( 18 )
bonâ fide, premising again that they, like every British subject, had a perfect right to sign this or any
other memorial.
-
The appended chief points of the memorial in question were then read, as the following minutes will show, as also the document purporting to bind all the subscribers to be answerable with their whole personal property for any and all expenses incurred by the so-called Bürger Committee.
EXTRACTS from the MEMORIAL addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the
16th May 1866,
Page 31 accuses the authorities of 1866 of "criminal recklessness" in the direction of the colonial funds.
Page 52 accuses the Governor of having disposed arbitrarily, and on his sole responsibility, of the property of the inhabitants.
Pages 39-40 state that former Governors had still a sacred reluctance to touch the law, but Lieut- Colonel Maxse was the enterprising man who, oblivious of all holy respect-heilige Ehrfunht-imposed upon Her Majesty the Queen by proposing the new Constitution, which is stated on page 40 to com- mence with a simple untruth-einfach Unwahrheit (meaning that the old state of government of Heligoland requires no improvement). And further on it is stated that the laws and rights of this island were constantly despised and trodden under foot.
Page 41 states that half of the Combined Court consist of twelve hirelings of the Governor.
Page 44 states that the abnormal public debt-abnorme Schuldenlast-is owing to the Government of Governor Maxse.
Pages 56-57 state that all questions of church and law are in a completely illegal state-vollig richtlom Zustann.
These being the chief points of complaint, they were read to the persons whose names are mentioned hereunder, three or four of them being admitted at a time.
They were thus asked whether or not they did authorise or were aware of the slanderous accusations and calumniations against the Governor and public officers as contained in the memorial; and whether they were aware of the contents of the "Vollmarht" or power of attorney when their names were attached to the same.
The following are the answers given by the several parties to the above questions :—
Otto J. Bock declared that he did not know the memorial contained the above statements; he had authorised the Burgher Committee to endeavour to restore to Heligoland its old laws. Personally be *had not affixed his signature, and he could not consent to the accusations made in the memorial; however, he could not but remain of opinion that the old laws of Heligoland be reinstated again.
N. Haas and Peter J. Botter state that they bad been asked whether they would have back their old laws. In that sense they had put down their names. Of the contents of the memorial they had no knowledge.
Hinr Luhrs Andr. Michels and 0.v.d. Hude all three state that they had been asked whether they wished to have back their old laws. To this they had consulted, but they had not bound themselves to any responsibility.
'The document by which the subscribers of the same bind themselves to be answerable “in solidum " for all consequencee, and to which their names had been affixed, had never been read to them.
Tomas Woolm, Jarp. P. Botter, Pat. P. Krüs declare that they had not been acquainted with the contents of the memorial; but that they had elected the Committee to endeavour to get back the old Constitution. In this sense they had put their names. Of the means taken towards this end they had not been informed.
Lühr Claasen, Fäklaun, and Peter Rickmers declare that they had been asked whether they agreed that the old Constitution should be restored. They knew of nothing further, and towards this only they had affixed their signatures.
Fahlaun bogs to add that he had been particularly informed that only a simple petition was intended, without the employment of any personal or invidious remarks.
Otto M. Bock, Hans Tömiss, and Hiar. Dorner declare that they had not been made acquainted with the contents of the petition. They had only affixed their signatures to a paper which had been represented to recommend that the old Constitution should be restored, holding out a hope of abolishing
taxes.
They had never for a moment contemplated to become responsible "in solidum" for the acts and deeds of the Bürger Committee.
Freinr. Rickmers declares that the Committee by all kinds of persuasion had induced his mother, of the age of 74, to permit her name to be signed. Directly he had become aware of this he had de- manded that the name, of his mother should be struck out again, in addition to which he had complained against such proceedings in writing to the Governor.
Will, Kriss declares that, for the alleged purpose of abolishing the newly-introduced taxes, he had allowed his name to be signed.
Of the contents of a memorial he had no knowledge.
Freinr. Koopman stated that since he had authorised the Bürger Commissioner to act for him he declared himself satisfied with any of their proceedings.
Spindler declares that he had no knowledge of the contents of the petition, and that he knew as little of a paper binding him "in solidum" for the acts and deeds of the Bürger Committee.
Being asked why he had signed his name, he replied that he had been asked whether he agreed to petition for a Constitution better adapted for the wants of the colony. The sheet of paper on which he had written his name he had supposed to be nothing but a blank piece of paper without any heading whatever. He had not had the remotest idea of entering into any obligations by the signing of his name. Ernst Rickmers declares that he does not know anything about the contents of the memorial, nor is he aware of a paper binding himself "in solidum" for the acts and deeds of the Burger Committee. His reason to agree to a Bürger Committee had been an equal distribution of a trade tax, and had most particularly remarked that solely and only for this purpose he put down his name.
- ( 19 )
Hilmer Lübrs declares that he had been called upon twice to attend at the Bürger Committee, but that he had never been there; that he had not seen any of their papers; had never attached his signature, nor authorised any person to sign for him, and consequently the whole matter did not concern him in the least.
Erich Friedrichs, Peter Paul, Erich A. Reiken, aud Pay Siemens declare that they do not know the contents of the petition, for the tenor of which the Bürger Committee must be held answerable. With the contents of the paper and their binding themselves by their signatures "in solidum," they were equally unacquainted.
Peter Dehn, Paul Ralfs, Heike Harkeus, Broder H. Michels declare that they fully agree with the contents of the memorial, but add, that they wore not aware of any insulting language being made use
of therein.
P. Bolzendahl, Bardt Tontes, Jach. Dähn and Franz Bauch declare that they do not know the contents of the petition. They had merely requested the Committee to restore the old Constitution; what steps the Committee adopted towards this purpose they were unacquainted with.
That they should have engaged to be answerable" in solidum" for the acts of the Committee they also denied all knowledge of. The Committee themselves must be answerable for their acts and deeds. Franz Bauch begs to add, that if his name had been misused he could not help it.
C. Meyer, Jach. Nohreu, Rickr. Dreyer, and Petr. Loreuzen declare that they were not acquainted with all the several heads of the petition. That they should have bound themselves "in solidum" they were certainly not aware of. The Committee themselves must be made answerable for their pro- ceedings. Their wish had been nothing else than to get back their ancient laws and have repealed the taxes recently introduced.
Oelrich Rickmus, and Jacob Nickels declare that they had been merely asked whether they should wish to have back their old laws under which they paid no taxes; for this purpose only they had signed their names; they were very far from approving of such insulting language as employed in the peti tion. Their names should only have been used in a respectful petition for the above purpose.
San Michels, B. R. Hawkins, Peter Z. Amkins, and P. Kröger declare that the Committee only could be held answerable for all. They had empowered the Committee to endeavour that the old Consti- tution without taxes should be reinstated.
Tomis Rosenburg, Jan Ohlsen, J. Harlichs, and W. Gromweg declare that they had signed their names for the restitution of the old Constitution, because under the same they had paid no taxes. Of the contents of the memorial they had no knowledge, but they would say that they considered themselves bound to share in the expenses.
Jan Ohlson and Tomis Rosenburg beg further to add that they had not gone to the meeting place of the Committee to sign their names there, but that they had been asked for permission to have their names affixed without any information of the contents of the paper, and that they had permitted their names to be signed.
Jonas Eilers, J. K. Botter, Jas. P. Amkins, and C. F. Stoldt declare that they had permitted their names to be signed with the sole object of regaining the old Constitution; the contents of the memorial they did not know. They added that they considered themselves bound to share any possible expenses, but for the particulars of the memorial the Committee solely was answerable.
N. Amkins, Jan Amkins, and Heike Ralfs declare that the contents of the memorial and of the other documents were not known by them. They had been asked their signatures for the stated purpose of a respectful petition towards the reinstation of the old Constitution, under which no taxes had been paid.
For the ways and means adopted by the Committee towards this purpose they could not be supposed to be answerable.
C. Jac. Friedrichs, M. Bauch, Rink. Jansen, and C. Boymanswer declare that they had signed their names for the sole purpose of regaining their ancient Constitution, for the means omployed towards this end the Committeò alone could be held answerable.
Lühr Bock states that he is perfectly unacquainted with the petition. He had been asked whether he would have back the old Constitution, meaning paying no taxes, and for this purpose alone he had allowed his name to be written down. That he should have bound himself “in solidum" for anything whatever he had not the slightest idea of
Paul Volkers declares that he had been asked by Mr. P. A. Heikens of the Bürger Committee to affix his name to the above-mentioned memorial, to which he, Mr. P. Volkers, had replied that be in his present position of English postmaster must decline doing so, because it might cost him his situation. Upon which Mr. Heikens threatened him that iƒ” he did not sign he very likely would lose his position, as the postal matters would soon come under the colonial government, when the so-called Bürger Committee would have the power to dismiss bim.
B. Grobecker states that he had been called upon by the Committee for his signature. He very naturally asked to see the memorial before affixing his name; this he had been denied, under pretence that if any person was to read the memorial the Governor would become aware of the contents before the paper itself was to reach England. Everybody must sign first, and might later become acquainted with the contents of the paper.
He further states that Sir. P. A. Heikens, the President of the so-called Bürger Committee, had threatened him that if he did not sign the memorial there would be made a mark against his name. On further inquiry he found that a rumour had been spread that all who did not subscribe were later to lose all the rights of citizens.
Grobecker also stated that at the time when a certain A. Welsnitz was by the Bürger Committee induced to sign the above-mentioned power of attorney, he, Welsuitz, was so drunk that he, Grobecker, with the greatest difficulty only had succeeded in leading him home.
The proceedings then closed.
C 2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TREET CO. 885
4PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO