Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-12-11

1 courtroom was denselY crowded. Fifty
4 reporters, of various nationalities, were
present, Judge Reich announced that
the court had decided that the proceed
I ings shall be public, except the reading
OF the documents relative to the eeele-
siastical policy Of the government,
which excludes papers OF the first class
mentioned IN the indictment. The
prosecution read the
INDICTMENT.
1t accuses the count OF dsreliction in bis
official duty, and says that when Prince
/ nOhenlOhe succeeded to the embassy at
Paris, he found, after strict search,
that large number Of documents were
missing from the archives. These dOeu-
ments the indictment divides into three
/ cstegOries. The first of these Count |
/ Won Arbim eonfesses having distracted, |
and afteFward restored; second, those |
which the count acknowledged having |
taken, but which, regarding as his pri- |
vate property, he refuses to restore: !
third, those which he processes to have |
no knowledge Of The indictment pro-
ceeds to prove the official character of |
all the documents, and states that they |
were partly communications from the |
German foreign Office to Its representa-
.
seutafives to the foreign Office. Each
document, the original draft of which is |
! in possession of the foreign office, is |
numbered and entered in the official |
register. II some of the documents
contain additions Of q personal or con
! fidentiaf nature, their official character
is thereby nowise altered. The auto !
graph letters of Prince Bismarck are |
not in question. Count Won Arnim |
kept three journals of correspond |
( ence sent and received, in accordance |
with the regulation Of the service, but |
| during the last month Of his stay at |
! Paris the secretary kept Journal with |
/ few entries. The indictment asserts |
that the documents which were not en-
7 tered never reached the archives, and
| that the greater part of the missing doc
uments were not entered. Then follows
an enumeration Of the documents Of the
| first class and copies of the correspond
| ence Of the foreign Office with Count
| Won Arnim which resulted IN their res
| toratiOn. The indictment Tef1tes the
/ idea that the count took these dOeu-
ments merely for the purpose of restOr-
ing them to the foreign Office. The in
tictmsnt also euUmerates the documents
Of the second class, among which is
dispatch dated November S, 1872, ask
ing the count to explain a conversation
in which, sccordiBg to private report of |
General Monteuffel be (the count in
formed NJ. st. Waller, at Nancy, that |
be regarded NJ Tniers's government as |
untensbie, because Gsmbetts, then the |
commune, then military regime would |
follow il France did not shortly adopt
A AMONARCHIcAL GOvERNMEET.
Another dispatch, dated January 3, |
1874, admOnishes Arnim for ueglecting |
70 send 70 his government q report on /
the pastorate letter of the French 1
bishop, directed against Germany. A |
dispatch, dated December 80, 1872, fol-
lows, in which Bismarck points out that 1
the report of Arnim upon the political
situation in France, is partly bssed upon
erroneous premises. This dispatch /
thoroughly discusses the question as to
what form of government for France
would be most profitable for Germany.
Other copies Of. dispatches follow, IN
enumeration Of the Indictment, sll re-
latiug to various official reports from
Count Won Arnin, and one dated March i
4, 1874, Is in reference to direct appliea-
ton made by the accused to the empe-
rOr. Ii complains that the count for
wsrded to the emperor an incorrect |
copy Of the dispatch addressed to him,
(Arnim), dated January p, 1874, and !
demanding that the count show more
pliability and a greater regard for the I
instructions OF Bismarck, and adopt
less independent initiative. The dOcu-
ments Of the third class; opened TO in
dictment, comprise a memorandum Of
the conversation with General FleuTy;
a dispatah respecting the position OF
Count OrlOff, the Russian am bassador at
Paris, toward Germany, and a memo
raadum Of a conversation between Or
loft and Thiers. The indictment pro-
ceeds to analyze
Won ARNIM's MOTIVE.
II says in his arrest he alledged that
documents Of the first and second ella
were abroad and offered to produce
them il lie wss liberated. In conse-
quence Of the diplomatic relations of
the Vienna Press, ,Arnim was summoned
by imperial command to make a writ
ten declaration whether he was in any
way connected with the publication Of
those revelations; also, whether he
wrote or caused to be published a letter
to DR.. DOlliDger, which appeared in the
Augsburg Gazette. Arnim's reply Of
May Z, 1874, merely admitted he wrote
a letter in answer. To further inquiry
he declared that he was not from any
point OF view, responsible for the dis
closures of the Press, and was not aware
who were their authors. The prosecu-
ton oppose to these statements the let
ter Of Hanzer, the drafts of published
papeTs found among the documents
seized in the counts residence; also, the
original draft OF an article on the eyae-
uatiOu of France. In the Cologne GGz-
cite Of March Z, 1872, alluding to mat
ters OF which ATnIm alone was cogni-
Zant, the documents were especially
useful He was accused not for his de-
Tense but for attacks upon the policy of
the government. The indictment con-
cludes BY charging Amin with PURPOSE
ly making away with documents offiei-
ally entrusted to him and with Illegally
apprOpriatiDg the same; offeuses de-
fined by articles 34S, $50 and 73 Of the
penal code. The prosecution annouuc-
ed that they would call ass witnesses
Manteuffel, several OF the diplomats, Of
ficials OF Berlin foreign Office and men,
bers OF the German legation at Paris.
No MODIFICATION or THE INDICTMENT
in favor Of the accused was effected by
the surrender OF the documents, which |
Herr Munkel handed to the court pre-
vious to the second arrest Of the accused.
When the reading Of the indictment
WIS concluded, the defense offered
protest against the jurisdiction Of the
court, which was OveTruled. The pub
lie prosecution stated that the indict-
ment prepared by the foreign Office de-
clared that the accused was confined to
his domicile, in Berlin, and considering
the necessity Of secrecy and the i'm
portance Of obtaining. the documents,
the publication Of which might decide
the questions Of peace or war, q long
process to prove the domicile was un-
advisable. The treatment OF the accused
hsd been exceptionally mild. fhe pTis-
Oner was then examined. lie declared
be was not guilty, and adhered to his
previous statement. The counsel FOR
the defense srgusd that the disciplinary
power of the foreign Office over the ac-
cused had lapsed, because he was placed
on the retired list. The court ordered /
the regulations of the diplomatic SER
vice to be read. Witnesses were then /
examined, who testified that II was an 4
ambassadors duty to band over the Or
ders Of the legation to his successor.
Second Day.
The trial Of Count Won ArDim was /