3. Karl Marx. Draft of a Speech at the Trial of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
3. Karl Marx. Draft of a Speech at the Trial of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung[3]
II. JURIDICAL
Ad Article 222.
"Lorsqu'un ou plusieurs magistrats de l'ordre administratif ou judiciaire auront reçu dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions ou à l'occasion de cet exercice quelque outrage par paroles tendant: inculper leur honneur ou leur délicatesse, celui qui les aura ainsi outragés, sera puni d'un emprisonnement d'un mois à deux ans.—Si l'outrage a eu lieu à l'audience d'une cour ou d'un tribunal, l'emprisonnement sera de deux à cinq
>> a ans.
What is honneur? What is délicatesse? The distinction between "insult" and "calumny" is contained in Article 375, which reads as follows:
"Quant aux injures ou aux expressions outrageantes qui ne renfermeraient l'imputation d'aucun fait précis, mais celle d'un vice déterminé, si elles ont été proférées dans des lieux ou réunions publics ou insérées dans des écrits imprimés ou non, qui auraient été répandus et distribués, la peine sera une amende de seize francs à cinq cents francs." § 376. "Toutes autres injures ou expressions outrageantes qui n'auront pas eu ce double caractère de gravité et de publicité, ne donneront lieu qu'à des peines de simple police."
"If one or more officials of the administrative or judiciary system during the performance of their official functions or on the occasion of this performance have been subjected to insult by words tending to impugn their honour or delicacy, the person who has insulted them in this way will be punished by imprisonment from one month to two years.— If the insult took place at the sitting of a court or tribunal, the imprisonment will be from two to five years."—Ed.
"As regards insults or insulting expressions which do not contain the imputation of any precise act, but that of a definite vice, if they have been put forward in public places or meetings or inserted in writings, whether printed or not, which have been disseminated and distributed, the punishment will be a fine of from sixteen to five hundred francs." § 376. "AH other insults or insulting expressions which do not have this double character of seriousness and publicity will entail only a simple police punishment." — Ed.
17' Calumny, therefore, is present only where I impute to someone a fait précis, a definite act, which he himself is supposed to have committed. If I call someone a thief, then only Article 375 is applicable. The term "thief" is not a "fait précis", it is not at all the imputation of an "act", but only an "expression outrageante", the imputation of a "definite vice". Yesterday at such and such a place you stole a couple of silver spoons, is on the other hand calumny. Instead of the fine under §375 it incurs the much heavier punishment of imprisonment and loss of civil rights. The reason is: in the latter case the thing is more probable, greater damage to honour, and so on. Just as Article 375 concerns a private person, Article 222 concerns an official when the délit is committed against him in the performance of his duties. In accordance with the hierarchical spirit of the Code, an insult to a functioning official is punished more severely than an insult to an ordinary person. In content and concept, Article 222 is entirely identical with Article 375. Article 222 is simply an intensification of the punishment, as of the crime. Article 375 is applied in respect of officials engaged in performing their function.
Article 222 does not take the place of Article 367, where the crime of calumny against functioning officials is committed, but of Article 375. Otherwise crimes against private persons would be more severely punished than crimes against functioning officials, which is contrary to the spirit of the Code.
Therefore 1) Article 222 is identical with Article 375.
2) Article 222 differs from Article 367, just as 367 does from 375. As regards Zweiffel, the only incriminating statement can be: "Furthermore, Herr Chief Public Prosecutor Zweiffel is said to have stated that within eight days etc. he would put an end to it."b
Hence Article 222 (375) is not applicable, for which it would have to be said: "Zweiffel is said to have made base and dishonourable statements"...0 and the particular statement is a "fait précis", a definite and precisely adduced utterance.
But Article 222 is not applicable for other reasons, too: 2) Zweiffel was not functioning at all.
Endnotes
[3] This article, as well as a number of other reports below, was written by Engels during his forced stay in Switzerland. On September 26, 1848, a state of siege was declared in Cologne and an order was issued for the arrest of some of the editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, including Engels. Engels emigrated from Prussia to Belgium, where he was arrested by the Brussels police and on October 4 deported to France. After a short stay in Paris Engels went on foot to Switzerland (see his travel notes "From Paris to Berne" in Vol. 7 of the present edition, pp. 507-29). About November 9 Engels arrived in Berne via Geneva and Lausanne and remained there until January 1849. While in emigration he regularly sent to the Neue Rheinische Zeitung articles and various items of information.