[Beschränkung der Diskussion; S. 144]

Emil Lederer: Restricting the Discussion (1921)

This recorded commission intervention concerns the wording and scope of a provision under discussion. Lederer proposes closing down a debate that he expects will not change the agreement already reached: only establishments operating on a commercial basis should be included. His argument moves from that substantive boundary, through the availability of legal challenge, to a narrowly defined question of drafting. Restricting discussion is thus presented as a way to consolidate agreement rather than resolve every conceivable application in advance.

Lederer’s justification depends partly on procedural protection:

Nach § 3 und § 14 haben die Beteiligten die Möglichkeit, das im Verwaltungsstreitverfahren anzufechten, sofern tatsächlich eine Verletzung gemeinwirtschaftlicher Interessen vorliegen würde.

English translation: Under § 3 and § 14, the parties concerned have the possibility of challenging this through administrative litigation, provided that there were in fact an infringement of interests of the collective economy.

He identifies the case envisaged by Minister Wissell as one in which such a challenge would be available. The intervention does not describe that case or reproduce the provisions cited, so their precise operation cannot be reconstructed here. What matters to Lederer’s reasoning is the distinction between settling the general scope of the provision and contesting a particular application.

That distinction supports his central procedural proposal:

Ich glaube, daß wir eine kasuistische Regelung nicht treffen können, und ich möchte die Anregung geben, daß die Debatte sich ausschließlich darum bewegt, ob das Wort „gewerbsmäßig“ eingefügt werden oder durch ein besseres ersetzt werden soll.

English translation: I believe that we cannot formulate a case-by-case regulation, and I would like to suggest that the debate concern itself exclusively with whether the word “gewerbsmäßig” should be inserted or replaced by a better one.

The decisive conceptual move is to substitute a general criterion for an enumeration of special cases. Lederer does not claim that “gewerbsmäßig,” meaning commercially or professionally conducted, is beyond improvement; he says that no better term has yet been found. The recorded assent closes a compact argument for legislative economy: preserve the agreed boundary, leave concrete challenges to the indicated procedure, and concentrate deliberation on the wording that expresses the boundary.