THE OFENHEIM TRIAL.
THE verdict of the Ofenheim case appears to have had the curious effect in Austria of exciting lively satisfaction not only among the friends of the accused, but among a very consider- able portion of the public, some of whom regarded him as a typical swindler, while others held him innocent. In fact the special coterie of the Cabinet which has conducted his prosecution, and in particular. Herr Banhans, the Minister of Commerce, whom Ofenheim made the butt of so many fierce invectives during the inquiry, appear to be almost the only persons who are chopfallen at the result. There was, indeed, a good deal of hissing mingled with the applause in Court which welcomed the announcement of Ofenheim's acquittal, but even the journals which signified their opinion that there were good grounds for the hisses, generally disclaimed any regret at the upshot of the proceedings. Apart from the question of the innocence of the prisoner, which cannot now be impugned, see- ing that the jury have returned their verdict— although their agreement varied from unanimity on some counts to a divergence of three against nine, and five against seven on others—apart from the legal questions involved in the case, there were a large num- ber of considerations of a different order which from an early stage gave such a political complexion to the affair, that the legal problem tended to awaken a more and more subordinate interest. Even on the supposition that Herr Ofenheim had actually trans- gressed the rules of legality and commercial morality in his pursuit of private gain, in the numerous undertakings which he had a leading part in floating or managing, it certainly seems as if the practices imputed to him were in such general favour with many respectable and influential people, that the consequences of condemning Herr Ofenheim opened up a rather alarming prospect. "I have never done anything which members of the Government have not done also. I have never done anything which was not fully sanctioned by the commercial usage of first- class notabilities." This was the gist of no small part of the prisoner's defence. The Limburg Railway was as well constructed and managed as the Bohemian Northern Railway, and there could be nothing wrong in accepting concessions where there was nothing wrong in granting them. Why prosecute a man who is as honourable as any of our successful financiers who have recently contributed to the commercial development of Austria ? This was the indignant inquiry of the prisoner's supporters. Why prosecute a man who is not a whit worse than scores of others who occupy the highest positions? This was the sarcastic comment of many who were convinced, erroneously, of Herr Ofenheim's misdealings.
The accused has a right to interpret the verdict of the jury in the sense most favourable to his character, for, in fact, the jury were bound-to give their verdict on the particular case before them, and to dismiss altogether from their minds any questions as to the comparative blackness or whiteness of parties external to the investigation. From this point of view, accordingly, Herr Ofenheim has got off by virtue of his own established innocence, and not at all out of any regard to the alleged circumstance of his being singled out for punish- ment by people who had the least right in the world to throw stones at anybody. Indeed, Dr. Giskra, himself an ex- Minister, and one of the most successful operators on the Viennese Exchange, as well as one of the most conspicuous of the "Founders" —Grander—so well known in Austrian commercial life, roundly stated that Herr Ofenheim had acted precisely as he, Dr. Giskra, had uniformly acted, and that commercial progress depended on the exhibition of such talents as the accused had displayed. With this certificate from the competent authority of Dr. Giskra, and with the acquittal pronounced by the jury, Herr Ofenheim returns as unblemished as before to the society of which he constitutes an ornament. Repeated cheers accompanied him from the tribunal of justice to the unassuming cab in which the reinteg- rated speculator drove to his sumptuous home, and during the next few hours the stream of congratulating visitors of the most opulent circles of Vienna inundated the Palais Ofenheim with an avalanche of cards and affectionate epistles, which are popularly reported to have exceeded the capacity of several sacks and baskets.
Almost at the same time that Vienna learned of the acquittal of Herr Ofenheim, it became known that Herr Banhans, the Minister of Commerce, had passed on himself sentence of banishment from the scene of so great a discomfiture. It was announced that the unfortunate Minister, who had not shown in public since his cross-examination three weeks ago, had obtained leave of absence on the ground of ill-health, and that he was not expected to recover sufficiently for the resumption of his official duties. The fall of Herr Banhans must be a pleasure of the keenest kind to the acquitted General Director of the Limburg Railway, if we are to judge by the bitterness of the accusations which he levelled against this Minister. According to Herr Ofenheim, the Minister of Commerce was the head and front of the offending. It appears, nevertheless, that in ordaining Ofenheim's prosecution, Herr Banhans had been, as the advocate for the Crown expressed it, "merely the heir" of his predecessors in office, the Potocki and Hohenwart Ministries having taken the initiative against a system in which the Giskra Ministry had seen nothing but good. Ofenheim persisted, however, in accusing Herr Banhans of personal enmity, and his explanation of the reason which turned Herr Banhans against him raked up, to the great disgust of the present Government, one of the ugliest occurrences of recent Austrian history. A couple of years ago, the Centralist party being bent on abolishing the power of the Landtags to elect the Reichsrath, and being unable to command a constitutional majority in default of the support of the Bohemian representatives, while at the same time Bohemia was rootedly hostile to any such proceeding, hit upon a notable expedient for nullifying these apparently in- superable difficulties. In the Bohemian electorate the balance of power was in the hands of the Landed interest, and the Landed interest was predominantly ranged against the Centralists. A
regular sort of joint-stock company was formed by the financiers and leading Centralists in Vienna, for the purpose of buying-up a
sufficient number of parcels of properties in Bohemia as qualifica- tions for voters who would vote in the Centralist interest, so as to outweigh the opposition of the Bohemian majority. Of course an immense quantity of money was required for the operation, and thoroughly as the Viennese capitalists believed the future of their speculations to be bound up with the success of the Centralist party, and attractive as was the prospect t) the Viennese city men of gaining both in social and political importance by becoming landed proprietors, there is no doubt that the plan was near enough to failure. Now, Herr Ofenheim declares that Minister Banhans applied to him for his influential assistance in floating the " Chabrus "—as the scheme was called, from a Hebrew word—and that his refusal, taken in connection with some other circumstances, earned "the animosity of the Minister of Com- merce." Of course this was only Ofenheim's assertion, but the resurrection of the " Chabrus " scandal was an accident of the most inopportune kind, reviving, as it did, in the public mind the recollection of the purely factitious basis of the present Austrian system. Students of the art of " cooking " an electorate should go to Austria to complete their education.
On the top of the " Chabrus " scandal came the affair of Judge von Wittmann's sudden indisposition, coupled with the rumour that the unfortunate magistrate had previously received a bullying letter from his departmental Chief, Baron von Hein, President of the Upper Tribunal of Austria, reprimanding him for allowing so much latitude to Ofenheim during the trial. The report created such excitement that a formidable interpel- lation was presented in the Reichsrath, and when the Minister of Justice, Herr Glaser, returned an evasive reply, something like consternation spread abroad. Baron von Hein has been com- pelled by the storm of dissatisfaction to publish an explanation, in which he admits having written "a private letter" to Baron von Wittmann, rebuking him for not checking Ofenheim's attacks on the good faith of the Government and the independence of the Court. He denies, however, that this letter was of a character to intimidate Baron von Wittmann in any manner. The con- cluding sentence of Baron von Hein's explanation is curious :—" If Baron von Wittmann had stated that my letter had shaken his nerves and provoked his indisposition, such an assertion could only be regarded as proof of pre-existing over-excitement,—so kann dies nur als Beweis seiner schon bestandenen Ileberreizung gelten." The Minister of Justice has now engaged that Baron von Hein's letter will be made the subject of searching inquiry. Meantime, it may be said that, as a fact, Baron von Wittmann had certainly allowed the accused every facility, and that Ofenheim had availed himself of his liberty to the fullest extent. The whole business is not a nice one, however, and the suspicion of undue influence was certainly calculated to excite sympathy on behalf of the defence. Austria cannot be congratulated on the general exposé which has taken place.
Previous page
