Making of a German Constitution : a Slow Revolution

236 • The Making of a German Constitutionevident in the Güterrechtsregister for Gießen. Regina Schmieg made her intentionsabsolutely clear in her agreement with her husband, setting down ‘völlige Gütertrennung’.131In addition to women, workers also perceived the negative effects of the Code.An article, ‘Curiosités juridiques le nouveau code allemand’, which appeared in the1 February 1901 edition of Indépendence Belge offered a telling expose on theBGB. It echoed the sentiments of many when it pointed out that the Code favoredthe interests of the commercial sector and employers over the interests of others.In particular, the author explained that employers ‘could demand that an employeesign a written contract (Engagementvertrag) as to the duration and quality of his (orher) services’. 132 Moreover, concerning associations, the Code hindered the organizationof the very groups and persons it rigorously discriminated against. The articlecomplained that commercial associations were granted ‘juristic capacity’ and ‘civilpersonality’ on the basis of simple application, while all others faced considerablemeasures designed to discourage membership, such as the requirement to providethe state with the names of their members. 133 Association discrimination remained areality until the passage a new associations law in 1908.Articles in the German press spoke out against these provisions and others, pointingout that the Code produced new quarrels in German society. Only seven monthsafter the BGB’s introduction, the Kölnische Zeitung reported, ‘a certain legal insecurityhas beset, not only the public, but also the legal advisors to the public.’ 134The Code, it reported, ‘has already produced dozens of new Streitfragen,’ includingdissatisfaction with divorce and associations laws as well as the regulation of servicerelationships. 135 ‘We hope that this painful period of transition we find ourselvesin the middle of,’ the article closed ‘if at all possible, is nearing its end and wecan delight without reservation in our legal unity.’ 136 The Allgemeine Zeitung alsoreported that the BGB’s introduction was the source of considerable Streitigkeitenover the regulation of tenancy and the rights of workers and service people. 137 TheBerliner Neueste Nachrichten followed suit, reporting that there was particular dissatisfactionwith marital property relations, the denial of mütterliche Gewalt and thedivorce provisions, which reinstated fault as the basis for divorce. 138 In the matterof divorce, the article complained that the BGB represented regression to the daysbefore the ALR, a ‘set-back (Rückschritt) of over a century’. 139‘Curiosité juridiques’ also captured the fact that the BGB created new categoriesof disaffected persons. ‘According to the classic conception’, it reported, ‘marriageis a petite reflection of an absolute monarchy; today, the woman is not situated anybetter as the companion of the man.’ 140 Anita Augsburg’s reaction published in DieFrauenbewegung offered a stinging criticism of the Code as well. It read:On the one hand, it effects legal discrimination against every single woman as a person,which finds expression in the family and marriage laws. On the other hand, it is not only