nowise betrayed, and that if the crime of high treason were committed on that occasion, Count Arnim was not the culprit. He has, therefore, in that respect also, a right to be acquitted in

contumaciam.

"As to the assertion that the author of the pamphlet Pro Nihilo, had been guilty of affronting his Majesty, the reply is, that the passages which are, according to the indictment, criminatory, bear out no such charge.

"Whereas, the account of the audience granted to Count Arnim by his Majesty, and of the assurance given him by his Majesty, that he did not wish him to leave the service, could not be omitted in a document drawn up for the defence of Count Arnim, being the only means at his command for doing away with the reproach, frequently cast in his teeth, that he had delayed too long in placing himself out of reach of the Imperial Chancellor's attacks:

"Whereas, the assurance thus given can only be taken in the sense that his Majesty did not recognise Prince Bismarck's right to make complaints of the Count, but merely discerned, in the origin of these complaints, a feature of the Prince's character:

"Whereas, under such circumstances, it was Count Arnim's duty not to withdraw from purely personal attacks on the part of the Imperial Chancellor :

"Whereas, also, the correctness of the statements contained in the pamphlet has not been called in question by any of the persons entitled so to do:

"Whereas, in any case, the author of the pamphlet had no intention whatever of giving offence to his Majesty, as is evident from the fact that, in the same sentence wherein this feature of the Imperial Chancellor's character is touched upon, it is also said that his Majesty is personally incapable of harbouring resentment:

"Whereas the whole of the document gives proof that the author was inspired with the deepest respect for his Majesty, as is shown, for instance, on page 143 (to mention one only out of many passages), where the author praises the Royal moderation exhibited by the Emperor William when he overlooked the case of the would-be regicide, Oscar Becker, as contrasted with the manner in which the partisans of Prince Bismarck made capital out of Kullmann's attempt:

"Whereas it is impossible that his Majesty should feel offended by the assertion that, in spite of the debt of gratitude due from his Majesty to the Prince, he can readily discern the faults of the Prince's character:

"Whereas, no logical nor even conceivable connection can be established between the reproduction of his Majesty's words and the passages in the document which criticise the Prince's method of proceeding, and style it a ministerial despotism, the Court of Justice is in a position to pronounce that Count Arnim in reproducing the Emperor's words has not been guilty of offence towards his Majesty, even supposing he were the author of the pamphlet.'

"The author of the pamphlet is also considered to have affronted his Majesty by the use of the following words: Count Arnim was perhaps authorised in saying with Villeroy, minister of Henri III, 'Le roi aurait mieux fait de me laisser sortir par la porte à laquelle j'ai si longtemps frappé, que de me jeter par la fenêtre.'

"It almost seems as if the prosecution had imagined that the King Henri III., really threw

the minister Villeroy bodily out of the window. Such a supposition, however, on their part, would be a mistake, as the criminatory sentence is merely the expression of the vexation caused by a sudden and unmerited disgrace. The insertion of the above-quoted passage in the pamphlet is evidently due to this last-mentioned cause. It is impossible to discover in what respects any insult to his Majesty could be intended.

"The author's assertion that his Majesty took part against Count Arnim in coming to a decision adverse to the latter, can no more be an insult to his Majesty than the said passage. For it is a well-known and historical fact that his Majesty did come to such a decision, and it is this circumstance that rendered the Count's withdrawal from his Majesty's service inevitable. The author of the pamphlet has, therefore, been guilty of no offence against his Majesty. As to the fourteen offences against Prince Bismarck, for the commission of which the author is blamed, we have no intention of furnishing the proof, easily produced, that Count Arnim, supposing he were the author of the pamphlet, would, more than any one

else, have for excuse the fact of his having been provoked by attacks on himself. If, notwithstanding this, Prince Bismarck considers himself “insulted" by the pamphlet, in fourteen instances, and if he deems it sufficient to seek reparation by calling in the aid of the Public Prosecutor, then there is no necessity for him to thrust this affair on the High Court of Justice. It would be sufficient, for that purpose, to appeal to the tribunals, whose competency to restore his injured honour, is generally recognised by Prince Bismarck.

"We conclude this declaration by asserting that a judgment passed by the High Court of justice in contumaciam will not be able to persuade the nation :

"1. That Count Arnim betrayed his country; "2. That he has given offence to his Majesty.