Proceedings of the session of the Police Court of the Royal 
Provincial Court in Cologne on May 29, 1849. 


The persons here listed: 

Georg Weerth, writer, 

Dr. Carl Marx, formerly editor of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 

Joh. With. Dietz, proprietor of a printing-press, 

Hermann Korff, formerly responsible manager of the Neue 

Rheinische Zeitung, 

Arnold Bechtold, foreman at the Langen printing works, 

Dr. Herm. Becker, lawyer, 

Dr. Ernst Dronke, writer, 
were summoned as of today to answer charges of libelling deputies 
of the German National Assembly. Of the accused, only Dietz, Korff, 
Bechtold and Becker appeared; the court will therefore find against 
those absent in contumactam.* 

The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s office, State Public 
Prosecutor Bolling, set out the substance of the indictment. G. Weerth, 
he said, is accused: of having libelled Prince Lichnowski in the short 
novel entitled Leben und Taten des bertihmten Ritters Schnapphahnski 
[Life and Deeds of the Famous Knight Schnapphahnski], printed in the 
literary section of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in the months of 
August and September last year, by imputing to him actions which, if 
they were true, would bring him into disrepute or render him liable 
for prosecution. Dr. Carl Marx is similarly accused of libelling Prince 


@ In their absence.— Ed. 


518 Appendices 


Lichnowski. In No. 95 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of September 6, 
1848, in an article dated Breslau, August 29, Prince Lichnowski was 
charged with having called upon the electors of his district not to 
elect any town-dweller as deputy, since such a man would only work 
for the alleviation of municipal taxes and the increase of rural taxes. 
The State Public Prosecutor read out some passages from this article 
and sought to show that it contained insults directed at Prince 
Lichnowski. Dr. Marx, as editor-in-chief, was necessarily liable for 
the content of this article, whose author he refused to name. Korff is 
accused of: 1) having libelled the German National Assembly deputy, 
Stedtmann, in the article dated Frankfurt, September 12 contained in 
No. 102, p. 4, col. 4 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of September 14, 
1848, by imputing to him an action which, if it were true, would 
bring him into disrepute; and 2) having libelled the deputies in the 
German National Assembly in Frankfurt who voted approval of the 
armistice with Denmark,‘ by accusing them of having betrayed the 
nation, in the proclamation which was printed in No. 110, p. 4, col. 2 
of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of September 23, 1848. The two 
articles on which the charge is based were read out. In the first the 
deputy Stedtmann is specifically accused of incorporating false 
information in a report on a committee meeting, in the hope of being 
made a Minister. The indictment brought against Marx and Korff 
was also extended to include Joh. Wilhelm Dietz as printer of the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung. The State Public Prosecutor attempted to derive 
his responsibility for the contentious article from Articles 25 and 26 
of the imposed Constitution and from Article 60 of the Rhenish 
Penal Code. The indictment against Becker, Bechtold and Dronke 
similarly concerns libel of the deputies who voted for the armistice 
with Denmark. On September 20, 1848, here in the Eiser Hall a 
public meeting was held, at which the Malmo armistice was 
discussed. Dronke was a speaker at this meeting and declared that the 
deputies who had voted approval of that armistice had betrayed the 
nation. The meeting adopted this declaration and resolved to 
publicise it by having it printed and posted at street corners. Dr. 
Becker had passed the resolution in question to Bechtold for printing, 
and the latter had printed it. 

The accused, questioned more closely by the presiding magistrate, 
made the following statements: 

Dietz admitted having printed the contentious articles. He did not 
know who the authors were. He maintained, however, that he was 
not responsible for the content of those articles, since the editor and 
responsible manager of the newspaper were known and living in 
Prussia. If-Dr. Marx had recently been expelled from the country, 


Appendices 519 


that was not his fault; the former had in any case been resident in 
Cologne throughout the investigation. 

Korff conceded he was manager of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. 
The contentious articles were accepted with his approval. His 
defence counsel, barrister Rath, sought to demonstrate that there 
was no libel in the articles concerned. He named their author 
and maintained that as a result his client was absolved of all 
responsibility. 

Dr. Becker admitted having passed to Bechtold for printing the 
_ proclamation from the Eiser Hall, which had been sent to him by a 
messenger-boy from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The content of the 
proclamation in question had however been unknown to him as he 
had not been present at the proceedings in the Eiser Hall on 
September 20. Ass secretary of the Democratic Association he was 
charged with attending to all material for printing, and that was why 
the manuscript had been sent to him. Moreover the proclamation 
had already been published by the Neue Rheinische Zeitung before he 
had passed the manuscript to Bechtold. The defendant declared that 
in certain circumstances he would be ready to assume responsibility 
for the contents of the proclamation. In his statement he also drew 
attention to the fact that the indictment had been brought at the 
request of the Imperial Minister of Justice. The indictment, he 
submitted, was not directed at specific persons but at a specific party. 
When he attempted to elaborate on this, the speaker was asked by 
the presiding magistrate, at the twice repeated instance of the State 
Public Prosecutor, to keep to the point at issue. 

Bechtold admitted that he had read the manuscript received from 
Dr. Becker and had forwarded it for printing. His defence counsel, 
barrister Pheiffer, thereupon argued that as the author of the 
proclamation was known, the printer could not be punished. If the 
prosecution intended to adduce Article 60 of the Penal Code, it 
would have to demonstrate that the accused intended to libel the 
deputies, and the Public Prosecutor’s office had not even attempted 
to prove this. Moreover, the proclamation did not contain a libel in 
the legal sense, it did not contain any specific assertion which 
exposed the deputies to prosecution at law, nor to hatred and 
contempt; it only expressed a criticism of the resolution concerning 
the armistice. 

Hereupon the State Public Prosecutor Bolling, in a lengthy speech, 
sought to justify the indictment and to refute the arguments used by 
the accused in their defence. In conclusion, he asked that the accused 
Weerth, Marx, Dronke, and Korff should each be sentenced to a 
three-month term of imprisonment and to a fine of 1,000 francs, and 


520 Appendices 


the remaining accused to a one-month term of imprisonment, and 
one-seventh of the costs to be imposed on each one of them. 

Hereupon the court adjourned and after deliberations lasting 
about two hours pronounced judgment to the effect that Korff was 
sentenced to a one-month imprisonment for libelling the deputy 
Stedtmann, the charge against Weerth was dismissed because the 
accusations made in it were not specified, and the remaining accused 
were acquitted.