On the “Exceptions” in the Establishing Bureaucratic
Employment Systemin the German-Prussian State Railway
in the 19th Century
Ayumu Banzawa
Discussion Paper 01-01

January 2001
この研究は「大学院経済学研究科・経済学部記念事業」
基金より援助を受けた、記して感謝する。
Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JapanOn the “Exceptions” in the Establishing Bureaucratic Employment System in the German-Prussian State
Railway in the 19th Century− A Social-Historical Approach to the Employment of the Railway Civil Servants(Staatseisenbahnbeamten) 1840-1870

Ayumu Banzawa
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Japan

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the employment relation of the civil servants (Beamte) in
the Prussian State railway from 1840 to 1870, that is, in the period of the construction of the GermanPrussian railway system. The suggestion by Jürgen Kocka about the relation between the “pre-modern”
bureaucracy and the “modern” traffic sector in Germany deserves a through investigation. Therefore I try
to investigate in detail the employment relation of, especially, the middle- and low-ranking civil servants in
the Prussian State railways. The results of social-historical examination of the custom, the “exceptional”
employment of the state railway civil servants, indicate that the traditional institutions of the employment
in the Prussian bureaucracy could be accepted by her railway sector first with some adjustments of itself
to the system that was more suitable to the introduction of the then-new technologies. The seeking of the“rational” solution to the institutional problems in the Prussian State railway required some frictions, not a
short term, and the supplement from the outside of the traditional bureaucratic system.

On the “Exceptions” in the Establishing Bureaucratic Employment System in the German-Prussian State
Railway in the 19th Century− A Social-Historical Approach to the Employment of the Railway Civil Servants(Staatseisenbahnbeamten) 1840-1870

Ayumu Banazawa

1. Introduction
The comparison between Germany and USA by Jürgen Kocka1 , who is one of the mostrepresentatives of the concept of “Industriebürokratie (bureaucracy in industries)”2 , has thrown newlight on the predominance of bureaucratic tendencies in the German railway system in its industrialization.
A considerable number of studies on the German (Prussian) railway history have shown, certainly, that
uncommonly many civil servants and retired soldiers had taken part in the building and management(governance) of the railways from the beginning3 . But those studies have considered that it merely
indicated one characteristic of the economic sector that should be nationalized before long just as themining that had been traditionally State-owned. The influence that the German States and governments in
the 19th century brought to the development of the railway industry has been discussed mainly in thecontext of their economic policy and legal intervention4 .
For many industrial sectors, in the meantime, the direct introduction of the State bureaucracy
and the imitation of its organization have been thought much of with the study about the formation ofindustrial organization in the German speaking countries in its industrialization5 . As for the railway industry,
however, there have not been many studies from this viewpoint. As almost all of the German railways had
been nationalized at the end of the 19th century, the introduction of the bureaucratic patterns into theGerman railway sector seemed to be self-evident. Kocka’s alternative approach was a break-through inthis research area6 .
Kocka concluded that the railway enterprises in the German speaking countries (, being
different from their counterparts in USA,) made use of the previous system of the German bureaucracy inorder to solve the problems in the management of new-typed and relatively large-scaled companies 7 . The
development of the German railway industry was, as Kocka acutely pointed out, influenced by the Statebureaucratic patterns through many paths: secondment of the high-ranking civil servants to the director’sboards, dispatch of the technical experts to the constructions, participation of the States in the
management and so on8 . “For the economic sector that was stable and developing in the long run and inwhich the “commodity” and the technology would not change so rapidly,” he has said, ”this (i.e. the1arrangement of civil servants −A.B.) was supposed to be not disadvantage.” 9 This argument, that isvery truly as a bird-eyes view, accords with his widely accepted thesis that co-operation of sometraditional (from a pre-industrialized society) organizations and principles was very effective for thedevelopment of an industrialized or capitalistic society10 .
Kocka’s investigation has, however, a room of the more detailed analysis as he has intended,
first of all, to frame a hypothesis to stimulate and activate the discussion about the management of German
railways in the industrialization-age. The problems of Kocka’s investigation could be shown as follows:First, with regard to the development of the railway management style in Germany of the 19th
century, there is a necessity (and, in the meantime, possibility) of a more detailed investigation. The
management style of the German railways before the whole nationalization (i.e. the establishment of theGerman Imperial Railway 〔Reichsbahn〕) had not only the regional diversity of the dominant form (forexample, the priority of the State-owned railways over the private ones in the southern German States(Land) and vice versa in early Prussia) but also the time development (i.e. the stages) on which Kocka’sargument isn’t based. In Prussia, in accordance with the alternation of the State railway policy, thedominant management style has changed during the decades of the 19th century from private railway
dominance to the mixed system and then to nationalization11 . As a result, it is not so clear in Kocka’s thesis
when and how the German bureaucratic patterns were introduced into the railway with the background of
the change of the quantitative and qualitative weight between the private railways and the State ones.
Concerning this question, Kocka has accurately pointed out the early railway nationalization at
the State level and the close human connection between the State civil servants and those in the railway
companies as an important channel of the transition of the bureaucratic patterns 12 . This ides seems to haveno room to be doubted, if one takes account of the comparison with railway companies in the USA that did
not have such an experience13 . The State railway (Staatsbahn) was, however, run as a sector of the State
office, that is, in the principle of State bureaucracy itself. Considering the stages of the management styleof the railways in the German States, however, this assertion has to be confirmed before anything else interms of the interaction between the State bureaucracy and the State-owned railway,
Second, it is necessary to consider the inner structure of the German bureaucracy. For example,
one must take into account the difference between the high ranking officials (Oberbeamte) and middleand low ranking ones (Mittel-, Niederbeamte) or between their counterparts in the railway sector. It isnatural to expect that the embodiment and/or acceptance of the bureaucratic patterns differed from one
work place and rank to another, the personnel in the railways has to be investigated as the central to theissue of influence of the bureaucratic patterns.
Works published in the 1990s’inevestigate these problems to a certain extent.

2

In his recent study Volker Then14 has pursued Kocka’s idea and has further explored the
management problems that the enterprises of the German railway had to solve. In his comparative
research between German (Prussian) and English railway companies, Then has revealed that the“overemphasis of civil servant” (Beamtenlastigkeit15 ) in the German railway sector was true for theemployees in the administrative positions rather than for managers or entrepreneurs, and that sometechnical expert knowledge was more in demand than some general bureaucratic organizational
knowledge16 . Then’s argument, that the civil servants, who were mostly lawyers, helped the railway
enterprises under the restriction of the German laws (and its law-abiding society) to manage theircompanies 17 ., would be accepted by most people.
It leaves, however, the question again unanswered how the bureaucratic patterns as theprominent administrative means were introduced into the German railways at the level of the employees.
Then has clearly suggested, just as Kocka, that the manpower’s linkage with the government offices was
the important channel through which the bureaucratic patterns were introduced into the railway sector18 .
Could the promotion of staff from government agencies, however, automatically give the German railway
companies the bureaucratic character? Even if accepting Then’s argument that the introduction of
bureaucratic patterns were one of the result from the administrative decision of the managers in accord
with the German social structure, it is necessary to examine the employees more closely, concerning the
introduction of bureaucratic system19 .
It should be added that Then’s (and Kocka’s) interest has been mainly focused on the German
private railway companies. This view is perhaps a reaction (with a sufficient reason) against the traditional
approach in the historical study of the German railway, which focused mostly on the German State
railway (Reichsbahn)20 . But it should be necessary to make a comparison with the existing bureaucracy(one of the governmental offices) in the German railway industry at that time, in order to identify “theinfluence of the tradition of German bureaucracy” or its “Beamtenlastigkeit” in the private railways.
Colleen A. Dunlavy, who has been inspired (, as Kocka was 21 ,) by A. D. Chandler Jr.’s workand has directly followed his framework (the comparison between the US and other countries), has also
investigated closely the participation of the Prussian government in the early railways. Her interest has
approached at the level of not only legal and institutional intervention but also of the practices in theworkplaces, for example, the loan of State Building officers (Baubeamte) as railway engineers22 . Adding
to this, the social group activity of the early railway engineers from the State offices in Prussia has been
investigated23 . These approaches to the aspects of employee relations contribute to solving the question of
introduction of bureaucratic practices to the early railway companies.
The problem is, however, that her discussion has been mainly limited to the period of the early3

railways (i.e. before 1850), that is, the time before the Prussian government gave up her abstinent railway
policy. Dunlavy, then, had to conclude only almost a priori; “Over the long term,（……） Prussian State
proved better equipped to regulate the first big business.” 24
My concern here is, therefore, to explore a little further into the bureaucratic character of theemployment relation in the Prussian State railways of the 19th century.
The object of this research is the official authorized capability of employment(Anstellungsfähigkeit) of the members of the staff in the Prussian State railway. Concretely, I will makea social-historical analysis of the employment of the non-qualified persons in the Prussian official railway
sector, that is, the mostly middle- and low-ranking staff who were able to gain employment in thegovernment office without the authorization (ohne Anstellungsfähigkeit als Beamte).
The documents about the railway civil servants, that were from the Prussian Ministry for the
Trade, Industry and the Public Works (Preußisches Ministerium für Handel, Gewerbe und Õffentliche
Arbeiten ;the Ministry of Trade) to the Prussian Privy Civil Cabinet (Preußisches Geheimes Zivilkabinett ;the Royal Cabinet)25 , showed many cases of the irregular employment of non-qualified persons as railway
civil servant. Those records often provide the social historical ni formation of these non-qualified
employees; their birth-year, birthplace, social origins, work experiences, families, and so on. The analysisof this data illustrates a great diversity between the social positions and relations of the non-qualified
employees and the qualified staff in the official railway. It is useful to compare this data with aspects of thequalified employees, such as the railway civil servants (technical experts, executives and so on). These
could be found on the same series of official records and the remarks of the privies in those days.
The present study will demonstrate that the irregular employment of the non-qualified person(which was the “deviation” from the bureaucratic employment convention) was the completing equipment
to introduce the necessary and useful humane resources in the State railway. The bureaucratic patterns
had to be supplemented by some non-bureaucratic elements under the limitation of the social constraint
from the Prussian military sector, that is, one of the typical bureaucratic (, in its discipline,) organization.

2. Institutional framework of the employment in the Prussian State railways

To start with, let us survey the legislation and organization-structure of the Prussian State
railway with special emphasis on employment relations.
The official control of the Prussian railway sector was switched over from the 2nd departmentof the Ministry of Finance (Finanzministerium) to the Ministry of Trade on the 2nd of February 1849. The
railway policy of the then Commerce Minister, August v.d. Heydt, was characterized, as was well known,

4

by the promotion of the nationalization of the railways. That is based on his conviction cultivated by his
own experience as the railway contributory. Right after the minister’s installation, v.d. Heydt launched out
into the nationalization of the Berg-Mark Railway (BME) and the Lower Silesia ‐Mark railway(Niederschlesisch Markische Eisenbahn, NME) in the basis of the business approval right of the State
from the Railway Act of 183826 . From the construction of the Prussian Eastern Railway occurred thenecessity of the legal framework of the personnel administration; “The general acts on the administrationof the State railways and on the appointment of the necessary placemen (Die Allgemeine Bestimmungenüber die Verwaltung der Staatseisenbahnen und über die Anstellung der dabei erforderlichen Beamten)”on the 15th of April 185027 . The elements of this law, which would be revised for the first time on the 14thof November 1867, were gathered as follows28 :(1) the differentials between high ranking civil servants and middle- and low ranking ones in the earning,labor-conditions, promotion and so on; members of the board of directors of State railway (except
some post which needs a kind of “technique”) were promoted only from the high officials who had
passed the State examination for the juristic services,(2) the three-phased promotion; a civil servant was appointed after the adoption on trial of one year and theemployment under a five year contract, only when a budgetary accepted post fell vacant,(3) the priority of retired soldiers; by filling a vacancy of the middle- and low ranking civil servant, aninvalid or a retired noncommissioned officer with the testimonial for maintenance in the civil service(Civilversorgungsschein) after a period of military service took precedence over the no qualified
persons.
“The general acts” took over from the Prussian traditional form of appointing of the civil
servants. Especially the priority of the retired soldier in the civil service was the characteristic guardianwelfare institution in Prussia. This came from the Swedish War (1715‐1720)29 and was maintained
during the 19th century30 . In 1853 the act concerning the transfer of the staff of the then nationalized
private railways into the State railways was added: only a qualified person could be transferred31 . In 1867
the cabinet-order clearly mentioned that all posts but the technique-related men should be ensured by the“military candidates (Militair Anwärter) “, that is, the retired military man with the qualification and “atleast a half of the low ranking office workers” should fulfill the positions. Those reinforced the regulationthat was above mentioned as “(3)”32 .
On the other hand, however, it can be said that the revision in 1867 clarified and limited thescope of the employment of the retired military men in the railway sector. Adding to this, one must takenote that the revision needs about 5 years to take effect after a discussion in the government33 . On thewhole, the legal framework of the employment in the Prussian State railway succeeded the institutions and5customs of its traditional and pre-industrialized bureaucratic patterns: partly in the sense that the principleof employment was (at least formally) meritocracy and partly in the sense that the Prussian-specificmilitarism, which had been one of the creative forces of the State bureaucracy in the 18th century, wasreflected strongly.
The early (on the 1850s) organizational structure of each State railway was based on those of
the foregoing private railways; the relative small-sized and simple hierarchical ones. Each railway had aboard of directors of 2-3 persons as the high decision-makers. Under that there were three departments(Abtheilung ) that was divided from the elements of the railway management, that is, one on the generalmanagement (Allgemeine Verwaltung), on the railroad management (Bahnverwaltung) and on thetransport management (Transportverwaltung). These department division in the private railway
companies had come not only from the needs of their organizational function but also from the accountprinciple fixed by the Ministry of Finance from 1839. As the most important function of raising capital(=financing) belonged not to the director board as in the private railways but to the ministry proper, themember of the director board (the head office〔Hauptbüro〕of each State railway) took on rather thecharacter of chief engineer and/or general manager.
Under the former worked the technical experts (department engineer〔Abteilungsingenieur〕― building master 〔Baumeister 〕― building conductor 〔Bauführer 〕) and the station staff(stationmaster 〔Stationsvorsteher〕― assistant stationmaster 〔Stationsvorsteherassistant〕 ) . Under
the latter worked the general management staff on the personnel affairs, legal problems and (compulsory)purchase of land, as central-cashier (Hauptkassenrendant), the comptroller (Controleuer), the secretary(Sekrätr) and so on. The management of the transport of the persons and goods and of the machine- androlling stock was , on the other hand, under the business inspector (Betriebsinspektor) who was notnecessarily a member of the director board34 .
The size of the work force in the State railways (i.e.. the civil servants〔Beamte〕as permanent
staff, the temporary employees〔Angestellte〕and the workers〔Arbeiter〕) were relatively small. Mostof the State railways had no more than 500 employees in the beginning. NME, which was a relatively big
enterprise, had no less than 1,800 employee (not counting the day laborers) in 184735 . By the Prussian
Eastern Railway (Ostbahn) that was under construction only about 200 civil servants and temporary
employees worked in and around Danzig in the West-Prussian Province in 185336 . The number of the“budgetary accepted posts”, that seemed to be equal to the number of the staff including the temporary
employees, in each Prussian State railways were at the end of the 1858 as follows; NME 2044, Ostbahn
1429, the Westfalia Eisenbahn (WEB) 698 and the Saar Railway 23237 .

6

3. Results of the examinations
3-A
The petitions concerning the State railway civil servants from the Prussian Ministry of Trade to
the Royal Cabinet from 1845 to 1918 contain mainly the records on the recommendation for decorations,titles and special pays. The employment of the civil servants and temporary workers were usually thematters that were dealt with to the utmost in the Ministry of Trade after the “General Acts”, while theformal sovereignty of the appointment of the civil servant belonged, of course, to the Prussian king. But
there were the cases founded that needed the special petition for a king’s approval of the “ exception” fromthe “General Acts”, that is, the priority of the qualified persons by replenishing a vacant post38 . Those“exceptional” employment cases were explained at the later time as follows:“ These rules (of the priority of the invalids and retired noncommissioned officers −A.B.)
brought about a very narrow limit in case of personnel replenishment. They limited the State railway
management source of labor which−,as have been easily expected,−one could not get sufficiently
appropriate workers to the most of the subdivisions. On the occasion of personnel arrangement in the firsttime, already, it became clear that the extensive use of the arrangement possibility of the non-qualified
persons, that should have been planned primary only when exceptional, was indispensable. While alreadyduring constructions a lot of military men, as far as it was possible, were employed, the lack of the personwith the testimonial for maintenance in the civil service became always clear by the opening, so that theother men like ganger (Schlachtmeister) and skilled laborer who proved to be skilful and adroit had to be
assigned to the lower-ranking civil servants. (……) Also at the taking possession of the private railways tothe management of the State the regulations about the employment entitlement were broken, as the“ noticeable employees” by “the continuing duty-loyal service” in their posts were left as they were. The
authorized capability of the employment in the State service, which was absent from them (……), wasmade good by the deed of “ His Majesty’s mercy”. “39This account indicated that the “exceptional” appointment of the railway civil servant had
shown a limitation of the bureaucratic patterns in the employment system in the Prussian State railways.
The number of those employed in this way was, however, not great. The concrete number of
the “exceptional” appointed civil servants in the State railways from the 1850s to the 1870s was only 76(as Table 1 shows). This size seems to explain why there has been no close examination on these“exceptions”40 . The “budgetary accepted” posts (i.e. the civil servants and the temporary employees) in
the State railways in 1858 amounted to 4,40341 and the “exceptional” appointed civil servants (47 persons)from 1853 to 1858 accounted for only a little over 1 percent of those. While the placements increased
about 4,400 in the State railways from 1858 to 1869, the 27 “exceptional” appointed civil servants

7

contributed to it only by about 0.6 percent42 . The ratios to the civil servants−the regular members with dejure recognition from the king−could be a little higher. But only taking this into account dose not showthat these “exceptional” appointed civil servants in themselves were the evidence of a malfunction of thebureaucratic patterns of the employment in the Prussian State railway.
But a little closer examination on them and a comparison with the private railway in Prussia at
the same period (in the early 1850s) is instructive. This leads us to raise the question: were those“exceptions” really “exceptional” and insignificant?
At first sight it will be noticed that the large proportion of the “exceptional” appointed civil
servants (30 persons) worked in the railways since the 1840s (i.e. in the pre-nationalized or other private
railways). Here, the relatively small personnel size of the early State railways must be noted. They had notbelonged to the small and unimportant part of the each starting State railways, although their contribution
to the personnel expansion after 1853 was of almost no importance.
The examination of the personnel construction of the foregoing private railways in Prussia
illustrates a point that we must not ignore. In the Berlin-Stettin Railway (BSE), which was nationalized firstin 1871, only 10 percent of the 274 employees who worked in and around Stettin in 1853 had been
professional soldiers or officers before entering the railway company. This figure appeared too small if theregular employment from the military sector into the State railway of the same period was due to someimmanent organizational necessity. The number of ex-militaristic persons was, certainly, not so small. of
ex-military. It ranked, certainly, next to that of “craftsman and mechanic ” and of “laborer” (both 15
percents) and ranked over that of “clerical employee in the government offices”(8 percent) among theratios of the pre-professions of the BSE employees of that district. But, on the other hands, the ratio of theemployees who had been exempted from the military service reached about 40 percent43 . Is there a reason
to consider that the workforce in the NME and the WEB, the State railway that started as privatecompanies, had a similar personal construction to the BSE’s before and/or after the State ownership?
One could therefore estimate that the formally introduced humane resources into the State
railway, as stated, were not exceptional and insignificant on the basis of the personnel in the early State
railways. With reference to the above, it should not be denied that a close examination of these“exceptional” cases would be useful in order to have an accurate grasp of the essence of the employment
relation in the early State railways. The next section will cover the some findings from the data.

3-Ba. Temporal trend
The “exceptional” appointments were found since 1853 and they happened mainly in the 1850s

8

(59 cases). There were 15 “exceptional” cases in the 1860’s and only one case in the 1870’s. During the1850s there were two peaks: in 1854 over 3 “exceptional” appointed persons in every railways (total 14
persons) were to be found and in 1859 total 12 persons. The former was five to six years after theestablishment of the State railways, that was, after the period of the adoption of a trial of one year and theemployment under a five year contract after the “General Acts”. On the other hand, the increase in 1859
came from both the selection of the employee who should stay behind as a State railway civil servant after
the large-scale bridge-construction in the Eastern Railway and the “shortage of the humane power” inWEB44 .
The month on which the king (the cabinet) approved most “exceptional” employment was April(total 16 cases). Following that, February (13 cases), August (10 cases), March (8 cases), May, June andOctober (each 6 cases). It seemed that the number of the employment approvals were concentrated in thefirst half of the calendar year, but here no seasonal trend could be found.
The necessary time for a request from the Commerce Minister to be accepted by the Royal
Cabinet differed from the same day to 31 days, averaging 8.2 days.
Over the 20% of those were “exceptionally” appointed before the prescribed period (5‐6 years
for a temporary adoption). Among them the 2/3 were appointed by 1855. For those appointed by the State
railway, embarking a railway career, the duration was averaging 7.5 year. Before 1855 the average was
6.4 year and the duration became longer as the year continued. Both of these facts suggest strongly that alarge number of competent staff were needed in the beginning period of the Prussian State Railway.
The average age of the “exceptional” employees in entering the railway career wasapproximately 28.3 years old and by the appointment it was approximately 36.5 years old. The latter wasapproximately equal to the youngest age when one stepped on the regular employment course (the army
working of more than 12 years and the temporary adoption of 5−6 years) . It is supposed from here thatthey were adopted as early as possible in the range when the consideration was given to the employment
order having to do with an age structure.

b. Ranks and posts
Many of the “exceptional” appointed railway civil servants were cashiers, comptrollers,secretaries, or station-expediters, that fell between the high-ranking management staffs and the nonclericalcivil servants and workers. Let us now consider this from the point of view of the employee categorization
after the necessary educational careers. After that categorization of the German railway employees in the
19th century which was pigeonholed by Engel, the nonclerical civil servant and worker, including fireman,pointsmen, porters and so on, and some low-ranking clerks belonged to “the first category”, that was a9group of posts to which “ only the normal elementary education was necessary” with 121‐195 Tharler asa yearly stipend in 1850. “The second category” was the stratum of the middle-raking civil servants
including stationmasters, managers (Verwalter), accountants and so on, who earned yearly 198‐500
Tharler (averaging 365 Tharler) and had graduated from “the technical grammar school, high school(Gymnasium) or farming-, industrial- and commerce college”. The high-ranking management andadministrative civil servants or the leading technical experts, who needed “ an education with high gradesin university or academy” and earned averaging 772 Tharler “the third category”, belonged to “the third
category”45 .
The 36 of the total 57 “exceptional” appointed railway civil servants whose posts were to befound belonged to “the second category” by the above definition, that is, the middle-ranking civil servant.
The 9 employees who belonged to “the third category”, high-ranking civil servant by the standard ofeducation grade, were seems to be added to those, as their salaries were on the same level as the
middle-rankers which was over the level of around 300 Tharler, that is, of the skilled-craftsman whose
food costs were not very high in relation to the total living cost46 . Compared to these, the number of the“exceptional” appointed high-ranking civil servant (5 cases) was small just as that of the low-rankers (7cases). Especially, only one technical officer (Technischer Oberbeamte) were found. It is safe to state thatthe “exceptional” appointment was intended for a middle-ranking civil servant that needed a certain
expertise knowledge and skills of a clerical nature.

c. Lines
On the construction of the Eastern Railway, one of the large-scale Prussian State undertakings,
the highest number of non-qualified employees was appointed as the “exceptional” railway civil servants.
On the whole, there was a supply of the military men as labor power for railway construction in a remotecorner of the country just as the Eastern Railway. One may notice that, however, in the railway as has
been pointed out with its militaristic aim and it was considered a typical case of State-promoting railway
construction in the Central- Europe in the 19th century, still the militaristic labor supply was not enough tofulfill the needs of the organization. It is important to keep in mind that in NME there were more“exceptional” appointments than in the WEB that had the largest number of the employees. Proportionally
this difference indicated that the “exceptions” were intended not simply to take up the shortage of thehumane resources that were acquainted formally after the “General Acts”.

d. Social origins and education
The data about their social origins was only limited. The fathers’ occupations were confirmed

10

by only 3 employees: a merchant (whose son was the Building secretary), a road-construction engineer(whose son was the railway engineer) and town- or village chief (whose son was secretary)47 . There were
only 3 direct descriptions of the household economy of the parents’ house (that was in needy
circumstances)48 . But it is possible to make up for this lack of data by an examination on their educational
careers. According to this, 7 employees out of the 21 employees whose educational careers were to an
extent clear had graduated the high schools (Gymnasium) or left them without completion. The leavers of
the elementary school, the advanced primary school and technical grammar school were totaled 6. On theother hand, the graduates of universities were totaled 2 and the graduates of academies including
militaristic educational institutions were totaled 3. These graduates of universities had been obliged to giveup their desirable first careers, as the documents mentioned, because of their parent’s households 49 . A
total of 7 employees had taken some qualifying examinations: 4 had taken the State examination for the
license of the technical expert (i.e. the land surveyor, etc.)50 , 2 had taken the ones for the license for aclerical worker in courthouse51 and 1 had taken the state law examination for the probationary judicial
officer 52 . There was found only one ex-one-year volunteer (Einjahrige)53 , who could only have comefrom a relatively rich parents’ home. To sum up, the middle-and low stratums were given considerable
weight in the social origins of the “exceptional” employees.

e.

Geographical removal
Here let us make a comparison among birth place, the place of the first job, the place in which he had

been employed for the first time in the private or State railway and the place where he was appointed. This
examination makes it at once clear that the strong co-relation with the birth places and the first job places:
most of the future “exceptional” State railway employees moved in the same province (government district,
Regierungsbezirk) when they got their first jobs. This indicated the geographical limits of the labor market
for the clerical worker. The possible extension of the labor market by means of its structural transform forwhich the German railways prepared the technical and institutional conditions, that was asserted by
F.Blaich54 , was not seen in this. Many employees were from Westfalia and, next to that, Prussia. The
inhabitants in the former province were to be employed in WEB and the men in the latter were to enter the
Eastern Railway. The local inhabitants in the western provinces of Prussia tended to find their first job, toenter on the railway career and to be appointed as the railway civil servant. In the eastern provinces, on theother hand, there were more cases of the inter-province removal. It might be that that was due to the shapeof the line network in the eastern provinces where the railways were constructed to center into Berlin. Only
the 8 removals between east and west could be pointed out. One can fairly be certain that the labor supply
in the Prussian State railways was regionally divided.

11

f. Career before the appointment
The work experiences before entering on the railway career had a clear pattern. Most of the“exceptional” employees had been in the clerical and/or accounting sections of local government offices:in the administrative offices 11 and in the judicial offices 11. To that it had to be added 6 employees who
had worked under the technical civil servants. When 13 ex-noncommissioned officer who had retired
before the fixed period of military service, that is, without the testimonial for maintenance in the civil
service (Civilversorgungsschein). About 80 percent of the “exceptional” employees had been in or aroundthe bureaucratic sectors including the military. At the same time, however, what has to be noticed was therest of them, the employees who had no bureaucratic career, made it rather clear what the necessary
capabilities of railway civil servant of those days were. The existence of the employees who had comefrom the commercial section should be given attention. Those were the 2 railway employees directly fromthe commercial section and the 3 ex-clerks in the regional government offices or chambers who had been
merchants (Kaufmann). This is related to the fact that the Ministry of Trade sometimes wrote on theoccasion of application approval “ the necessity of the merchant negotiation in the railway practices”55 . It
is also confirmed that many of the ex-noncommissioned officers (both the “exceptional” and the qualified
employees) had taken the employment with relation to the accounting in the army. In the State railways“the part of the military that was conversant with calculations and had the rational ability to consider”56
was introduced.
45 percent of those “exceptional” appointed in the 1850s in the State railways except the Eastern
Railway, that had no predecessor, had come from the private railway companies. In 1856, for example, 4of total 6 non-qualified person who were “exceptionally” appointed in WEB had stayed in the preceding
private company, Cologne‐Minden‐Thuringen Railway (CMT).

g. Subdivisions (Table 2)
In this section, we will observe the “exceptional” employment in order of the subdivisions in theState railway. When departmentalizing in this way, the largest number of “exceptional” employees (24persons) were found to be in the railroad management department. This department took charge also of
the railway construction, in which the labor force demand was especially high by the 1850s. Next to this,in the general management department 21 persons were employed and 13 were employed in the transport
department. These numerical values, however, must be compared with the increase of all the numbers of
the personnel in each subdivision. By seeing the rate of the “exceptional” employees in the subdivisions to
the increase of the number of the general personnel at all railways of “Germany” during the 1850s in which

12the “exceptional” appointment concentrated, we can establish one criterion for the weight of them. Here,one must pay attention to the fact that the following numerical values are only a most minimum value as
the ones that show the possible quantitative contribution in the subdivisions in the Prussian State railways.
(If it is possible to check them at the ratio with the personnel scale of the Prussian State railways and all therailways in “Germany”, the following percentage values become respectively equal to or more than 3times.)First of all, one must notice that the general management department was to be showed interest.
The rate that the number of the “exceptional” employment accounted for the general personnel increase inthis department was about 4%. This is a high figure, comparing to that by the railroad management (about0.5%) and by the transport management (about 0.2%). The personnel who were assigned to the central
cashier (7 persons), above all, accounted for about 10% of the whole in the section. In the superintendent
section of the railroad management department the 2 “exceptional” appointed civil servants accounted forabout 8% of the whole. In the central office of the general management the 6 “exceptional”
employees‘ composed about 4%. In the other sections they accounted for a modest 0.2 –1.2%.

h. Cases of rejection of the “exceptional” employment
During the concerned observation period, 22 persons petitioned for the giving or re-giving of theappointment qualification directly to the Royal Cabinet and after the examination by the Ministry of Tradethey were rejected.
Here it is important to note that they contained the 7 ex- railway civil servants who had lost thetestimonial for maintenance in the civil service after a period of military service as punishment for theindiscretion on the job. Such indiscretions were, for example, the embezzlement of the materials such ascoal and firewood by the stationmasters57 , the drinking at work58 and the bad work manner 59 and so on.
These irradiate the technical difficulty of watching over the various materials that were widely scatteredalong with the lines and also watching over the morale of the staff.
At the same time, there were a few rejections on the ground that “the exception is admitted bythe ‘General Acts’ only when the adoption of the one is authorized to be suitable for the public interest but
he〔the person who petitioned −A.B.〕has no such a capability”60 . These examples are included as theysuggest that the principle of the meritocracy was taken at least pro forma when “exceptionally”
employing.
４．Conclusive remarks

13

From the above examinations one can see that there was a great demand for clerical skills in theadministration in the establishing Prussian State railway especially in the 1850s. This supposition is
supported by the application of the Commerce Minister v.d. Heydt to the Royal Cabinet as follows:“As a result of the opening of the State railway, the public office work of the railroad relation in
my Ministry increased plainly so that the necessity of the reinforcement of the government office work
personnel for an expedient secretary and calculator has occurred continuously.”61
Also in 1855 v.d.Heydt repeated negotiation with the Finance Minister, Karl v. Bodelschwingh,
concerning the increase in pay of the junior clerks who could do the counsel of the technical relation office
works in the State railways. Complaining about the lack of the placeman of the lower-level who “hadtechnical knowledge” such as the drafting skill and the statistic processing, he demanded the Ministry of
Finance to incorporate the increase in pay of such a railway civil servant into the following fiscal budget
plan62 .
The importance of the management skill that the middle- and low ranking railway civil servant
should take was given supporting evidence also by the testimony of a classy official of the law andadministration in those days. According to the memorandum by Franz Urlich63 , who had entered the State
railway career as an executive probationer at the end of the 1860’s (and later the Advanced Privy Cabinet
Councilor in the Public Undertaking Ministry), the system for the advanced staff to gain skill about “ themanagement problem which (wa)s peculiar to the railway industry”64 was not established. The only way
in which such advanced staff could gain skills was approximately voluntary OJT through the frequentchange of his belonging subdivision65 . On the other hand, the progress of the railway account system, oneof the effectual measures for the railway management, was progressed since the 1850s even in Britain.
One may say, at least, that some feedback between the near part of the work scene andadministration nucleus was in dispensable for the development of the management skill about the early
State railway66 . It should be considered that most of these skills accumulated on the job in the foregoingadministrative field 67 and this was reflected in the distribution of the field of the previous jobs of the“exceptional” appointed employees. On this point, the supposition that the office work know-how in the
Prussian bureaucracy was utilized about the railway is proper and can be supported by concrete evidence.
It is rather improper to grasp this within the context of the Prussian “State bureaucracy”.
Judging from the above observation, the introduction of the management skills from theadministrative sector was always regional, taking a path just as the selection in the railway construction
scene and the adoption from the practice of the local authorities. It is clear that this partly came from thedivision of the labor market, that obstructed the realization of geographically large-scale plans, adjustment
and management which was the original advantage of bureaucracy. But it also reflects that a lot of14

know-how which was introduced from the government sector contained rather regional specifics just ascommercial transaction in civilian life. In the case of exceptional adoption, “the knowledge on the
district”(or “genaue Lokal- und Sachkentniss”)68 and “the merchant negotiation” was often written as thebasis, and this coincided with one aspect of the circumstances in the railway construction: to haveknowledge of the regional price difference of the material which had to be bought in the case of railway
construction was recognized to be the causa sine qua non of the railway engineer who ordered theconstruction work69 .
The pure engineering technique concerning railway construction was most important in the
beginning of the Prussian (and German) railways. It was reflected by the “excessive” wage of the leading
railway technical experts in general in the German speaking countries 70 . In similar circumstances, inPrussia in the 1840s, also, in the government office sector before the State railway construction, special
regard was paid for treatment of the technical civil servant who had railway relation technique. This
treatment was, more concretely, special permission from the king about their shift/sending to private
railways and return from those companies, establishment of the new posts, wage provision out of usual
wage system and so on71 . After the early tolerant policy had been changed in early 1845, not as Dunlavy
has argued, the Prussian king continued to seek “to make state service more attractive”, not only “torestrict the conditions under which the state engineers could take positions with railroads”72 .
One can point out the examples concerning Lentze, the Flood Prevention Works Inspector(Wasserbauinspector) who superintended the construction of the Bridge in Dirschau on the line of the
Berlin-Königsberg Railway. From June 1845 to February 1846, for several times, the Railway
Commission and the Ministry of Finance petitioned to the Royal Cabinet for his special pay rise. The
authorities concerned feared, according to the petition, that many state engineers of ability who were notsatisfied with their low wage compared with the ones that their ex-colleagues were (and they should havebeen) paid in the private railway companies 73 . In September 1845, the special pay rise above the normal
pay system and the increase of posts were settled not for the top-class state engineers but for the
lower-ranking Building Conductors (Baukondukteur) in order to have them stay74 . These efforts came topass due to the fact that the railway construction industry was conducted the scale of investment to which
the conventional earthwork could never compare75 and the weight of an engineering technical expert in“the necessity to bring the railway construction to finish as early as possible and moreover to make it asprofitable as possible” 76 was, therefore, still great.
The solution to the problem of the technical expert supply was, however, given relatively earlyby the official technician education system in Prussia. There were several reforms of the curriculum fromthe end of the 1840s to the end of the 50s at the traditional construction civil servant training-up institution

15

(Bau Akademie) and the newly established engineering school (Gewerbe Institut)77 . These clearly pushed
down the wage-level of the railway technical experts through the systematization−spread and partly
obsolescence− of the railway technique. One may say that this is evidence that the Prussian bureaucraticsystem had a promoting influence to the railway development.
But, such a system reform on the engineering labor power supply didn’t immediately result insolving the problem of the monitoring for the activity of the technical expert. As long as it was incomplete
for the administrator to monitor the construction and management of railway through the “bureaucratic ”
means, as Then has pointed out, the function of monitoring could not help but depend on staff on the work
scene78 . The Ministry of Trade had already recognized, however, that “the noncommissioned officers
who erected immovably in front of the senior officer”(W.Sombardt) only did not bear task andresponsibility. In order to cope with incompetence and the aging of the railway civil servant who had beenfrom the military, the Ministry of Trade tried in 1852 the reinforcement of the personnel by means ofappointment of the civil servants in the other authorities and of the practice employing new high school
graduates, modeled after the employment in the private railway companies. But this ended in failure withthe opposition of the Royal Cabinet79 . It was in 1853, just after the giving-up of the reform according tothe organizational demand, when the “exceptional” appointment in the State railways began.
“The shortage of personnel” which was often complained as basis of the petition for“exceptional” appointment in WEB showed the existence of problems concerning the staff disposition in
the State railways. It seems natural to assume that there was no “shortage” of the latent supply of skilledlabor in the Westfalia, the relatively economic developed region in the Kingdom of Prussia.
From these above examinations, one may point out the function of “exceptional” appointment in
the Prussian State railways in the period of the “mixed system”, from 1849-1857, under the Trade
Minister v.d. Heydt. That was a device, which was used together with the temporal and non-qualified
employees −the supply-source of them−, for introducing and stabilizing the necessary labor force at theestablishing bureaucratic organization.
Here one has to notice that the Prussian military, the typical bureaucratic organization in its
discipline, was clearly benefited from the State railways, but not conversely. The shortage of the civil
servant post for the invalid and retired noncommissioned officer before the establishment of the State
railway, to the beginning of the 1850s, was dissolved by the employing patterns of the State railways 80 . On
the other hand, the introduction of the militaristic and bureaucratic ethos into the works in the State
railways, which was in principle effective to regulate such a large scale organization, was not always ofbenefit to the administration: monitoring of the employees’ activity in the workplace. More importantly, in
the State railways, the bureaucratic employing principle of meritocracy that was immanent and ingrained16

in the Prussian governmental sector was challenged by the principle of benefit and welfare that the military
had brought to the other State sectors. Having not been dissolved in the early State railways, the problemof the militaristic involvement in the employment of the State railways continued till the period of therailway nationalization in the last half of the 1870s 81 .
From these aspects, the dynamics of the bureaucratic patterns in the Prussian State railways
should be understood better not in the context of realization of the rational organizational principle that was
equal to the efficiency in organizational function, but of the State bureaucratic power that put a strain on
the society.
In conclusion of the examination in this article, one can say the existence and functioning of thebureaucratic patterns in the early Prussian State railways needed some complements of the elements out of
the Prussian bureaucracy: the consistency from the private railway companies, regional economies, labormarket mechanism or market-mindedness and so on.
1

Jürgen Kocka, “Eisenbahnverwaltung in der industriellen Revolution：Deutsch Amerikanische

Vergleiche.”, Historia Sociallis et Oeconomica. Festschrift für W. Zorn zum 65. Geburtstag, VSWG,
Beiheft 84, Ed. H. Kellenbenz u. H. Pohl, Wiesbaden/Stuttgart 1987: pp.259-277.
2See,e.g., Jürgen Kocka, “Industriebürokratie und “neuer Mittelstand” im Kiserreich.”, in Angestellten in

der deutschen Geschichte: 1850-1980: vom Privatbeamten zum angestellten Arbeitnehmer., Göttingen,
1981: pp.64−89;do., “Capitalism and Bureaucracy in German Industrialization before 1914”, in Economic
History Review, vol.34,1981: pp.453-456.
3See,e.g.,Hans Mottek, Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands. Ein Grundriss. BandⅡ, von der Zeit derFranzösischen Revolution bis zur Zeit der Bismarkischen Reichsgründung, VEB Deutscher Verlag derWissenschaften, Berlin,1966（ translated by Takao Ohshima, “Doitu-keizai-shi:1789-1871
nen”,Tokyo,1980, p.125）.
4

As a classical work written in English, that made the dominant image of the leading role of the (Prussian)state in the economic development including its railway development, see, W.O.Henderson, The State andthe Industrial Revolution in Prussia: 1740-1870, Liverpool, 1958. The devaluation of the role of theGerman States in the early railroad development can be exemplified by a chapter in the epoch-making
work of Rainer Fremdling ( Eisenbahnen und deutsches Wirtschaftswachstum 1840-1879: Ein Beitrag zur
Entwicklungstheorie und zur Theorie der Infrastruktur, Dortmund, 1985<2>, pp.109-132). Recently,
there has been a series of new investigations to move beyond a simple “either-or” framework, including
Dieter Ziegler, Eisenbahnen und Staat im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung. Die Eisenbahnpolitik derdeutschen Staaten im Vergleich, Stüttgart,1995 and James M. Brophy, Capitalism, Politics, and

17

Railroads in Prussia 1830-1870, Columbus, 1998.
5

As one of the representative of this view, Hans‐Urlich Wehler, Das deutsche Kaiserreich 1871-1918.

Göttingen, 1973, p.54.
6

Jürgen Kocka, “Eisenbahnverwaltung in der industriellen Revolution：Deutsch Amerikanische

Vergleiche.”, Historia Sociallis et Oeconomica. Festschrift für W. Zorn zum 65. Geburtstag, VSWG,
Beiheft 84, Ed. H. Kellenbenz u. H. Pohl, Wiesbaden/Stuttgart 1987: pp.259-277.
7

Kocka “Eisenbahnverwaltung” , pp.264―268.

8

Kocka “Eisenbahnverwaltung” , p.277.

9Kocka “Eisenbahnverwaltung”, p.269.

10See, Jürgen Kocka, “Industriebürokratie und “neuer Mittelstand” im Kiserreich.”, in Angestellten in derdeutschen Geschichte: 1850-1980: vom Privatbeamten zum angestellten Arbeitnehmer., Göttingen, 1981、
do., “Capitalism and Bureaucracy in German Industrialization before 1914”, in Economic History Review,
vol.34,1981.
11

The time development of the dominant management style of the Prussian railways has been often basedon the alternation of the State policy. With regard to the effect of the 1848/49 Revolution to thediscontinuity of the railway policy, see, Josef Enkling, Die Stellung des Staates zu den Privateneisenbahn
in der Anfangszeit des preussisichen Eisenbahnwesens (1830-1848), Kettwig,1935, p.74. With regard to
the shift of weight of State- and private railways under the “mixed age”, see, Ziegler, Eisenbahnen und
Staat, pp.45−92; Wolfgang Klee,, Preußische Eisenbahngeschichte. Stuttgart: W.Kohlhammer, 1982. On
the other hand, the time development described in Historische Kommission zu Berlin, Eisenbahnen in
Preußen, 37−162

is based on the increase of length of the railroads (e.g., ”before 1845”,”1846-

1853”,”1854-60”,and “1861-70”).
12

Kocka “Eisenbahnverwaltung”, pp.264―272.

13

See, Alfred D.Chandler

Jr, , Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Cambridge,

Mass.,:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990.
14

Volker Then, Eisenbahnen und Eisenbahnunternehmer in der Industriellen Revolution. Ein

preußisch(deutsch) - englischer Vergleich 1830-1880(Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung desDoktorgrades der Philosophie am Fachbereich Geschichtswissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin),
Berlin, 1993; do., Eisenbahnen und Eisenbahnunternehmer in der Industriellen Revolution. Ein
preussisch/deutsch - englischer Vergleich,Göttingen, 1997.
15

See,e.g., M.M.v.Weber,Die Schule des Eisenbahnwesens. Kurzer Abriß der Geschichte, Technik,

Administration und Statistik der Eisenbahn, Leipzig, 1857, p.23 (cit.in; Historische Kommission zu Berlin,18

Eisenbahnen in Preussen, p.55 ).
16

Then ,Eisenbahnen(1997), pp.300-307, 335.

17

Then, Eisenbahnen(1997), pp.335―336.

18

Then, Eisenbahnen(1997), p.306.

19

Then, Eisenbahnen(1997), pp.347―360(fn.251).

20

See,e.g., Reichsverkehrsministerium(ed.), Hundert Jahre deutsche Eisenbahn: Jubiläumsschrift zum

hundertjährigen Bestehen der deutschen Eisenbahnen, Leipzig, 1938,pp.15-78.
21

Kocka “Eisenbahnverwaltung”, fn.7.

22Colleen Dunlavy ,Politics and Industrialization: early Railroads in the United States and Prussia,

Princeton, 1994, pp.56―69.
23

Dunlavy ,Politics, pp.202―234.

24

Dunlavy ,Politics, p.255.

25

Geheimes Staatsarchiv Berlin-Dahlem （ GStA） , ehm. Bestände Merseburg, Rep.89 (2.2.1),

Zivilkabinett,29 419- 452

Eisenbahnbeamte: (29423−: Eisenbahnpersonal; 29449−: Ordens- und

Titelverleihungen im Bereich der preußischen Eisenbahnverwaltungen 1845-1918).
26

About the railway policy of v.d. Heydt, see,e.g., Henderson, State, pp.169―189; Brophy ,Capitalism,pp.53―74.
27

W.Haustein /B. Stumpf, Hundert Jahre deutsche Eisenbahner, Die Geschichte eines Berufsstandes.,Leipzig:Konkord-Verlag, 1935, p.180; Historische Kommission zu Berlin, Eisenbahnen, p.105.
28

Haustein /Stumpf ,Hundert Jahre, pp.177―183.

29

Jsaacsohn, S., Geschicte des Preußischen Beamtentums vom Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts bis auf die

Gegenwart, Ⅲ, 1884(1962)，p.184 (cit.in; Yasutoshi Ueyama, Doitsu-kanryo-sei Seiritsu-shi-ron (TheHistory of the Establishment of German Bureaucracy), Tokyo,1964, p.138).
30

The cabinet-order of 10.11.1882 and the law of 25.03.1882 (See, Illing/Georg Kautz, Handbuch fürPreußische Verwaltungsbeamte in Dienste des Staates, der Kommunalverbände, der Korporationen undfür Geschäftsleute Berlin,1889, pp.88―108).
31

The cabinet-order of 25.01.1853(See, GStA Berlin-Dahlem Rep.89 (2.2.1)Zivilkabinett 29419，p.173).

32

The cabinet-order of 20.06.1867(See, Haustein/Stumpf ,Hundert Jahre, p.124).

33

Haustein/Stumpf ,Hundert Jahre, p.124.

34

Then ,Eisenbahnen (1993), pp.514-522, 548-552.

35

Then, Eisenbahnen (1993),pp.516-517.

36

These included the lower-ranking civil servant, e.g., firemen (Heizer), poters (Porter). GStA Berlin-

19Dahlem,Rep.77 Abt.Ⅱ Innernministerium, Titel 260, Eisenbahnen, Beamte, Generalia, Nr.6, Das
Verfahren gegen diejenigen Eisenbahnbeamten, welche demokratische und regierungsfeindlichen
Gesinnungen an den Tag legen, Bd.2 , pp.121-129.
37

GStA Berlin-Dahlem Rep.89 (2.2.1)Zivilkabinett 29420, p.197.

38

The answer from the king (Friedrich-Wilhelm) to the trade minister’s petition, allowing the railway-

construction tender and ex-lieutenant von Steinkeller in Marienburg to gain the employment as a civil
servant in the Eastern Railway, suggests an example of the fixed form of the approval of the “exceptional”
employment in the Prussian State Railway(GStA Berlin-Dahlem Rep.89（2.2.1）Zivilkabinett 29 419, p.10).
39

Haustein/Stumpf,Hundert Jahre, p.121.

40

cf. Haustein/Stumpf,Hundert Jahre, pp.79―80,120−121; Dorothee Klinksiek, “150 Jahre Eisenbahnerin Deutschland: Die Eisenbahnbediensten im 19. Jahrhundert” in Zug der Zeit−Zeit der Züge: Die
deutscher Eisenbahnen 1835-1985 ,Ed. Eisenbahnjahr Ausstellungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin:Siedler
1985 :pp.258‐271.
41

GStA Berlin-Dahlem Rep.89 (2.2.1)Zivilkabinett 29420, p.197. The ratio of civil servants to the“budgetary accepted” posts seemed to be less 40% (Haustein /Stumpf ,Hundert Jahre, Anlage1(Ⅱ),p.426).
42

Engel,[ Ernst]. “Der Preis der Arbeit bei den deutschen Eisenbahn in den Jahren 1850, 1859 und 1869.”,

in Zeitschrift des Königlich Preußischen Statistischen Bureaus, 14-1 (1874), p.123.
43

GStA Berlin-Dahlem,Rep.77 Abt.Ⅱ Innernministerium, Titel 260, Eisenbahnen, Beamte, Generalia,

Nr.6,Bd.1 Das Verfahren gegen diejenigen Eisenbahnbeamten, welche demokratische undregierungsfeindlichen Gesinnungen an den Tag legen, pp.180-200.
44

Table 1, no.50〜53（GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29420, pp.136―140）.

45

Engel，”Preis der Arbeit”, pp.112―113.

46

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.109,3641:Lage und Verhältnisse der Arbeiter bei den gewerblichen

Etablissenments der Seehandlung, p.46 (cit. in: Osamu Kawagoe, Berlin, Ohto-no-Kindai: SyokiKogyouka, 1848nen-Kakumei (Berlin: the Modern Times in the Capital of the Kingdom. Early
Industrialization and the Revolution in 1848), Kyoto, 1988, pp.38-40).
47

Table 1, no.9; 27; 45(GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419,p.66; p.153, 29420, p.44).

48

Table 1, no.7; 8; 30（GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419, p.45; p.60; p.227）.

49

Table 1, no.68（GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421, pp.130―131）.

50

Table 1, no.13;14;16;76 （GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419, pp.82―84; pp.85―86; pp.98―99; 29422, pp.117―119）.

20

51

Table 1, no.12; 66（GStA Berlin-Dahlem,Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419, pp.80―81; 29421, pp.101―102）.

52

Table 1, no.68（GStA Berlin-Dahlem,Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421, pp.129―131）.

53

Table 1, no.14（GStA Berlin-Dahlem,Rep.89（2.2.1）29419, pp,85―86）.

54

Fritz Blaich,. “Der Einfluß der Eisenbahnpolitik auf die Struktur der Arbeitsmärkte im Zeitalter derIndustrialisierung”, in: Wirtschaftspolitik und Arbeitsmarkt: Bericht über die 4. Arbeitstagung derGesellschaft für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte in Wien am 14, und 15, April 1971, Ed. Kellenbenz,
Hermann München: R.Ordenbourg Verlag, 1974, p.103.
55

Table 1, no.24;25（GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89 (2.2.1) 29419, pp.139―140）. See, Then,

Eisenbahnen(1993), pp.548-549.
56

Kiyoshi Suekawa, Kindai-doitsu no Keisei: “Tokuyuu no Michi” no Kiten (The Formation of Modern

Gernamy: the Starting-point of the “Sonderweg”), Kyoto, 1996, p.59.
57

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421, p.70.

58

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421, p.64.

59

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29420, p.207.

60

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421, p.211; 29419, p.49; 29421，p.222 .

61

GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419, p.76.

62

The negotiations on the increase in pay of the junior clerks in the State railways between the Finance

Minister Karl von Bodelschwingh and the Trade Minister v.d.Heydt continued from the 16th June to the27th November of 1855(GStA Berlin-Dahlem Akten des Ministeriums für Handel, Gewerbe und öffentliche
Arbeit, 93E，VI Bauabtheilung, no.2954, N.page).
63

Franz Ulrich, Die Ausbildung der höheren Verwaltungsbeamten in Preußen und ihre Stellung in der

Staatseisenbahnverwaltung. Berlin:Verlag von Julius Springer, 1893.
64

Urlich, Ausbildung, pp.42―43.

65

Urlich, Ausbildung, pp.6-7.

66

Then, Eisenbahnen (1997),pp.353-354.

67

Then, Eisenbahnen (1997), pp.306―307.

68

See, e.g., Table 1, no.54; 59（GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29421，pp.154,189）.

69

Engelhardt, “Betrachtungen über den Eisenbahnbau” in: Eisenbahn Zeitung 24.Aug.;31.Aug.;7.Sep.

1845:pp.288-89; 295-297;303-306, p.288.
70

See. e.g., Engel, “Preis der Arbeit” , p.113 ; Wortmann, Eisenbahnbauarbeiter , pp.63−74.

71See, e.g., GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29453, pp.11―14;18―19;27―29 ; 29524, pp.22―38.

72

Dunlavy,Politics ,p.68 (fn.55).

21

73

GStA Rep.89（2.2.1）29453: Bildung und Personal einer Kommission für den Bau der Eisenbahn vonBerlin nach Königsberg i. Pr. 1845-1859, pp.11−14, 18−19, 27−29.
74

GStA Rep.89（2.2.1）29418: Kommission für Eisenbahnangelegenheiten und deren Personal―

Errichtung eines besonderen Eisenbahnbüros beim Finanzministerium 1837-1851, pp.22−24.
75

Dunlavy, Politics,

76

The proposal by the Finance Minister Flottwell of the 27th October 1844(cit., in: GStA Berlin-Dahlem,

p.203.

Rep.89(2.2.1) 29524, Beschäftigung von Baubeamten des Staats bei der Anlage von Eisenbahnen
1837-52, pp. 18―22); Dunlavy, Politics, p.68.
77

See, e.g., Peter Lundgreen, Techniker in Preußen während der Frühen Industrialisierung. Ausbildung

und Berufsfeld einer entstehenden sozialen Gruppe. Berlin:Colloquium Verlag, 1975; L. U. Scholl,
Ingenieure in der Frühindustrialisierung. Staatliche und private Techniker im Königreich Hannover und an
der Ruhr (1815 - 1873). Göttingen:Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1978; do., “Der Ingenieur in Ausbildung,
Beruf und Gesellschaft: 1856 bis 1881” in Technik, Ingenieure und Gesellschaft: Geschichte des Vereins
Deutscher Ingenieure 1856−1981.,Ed. Ludwig, Karl-Heinz Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag, 1981: pp.1−66;
Wolfgang König, “Die historische Entwicklung des Beamtentums und der Berufsgruppe derIngenieure.”,in Ingenieure im Oeffentlichen Dienst: Emprische Analyse zur Laufbahnreform. Ed. Weber,
Jacob., Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag, 1982: pp.3-26; do., ”Technical education and industrial performance inGermany: a triumph of heterogeneity.” ,in Education，Technology and Industrial Performance in Europe,
1850 – 1939. Ed．Fox, Robert, and Anna Guagini Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993: pp.65-87.
78

Then, Eisenbahnen (1997),pp.338-339.

79

Haustein/Stumpf, Hundert Jahre, pp.122―123.

80

Haustein/Stumpf, Hundert Jahre, pp.4, 13. On the case of a retired noncommissioned officer andcopyist in the Headquarter (Unteroffizer und Commandantur-Schreiber）Leitholdt, who had spend four
years(from 1845 to 1849) to get the job in the office even with the testimonial for maintenance in the civil
service, see, GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.93E,Ⅷ Personalia,4106.
81

See, Anlagen zu den Stenographischen Berichten über die Verhandlungen des Hauses der Abgeordneten

während der 3.Session der 13.Legistatur: Periode 1878-79, p.920.

22

<Table 1>

No.

The "exceptional" employees in the Prussian State railways: their personal data

Name
Family1 Neumann
2 Reinen
3 v.Steinkeller
4 Reimer
5 Kaulfuhs
6 Fuchs
7 Bannenberg
8 Litdke
9 Stegmann
10 Richter
11 Brocse
12 Schlitte
13 Woycke
14 Krechel
15 Rhode
16 Herrmann
17 Ruthe18 Fennemann
19 Kaufmann
20 Seidenbinger
21 Wagner
22 Fabricius
23 Wieler
24 Herring
25 Schmidt
26 Perrin
27 Schwarz
28 Tietz
29 Beucken
30 Noeggerath
31 Allius
32 Jehn
33 Schulter
34 Hohgräfe
35 Götte
36 Garken
37 Puscha
38 v.Schkopp
39 Witge
40 Linnarz
41 Wergien
42 Schroeter
43 Schur
44 Kuphal
45 Braun
46 Widel47 Matthey
48 Günter
49 Stracke
50 Goebel
51 Eckstein
52 Ahrend
53 Kummer
54 Heldt
55 Hartmann
56 Milsch

Birth
Year
EduardHermannCarl
Leopord
W.L.
J.G.
H.G.
J.S.
LudwigGustav
J.C.Ch.
G.T.W
P.A.
RobertF.X.
AlbertA.F.
K.W.F.
J.W.
Johan
C.F.
D.

Georg
F.W.
LudwigA.W.
Reinhold
Ferdinand
AugustWilhelm
Barthold
Franz
O.M.
Hermann
J.C.G.
B.H.
F.G.
Th.J.W.
Friedrich
EduardHeinrich
Friedrich
H.H.
Anton
AdolphWilhelm
O.A.B,
GustavFriedrichJelinsJ.G.

Place

Education
SchoolFirst job
Year
Job

1826

1809/10
1824
1825
1821
1811
1831/32
1826/27
1817/18
1824
1814
1818
1821/22
1802
1819
1817/18
1819/20

civil servant

Wf-ar
Wf-mi
Rh
Pos
Pr-ma

Pr-ma
Pom-st
Rh-kb
Br-Brln

1835
1837/81838
Gymnasium retired
1832

high elementary school
Gymnasium, building art school
1841
high elementary school 1833
industrial art academy
1844

Sch-brl
Sa-mr

1840
1840
1832/33
1848?

1803
Pos
1828/29
1823
1811

Wf-ar

building academy

1817
1832

Rh-Aa
Wf-ar

artellery school

1807
1821
1826
1824
1813
1810
1823

Wf-ar
Wf-mi
Rh-ar
Wf-ar
Wf-ar
Pr-konPr-ptdm
Pr-ptdm
1820
Rh-ko
1828/29 Pom-st
1819/20 Sch-brl
1818
Pr-fao1822/23
1820/21 Pos-br

Gymnasium
Gymnasium
retiredGymnasium
Rectoratschule
Gymanasium
Gymanasium, cadet

1832
Wf-ar
1819/20
1815/16
1824.25
1819/1820
1825/26

elementary school

military
civil servant
mayor
civil servant, military
by lawyer
in the courtin the court
military, agriculture
civil servant
in the courtby building officer
by lawyer
by building officer
in TEBmilitary
military
military
military
commerce
private secretaryby his father1833
military1833
military
1846/47 civil servant
1823
1844
1843
1849
1829
1841

factory, in the courtin the court
civil servant
civil servant
by lawyer
by lawyer
military, civil servant

universitycommerce, in the court"good educated"
Gymnasium

miller, militarycommerce, by lawyer
in the court

1841

1846
1845

civil servant
by building officer
in the court
militaryby building officer

1830'sby builsing officer

57 Schröder
58 Kückenhof
59 Franciois
60 Xaber
61 Wickelmann
62 Rickmann
63 Rumpf
64 Neckenbürger
65 Mollenhauser
66 Kuntz
67 Budde
68 Hansel
69 Arlt
70 Heyne
71 Schmidt
72 Pötter
73 Linz
74 Strack
75 Zaier
76 Baldamus

HerrmannFriedrichJulius
EduardK.F.G.
Bernhard
A.H.
J.A.
TheodorFriedrich
Carl
Friedrich
Karl
C.A.
Carl
J.H.
Georg
Hugo

1819

Br-Brln

1819
1819
1822
1819
1822

Pom-st

1835

Pr-ko

1846

commerce

1845
1835
1842

by lawyer
by lawyer, civil servant
military
civil servant
in the court, civil servant

business school

Wf-ar
Wf-mi
Pr-ptdm
university"good educated"

1858

Referendar
military
commerce, civil servant
wall coating master

1833/34
1831/32
1842

Wf-mi

1848
military, civil servant
business school, building art school

Source; GStA Berlin-Dahlem, Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419−29422, 29424
Note:
1. Blank shows the lack of the data.
2. The name of the line with "( )*" shows that it was not state-owned at that time.

PlacePos-brPr
Pom-kon
Wf-mi
(Rh)
Pos
Pr-ma
Pom-stWf-ar

Br-Brln
Halle?

Br-Ptsdm

Wf-ar

Wf-mi

Wf-ar

Rh-ko

Pos-br

Wf-ar
Pr-dz
Pr-dz

First job in the Pruss.State railway
Year
Line
Place
Position
1852
1848
1852
1851
1849
1851
1851
1844
1848
1849
1850
1846/47
1846
1846
1847
1846
1848

Ost
Pos-br
WEB
Wf
Ost
Pr-dz
Ost
Pr-konOst
Pos-br
WEB
WEB
Wf-mi
KME
Rh/Wf
Ost
Ost
Pos-ma
Ost
KME
Rh-ko
Ost
Pos-br
Saar
Rh-tr
NME
Br-Brln
Saar
Rh
Ost
NME
1844
NME
1842
NME
Brln-FaM
1850
Saar,ADE Rh
1846
Ost
Pr
NME
1855
NME
1853
NME
BME
Wf
1839
REB,KME Rh
1844
NME
1844
KME,BME Rh,Wf
1849
WEB
Wf
1851
WEB
Wf
1846
CMT
Wf
1845
CMT
Wf
1848
CMT
Wf
1847
CMT
Wf
1841
(WEB)* Wf
1852
WEB
Wf
1846
CMT
Wf
1851/52
Ost
1852
kgl.EBD Pom-st
1853
Ost
Pos-br
1852
Ost
1842
NME
Pr-fao
1853
Ost
Pr-dz
1851
Ost
Pos
1848?
Ost
1855
NME
Ost
Pr-ko
1854
WEB
Wf
1850
Ost
Pr-dz
1850
Ost
Pr-dz
?→1851
Ost
Pr-dz
1851
Ost
Pr-dz
Ost
KME
Rh
1849
WEB
Wf

Appointment as the Railway civil servant
Year
Place
Position

1853
1853
tender1853
land-surveyer
1853
registrar
1853
calculator
1853
clerk helper
1853
luggage-expediter
1854
luggage-expediter
1854
1854
construction clerk
1854
1854
1854
foreman1854
factory clerk
1854
section engineer
1854
tender of construction
1854
senior fuel man
1854
by operating cashier1854
tender of ways
1854
1854
1855
land-surveyer
1855
assistant bookkeeper
1855
assistant bookkeeper
1855
goods clerk
1855
station engineer
1855
goods clerk
1855
1855
assistant cashier
1856
1856
construction clerk
1856
clerk helper
1856
1856
1856
construction clerk
1857
clerk
1857
(clerk)1857
calculator
1857
assistant clerk
1857
clerk by a building master
1857
1857
foreman1857
comptroller assistant1858
registrar
1858(in a station)
1858
1858
1858
central casher assistant1859
tender of construction
1859
construction clerk
1859material clerk
1859
tender of construction
1859
porter1859
1.assistant of senior cargo inspector 1859
chief laborer
1859

Pos-brWf

expediter
central cashierconstruction clerk

Rh-Aa
Pr-dz
Pos-brstation master
caluculator assistantconstruction clerk
business inspector
Br-Brlncalculator, expediterPos-brland-surveyer
Rh-trstation master
Br-Brlnfactory clerk
technical assistantcaluculator in the technical department
Br-Brlnchief of coal bunker
Br-Brlnluggage-expediterWf-mimaintenance officer (in WEB)Rh
(in WEB)Pr-dz
station staff
cashier
assistant cashierassistant cashierPr/Brsenior goods manager (in Ost)
Rh-dus/Aa station master (in ADR)
Wf
maintenance officer (in WEB)Pr-dz
2. station master (in Ost)
Wf-mu
cashier clerk
office assistantWf-mimaster of swing bolster(in WEB)
clerk assistant(in WEB)
calculator
calculator assistantWfsection accounting officer
cashierWfassistant of the central warehouse manager
Brcentral cashierPos-Broffice manager(in Ost)
Pos/Pom factory clerk
telegraph inspector
Pr-faostation assistantPos-brfactory caluculator
Posregistrar
Pos-brSch-brl
pointerPos?
station expediterWfcashier clerk
construction clerk

Pos-brWfsoil mastersenior goods manager (in WEB)

1849
1849
1849

Wf-mi

Pr-ptdm

Brln,ptdm

1854
1846
1858
1850
1853
1856
1849
1860
1862
1865
1856
1857
1859
1857
1858
1861

WEB
Wf
WEB
Wf
Ost
Pos-pos
Saa
Rh
NME
SPE(Ost) Pos
WEB
Wf-mi
WEB
Wf
WEB
Wf-mu
(Ost)*
WEB
Wf
Ost
NME
NME
Br-BrlnWEB
Wf-mu(Ost)*
RNE
Rh
RNE
Rh
MWB Wfkgl.EBD Rh-dus

registrar
assistant clerk
construction clerk
cashierlaborerfiremanstation cashier helper(by construction and businessin the central cashiercomptroller assistantclerk helper
expediter
laborerluggage-expediter
construction assistantporterclerk helper
calculation helpertender of construction

1859
1859
1859
1859
1860
1860
1861
1861
1862
1864
1864
1865
1865
1866
1866
1866
1867
1867
1867
1870

Wf
Wf
Pos-br
Rh

Wf,Rh
Wf
Wf-mu
Pos-brWf-ar
Pos-br
Sch
Rh
Rh
Rh
H

construction clerk
office assistantregistrar
by material manager
registrar
cashier, cargo expediter
examiner
central cashier assistantcalculator
cargo expediter assistant
expediter
copyistexpediterconstruction assistantcashier and calculator(in Saar)soil masterstation staff
accounting helper
construction assistant(HEB)Railway civil servant

ulator in the technical department

enance officer (in WEB)

goods manager (in Ost)n master (in ADR)
enance officer (in WEB)ion master (in Ost)r of swing bolster(in WEB)
assistant(in WEB)n accounting officer

ant of the central warehouse manager

goods manager (in WEB)r, cargo expediterl cashier assistant

expediter assistantr and calculator(in Saar)uction assistant(HEB)Sheet1

The abbreviations in <Table 1>:
A. Railroad (Line)ADE:Aachen-Düsseldorf Eisenbahn
BAE:Berlin-Anhalter Eisenbahn
CMT:Coln-Minden-Thuringen Verbindungsbahn
FWN:Friedrich-Wilhelms Nordbahn
HB:Hannover Staatseisenbahn
kgl.EBD :kgl.Eisenbahn Direktion
KMB:Köln-Mindener Eisenbahn
MWB:Main-Weser Bahn
NME
:Niederschlesisch-Märkische Eisenbahn
Ost:Kgl. Preuß.Ostbahn
REB:Rheinische Eisenbahn
RNE:Rhein-Nahe Eisenbahn
ROE:Rhein-Osnabrucker Eisenbahn
Saar:Saarbrückner Eisenbahn
SPE:Stargard-Posener Eisenbahn
TEB:Thuringer Eisenbahn
WEB:Westfälischer Eisenbahn

B. Place name
State (Provinz)
Pr:Preußen
Pos:PosenPom:Pommern
Br:Brandenburug
Sac:Sachsen
Sch:SchlesienRh:RheinWf:Westfalen
H
Aus;Hannover;Ausland( Foreign countries)

Prefecture (Regierungsbezirk)
Aa:Aachenar:Arnsberg
br:Brombergbrl;Breslau
Brln:Berlindus:Düsseldorf
dz:Danzig
fao:Frankfurt a.O.
kb
:Koblenz
ko
:Köln
kon
:Königsberg
ksl:Köslinma:Marienwerdermi:Mindenmr:Merseburgmu;Münsterpos:Posenptdm:Potsdamst:Stettin
tr:Trier‑ 1 ‑Sheet1
Tabale 2:

The increases of the "exceptional" appointed civil servants which were contrasted inthose of all personal in each office.

Department
Railroad(Line) Management (Bahnverwaltung)section: Superintendent
Special Management
Station Management
Telegraph
Purchasing and Stores

１８５０→１８５９

１８５０→１８６９"Exceptional" employees"Exceptional" employees

19 (2,385→6,894)
4 (4→94)
7 (2,225→5,685)
6 (148→843)
1 (6→186)
1 (2→86)

24 （2,385→17,287）
4 （4→65）
9 （2,225→14,041）
8 （148→2,487）
1 （6→521）
2 （2→173）

Transport Management（TransportVerwaltung)section: Superintendent
Exective Management
Rolling‑Stock and Machinery

10 (770→3856)
2 (1→26)
6 (732→3463)
2 (37→367)

14 （770→13,329）
2 （1→243）
9 （732→12,197）
3 （37→889）

General Management
section: Central OfficeControl Bureau
Central Cashier15 (76→472)
6 (27→165)
2 (21→185)
7 (21→92)

21 （76→1,134）
8 （27→543）
4 （21→315）
9* （21→165）(General Verwaltung)* including 1 case in 1870
Note: "( → )"means the increase of the all personnel in the department and section.
source:GStAEngel Berlin-Dahlem,"Preis der Arbeit"
Rep.89(2.2.1) 29419−29422, 29424‑ 1 ‑