of maritime commerce, of merchants, and of a very few other people.  Opposed to them is the much greater weight of all the inland districts.  The more, therefore, the Economic Council will be perfected, the more the propriety and reasonableness of the present arrangement will be appreciated.  The Council has, to my great delight, excellent chances of extending its usefulness over the whole empire.  These remarks will scarcely win me, I believe, the good graces of Messrs. Richter and Bamberger.  If they did, it would be for me an argumentum e contrario.  I am always of the opinion that the very opposite of their views is serviceable for the State and the interests of the fatherland, as I understand them.

I have already replied to the reproach of home-socialism.  One of the previous speakers, however, goes so far as to identify me with foreigners, because I am glad to assume the responsibility for this law and its intellectual origin.  These foreigners are, no doubt, excellent men, but they have nothing to do with our affairs.  They are men like Nadaud, Clemenceau, Spuller, Lockroy, and others.  I believe this was intended to be a complicated reproach of both socialism and communism.  You see, it is always the same tune.  Then he mentioned the “intrepidity,” which I translate for myself to mean the “frivolous levity,” of the government in suggesting such matters.  The considerate politeness of the speaker induced him to call it “intrepidity.”  Gentlemen, our intrepidity springs from our good conscience.  We are convinced that what we are proposing is the result of dutiful and careful consideration, and is not in the least tinged with party-politics.  In this we are superior to our opponents, who will never be able to free themselves from the soil of party-warfare which clings to their boots.

The previous speaker compared us also with the Romans.  You see he made his historical excursions not only into France, but also into the past.  The difference between Mr. Bamberger’s and our point of view—­which Mr. Lasker may call aristocratic, if he chooses—­appears in his very choice of words.  Mr. Bamberger spoke of theatres which we were erecting for the “sweet rabble.”  Whether there is anything sweet in the rabble for Mr. Bamberger I do not know.  But we are filled with satisfaction at the thought that we may be able to do something in the legislature for the less fortunate classes—­whom he designates as rabble—­and to wrest them, if you will grant the money, from the evil influences of place-hunters whose eloquence is too much for their intelligence.

The expression “rabble” did not fall from our lips, and if the representative spoke of the “rabble” first, and afterwards of “those who cut off coupons,” I deny having used also this word.  “To cut off coupons” is linguistically not familiar to me.  I believe I said “those who cut coupons.”  The meaning, of course, remains the same.  But let me remark that I consider