~ Cologne, April 21. (The debate in the Chamber.) We return to the 
sitting of April 13.* After the reply” to Deputy Lisiecki’s question, the 
next item on the agenda was the debate on the law on posters.?* 

After Herr Rohrscheidt had read the report of the Central 
Commission, Herr Wesendonck moved an amendment for the 
rejection of the government Bill en bloc. 

Herr Arnim (Count) rose to speak. He said that the amendment 
was impermissible, being tantamount to a motion to proceed to the 
Order of the Day. But government Bills cannot be passed over in this 
way. That is established by the standing orders.‘ 

Now at last the gentlemen of the Left realise what the Right 
intended by para. 53 of the standing orders. In relation to 
government Bills the Chamber cannot resolve to proceed to the 
Order of the Day. This seemingly innocent provision, however, 
meant neither more nor less than the following: you are not entitled 
to reject any government motion en bloc, but must debate every one 
of its paragraphs, even if there were a thousand of them. 

But that was too much even for the Centre deputies. After a rather 
lengthy debate during which each of the sides displayed the greatest 
possible acumen in exegesis, the Chairman finally proceeded with 
the discussion by declaring Wesendonck’s amendment permissible. 

The floor was taken by Herr Rupp, the great Rupp, who was 
suspended from his post, persecuted, at one time hounded by all the 
> Given by the Minister of War K. A. Strotha.— Ed. 
© “Geschafts-Ordnung für die Zweite Kammer.” — Ed. 

newspapers, and expelled from the Gustavus-Adolphus Union” of 

blessed memory. Herr Rupp delivered a speech after which, in the 
opinion of the Berlin National-Zeitung, which is no less great and no 
less enlightened than Herr Rupp, there remained little more for the 
Left to say, not only in the general debate but also in the special 
debate. Let us take a look at this exhaustive speech of pure reason 
delivered by Rupp, the Friend of Light. 

This exhaustive speech is, indeed, a true product of the 
enlightened spirit, of the spirit of the “free communities”, i.e. it 
exhausts nothing but the platitudes which can be uttered on the 
subject of posters. 

Herr Rupp began his speech by pointing out the difference 
between the arguments in support of the law on posters put forward 
by the Government and the Central Commission. Whereas the 
Government presented the law as a mere police measure in the 
interests of road traffic and aesthetics, the Central Commission, 
which eliminated this clumsy Prussian trick, put the political motives 
in the foreground. This afforded wide scope for declamations by the 
enlightened preacher. 

“Thus this Bill is indisputably one of the most important subjects for discussion by 
the present Assembly. Now we shall not want to say” (we shall not want to say!) “that it 
is so much (!) a matter of indifference to us whether there are a few more or a few less 
posters in the world, since (!) the lofty character of right and freedom consists precisely 
in the fact that even what seems to be most insignificant, when linked with it, 
immediately itself acquires a higher significance’!!* 

Having established the “lofty character” and “higher significance” 
of posters by this pastoral introduction, and having put his audience 
in a pious frame of mind, Herr Rupp could calmly give free rein to 
“the eternally clear, pure and smooth” stream of his pure reason. 

First of all, Herr Rupp made the exceedingly shrewd remark 
“that very often measures have been taken against imaginary 
dangers, with the result that real dangers are created”. 

This platitude evoked delight and cries of “bravo” from the Left. 

After this, Herr Rupp with equal profundity of thought pointed 
out that the Bill contradicts ... the imposed Constitution,”° which 
Herr Rupp does not recognise at all! 

It is a strange policy of the Left—to appeal to the imposed 
Constitution and to cite the kicks received in November as 
arguments against further kicks! 

4 See Stenographische Berichte tiber die Verhandlungen der durch das Allerhöchste Patent 
vom 5. Dezember 1848 einberufenen Kammern. Zweite Kammer. Bd. 2, Berlin, 1849, 
S. 467.— Ed. 

12* 

If the Government considers—Herr Rupp continued—that this 
Bill does not infringe freedom of the press, but only concerns the 
use of the streets and squares for the distribution of printed matter, 
then one could equally well say that freedom of the press prevailed also under the censorship, since it was not the use of the 
press but only the distribution of its products that was put under 
control. 

One must have lived in Berlin under the censorship to appreciate 
the whole novelty of this proposition, which already years ago used 
to be current among all the pettifogging liberals, and which 
nevertheless was once more greeted by the Left with hilarity and 
cries of “bravo”. 

Herr Rupp then quoted the article on freedom of the press in the 
imposed Constitution and proved in detail that Manteuffel’s Bill was 
in crying contradiction to the Manteuffel Constitution. 

But, my dear Herr Rupp, tout bonhomme que vous étes,? have you not 
yet realised that Manteuffel imposed the Constitution only in order 
subsequently to annul the few liberal phrases contained in it either by 
retaining the old gagging laws**”’ or introducing new ones. 

Indeed, Herr Rupp even went so far as to explain to the Right with 
some thoroughness that although later on, during the revision of the 
Constitution, they could include the law on posters in this 
Constitution, but at present they must reject it, otherwise they would 
be anticipating the revision of the Constitution! 

As though the gentlemen of the Right were concerned with 
consistency, and not with putting the speediest end to the bad press, 
associations, agitation, commercial distrust, and other more or less 
revolutionary achievements! 

To these weighty arguments, Herr Rupp then added the following 
banalities: 

1) Posters are condemned because they spread agitation. But the 
prevention of agitation is not a matter for the state in which the rule 
of law prevails but for a police state. 

2) I want a strong government. But a government that cannot 
tolerate agitation and posters is not a strong government. 

3) Germans like to follow a leader. 

4) The absence of posters did not prevent March 18 (“Neither 
horse, nor rider” °—etc.). 

> From the Prussian anthem Heil Dir im Siegerkranz written by B. G. Schumacher 
on the basis of the poem “Lied für den danischen Unterthan” by H. Harries, a 
Schleswig pastor.— Ed. 

5) Revolutions are the result of despotism. 
From this Herr Rupp drew the conclusion that the law on posters 
must be rejected in the interests of Manteuffel. 

“Gentlemen,” he exclaimed imploringly, “protect the Government from the 
self-deception to which this law, like every law of a police state, exposes it!” 

According to Herr Rupp, the rejection of Manteuffel’s Bill would 
not be a vote of no confidence in Manteuffel, but, on the contrary, a 
vote of confidence in him. Herr Rupp wants Manteuffel to become the 
desired “‘strong government”, and for that reason he does not want 
to weaken Manteuffel by adopting the law on posters. You think 
Herr Rupp is joking? He has no such intention. Herr Rupp is a 
Friend of Light, and a Friend of Light never jokes. Friends of Light 
cannot tolerate laughter any more than their worthy cousin, Atta 
Troll. 

But the last trump card Herr Rupp played set the crown on his 
whole speech. 

“The rejection of this law will contribute not a little to calm that section of the 
population which cannot agree to recognise the Constitution prior to its revision.” 

Herr Rupp’s concern is “to calm that section of the population” 
which has not yet reached the level of Manteuffel! 

That, however, is the nature of the gentlemen of the Left! They 
are tired of turbulent movement and since they are now deputies 
and realise that they can do nothing against the sabre dictatorship, all 
they want is that the unpleasant questions of principle should at last 
be settled, the Constitution revised pro forma with a view to declaring 
it valid, and an oath of allegiance sworn to it, and “the revolution 
brought to an end”. Then a comfortable life will begin for them, a 
life of constitutional routine, declamation based on nothing, dealing 
with nothing, leading to nothing, intriguing, patronage, ministerial 
reshuffling etc.; that Olympian life of idleness and luxury which the 
years in Paris, and which Guizot liked to call the “play of 
constitutional institutions”. If only the unpleasant revolutionary 
movement were to recede somewhat, a Waldeck Ministry would 
indeed no longer be an impossibility! And after all the people are not 
yet mature enough for a republic! 

After Herr Rupp’s speech precisely everything still remains to be 
said. It was a question in the first place not of restriction of the 
freedom of the press in general, but above all of restriction of the 
freedom of the press in regard to posters. What had to be done was to 
examine the effect of posters, to defend “street literature”, and most 
particularly to champion the right of the workers to the literature 
provided free of charge in the form of posters. It was not a matter of 
glossing over the right of agitation by means of posters, but frankly to 
champion that right. But Herr Rupp said not a word about this. The 
old phrases about freedom of the press which we had sufficient 
opportunity of examining in all its aspects during 33 years of 
censorship—these old phrases were once more trotted out by Herr 
Rupp at length in a solemn tone, and because he said everything that 
the gentlemen from the National-Zeitung know about the subject, 
that newspaper considers he has exhausted the subject. 

After the “enlightened” Rupp, the “obscurantist” Riedel was 
given the floor. But Herr Riedel’s speech is too good to write about it 
in haste. A demain donc, citoyen Riedell? 

[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 283, April 27, 1849] 

Cologne, April 23. Deputy Riedel certainly delivered the most classic 
speech of the whole debate. Whereas some restraint was still being 
shown by the ministerial bench, whereas even Manteuffel still 
employed certain pseudo-constitutional phrases, and only the clumsy 
parvenu, von der Heydt, at times forgot his constitutional role, Herr 
Riedel from Barnim-Angerminde was not in the least embarrassed 
to speak as a dyed-in-the-wool representative of Uckermark.” 
Never before has an electoral constituency been so worthily 
represented as that of Herr Riedel. 

Herr Riedel began by asking: what are posters? And he gave the 
answer: 

“Posters in the proper meaning of the word are public statements intended to have 
a reassuring effect on people’s minds.” 

That, according to Herr Riedel’s etymology, is the “definition” of 
posters. 

For the time being we do not want to dispute with Herr Riedel 
about the derivation of the word “poster” [ Plakat]. We only draw his 
attention to the fact that if he had read the Bill attentively, he could 
have saved himself all his etymological exertions. This Bill is 
concerned not only with “posters” but also with “pasted notices’, 

which “in the proper meaning of the word” are simply intended to 
be pasted up. 

Instead of this, Herr Riedel expressed his righteous indignation at 
the most scandalous misuse of the word “poster”. 

“As a rule, posters serve merely to inflame passions, to kindle an impure fire of hatred 
or revenge particularly against the authorities.... As a rule, therefore, posters are 
precisely the opposite of what their name implies. Hence their use is usually a misuse” 
(i.e. a misuse of their name) “and therefore the question arises: Ought the local police 
authorities to help promote this mischief of posters?” (i.e. this misuse of the name 
poster”). “Ought the police to make themselves in some measure the accomplices in 
the mischief caused by the misuse” (of the name) “‘of posters” (for notices which are in 
no way posters, i.e. reassuring notices)? 

In short, ought posters in future to be employed “in accordance 
with their definition” (i. e. in accordance with the definition of the 
word “poster”) or not? 

What a great mistake Manteuffel committed in ascribing the law 
on posters to motives concerned with police duties and beautifying 
the streets! What a mistake it was for the Central Commission to 
advocate the law for political reasons! The law is necessary—for 
etymological reasons and should really be entitled: a law to return 
the use of the word “poster” to the “proper meaning of the word”. 

In this connection, however, the thorough Herr Riedel has 
committed a thorough blunder. If we, at the risk of boring our 
readers to death, were to enter into a discussion with Herr Riedel on 
etymology, we would, with Diez’s grammar in hand, prove to him 
that the derivation of the [German] word Plakat [poster] is not at all 
from the Latin placare,* but is only a distortion of the French placard, 
which is connected with the French word plaque, which itself is of 
German origin. Hence Herr Riedel’s whole reassurance theory falls 
to the ground. 

That, of course, is a matter of indifference to Herr Riedel, and 
rightly so. For this whole reassurance theory is merely a schoolmaster’s captatio benevolentiae’ behind which is an outright appeal to the 
fears of the propertied classes. 

Posters “inflame passions”, they “kindle an impure fire of hatred 
or revenge particularly against the authorities”, they 

“serve as a call to the unreasoning mass to demonstrations which menacingly (!) 
violate order and go beyond the limits of legitimate freedom”. 

And therefore posters must be prohibited. 
In other words: the united feudal lords, bureaucrats and 
bourgeois successfully accomplished their coup d’état last autumn by 
force of arms, and now, with the help of the Chambers, want to 
impose on us the supplementary laws that are still required in order 
that these gentlemen can enjoy their victory in peace. They are 
heartily sick of “passions”, they will use every means to extinguish 
“the impure fire of hatred and revenge against the authorities”, who 
for them after all are the most desirable authorities in the world, to 
establish “order” and to restore “legitimate freedom” to the level 
that suits them. And what sort of level that is can be judged from the 
fact that Herr Riedel calls the great majority of the people an 
“unreasoning mass’. 

Herr Riedel cannot find words bad enough to describe this 
“unreasoning mass”. He continues: 

“These communications” (by means of posters) “are mostly read by just that class 
of people who are least of all accustomed to written communications, who are not able 
to test and judge the credibility of written communications with the caution and 
distrust that is of course displayed by the public accustomed to reading and acquainted 
with the deceptions of the press....” 

Who then form this unreasoning mass, this class least of all 
accustomed to written communications? Is it the peasants of 
Uckermark? By no means: since, firstly, they are the “backbone of 
the nation”, secondly, they do not read posters, and, thirdly, they 
elected Herr Riedel. Herr Riedel has in mind none but the urban 
workers, the proletariat. Posters are a chief means of influencing the 
proletariat. By its very position the proletariat is revolutionary; being 
the class which is as much oppressed under a constitutional regime as 
under absolutism, the proletariat is quite prepared to take up arms 
again; it is precisely from the proletariat that the chief danger 
threatens, and therefore away with everything that could keep alive 
the revolutionary fervour in the proletariat! 

And what is more conducive to keeping alive revolutionary 
fervour among the workers than posters, which convert every street 
corner into a huge newspaper in which workers who pass by find the 
events of the day noted and commented on, the various views 
described and discussed, and where at the same time they meet 
people of all classes and opinions with whom they can discuss the 
contents of the posters; in short, where they have simultaneously a 
newspaper and a club, and all that without costing them a penny! 

It is just this, however, that the gentlemen of the Right do not 
want. And they judge correctly. For it is from the side of the proletariat that the greatest, indeed the sole danger threatens them; why 

should they, who hold the reins of power, not strive by every means 
to remove this danger? 

No one could raise any objection to this. With God’s help we have 
been living for about six months under a sabre dictatorship. We do 
not harbour the slightest illusion about the fact of being in a state of 
open war against our enemies, or about the means by which alone 
our party can come to power. We shall not be so ridiculous as to 
make moral reproaches against the present ruling triple alliance of 
junkers, bureaucrats and bourgeois because they strive in every way 
to enslave us. If the highly moral preacher’s tone and bombastic 
moral indignation of the wailers were not in any case obnoxious to 
us, we would beware of such an empty phrase-mongering polemic if 
only because we still intend to take revenge on our enemies. 

But what we find peculiar is that the gentlemen who are now in 
power, and who have an official majority, do not speak as frankly as 
we do. Herr Riedel, for example, is as genuine an Uckermark man as 
anyone could wish for and yet he could not refrain from asserting at 
the end of his speech: 

“It has certainly never been my intention to put any kind of barrier in the way of 

free expression of opinion. I regard the spiritual struggle ... for the truth as a sacred right 
of free peoples, which no one may call in question.” 

And in another passage Herr Riedel speaks of his wish 

“to allow the distribution of posters on the same basis as that on which literary 
works in general can be distributed”’. 

What, after all the preceding explanations, are these phrases 
intended to mean? The existing government and the constitutional 
monarchy in general cannot nowadays remain in power in civilised 
countries, if the press is free. Freedom of the press, free competition 
between opinions means giving freedom to the class struggle in the 
sphere of the press. And the kind of order that they ardently desire 
is precisely the stifling of the class struggle, the gagging of the 
oppressed classes. Hence the party of law and order has to abolish 
free competition between opinions in the press; by means of press 
laws, bans etc., it must as far as possible ensure its monopoly of the 
market; it must, in particular, wherever possible directly suppress 
the literature provided free of charge in the form of posters and 
leaflets. The gentlemen are well aware of all this; why do they not say 
as much frankly? 

In fact, Herr Riedel, why do you not propose immediate 
restoration of the censorship? There is no better means for 
repressing “passions”, extinguishing “the impure fire of hatred and 

revenge against the authorities”, and safeguarding “the limits of 
legitimate freedom”! Voyons, citoyen Riedel, soyons francs!* After all, it 
will come to that in the end! 

Herr Riedel resumed his seat. The floor was given to Simons, the 
Minister of Justice, barrister from Elberfeld, the offspring of a 
Wuppertal bourgeois family of an equal rank to that of von der 
Heydt. 

Herr Simons set about his task with tremendous thoroughness. It 
is noticeable that he is still new to the Ministry of Justice. 

Posters are pasted up in public streets and squares, said the 
Minister of Justice. Consequently 

“one must look for the definition of public streets and squares’!! 

True, Herr Riedel had established the “definition” and “proper 
meaning of the word” poster in a way deserving our thanks. But that 
is not the point at all. On the contrary, it is a question of the 
“definition of streets and squares”. And here the Minister of Justice 
wins immortal laurels. 

Can one imagine a finer school for teaching the ABC than this 
Chamber where people argue seriously about the definition of 
streets and squares, about schoolboyish points of grammar, and so 
forth? 

What then is the “definition of streets and public squares”’? 

It is as follows: streets etc. 

cannot “be made available for any random and public use”, because “such a 
definition of streets etc. cannot be proved’! 

Hence the reason why we have a so-called Minister of Justice is 
precisely to give us such profound explanations. In fact, one 
understands now why Herr Simons found it embarrassing to be 
presented to the Chamber. 

Of course, after such a brilliant performance, the remainder of the 
Minister’s speech is not worth mentioning. Under the cloak of 
remarkable erudition in French jurisprudence, Herr Simons 
brought out some forgotten recollections from his former practice as 
a Public Prosecutor. Then come statements like the following: 

“This question of need must certainly (!) be given an affirmative answer, that at least 
(!!) is my opinion (!!!), bearing in mind the doubts (1!!!) that have been raised (!!!!!).” 

Finally, Herr Simons wanted 

“to sanction the legal foundation for restricting posters”. 

To sanction a foundation! Where did you learn such language, Herr 
Simons? 

After such oratorical feats as those of Herr Riedel and Herr 
Simons, we cannot, of course, dwell on Herr Berends’ speech which 
followed them. Herr Berends correctly felt by instinct that the ban 
on posters was aimed directly against the proletariat, but his 
development of the theme was rather feeble. 

The general debate came to an end. For rejecting the Bill en bloc 
there were 152 votes, and against it 152 votes. Among others of the 
Left who were absent without special permission was Herr Kyll from 
Cologne. If Herr Kyll had been present the Bill on posters would 
have been rejected out of hand. Hence we owe it to Herr Kyll that the 
Bill was adopted in part. 

We shall not dwell on the special debate. Its result is well known: 
the itinerant traders in books have been placed under police 
surveillance. 

For this they can thank Herr Kyll!