His Excellency Baron von Zedlitz 

Your Excellency, 

I have the honour in reply to your letter of the 21st inst. to state 
that I am surprised that my letter of March 19 did not seem quite 
clear. In the words of my application, my request was: 

“on the basis of the Royal order of the amnesty and the law 
of December 31, 1842, to issue a confirmation of my reintegration 
into the status of a Prussian subject’’.* 

It is this application that appears not quite clear to Your 
Excellency and seems to contain a contradiction insofar as I 
referred therein to Your Excellency’s being the competent 
authority to issue that confirmation, pursuant to § 5 of the law of 
December 31, 1842. 

Under the Royal order of amnesty “unimpeded return to the 
Prussian states” has been granted to all political refugees not 
condemned by military courts.” 

Since [ am one of those refugees and am a native Prussian, with 
reference to which I attach for Your Excellency as official proof 
my birth certificate in the form of an extract from the Register of 
Civil Status of the City of Trier (May 7, 1818), moreover as I left 
the fatherland in 1849, up to which time I had lived in Cologne as 
editor of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,**? and had not been 
prosecuted in actions in military courts, but only in several political 
press suits, which I drew upon myself in my aforesaid capacity as 
editor, it is clear therefore that I am included in the above- 
mentioned amnesty. 

Unterthan... Vom 31. Dezember 1842”, Gesetz-Sammlung für die Kéniglichen 

At the same time, the foregoing provides Your Excellency with 
an answer to the particular questions that you addressed to me in 
your rescript. 

But it seems possible that another question may be raised. The 
Royal amnesty not only declares that pardon has been extended to 
those already convicted under the law and those not yet convicted, 
but at the same time grants refugees “unimpeded return to the 
Prussian states”. 

Does this signify, apart from remission of the criminal penalty, 
that the status of a Prussian citizen, which they had lost by 
residing abroad for more than ten years, is likewise restored to the 
refugees? 

According to my interpretation and that of all jurists, according 
to the unanimous conception of public opinion and the entire 
press, it does. And there are two arguments that prove this 
incontrovertibly. | ‘ 

First, that the amnesty order guarantees not only remission of 
the penalty but also expressly “unimpeded return to the Prussian 
states”’. 

Secondly, because the entire amnesty would otherwise be a 
completely illusory one, only on paper. For, since all the refugees 
have lived abroad since 1848 and 1849, 1.e., twelve years, this 
would mean that all of them have lost their status as Prussians, 
and if that status were not reinvigorated by the amnesty, the 
“unimpeded return” alleged to be granted would actually be 
granted to no one. 

Accordingly, there can be no doubt that, in spite of the loss of 
Prussian nationality due to an absence of ten years, this right is to 
be revived by the Royal amnesty. 

However, although this is my interpretation and that of the 
jurists, in practice only the interpretation of the authorities is 
decisive and provides an adequate basis for practical actions. 

How then will the Royal authorities please to interpret the Royal 
amnesty? 

Will they interpret it in the sense that the amnesty is an 
amnesty, and unimpeded return is unimpeded return? Or will 
they interpret it in the sense that the granting of unimpeded 
return impedes return and that the refugees are to remain 
deprived of the fatherland despite the decree? Upon unprejudiced 
consideration of the circumstances, Your Excellency cannot fail to 
see that this scepticism can hardly be regarded as _ totally 
unfounded. 

So much has been decreed in the last twelve years and so much 

astonishing interpretation has been referred to these decrees that 
by now no interpretation can any longer be regarded as positively 
sure nor can any interpretation be regarded as absolutely 
impossible. 

Accordingly, the only positively sure basis remaining on which 
practical steps can be taken seems to be the interpretation given by 
the authorities themselves to the particular individual. 

Will Your Excellency grant that, despite my loss of the status of 
a Prussian by virtue of the law, I have regained it through the 
Royal amnesty? 

That is the very simple and clear question that I wanted to, and 
had to, address to Your Excellency. 

I am all the more forced to do so, since I cannot bring my wife 
and children from London until this question is decided, for 
obviously I cannot be expected to undertake a problematical 
change of residence with my entire household and family and only 
thereafter engage in a contest which, on the contrary, I should 
previously bring to a termination, if it is to be engaged in at all, 
before I take the costly step of moving and bring my wife and 
children back to the fatherland. 

My question is all the more justified as a very natural and 
simple one in view of the fact that Your Excellency yourself has 
raised the question in your letter of the 21st inst.: on what basis do 
I claim “not to have lost the status of a Prussian despite absence 
for ten years”. 

Your Excellency will have seen from the foregoing the basis on 
which I rest my claim. 

The justification for my addressing my question to Your 
Excellency is found in § 5 of the law of December 31, 1842, which 
I have adduced. For, since, according to that, Your Excellency is 
the competent authority to grant naturalisation, so you are a 
fortiori* the competent authority to explain interpretando’ whether 
by virtue of the amnesty I have regained the lost status of a 
Prussian. It is only in this sense that I have referred to § 5 of the 
law in question. 

Furthermore it is particularly appropriate for me to turn to 
Your Excellency with this question because it is in Berlin that I 
wish to take up domicile, my ability to do so depending on that 
confirmation as a legal condition, and hence Your Excellency, as 
chief of the police of this city, 1s the person on whose view in the 

question posed the decision on the matter of residence will 
depend. 

It can surely not be in Your Excellency’s interest, nor can it be 
expected of me, that I should wait three or four months or longer 
in complete uncertainty and with no possibility of taking practical 
steps to achieve my end until I receive notice, along with a 
definitive decision as to domicile, of what interpretation you give 
the Royal amnesty and whether thereby you will confirm my 
reinstatement as a Prussian or not. 

Such uncertainty, lasting for months, would be extremely damag- 
ing to me in all my plans, arrangements and economic relationships. 

It is, of course, also my right to know whether the competent 
authority will or will not confirm that status for me, and that 
authority will not regard a refusal or postponement of a reply 
thereto as either legitimate or worthy of itself. 

Accordingly, I freely, openly and loyally put this question to 
Your Excellency: 

whether or not you confirm that the Royal amnesty restores me 
to the status of a Prussian? 

and I look forward to an equally free, open and loyal reply. 

I am all the more eager to have this answer as soon as possible 
since only then will it be possible for me, in the most improbable 
case of an unfavourable decision, to appeal to the Chambers while 
they are still in session, during which, in any case, a proposal for 
an amnesty law evoked by doubts as to the interpretation of the 
amnesty order will be discussed, and since, on the other hand, I 
can stay here only for a short tume now, as family affairs call me 
back to London. 

I therefore request Your Excellency kindly to let me have the 
requested open and definite answer by return of post, for only 
then will I be able to submit, in due form, my application for 
settlement in this city. 

I have the honour to remain, 

Your Excellency’s obedient servant, 
Dr Karl Marx 

Berlin, March 25, 1861