the 
draft Constitution and of the “Fundamental Rights of the German 
Nation” which reads: The censorship can never again be restored!