of intelligence and science,—­and here come into bearing again all the arguments of my defense directed to Article 20 of the Constitution.  The only meaning of these arguments in this connection is that even if science and its teaching were not by Article 20 of the Constitution exempt from the application of the criminal code, still section 100, except it be construed to intend the utter destruction of human nature, cannot be leveled against such hatred and contempt as is the necessary outcome of scientific knowledge.

In the third place, hatred and contempt of a given institutional arrangement or expedient is by no means the same thing as hatred and contempt of those persons who profit by the arrangement in question; whereas section 100 deals only with hatred of persons,—­so that we have here the third break in the public prosecutor’s argument, and it is a veritable saltomortale.

In the fourth place I have to present an argument of fact.  The prosecutor’s argument presents the most remarkable quid pro quo[56] that has ever come to light in a legal discussion.  The point which I here touch upon constitutes the transition to the second part of my argument, showing that all proof touching the second condition to be fulfilled by the indictment is wanting; viz.:  that even if there were ground for speaking of hatred and contempt in this connection, it is still quite plain that there has been no instigation to hatred or contempt of those against whom I am charged with having incited to hatred and contempt.

As to this second part of the indictment:  I am accused of instigating the unpropertied classes to hatred and contempt of the propertied classes.

“By this presentation,” says the indictment, “working men will plainly be incited to hatred and contempt of the bourgeoisie, that is to say, the unpropertied classes will be inflamed against the propertied classes.”  And after having in this way, quietly and by subreption, introduced this its definition of the term “bourgeoisie,” the indictment goes on to formulate its final charge as follows: 

“It is accordingly charged that the above named citizen, F.L., (1), by his lecture etc., and (2) by publishing the pamphlet containing this same lecture, has publicly instigated the unpropertied classes of the State’s subjects to hatred and contempt of the propertied classes.”

It is true, in my address I speak of the “bourgeoisie.”  But what is my definition of this term?  It will be sufficient to cite a single passage which contains the definition of “bourgeoisie” as used by me in this pamphlet.  This will show what an incomprehensible, unheard-of, uncharacterisable quid pro quo the public prosecutor has attempted to impute to me in charging me with instigating the unpropertied classes to hatred and contempt of the propertied classes.

On page 20 of this pamphlet is the following passage, quoted literally: