[Diskussionsbeitrag zur Abbruchswertklausel, S. 428]

Emil Lederer: Intervention on the demolition-value clause (1921)

This brief official commission intervention records Lederer’s response to a revised demolition-value clause. Its argument moves from a substantive reservation to a proposal for recording the two groups’ positions separately. The revised wording softens the problem without resolving it in the sense sought by his group:

Ich will nicht weiter aufhalten; aber die am Vormittag so stark diskutierte Frage des Abbruchswertes scheint mir durch diese Fassung zwar etwas gemildert, aber doch nicht in unserem Sinne entschieden.

English translation: I do not wish to hold things up any further; but although this wording seems to me to mitigate somewhat the question of demolition value, which was discussed so extensively this morning, it still does not settle it in our sense.

Lederer distinguishes agreement on the general provisions from disagreement over the particular clause. His governing concern is an exact expression of the positions represented, rather than wording that might obscure their divergence:

Deshalb würde ich es immer noch für das Bessere halten in meinem Sinn eines exakten Ausdrucks der Auffassungen, die hier vertreten werden, daß zunächst diese allgemeinen Bestimmungen genau so, wie es vorgelesen wurde, von der Gruppe, zu der ich mich rechnen darf, akzeptiert werden und diese Klausel mit dem Abbruchswert überhaupt wegbleibt, und daß die andere Gruppe diese Klausel mit dem Abbruchswert hinzufügen würde.

English translation: Therefore, in keeping with my concern for an exact expression of the views represented here, I would still consider it preferable that, first, these general provisions be accepted exactly as they were read out by the group to which I may count myself as belonging, with this demolition-value clause omitted altogether, and that the other group add this demolition-value clause.

The proposal preserves a shared textual basis while making the disputed addition attributable to its supporters. The intervention’s significance lies in this procedural precision: partial mitigation should not be recorded as substantive agreement. It does not explain the clause’s wording or develop an independent theory of demolition value; its scope is the faithful representation of disagreement within the commission.