“And now to another point, which requires refutation, viz., the rumour mentioned in a leading Berlin paper of friction with another department. The _National Zeitung_ of yesterday, in an article on Moltke’s speech, says it doubtless referred to a conflict between considerations of military and political necessity. It might be inferred from this insinuation that the Imperial Chancellor was opposed to the strengthening of the German garrisons in the neighbourhood of Metz. Such a supposition would, however, be erroneous. On the contrary the Prince has, in this respect, not only been in complete agreement with the highest military authorities, but has done everything in his power to support and promote their views. For years past they have asked for better railway communications with Lorraine and more troops in that part of the Empire. It was impossible to do anything in the former direction until the Chancellor had exercised sufficient pressure to overcome the obstruction of the Ministry of Commerce, and compelled the Minister to proceed with the construction of the line between St. Ingbert and Saarbrücken, a connection which the _spiritus rector_ of the Prussian railway system had postponed for years out of consideration for petty trading interests. The Prince has also done all he could to secure an increase of the garrison in Lorraine. This increase is, however, understood to have remained in abeyance, as it still does, because in a non-official, but exalted and influential quarter, it is feared that the French might feel hurt or offended--_i.e._ the gentlemen who speak that language so fluently, who for the most part have beautiful black whiskers and profess the Catholic religion, which, of course, is much more distinguished than the Evangelical! “P.S.--A member of the Reichstag, who is at the same time an intimate friend of the Imperial Chancellor, has felt constrained to issue a warning in the _Magdeburger Zeitung_ against our articles. He would be surprised if he knew with what composure we have read his communication. Of course, ignoring all further contradictions of this kind, we shall continue to say what we _know_, and _we shall obtain credence for it_.” I may add that the member of the Reichstag and friend of the Prince here referred to was Amtsrath Dietze (Barby), and that he certainly issued his warning against the “friction articles” without previous communication with the Chief. Of course he acted in good faith. A few days after the publication of the _Grenzboten_ article Bucher wrote me:--