Cologne Communist Trial

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cologne Communist Trial of 1852 was directed against the members of the Cologne section of the League of Communists . It was part of the fight against the political opposition with the means of the judiciary at the height of the reaction time .

Cologne Communist Trial of 1852. On the left the eleven defendants with their defense counsel, in the middle the court with assistant president Göbel, the regional court - chamber president Oedenkoven and Dr. Kehrmann, the chief procurator Dr. von Seckendorff (standing?), the state procurator Saedt and on the right the seven jurors. Woodcut after a pen drawing by JHM ( Leipziger Illustrirte Zeitung No. 19, November 20, 1852, p. 32).
Revelations about the communist trial in Cologne. Edition from 1885

Prehistory and background

In numerous trials, the authorities of the individual states of the German Confederation tried to eliminate the opposition with the help of ordinary court proceedings. In the case of the League of Communists, King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia himself specified the goal in a letter to Prime Minister Otto Theodor von Manteuffel : The task must be to spy on “the fabric of the liberation conspiracy” by all means. The “Prussian audience” should be given the “longed-for spectacle of an uncovered and (above all) punished plot”.

The Prime Minister and the police authorities fulfilled this task. They hoped to make up for their loss of reputation after the spectacular escape of the democratically minded university professor Gottfried Kinkel from the Spandau prison. The primary aim was not to smash the small, scattered groups of supporters, but rather the authorities aimed at a decisive blow against the head of the “party of the revolution”. The opportunity arose in May 1851 after the tailor Peter Nothjung was arrested by accident in Leipzig for missing papers at the Leipzig train station during the Leipzig trade fair . He had a letter of legitimation, various addresses and copies of "speeches" of the Communist League with him, which the authorities used for house searches and arrests.

Through the cooperation of the police authorities of the federal states, the reports reached the Prussian authorities, which then began to investigate the emigrants from Germany in London in order to find a reliable criminal offense for the planned high treason trial against Nothjung ( Prussian secret police ). The leading police officer in charge of the case, Wilhelm Stieber , reported from Cologne at the end of May 1851 that he had " discovered a great conspiracy ". With the help of agents and informers, he gathered together falsified evidence which, in addition to the upcoming Cologne trial, was also used in a public jury trial in Paris in 1852 and in Berlin , Mainz and Bremen in 1853 .

In the Cologne trial, the main accusation was membership in the League of Communists itself, which the government described as a "clandestine, all-invading party" that should be held responsible for the revolutionary events in Cologne in 1848. In fact, during the revolution of 1848 , the federation had disbanded for a time, even if its members had played a not unimportant role as individuals. After the revolution, attempts were made to reorganize the Bund from London. Political differences of opinion already caused the split into two factions on September 15, 1850: One led by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , the other Karl Schapper and August Willich .

In Cologne, a section of the Communist League had already formed in the spring of 1849, to which the function of the "leading circle" was transferred from the "Marx Party" after the split in the league. Even if the people of Cologne tried to advertise their cause, there was little scope for (secret) political activity, and the efforts did not achieve the widespread effect that was hoped for. The Bund had already failed politically when the police began to gradually arrest the members in May 1851.

Process flow

However, the opening of the trial dragged on for almost two years, as the responsible lawyers at the Cologne jury court could not find any solid evidence in the police records. Partly under pressure from the state, the process finally began in October 1852. Nevertheless, this continued to be a risk for the government, as the Rhenish law based on the Civil Code was a legal basis in the Rhine Province that was different from that in the rest of Prussia clearly different. Civil servant judges did not judge behind closed doors, but the principle of the public and the participation of juries applied . However, some of these principles found their way into procedural law in the rest of the monarchy during and after the revolution of 1848.

The defendants later belonged to Dortmund and Cologne mayor Hermann Becker , who saw all differences with Marx in the Communist League a tool to enter politics for a republic. The accused were also the doctors Roland Daniels , Abraham Jacobi and Johann Jacob Klein , the chemist Carl Wunibald Otto and the bank clerk Albert Erhard , who admitted to their radical democratic stance, but denied membership in the federal government. In contrast, Nothjung, the journalist Heinrich Bürgers , the clerk Wilhelm Joseph Reiff and the cigar maker Peter Gerhard Roeser had granted membership. Also accused were the tailor Friedrich Lessner and the poet Ferdinand Freiligrath , who escaped arrest by fleeing to London.

All of the defendants were accused of “having set up a plot in Cologne in the course of 1848, 1849, 1850 and 1851, the purpose of which was to overthrow the state constitution and to arm the citizens and residents against the royal power and against each other in order to stir up a civil war. Crimes against Articles 87, 89 and 91 of the Rhenish and Section 61 No. 2 and Section 63 of the Criminal Code for the Prussian states. "

The trial initially took place with great public participation, and there were even demonstrations for the accused. Although initially only fourteen days were scheduled for him, the negotiations ultimately lasted more than six weeks, also because of the questioning of numerous witnesses. Karl Marx was informed about the status with about a two-day delay through the stenographic reports in the Kölnische Zeitung and tried from London to prove the falsification of the evidence presented. The defendants themselves also largely succeeded in refuting the charges, and after some time the public lost interest in the slow progress. This changed when Police Councilor Stieber presented the allegedly original log book of the “Marx Party” on October 23, the content of which weighed heavily on the Defendant Becker in particular. But this proof was also forged, for which Willich even had the forger arrested by the English police in London. His statement was sent to Cologne, but did not reach the recipients, who had also been arrested. Apparently the dubiousness of the evidence was too great for the prosecution to use it further.

The trial ended on November 12, 1852 with the jury's decision:

  • Acquittal for Jacobi, Klein, Erhard and Daniels;
  • Fortress imprisonment for Röser, Nothjung and citizens of six years; for Reiff, Otto and Becker for five years and for Lessner for three years as well as denial of civil rights for five years and assumption of all legal costs by the convicted. For Roeser, Nothjung and Bürgers, a lifelong police supervision should also apply after serving their imprisonment.

The verdict was pronounced under strong military protection, but there were still some riots.

Reactions and consequences

The supporters of the political opposition reacted critically in the face of the manifestly false evidence. It is not surprising that for Karl Marx the matter was purely a trend process. But Karl August Varnhagen von Ense judged hardly otherwise :

“Downcast news from Cologne! [...] A shameful, completely unjust judgment! The government has horribly prepared everything for it, spent a year and a half in pre-trial detention, appointed the jury, arranged a rogue, etc. - And such a - like Stieber walks around freely, can boast of demanding rewards while the best men languish in dungeons! [...] All those with legal knowledge here and in the Rhineland were convinced that the accused could not be convicted under the laws currently in force. "

However, it was not possible to prove the defendants guilty of a specific conspiracy. There was no evidence of this. The conviction took place only because of the fact of participation in a "plot". No evidence of a specific plan for a coup was required, but it was still suitable for condemning political opponents.

But the government was also not satisfied with the outcome of the process. An indirect consequence was that the jury courts established throughout the Prussian monarchy after 1848 lost their jurisdiction over press offenses and political proceedings. The State Court of Justice at the Berlin Chamber Court was set up specifically for this purpose .

The two state procurators August Heinrich von Seckendorff and Otto Saedt were personally awarded the red eagle order “third class with ribbon” and “fourth class” by King Friedrich Wilhelm IV immediately after the end of the trial .

expenditure

  • Karl Marx: Revelations about the Communist Trial in Cologne . Chr. Küsel printing works, Basel 1853
  • Karl Marx: Revelations about the Communist Trial in Cologne . In: New England Newspaper. Boston March 5th to April 23rd, 1853
  • Karl Marx: Revelations about the Communist Trial in Cologne . Boston 1853 Online
  • Karl Marx: Revelations about the Communist Trial in Cologne. New imprint . Cooperative printing company, Leipzig 1875
  • Karl Marx: Revelations about the Communist Trial in Cologne. New reprint with an introduction by Friedrich Engels . Volksbuchhandlung, Zurich 1885
  • Marx-Engels Works . Vol. 8, pp. 405-470 online version
  • Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe I. Department, Vol. 10, pp. 358-361 and 974-1022

literature

  • Wermuth- Stieber: The Communist Conspiracies of the Nineteenth Century. In the official order for the use of the police authorities of all German federal states on the basis of the relevant judicial and police acts . 2 parts. AW Hayn, Berlin 1852–1854 (Reprint: Klaus Guhl, Berlin 1976)
  • Karl Bittel : The Communist Trial in Cologne 1852 in the mirror of the contemporary press. Edited and introduced . Rütten & Loening, Berlin 1955
  • Rudolf Herrnstadt : The first conspiracy against the international proletariat. On the history of the Cologne Communist Trial in 1852 . Rütten & Loening 1958
  • Ferdinand May: germination time. A spectacle in the d. Cologne Communist Trial of 1852 in scenes and inter-scenes . Leipzig (1965)
  • Christoph Golsong: The Cologne Communist Trial of 1852 from a legal historical point of view . Diss. Jur. Cologne 1995
  • Erhard Kiehnbaum: A witness in the Cologne communist trial. In: Contributions to the history of the labor movement. 38th year March 1996. 3K-Verlag Köschling, Berlin 1996, pp. 102-105
  • Gerhard Brunn: The Cologne Communist Trial . In: Petitions and barricades edit. by Ingeborg Schnelling-Reinicke. Edited by Ottfried Dascher. Münster 1998, pp. 402-403
  • The Communist Process in Cologne in 1852, exhibition of the Cologne City Museum from October 24th. until 11/10/2002 . Cologne 2002
  • Jürgen Herres: The Cologne Communist Trial of 1852 in: History in Cologne. Magazine for town and regional history; 50/2003 ( PDF )

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Facsimile Karl Bittel p. 17, text p. 18.
  2. ↑ Quoted from Herres, p. 139.
  3. ^ "Assassinations or conspiracies against the life and person of the members belonging to the sovereign's family; Likewise, such assassinations or conspiracies, the purpose of which is either to overturn or change the previous state constitution or Thorn series, or to incite the citizens and residents of the state to arm themselves against the sovereign power, are punishable by the death penalty and the confiscation of property. " ( Rhenish penal code according to the official German translation ordered by the French governorate . CM Schüller, Crefeld 1836, p. 19)
  4. ↑ "A conspiracy exists as soon as the decision to act has been agreed by two or more people, if the actual assassination attempt has not yet come about." (Ibid., P. 20.)
  5. ↑ "An assassination attempt or a conspiracy, the purpose of which is either to cause a civil war by arming the citizens or inhabitants of the state against one another, or by inciting them to provoke, or also to bring devastation, bloodshed and pillage into one or more communities, should be punished with the death penalty and the property confiscated. "(ibid.)
  6. ^ "Treason and treason. A company that aims to forcibly change the succession to the throne or the state constitution. ”( Penal code for the Prussian states. Along with its introduction. From April 14, 1851. Decker, Berlin 1851, p. 20.)
  7. ↑ "If two or more people have agreed to carry out a highly treasonable undertaking without the beginning of the act specified in § 62 having come about, they should be punished for five-year to lifelong imprisonment." (Ibid., P. 21)
  8. ↑ "§ 62 As an enterprise through which the crime of high treason is completed, such an act is to be assumed, through which the criminal project is to be carried out immediately." (Ibid., P. 21)
  9. ↑ Karl Bittel, p. 48.
  10. ↑ From the estate of Varnhagen von Ense. Diaries from KA Varnhagen von Ense . Vol. 9. Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 1868, p. 411. Online
  11. ↑ Justiz Ministerial-Blatt for Prussian legislation and administration of justice . Decker, Berlin 1853. Volume 15, No. 5 from January 28, 1853, pp. 46 and 47.
  12. ↑ About the officer and witness Franz Seraph August Bothe (1817–1882)