Liebknecht asked Hirsch whether he would undertake to edit 
the party organ that was about to be founded in Zurich. Hirsch 
sought information as to the financing of the paper: what funds 
were available and who was providing them? Firstly, so as to know 
whether the paper might not peter out within a few months. 
Secondly, to ascertain who held the purse-strings, thus having the 
final say as to the paper’s stance. Liebknecht’s reply, telling Hirsch 
that “everything is in order; you will be getting further 
information from Zurich” (Liebknecht to Hirsch, July 28), didn’t 
arrive.”'* But what did reach Hirsch from Zurich was a letter from 

Bernstein (July 24) in which Bernstein informed him that “ We? 
are being entrusted with the production and supervision (of the 
paper)’. A discussion had taken place “between Viereck, Singer 
and ourselves” during which it was suggested 

“that your position might be rendered somewhat difficult by the differences of 
opinion which you, as a Laterne man, have had with individual comrades, though I 
myself do not consider this objection carries much weight”. 

Not a word about the financing. 

Hirsch answered by return on July 26, enquiring about. the 
paper’s material circumstances. Which comrades had undertaken 
to cover the deficit? Up to what amount and for how long?—The 
question of the editor’s salary didn’t enter into this at all; Hirsch 
merely wanted to know whether “means have been secured to 
ensure the paper’s continued existence for at least a year”. 

On July 31, Bernstein replied, saying that any deficit there 
might be would be covered by voluntary contributions of which 
some (!) had already been subscribed. Hirsch’s remarks about the 
stance he thought the paper should adopt, of which more below, 
elicited deprecating remarks and injunctions: 

“It is all the more necessary for the supervisory committee5!5 to insist on it in that 
it, in turn, is subject to control, i.e. is responsible. On these points, therefore, you 
must come to an understanding with the supervisory committee.” 

They asked him to reply by return, preferably by telegraph. 

Hence, instead of getting a reply to his justified questions, 
Hirsch was informed that he was to be editor under a supervisory 
committee based in Zurich, with views differing very materially 
from his own and members of whose names he wasn’t even 
informed! 

Hirsch, quite justifiably outraged by this treatment, chose rather 
to come to an understanding with the Leipzigers. His letter of 
August 2 to Liebknecht must be known to you, since Hirsch 
expressly demanded that it be shown to you and Viereck. Hirsch is 
even willing to submit to a supervisory committee in Zurich, 
inasmuch as the latter is to put its comments to the editor in 
writing and these may be referred for decision to the controlling 
committee in Leipzig.*! 

In-the meantime Liebknecht had written to Hirsch on July 28: 

“Of course finance is available for the undertaking, seeing that it is backed by 
the entire party+(INCLUSIVE) Héchberg. But ’'m not concerned with the details.” 

Nor does Liebknecht’s next letter contain anything about the 
financing—only an assurance that the Zurich committee is not an 

editorial committee, but is only to be entrusted with administration 
and the financial side. As late as August 14, Liebknecht wrote to 
me along the same lines, and asked that we persuade Hirsch to 
accept. You yourself, as late as August 20 were still so little 
acquainted with the actual circumstances that you wrote to me 
saying: 

“He” (Ho6chberg) “has no more say in the editing of the paper than any other 
well-known member of the party.” 

Finally, Hirsch received a letter from Viereck, dated August 11, 
containing the admission that 

“the 3 men domiciled in Zurich are to, qua editorial committee, apply themselves 
to founding the paper and, subject to the agreement of the three Leipzigers, select 
an editor ... so far as I recall, the resolutions that were sent them also asserted that 
the (Zurich) founding committee mentioned under 2., was to assume both political 
and financial responsibility towards the party.... From this state of affairs it follows, 
or so it seems to me, that ... there can be no question of anyone assuming the 
editorship without the concurrence of the 3 men domiciled in Zurich and entrusted 
with the founding by the party”. 

Here at last was something definite, at least, for Hirsch to go on, if 
only in regard to the position of the editor vis-a-vis the Zurichers. 
They were an _ editorial committee; they were also politically 
responsible; without their concurrence no one could assume the 
editorship. In short, Hirsch was simply instructed to come to an 
understanding with three men in Zurich whose names had still not 
been disclosed to him. 

But to make the confusion worse, Liebknecht added a postscript 
to Viereck’s letter: 

“Singer from Berlin was here just now and informed us that the supervisory 
committee in Zurich is not, as Viereck imagines, an editorial committee, but 
essentially an administrative committee which is financially responsible to the party, 
i.e. to ourselves, for the paper; of course, its members also have the right and the 
duty to discuss the editing with you (a right and a duty of which, by the way, every 
member is possessed); they are not empowered to place you under their 
guardianship.” 

The Zurich trio and one member of the Leipzig committee—the 
only one* present at the discussions—insist that Hirsch is to be 
subject to official direction by Zurich, while another Leipzig 
member” contests this outright. And yet Hirsch is to make up his 
mind before these gentlemen are agreed amongst themselves! The 
fact that Hirsch was entitled to acquaint himself with the 
resolutions they had adopted and which embodied the conditions 
with which he was expected to comply, was entirely overlooked, 

the more so since it never seems to have occurred to the 
Leipzigers that they themselves should become properly acquainted 
with those resolutions. How, otherwise, can the above-mentioned 
inconsistency be accounted for? 

If the Leipzigers were unable to agree upon the powers vested 
in the Zurich people, the latter harboured no doubts on this score. 

Schramm to Hirsch, August 14: 

“Had you not written at one time that in a similar case” (as that of Kayser), 
“you would do just as you had done before, thus holding out the prospect of a 
similar modus operandi,317 we would not be wasting words on the subject. As it is, 

however, and in view of that statement of yours, we must reserve the right to have 
the casting vote as to what articles the new paper should take.” 

The letter to Bernstein in which Hirsch was alleged to have said 
this was dated July 26, long after the conference in Zurich at 
which the Zurich trio’s powers were laid down. But so much were 
those in Zurich already revelling in the sense of their own 
bureaucratic authority that, in reply to this subsequent letter of 
Hirsch’s, they were already laying claim to new powers, namely the 
decision as to what articles should be included. The editorial 
committee was already a censorship committee. 

Not until Hochberg arrived in Paris did Hirsch learn from him 
the names of the members of the two committees.*” 

If, then, discussions with Hirsch broke down, what was the 
cause? 

1. The obstinate refusal, on the part of both Leipzig and Zurich, 
to give him any hard and fast information about the paper’s 
financial basis and hence the likelihood of keeping it afloat, if only 
for a year. Not until he was over here did he learn from me 
(following your communication to me’) how much had been 
subscribed. Hence, the only conclusion it was really possible to 
draw from previous communications (the party + Héchberg) was 
either that the paper was already being largely financed by 
Hochberg or that it would soon be entirely dependent on his 
subsidies. And this latter eventuality is still far from being 
excluded. The sum of—if I read it right—800 marks is precisely 
the same (40 pounds sterling) as had to be contributed by the local 
association, Freiheit,'? during the first half year. 

2. Liebknecht’s repeated assurances, which have since proved 
totally erroneous, that Zurich was to have no official control 
whatever over the editorship, and the resulting comedy of errors; 

3. The certainty finally established that not only were the Zurich 

b This refers to August Bebel’s letter to Engels of August 20, 1879.— Ed. 

people to control the editing, they were actually to censor it, and 
that the only role that would redound upon him, Hirsch, would be 
that of the man of straw. . 

His refusal at that juncture is something we cannot but approve. 
The Leipzig committee, or so we hear from Héchberg,”’ has 
received reinforcements in the shape of two more who do not live 
in the place* and hence that committee can intervene quickly only 
if the three Leipzigers are agreed. As a result, the real centre of 
gravity has altogether shifted to Zurich, and Hirsch or, for that 
matter, any true revolutionary and proletarian-minded editor, 
would not have been able to work with the people there for any 
length of time. More about this later. 

II. THE PROPOSED STANCE OF THE PAPER 

As early as July 24 Bernstein had informed Hirsch that the 
differences he, as a Laterne man, had had with individual comrades 
would render his position more difficult. 

Hirsch replied” that in his view the paper’s stance would in 
general have to be the same as that of the Laterne, i.e. such as to 
avoid prosecution in Switzerland and not cause undue alarm in 
Germany. He inquired who those comrades might be and 
continued: 

“I know of only one and can promise you that in a similar case of undisciplined 
conduct I should deal with him in exactly the same way.” 

Whereupon Bernstein, conscious of his newly acquired dignity 
as official censor, replied: 

“Now as regards the paper’s stance, it is the view of the supervisory committee 
that the Laterne should not serve as a model; in our view the paper should be less 
taken up with political radicalism, but rather adopt a line that is socialist on 
principle. Instances such as the attack upon Kayser, which was frowned on by all 
comrades without exception” (!), “must under all circumstances be avoided.” ¢ 

And so on and so forth. Liebknecht called the attack on Kayser 
‘a bloomer”, and so dangerous did it seem to Schramm that he 
immediately imposed censorship on Hirsch.* 

Hirsch again wrote to Hochberg, saying that a case such as that 
of Kayser 

“could not occur should an official party organ exist, whose lucid expositions 
and friendly hints could not be so presumptuously brushed aside by a deputy”. 

b On July 26, 1879.— Ed. 

¢ Eduard Bernstein’s letter to Carl Hirsch of July 31, 1879.— Ed. 

Viereck also wrote, saying that what was required of the new 
paper was that it adopt a 

“dispassionate attitude and, in so far as possible, bury the hatchet’; it ought not 
to be an “enlarged version of the Laterne” and “the most Bernstein can be 
reproached with is that he holds views that are too moderate, if reproach it be at a 
time when we cannot, after all, crowd on sail”. 

Well, now, what is this Kayser case, this unpardonable crime 
Hirsch is supposed to have committed? In the Reichstag, Kayser 
spoke in favour of and voted for protective tariffs, the only one of 
the Social-Democratic deputies to do so. Hirsch accused him of 
having infringed party discipline, in that Kayser 

1. voted for indirect taxation, the abolition of which is expressly 
demanded by the party programme’; 

2. voted Bismarck funds, thus infringing the first and funda- 
mental rule of our party tactics: not a farthing for this 
government. 

Hirsch is undeniably right on both counts. And, after Kayser 
had spurned, on the one hand, the party programme to which the 
deputies, by their resolution in congress, had in effect been 
solemnly pledged and, on the other hand, the most imperative 
and all-important rule of party tactics, after he had voted 
Bismarck funds, out of gratitude for the Anti-Socialist Law,*' Hirsch 
was again perfectly justified in our opinion in handling him as 
roughly as he did. 

We have never understood how it was that this attack upon 
Kayser could have aroused such a furore in Germany. I am now 
told by Hochberg that it was the “faction” which gave Kayser 
permission to act as he did, and Kayser is held to be covered by 
that permission. 

If such is the case, then it is really too bad. In the first place, 
Hirsch could have known no more than the rest of the world 
about this secret resolution.” Then, again, the discredit incurred by 
the party, for which previously Kayser alone could have been 
blamed, is all the greater for this affair, as is Hirsch’s merit in 
having brought to light in public and for all the world to see 
Kayser’s preposterous phraseology and his even more preposter- 
ous vote, thus saving-the honour of the party. Or has German 

staat, No. 59, May 28, 1875.— Ed. 

Social-Democracy indeed been infected with the parliamentary 
disease, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is 
poured upon those elected, that meetings of the faction are 
transformed into infallible councils and factional resolutions into 
sacrosanct dogma? 

Admittedly, a bloomer has been made—not by Hirsch, however, 
but by the deputies who gave Kayser the protection of their 
resolution. And if those upon whom, above all others, it is 
incumbent to see that party discipline is maintained, themselves so 
glaringly infringe that party discipline by a resolution of this kind, 
then so much the worse. But it is even worse still if they have the 
audacity to believe that it was not Kayser, by his speech and vote, 
or the other deputies by their resolution, who infringed party 
discipline, but Hirsch, inasmuch as he attacked Kayser despite that 
resolution about which, moreover, he knew nothing. 

For the rest, there can be no doubt that the policy the party had 
adopted towards the question of protective tariffs was as muddled 
and vacillating as it has always been in regard to virtually all 
economic questions—e.g. state railways**—when they have be- 
come a practical issue. The reason for this is that the party organs, 
notably Vorwdrts, rather than subject such questions to a thorough 
discussion, have preferred to apply themselves to the construction 
of the future social order. When, subsequent to the Anti-Socialist 
Law, the question of protective tariffs suddenly became a live 
issue, views on the subject diverged, assuming a wide variety of 
nuances, and there was absolutely no one to hand possessing the 
qualification that would have enabled him to form a lucid and 
accurate opinion, namely a knowledge of conditions in German 
industry and the latter’s position in the world market. Again, as 
was bound to happen, protectionist tendencies cropped up here 
and there amongst the electorate, tendencies which, it was felt, 
ought also to be taken into consideration. The only possible way 
out of the confusion would have been to take a purely political 
view of the question (as was done in the Laterne), but this was not 
pursued with any determination. Thus it was inevitable that in this 
debate, the party acted for the first time in a hesitant, uncertain 
and muddled way and ended up by thoroughly discrediting itself 
through the person of and in company with Kayser. 

The attack on Kayser is now being used as a pretext to 
admonish Hirsch, in tones ranging through the whole gamut, to 
the effect that the new paper must on no account repeat the 
excesses of the Laterne, must be less taken up with political 
radicalism and rather adopt a line that is dispassionate and 

socialist on principle. And this from Viereck no less than from 
Bernstein who, precisely because he is too moderate, appears to 
the former to be the right man, seeing that just now we cannot, 
after all, crowd on sail. 

But why go abroad at all, unless one intends to crowd on sail? 
Abroad, there’s nothing to prevent this being done. In Switzerland 
there are no German press, combination and penal laws. Hence, 
not only can one say things there, which could not, even before 
the Anti-Socialist Law, be said at home because of the ordinary 
German laws, but one is actually duty-bound to do so. For here one 
is under the eyes, not of Germany alone, but of Europe and it is 
one’s duty, insofar as the Swiss laws allow, openly to proclaim for 
Europe’s benefit the methods and aims of the German party. 
Anyone in Switzerland seeking to abide by the German laws would 
only prove that he is deserving of those German laws and that he 
has, in effect, nothing to say save what he was allowed to say in 
Germany before the Exceptional Law. Nor should any account be 
taken of the possibility that the editors might be temporarily 
deprived of the chance to return to Germany. Anyone who is not 
prepared to run that risk is not fit to occupy so exposed and 
honourable a post. 

More. If the German party was ostracised by the Exceptional 
Law, this was precisely because it was the only serious opposition 
party in Germany. If, in an organ published abroad, it renders 
thanks to Bismarck by abandoning its role as the only serious 
opposition party, by behaving in a nice, docile manner and 
adopting a dispassionate stance when kicked, it only proves that it 
deserved to be kicked. Of all the German émigré papers that have 
appeared abroad since 1830, the Laterne is undoubtedly one of the 
most moderate. If, however, even the Laterne was too insolent— 
then the new organ could not but compromise the party in the 
eyes of sympathisers in non-German countries.