Bismarck

by Moritz Busch

“The Weser Zeitung of the 16th instant heads its columns with an article which speaks of the advice forwarded to the Königsberg magistrates by the Chancellor of the Confederation, through the Chief President von Horn, respecting the Jacoby affair. Be good enough to permit a few words of explanation in connection with that criticism. The remarks of the Weser Zeitung refer to two different subjects. The statement of the Chancellor in his communication to the Chief President is a purely theoretical discussion as to whether action inadmissible in peace may not be taken by military authorities after war has actually broken out. The opinions therein expressed are almost the same as these which must have been entertained by the Weser Zeitung itself when it remarked, ‘We can easily conceive cases in which we should be prepared with all our hearts to grant not only an indemnity but a vote of thanks for the somewhat illegal arrest of any worthless individual who obstructed this holy war.’ That is exactly the opinion of the Chancellor. If that much were not granted, it would then be impossible on an invasion of North German territory to deliver battle on our own soil, unless some extensive and entirely uninhabited heath were discovered and retained for the purpose, and even then the proprietor of that piece of ground would be afterwards able to claim compensation for the damage done to his property.

“Either the authorities entrusted with the conduct of the military operations must, notwithstanding the actual outbreak of hostilities, be bound by the Constitution and the law, or they must be held at liberty to take such reasonable measures as they consider necessary with a view to the fulfilment of their task. Theoretically, this question must be answered with a bare affirmative or negative. If it be answered in the negative it is hard to say by how many judicial officials every detachment of the fighting force on native soil would have to be accompanied, and what legal formalities gone through in the case of each separate house and person before the military authorities could feel that they were constitutionally within their rights in the course they desired to adopt. If the question is answered in the affirmative, then it must be recognised that it is impossible to codify the regulations governing the discretionary power which must be vested in the military commander in war, in such a manner that the general or soldier who executes his orders on native soil can in every instance refer to the particular paragraph of the Constitution or the law justifying his action.

“The Chancellor of the Confederation cannot possibly have had any other intention than to lay down the principles just stated theoretically, since, as a constitutional Prussian Minister of State, it is not competent for him to express any opinion as to whether the military commander has acted rightly in exercising the power vested in him, or as to the extent to which he may have exercised it. The military governors, who are appointed before the outbreak of war, are neither nominated by the Minister nor are they under his control. They are, on the contrary, appointed without his concurrence on the authority of the commander-in-chief, like all other military commanders. The Chancellor of the Confederation and the other Ministers of State are not the superiors of the military governors, and the latter would not obey the directions of the Ministers, but only those of the military authorities which reach them without any Ministerial co-operation.

“It is therefore an entirely unpractical course for those who consider themselves unjustly treated under the orders of the military authorities to direct their complaints to the Ministers of State. They can only demand redress from the military superiors of those against whom they enter complaint. It may therefore be taken for granted that the Chancellor of the Confederation has not considered himself to be in a position to officially express an opinion on the expediency of the course adopted in a single instance, such as that of Jacoby, but has, on the contrary, merely dealt from a theoretical standpoint, with the question whether, during war and in the interest of its successful prosecution, the arrest of individuals whose action in the judgment of the military authorities is injurious to us and advantageous to the enemy is temporarily permissible.

“Stated in these general terms, the question can hardly be answered in the negative by practical politicians and soldiers, although they may entertain many scruples both on theoretical and judicial grounds against martial law as a whole. The concrete question, however, whether this right, if it exists, was properly exercised in the case of Jacoby, is as much beyond the competence of the Ministry as, say, the question whether it is necessary or desirable in delivering battle on native soil to set a particular village on fire, or to arrest without legal process a private person at a distance of fifty miles from the battle-field because he is suspected of favouring the enemy. A discussion of the means by which the military commander could be rendered responsible for what the parties concerned may consider a false, hasty or improper course is foreign to our purpose. We have merely been at pains to show that the constitutional attributes of the Ministry do not give it any authority to interfere directly in such cases.”

Friday, October 21st.—The heavy firing which began early this morning increased as the day wore on. We did not allow this to disturb us, however. Various articles were completed, including one on the departure of the Nuncio and other diplomats from Paris.

At lunch Keudell stated that the French artillery had destroyed the porcelain factory at Sèvres. Hatzfeldt told us that his mother-in-law, an American lady who had remained in Paris, had sent him good news respecting the ponies of which he had often spoken to us. They were fine and fat. The question was whether she should now eat them. He was about to answer, “Yes, in God’s name!” but he intended to get the price of these animals included in the indemnity to be paid by the French Government.

Between 1 and 2 o’clock the firing seemed to have approached the woods to the north of the town. The artillery fire was severe, the reports following each other in rapid succession, while the rattle of the mitrailleuse could also be recognised. It gave the impression that a regular battle had developed, and was drawing nearer to us. The Chief ordered his horse to be saddled, and rode off. The rest of us also followed in the direction in which the fight seemed to be raging. We saw the familiar white clouds that accompany shell fire rise and burst in the air to the left, over the wood through which the road to Jardy and Vaucresson leads. Orderlies were galloping along the road thither, and a battalion was marching towards the point where the engagement was taking place. The fight continued until after 4 o’clock, and then one only heard isolated discharges from the large fort on Mont Valérien, and finally they too ceased. As was only natural, great excitement prevailed during the afternoon amongst the French in the town, and the groups who stood before the houses probably expected every moment, as the noise of the firing came nearer and nearer, to see our troops in full flight before the red breeches. They afterwards drew long faces and shrugged their shoulders.

In the evening the Chief said we ought not to permit groups of people to collect in the streets on the occasion of an engagement, and that the inhabitants should be ordered in such circumstances to remain within doors, the patrols being instructed to fire upon those refusing obedience.

Sunday, October 22nd.—This has now been done, Voigts-Rhetz, the Commandant of Versailles, having issued an order to the effect that on the alarm signal being given, all the inhabitants must immediately return to their houses, failing which the troops had received instructions to fire upon them.