the indictment which I have been analyzing brings
up a third point at which I am alleged to have been guilty of inciting
to hatred and contempt of the bourgeoisie. This is introduced with the
word "particularly." The exposition and the allusions above spoken of
are alleged to have incited to hatred and contempt, "particularly
because the address contains a direct appeal to make the mastery of
the working classes over the other classes of society the end of their
endeavors, to be pursued with the most ardent and consuming passion."
Suppose that such were the case; an exhortation addressed to a given
class of society to pursue the vain ambition of a mastery over the
other classes would be worthy of all reprobation, but it would still
be legally permissible unless it urged to criminal acts. Every class
in society is at liberty to strive for the control of the State, so
long as it does not seek to realize its end by unlawful means. No
political purpose is punishable, the means employed alone are. Now,
the character of this prosecution, as a prosecution directed against a
political bias, appears plainly and should be manifest to every one in
every line of the indictment, in that it constantly charges incitement
to the seeking of certain ends; it never attempts to show that
criminal means have been employed, or that I have, in my address,
urged the employment of such means. But even if I had been guilty of
urging the working classes to resort to criminal means for gaining
control over the other classes of society, then I could only have been
indicted under Article 61,[59] or some other article of the criminal
code, but never under Article 100, or as having offended against that
article by an instigation of the workingmen to hatred and contempt;
for such an exhortation addressed to the working classes to make
themselves masters of the other classes of society must have incited
the workingmen to political ambition, but by no means to hatred and
contempt of any third party. This ambition on the part of the
workingmen could, of course, not have been fathered upon the
bourgeoisie; and since responsibility for it could not have been put
upon them, hatred and contempt of them could not have been aroused by
the fact of such an ambition. It therefore appears again that this
passage is quite devoid of grammatical and logical content. But upon
what ground has the public prosecutor read into my address an
exhortation urging to the pursuit