Speech in the Reichstag, Berlin

2 April 1881

From the very beginning, Bismarck envisioned a positive state social policy as a counterpart to the state's policy of repression against socialist aspirations. Therefore, anyone who now compares state-directed social policy with the "Roman distribution of grain to the sweet rabble" is cynical.

Before I go into the matter, I would like to briefly address some of the last remarks made by the previous speaker (Eugene Richters) answer, because otherwise I might want to forget them because of their lower heaviness. He concluded that my prestige was waning. Yes, if he were right, I would like to say: thank God! For prestige is a terribly irksome thing, something hard to bear and easy to get tired of. I don't care at all. As I was much younger, about the age of the previous speaker, when I was perhaps even more ambitious, for years without any prestige - on the contrary, as an object of dislike, if not hatred, by the majority of my fellow citizens, I felt happier, happier and found healthier than in the times when I was most popular. None of this means anything to me; I do my duty and await what follows.

The previous speaker justified this mainly with the fact that the workers refuse the assistance that the Reich government is trying to bring them. The previous speaker cannot have any news about this; The previous speaker does not know what the majority of the workers are thinking; he knows what the eloquent nerds who stand at the top of the labor movements, what the professional publicists who need the workers as their entourage and the dissatisfied workers as their entourage need - what the previous speaker thinks about that, the previous speaker will certainly be informed in detail be. But we shall wait and see what the worker in general thinks. I do not know whether the significance of this question has reached the point where it has been considered outside of the learned workers' clubs, outside of the leading aspirants and orators. In the next elections we will have the first test of whether the worker has then, let alone now, formed a full judgment about it.

The field of legislation, which is entered with this law and of which the previous speaker rightly judged that it still has a very broad perspective, which may also make moderate Social Democrats more lenient in their judgment of the government - this field, which is hereby entered touches upon a question which is unlikely to be off the agenda anytime soon. For fifty years we have been talking about a social question. Since the Anti-Socialist Law I have always received warnings from high-ranking officials and from the people: It was promised at the time that something positive had to be done to eliminate the causes of socialism, insofar as they were justified; up to this point the admonition has come to me, and I don't believe that our sons and grandchildren will be able to come to terms with the social question that has been hanging in front of us for fifty years. No political question ever comes to a complete mathematical conclusion so that balances can be drawn from the books; they get up, have their times, and finally disappear among other issues of history; this is the way of an organic development. I consider it my job to tackle these questions without party passion, without excitement - I regret that party questions play such a role - because I don't know who is going to tackle them successfully if the Reich government doesn't do it. The previous speaker alluded to what I only want to mention in passing because it also appeared in another speech a few days ago, to an allegedly lively exchange of telegrams between “certain circles and a high-ranking person”, by which term I must understand myself in this case . Gentlemen, this is a very simple matter; I get thousands of telegrams - I'm a polite man and would even probably reply to a telegram from Herr Richter,

(Laughter)

if he would honor me with a friendly telegram; I can only reply politely to a friendly telegram as a greeting, and I cannot do any police research on the political tendencies of these senders. Nor am I so timid in my views as to make special catechizations about the sender's political party. If anyone takes pleasure in portraying me as a member of anti-Semitic associations, I do not begrudge them that. As my official position requires, I have kept aloof from all these movements, which I do not want; I would only wish that the other gentlemen, and especially those who honor the government and myself with their goodwill, would keep away more than before from inciting classes against each other, from turns of speech that stir up class hatred. When we recently heard from Mr. Abg. Lasker heard it said that the economic policy pursued by the government was an "aristocratic" policy, and that everything belonging to the aristocracy, suspected of self-interest, was denounced to the poor man at whose expense they allegedly lived - how Shouldn't the right reprisals for such a word be found there when such statements fall on anti-Semitic soil, so that the politics that oppose us are given a different epithet, which I don't want to say at all, but which everyone will find for themselves , denoted? When a newspaper like the Tribüne, which is said to be the property of Herr Bamberger, later passes on Herr Lasker's expression through its mouthpiece and goes on to say that this is the correct designation, that this is a Columbus discovery, this word having found that caring for the poor man and aristocracy cannot stand side by side in the same order of thought, yes, then think of it the other way round in the mouth of the anti-Semite, what element will he put in place of aristocrat, whether he will put exactly the same thing, in all the phrases with which Mr. Bamberger's organ foisted selfish injustices on the aristocracy.

(Bravo! right.)

Mr. Abg. Richter drew attention to the state's responsibility for what it does in the territory it enters today. Well, gentlemen, I have the feeling that the state can also be held responsible for its omissions. I don't think so "laisser faire, laissez-faire" (let it go, let it go), "pure Manchesterism in politics", "Everyone see how they do it, everyone see where they stay", "Those who are not strong enough to stand will be run down and kicked to the ground", "Whoever has it will be given, who has not, it will be taken away" - that this could be applied in the state, especially in the monarchical, paternally governed state, on the contrary, I believe that those who have the influence in this way of the state for the protection of the weaker, in turn expose themselves to the suspicion that they use the strength that is present in them, be it capitalist, be it rhetorical, be it otherwise, in order to gain a following, to suppress the others, to pave the way for party rule want to exploit and become peevish as soon as this beginning is disturbed by any government influence.

The Honourable Member feels that the consequences of this legislation do not go far enough. Yes, if he is only willing to be patient, we may be able to meet his expectations and wishes in this regard later – just not too quickly and not all at once! Such laws do not arise on the basis of a theoretical arbitrariness that ponders what kind of law should be made, but they have their genesis, their history, from which they arise. The reason why we have only come up with an accident insurance law to date is that this aspect of caring for the poor and the weak has already been particularly vigorously pursued in the past, at a time when I had not yet considered these things at all. I have already found requests, hints, and beginnings of this law; it was the law that, according to the state of the files, seemed most urgent and most pressing, and when I first approached it, I too had the feeling that the law was not comprehensive enough in theory; I was tempted to say in the first paragraph, in which I believe the sentence appears: "All workers who" and "must be compensated in such and such a way" - instead of saying: "Every German". If we approach this idea, which has something ideal about it, more closely, and if we want to include in particular the independent workers who do not fall victim to anyone's orders, then the matter of insurance has even greater difficulties, and the first thing that preoccupied us, and that preoccupied us much more seriously than any two-hour speech by any member of parliament could do, was the question: How far can the law be extended without creating a disadvantageous situation, an overly extensive approach, and thus a mistake, right at the start of this legislation? As a farmer, the question that came naturally to me was: Can it be extended, for example, to agriculture, which employs by far the largest number of workers, at least in the eastern provinces? I do not want to give up the hope that this is possible, but I would like to say a few words about the difficulties which have prevented us from doing so for the time being. It goes without saying that agricultural industries, insofar as they make use of machinery and elementary power, are not excluded. But the rest of the larger mass of the agricultural population is also often in contact with machines that are not operated by elemental forces but by horses, and sometimes by human hands, and this contact is often dangerous to life and health; but it is extremely difficult to fix the percentage of this population, the contribution ratio that results from this. The honourable Member, for his part, had already had a full knowledge of what the percentage is in every branch of human employment, and he has stated it with great certainty; I should be grateful if he would share with us this treasure and the source from which he has drawn it.

When I say that I am not giving up hope that agriculture will eventually be drawn into it, I have in mind an organization that cannot be created so quickly in one session, with which the child, if it is born at all, cannot be born at all, but into which it must first gradually grow, namely an organization according to which the branches which have insured their workers form corporate cooperatives which raise their real need for compensation through bonuses and which at the same time exercise sufficient control over its members so that the facilities are everywhere such that the cooperative incurs few burdens with them, in other words, that the interests of the co-paying co-members are made the guardian of the appropriateness of the facilities for accident prevention Is it possible to to get there by way of experience, then one will probably find the right percentage by way of experience even for agriculture that does not use elementary forces. The lack of experience in this area has also prompted us to be very cautious for the time being as to how the obligation to contribute is to be distributed, and I must say that I would not have the courage to pursue the draft any further if the Expenditures that it entails as a law are to be written exclusively at the expense of industry.

If state aid, whether in the form of rural poor associations, the provinces or the state, is completely withdrawn, then I will not have the courage to answer to industry for the consequences of this law. It is possible, and we will perhaps judge this in a few years based on experience, and we can, under certain circumstances, initially limit the state subsidy to three years, or whatever you like, but without any experiment having already been carried out, without any practical investigation of what we are facing, I do not have the courage to burden industry with the full costs of these state institutions, to burden it to a greater extent than before, in order to impose on it what the local poor associations have previously had to bear in the way of care for the factory worker who has had an accident and which in future will be borne to a greater, more complete and more dignified extent by the insurers in conjunction with the state. This is not a question of the creation of entirely new burdens, but of a transfer of burdens from poor associations to state services. I do not dispute that the burden of the donor or the benefit that the worker is to receive in general is increased, only not by this full third that is expected of the state, but only by the difference between what the local poor relief system has to provide for injured workers up to now and what it is to receive in the future, which will therefore be purely an improvement in the situation and lot of the worker. Only this difference can be credited to the state as a new benefit, and the question arises: is this difference worth the aim pursued by it, that the worker has a more decent and plentiful supply if he has an accident, and does not have to fight for his rights in court, but has the moderate subsidy that is demanded of the state, is this equivalent to the advantage that is achieved? I believe I can affirm this to the highest degree. The disabled worker is protected from starvation by our present poor laws. According to the law of the land, at least, no one should starve; whether it doesn't happen anyway, I don't know. But that is not enough to allow a man to look at his old age and his future with satisfaction, and there is also a tendency in this law to keep alive the feeling of human dignity, which I would like even the poorest German to retain, that he is not left without rights as a mere recipient of alms, but that he carries a peculium (minimal protected property) that no one else can dispose of and that cannot be alienated from him, that he, as a poor man, can dispose of independently and that opens many doors for him more easily that would otherwise be closed to him, and that ensures him better treatment in the house where he has found shelter, if he can also take the contribution he brings in with him out of the house again. Anyone who has personally examined the conditions of the poor in large cities, anyone who has tracked down the poor in the countryside, especially in the local community, and who has observed, even in the best-cared-for, good communities, how a poor person, especially if he is physically weak and crippled, is treated in the house of stepmothers, by relatives of some kind, sometimes by very close relatives, must admit that every healthy worker who sees this says to himself: It is terrible that a person should be brought down in this way by the treatment in the house he previously lived in, where the dog of his successor has it no worse. It happens! What weapon does a weak cripple have against being pushed into a corner and fed while hungry? He doesn't have any! But if he only has 100 or 200 marks for himself, the house will think twice before pressing him. We have seen it with the war invalids, if only 6 or 5 thalers are given monthly, that is already quite a lot of cash for a poor household in the country, where the woman, who is careful not to make the boarder who brings in money, annoyed and gets rid of him.

But first of all, this law is a kind of test that we are doing, and also a probe of how deep the water is financially, which we are proposing to state and country to step into. One cannot cover oneself against these things by giving a smooth, fluent speech in which one recommends the formation of the liability law without indicating with a single syllable how one thinks this formation. You can't do this thing with it, you play the ostrich with it, hiding its head so as not to see the danger. It is the government's task to face the dangers calmly and fearlessly, as they were eloquently described to us here a few days ago (by the Prussian Interior Minister Robert von Puttkamer) with convincing evidence, but also to face the pretexts , which are used to agitate the masses, which first teach them criminal doctrines, as far as it is up to us to eliminate them. Call it socialism or not, it doesn't really matter to me. If you call it socialism, the ulterior motive is, of course, to place the Kaiser's government in the line of fire of the criticism that Herr v. Puttkamer explained to us here about the efforts of the socialists, one should believe that from this proposal to Hasselmann's gang of murderers and Most's incendiary writings and to the subversive conspiracies that were brought to us by the Wyden Congress (the Social Democracy in August 1880 in Switzerland , where it was decided to set up an underground organization) were revealed,

(Shout: Oho!)

that only a very small space still separates us from it, which is also gradually being crossed. Well, gentlemen, on the contrary, these are more oratorical ornaments with which to fight, which have no ambush, using the versatility of the word "socialism". From the way the socialists have done it in their program, that's a label almost synonymous with "criminal" in public opinion. Well, these efforts of the government to treat the worker who died in an accident better in the future and, in particular, to treat him with more dignity than before, not to give his still healthy comrades the example of an old man slowly starving to death, so to speak, on the rubbish - you can't do that in the sense of call it socialist, as this gang of murderers was recently presented to us, and that's a pretty cheap game with the shadow on the wall if you shout "socialist" about it.

If Mr. Abg. Bamberger, who took no offense at the word "Christian" and wanted to find a name for our efforts, which I readily accept, so it is: practical Christianity, but sans phrase (without beating around the bush), whereby we don't talk people into it and figures of speech, but where we really want to grant them something.

(Bravo! right.)

But death is in vain! If you don't want to dig into your pockets and into the treasury, you won't get anything done. Putting the whole thing on the industry - I don't know if they can take it. It is difficult in all industries.

For some, however, it would work; they are those branches of industry in which wages are only a minimal amount of the total cost of production. I call such branches of production chemical factories or mills, which are able to do their business with a few twenty workers at a turnover of one or more millions; but the great majority of the workers are not in such, I would like to say aristocratic businesses, which I don't want to arouse class hatred with, but they are in those where the wages are up to 80 or 90 percent of the costs, and whether they are there can survive, I don't know. Whether the contribution is given to the workers or to the entrepreneurs, I consider that to be quite immaterial. Industry has to bear it in both cases, and what the worker contributes must ultimately be at the expense of the whole business. It is generally complained that the wages of the workers as a whole do not permit any surplus or savings. So if one wants to impose a burden on the worker on top of the wages that were just sufficient, then the entrepreneur must add these resources so that the worker can bear the burden, or the worker will switch to another business.

The previous speaker said that precisely that was a defect in the law, that the principle of the worker's freedom from contributions had not been fully implemented. He acted as if he hadn't been introduced at all; however, it does not apply to workers who receive a wage of more than 750 marks in 300 working days. It is based on the genesis of the law that it came about in this way; it was originally stated in the first draft that one-third of the contributions should be made by the local poor authorities, which, in the event of the worker becoming disabled, would be responsible for his or her maintenance from the point of view of state-imposed poor relief, and there is no reason to resp. of the entire poor care, who up to now have been responsible for the 80 percent of the casualties not affected by the Liability Act, simply to make a gift with it, and therefore the sentence was accepted as in accordance with justice that the poor association, which in the other case the casualties would be a burden would fall, a third should carry. This reasoning, however, does not apply with the same certainty to those whose wages are so high that, if they had an accident, they would hardly be a burden to the poor association, given their wealth. I am very willing to drop this limitation. It has often been talked about.

Since the whole of the Reichstag has so far spoken out against a state subsidy, to my regret, I would not add more votes to the law. I declare, however, that this limit of 750 is not an essential point in relation to the whole theory underlying the law. Originally, this was a feeling of fairness towards the poor associations, on whom one did not want to impose higher burdens than they were given savings through this law, roughly in general calculation. It later turned out that from many practical examples, the concept of the local poor association was completely inapplicable because of the unfair distribution that takes place in our poor care, which is actually the burden of the state, but which it has burdened the communities with . Geographically, small impotent communities are very often overburdened with poor relief and large rich communities have very little in it, and there would have been too unequal distribution of premium contributions to stop at local poor organizations. In this conviction, I suggested that instead of the local poor's association, I say rural poor's association. So the draft lasted a few weeks until finally, under the influence of the allied states and also the Economic Council, this designation was dropped and instead it was left to the individual state to decide how it wanted to act itself as a rural poor association or how it approached its rural poor associations. wanted to pull. This is how the limit of 750 marks came into being, so that we finally got down to pure state aid in this form, which is still the mode of state legislation by way of distribution to the associations of the rural poor or the associations of the district poor; we will indeed need a revision of our poor laws altogether; how you want to turn it afterwards is immaterial.

It does not surprise me when opinions diverge greatly on a new subject, so penetrating in our lives and so uncultivated by experience, and I am fully prepared for this divergence of opinions to bring us together in this session fail to bring about an acceptable bill. My interest in the whole processing of the matter is greatly diminished as soon as I should realize that the principle of omitting the state subsidy would definitely be accepted, that the mood of the state legislature was against the state subsidy. Then the matter would be referred purely to the area of ​​free movement, so to speak, and it would perhaps be better left to the insurers of private industry than to practice a state institution without coercion. Because I wouldn't have the courage to declare the compulsion if the state didn't offer a subsidy at the same time. If compulsion were to be imposed, it would be necessary for the law to create an insurance company that was cheaper and safer than any other. One cannot leave the poor man's penny bankrupt, nor admit that a deduction from contributions would be paid as dividends or interest on stocks. Mr. Abg. Yesterday, Bamberger justified his attack on the law essentially with the complaint about the ruin of the insurance companies - he expressed himself strongly: that they would be crushed, crushed, and said that these insurance companies are trying to win the gratitude of their fellow citizens. I always thought they were courting their fellow citizens' money.

(Laughter)

But if they can still record their gratitude for this, then that is a skilful operation. But I never believed that they, as noble souls, were prepared to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the workers in setting up their insurance companies on stocks, and it would be difficult for me to convince myself of that.

(Dept. Bebel: Very good!)

And for those private insurance companies that can go bankrupt, even with good management, through economic trends, through major accidents, which are forced to structure their contributions in such a way that there is still a dividend left for those who donate their capital, at least a good one Interest and also the hope of dividends, according to my legal feeling, we cannot force anyone to take out such insurances, and I would like to refuse my assistance in this regard. In my opinion, the correlate of the compulsion is also the assumption of the insurance by the state in the form of the Reich or in the form of the individual state - without which there is no compulsion! Also, as I said before, I don't have the courage to use compulsion if I don't have something to offer in return. This one-third contribution by the state is, as I have already said, much lower than it appears, because the associations to which the state has burdened its responsibility to care for the poor are also relieved of very important services. If this is communism, as the previous speaker said, not socialism, then I don't care, I keep calling it practical Christianity in legal activity - but if it is communism, then communism has long been practiced in the communities to the highest degree, even by state coercion. The previous speaker said that in our way the lower classes would be burdened with indirect taxes in order to pay for the poor relief. Yes, gentlemen, what is happening in the big cities, in Berlin, which in his opinion is so brilliantly administered by the progressive Ring? The poor are cared for by the fact that the impoverished, who tomorrow will be his equally poor brother when he is mortgaged because of the rental tax, has to raise the contribution through rental tax in order to care for the already poor. That's much tougher than if it came from the tobacco or spirits tax.

The previous speaker said that I had made a speech against the tax on spirits. I really cannot remember that, and I would be very grateful if he could prove it to me in some words. I have always mentioned tobacco and spirits as the items that should be taxed more heavily, I have only questioned whether it is useful to tax spirits at the manufacturing stage, which some other countries, such as France, leave entirely free, or to tax them at a different stage. The Member has therefore made an error - certainly unintentionally. However, the error, which later appears without refutation in many newspapers over which the Member has influence, does not make a bad impression. I do not want to go into the errors in the liability law any further; they will be discussed by more knowledgeable and more involved gentlemen. This was one of the motives that, in addition to the promises made when the Socialist Law was passed, which you will all remember and which I have often been reminded to fulfil, led me to the unexpectedly detrimental effect of the liability legislation, which was one of the main factors, as I was convinced by experience that the lawsuits arising from liability have a very uncertain and often disproportionate outcome if they succeed, and an equally disproportionate outcome in many cases where they fail, and that I have been assured by many credible sources that, instead of the relationship between employers and employees being improved by liability, in many places where lawsuits are frequent, especially where shyster lawyers who are interested in stirring up discontent with regard to elections, the bitterness between employers and employees has only increased, contrary to the well-meaning intention of the law, and that the worker feels damaged and deprived by the effect of the law, because even in a It is difficult for him to ever be convinced by the court that he is wrong, especially if he has a lawyer who tells him the opposite and assures him that if there were four or five instances of court, he would bring his case to this point.

Therefore, I thought to introduce a system that works more easily, where there is no mention of litigation, and where there is no question of whether there is any fault. It doesn't matter to the person concerned, he remains unhappy, he remains maimed, he remains unable to work once he has become so, and his surviving dependents are left without a breadwinner, it may be dolose or culpa lata (fraudulently or through gross negligence) or the most innocent way to have come. We are not dealing, therefore, with punitive and distributive justice, but with the protection of a part of the population, quite defenseless without the law, against the rigors of life and against the consequences of their misfortunes and against the harshness of the situation of one without any peculium of their own ( minimum protected property) local poor addicted to community catering.

I will not go into the accusation of communism any further; I would just like to ask that in questions like these, where none of us really see our way as yet lying ahead of us, but rather laboriously explore it with staff and probe, that we don't look at everything from the point of view of party tactics from the point of view of factional tactics, from the feeling "Away with Bismarck" and the like. I would like someone else to take my place as soon as possible, if he only wanted to continue that, I would like to say: "Son, here is my spear", even if he were not my own son.

(Laughter)

This undesirable type of discussion has already been shown recently. They fought for the "poor man" like the corpse of Patroclus.

(Laughter)

Herr Lasker grabbed one end of it, I tried to snatch it away from him if possible. And where do we get with this subterfuge of motives and with this recourse to class hatred, resentment, misery and suffering? Therein lies more socialism, driven in the way Herr v. Puttkamer branded him here the other day.

Alms-giving is the first stage of Christian charity, of which there must be a wide ramification in France, for example. In France there is no poor law, every poor person has the right to starve unless charitable people stop them.

That is the first duty, the legal help of the Poor Union is the second. But I would like a state which - even if you detest the designation "Christian state" - consists in its large majority of Christians, the principles of the religion to which we profess, particularly with regard to the aid that one renders to one's neighbor, in relation to the sympathy with the fate that old, suffering people face, one can penetrate oneself to some extent.

(Good boy!)

The very extensive discussions, some of which I heard today and some of which I read yesterday in Oldenberg's perhaps not entirely complete extract, compel me to make a few replies. Mr Abg. Richter said the entire proposal would be a subsidy for big industry. Well, that is again the question of class hatred, which would be given new fuel if this could be generally believed. I do not know why you assume that the government in particular has a blind, partisan preference for big business. The big industrialists are admittedly a part of our population that is mostly fortunate, and this does not arouse goodwill in others; but to weaken and diminish their existence would be a very reckless experiment. If we were to abandon large-scale industry as we have it, if we were to allow it to become unable to compete with foreign countries, if we were to impose burdens on it which it is not clear whether it will be able to bear, we would perhaps find approval among all those who view with annoyance anyone who is richer than others, especially than themselves. But if you bring down the big industrialists, what will you do with the workers? Then we would really be faced with the question posed by Mr Abg. Richter worriedly suggested that we should start organizing work; because if an establishment that employs twenty thousand or more workers goes under, if it goes under because the big industrialists are always denounced to public opinion and the legislature as harmful to society and as not being taxed enough, if they then succumb - we could not let twenty thousand and several hundred thousand workers go to ruin and starve. We would then have to resort to real state socialism and find work for these people, as we do in every emergency. If the objection of Mr Abg. If it were correct for Dr Richter to say that we must guard against the possibility of state socialism as we must guard against a contagious disease, how do we come to the idea of ​​organizing work in one province or another during emergencies, of setting up work that we would not otherwise do if the workers had employment and income? In such cases we arrange for the building of railways whose profitability is doubtful; we arrange for land improvements which we otherwise leave to each person at his own expense. If that is communism, then I am not against it in any way, but with such fundamental slogans one really does not get anywhere. I noticed the arrival of Mr Abg. Bamberger for the private insurance companies; I am convinced that we have no obligation to stand up for them alone and primarily in the face of this great economic need. He also mentioned the “four weeks” that fall outside the insurance sector. As mentioned, this was done in the hope that the miners' associations and cooperatives would feel the need to do something on their part. We are always told that it would be against the worker's sense of honour if he did not contribute anything at all. We left these four weeks uncovered. I don't know exactly, but if it would be better otherwise, I am of the opinion that this law should also cover this hiatus.

An isolated fact throws a ray of light on how considerable the burdens are that under certain circumstances would be relieved of “community communism” in the form of caring for the poor and would be transferred to state communism in this form. I have not succeeded in determining the number of people in the Reich or in the monarchy who are in need of assistance, much less the amount that is used for this, because in the country and in many other circumstances private charity and statutory Care for the poor flow into one another in such a way that the boundary cannot be drawn, nor is a record kept of it. Only of the 170 towns with more than 10 inhabitants is it certain that they spend an average of 000 marks per capita on caring for the poor. This effort changes between 4 and 0,63 marks - so very different.

But the result is most striking where the majority of the working classes are in miners' unions and similar unions. One would think that heavily populated factory towns, such as Oberneunkirchen and Duttweiler, would have an extraordinarily strong appoint in this calculation. Berlin, which is only partly an industrial place, partly not, so to speak, if its finances were properly and skilfully managed there could be some kind of average point, pays well above average for its poor relief without the poor - how anyone who has set himself the task of private charity and visiting the poor in their homes can easily see what deplorable conditions of poverty sometimes exist in Berlin - that is, without the poor being brilliantly cared for; but nevertheless the budget for the poor in Berlin amounts to 5 marks according to the latest information, and the care for the poor - I don't know why it has been separated from it - to about 200 marks, so altogether more than 000 million marks, well 1 marks per capita, while the average of the big cities is only 900 marks per capita. 000 marks per capita, if one distributed this poor tax in a similar way to the whole Reich, would make the total of over 7 million marks, just as if one wanted to extend the Berlin direct tax of 7 marks per capita to the whole Reich, one over a billion marks in direct taxes, partly from rental tax and partly from income tax. However, not everyone lives in the kingdom under the progressive ring,

(Laughter)

but especially in these places, where the fact is that most of the workers belong to miners' societies and similar associations; Where there is a predominantly dense factory population, the striking fact can be noted that Oberneunkirchen has only 58 pfennigs per capita poor burden, a little over half a mark, and Duttweiler 72 pfennigs. These are examples which show quite strikingly what a burden one might have if one were to employ the Knappschaft system or something of the sort - I am far from aiming for such an expensive arrangement now; but I also said that we will work a lifetime on this legislation - here the result is quite striking, that the burdens of the poor in the parishes in Duttweiler and Oberneunkirchen, which otherwise, even if they are not above the average, even if they are not on the Berlin height would raise, but could probably amount to 5 marks per capita, that those under 1 mark go down almost to 1/2 mark. What a tremendous burden in a city of 10 inhabitants is such a law relieved of the poor organizations! So why shouldn't a service be planned for the poor's associations for similar interests? But it can't be the local association, it has to be a larger poor association, and the largest is the state, and that's why I'm absolutely sticking to this state aid and, if it isn't granted to the allied governments, I would also be calm and sine ira another one Negotiation, look forward to another legislative period. I see this as an integral part of the law, without which it would no longer have the same value to me that I have hitherto attached to it and which causes me to stand up for it.

The previous speaker, like Mr Abg. Bamberger, cast a few sideways glances at the Economic Council. Yes, gentlemen, I find that quite understandable; competition in eloquence is as shunned as in industry,

(Laughter)

and among these economic members of the Economic Council there are not only outstanding experts, but also very good speakers who, when the institute is better developed, will perhaps give speeches that are just as long and even more knowledgeable than those given here by the gentlemen who primarily pose as knowledgeable representatives of the workers. To speak with such disdain of the men who have come here at the call of their king to give evidence of their opinion is, in my opinion, hardly polite, nor useful to the state. Most forests shout out the same thing as one shouts into, and why does Mr Richter want to make more enemies than he already has? He agrees with me that the number is growing and is already not quite small; his ear is just not as keen to the existence of opponents as mine, and I will wait and see which of us will finally make the right decision; perhaps that will not even be decided in our lifetime. I would put up with that too.
At the Economic Council, Mr Bamberger expressed his surprise that the question of gunpowder and playing cards had been left to the representatives of the maritime cities. Yes, gentlemen, the delegates from the inland countries are extraordinarily more numerous than those from the maritime cities, and we have not made this division wilfully. You cannot possibly demand that, if we consider the free trade theories to be a harmful disease that afflicts us like the Colorado beetle and the like,

(Laughter)

it is precisely where we have any choice that we invoke the free trader as the representative of the interests of the whole country. The Free Trader generally represents the interests of maritime trade, merchants, and a very small number of personalities. The whole large inland country faces this with greater weight, and the more this national economic council develops - and I am glad that it has every prospect of expanding across the Reich - the more the usefulness and reasonableness of this institution will find general recognition; However, I don't think I'm gaining the goodwill of the judges and Bamberger with the hints, for me that would also be an argumentum e contrario (argument from the other side); I always believe that the opposite of their opinion is useful for the state and for the patriotic interests as I understand them. I have already commented on the accusation of domestic socialism, but the previous speaker goes so far as to identify me with foreigners who are certainly excellent in their own way, because I am happy to assume responsibility and intellectual authorship for this law , but who are foreigners and have nothing to do with our interests, namely with the category of Radaud, Clemenceau, Spuller, Lockroy and others. It's supposed to be, I believe, a complicated charge of socialism and communism, but still the same tune. Then comes the “boldness” that characterizes the government, which I translate for my inner being as frivolous boldness with which the government puts forward these things, but which the previous speaker with polite benevolence calls boldness Gentlemen, our boldness is based on the good Conscience, on the conviction that what we bring is the result of careful, dutiful consideration and does not have the slightest tinge of partisan politics, and that makes us superior to the aggressors, because the opponents, from their origin, from the ground of partisan struggles, the stuck to their shoes will never be able to free themselves.

When the previous speaker compares us with the Romans in his further accusations - his historical digressions did not only go to France but to the past - then the difference lies between our opinion, which Herr Lasker may call an aristocratic one, and that of the Mr. Bamberger already in his way of expression; he speaks of theaters that we build for the "sweet rabble".

Well, I don't know whether the rabble has anything sweet for the previous speaker, for us it is a pleasant feeling to take care of the less fortunate classes, whom the previous speaker calls the rabble, by way of legislation if you give us the means to do so, and in this way, as far as it is possible and up to us, to snatch them from the corrupting influence of a superior-intelligent eloquence of the eloquent swaggers who seek to exploit the masses. The expression rabble never left our lips, and when the honorable Member speaks of 'rabble' and then of 'coupon cutters' - I didn't use the expression either. "Coupon cutter" is not familiar to me, I think I said "Coupon cutter",

(Laughter)

however, the concept remains the same. I consider these, however, a respectable and ministerially desirable class of citizens, because they combine wealth with a certain timidity which prevents them from taking part in acts connected with reproach or danger. A high and at the same time peace-loving taxpayer is always the most agreeable citizen from the ministerial point of view,

(Laughter)

only he need not wish to evade the burdens which his slightly raised revenues should bear in competition with the others, and you will see that in the end he does not do so either. He is an honest man, and once we have overcome the distrust of the finance ministers of the old days - my colleagues today no longer share it - we will see that not everyone is willing to lie for their own financial gain, and that too the coupon cutter will properly assess and tax himself.

Mr. Abg. Bamberger also asked: Where do you get the funds that are necessary for this?

As I have remarked, this law requires little new expenditure on the whole, the government only requiring permission to let the state take the place of the poor-caring communities, and then a small, moderate allowance for the disabled, but this of his will absolutely remains dependent and clings to him without being able to be separated from him, thus leaving him a certain independence even in his position as an invalid in life; only a modest addition to the previous one - I don't know if it should be half a third, a sixth, or less, but I think it should be for a state fighting these infernal elements that this days have been characterized here in more detail - a state, the great majority of which consists of sincere professors of the Christian faith, should also help the poor, the weak and the old to an even greater extent than is required here, to the extent I hope , if I live to be able to demand of you in the next few years, a state that wants to practice Christianity should not deny itself and the poor man.

(Bravo! right.)