Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg: Review of C. Rocholl’s System des deutschen Armenpflegerechtes. I. Abtheilung (1874)

Inama-Sternegg’s review assesses the first division of Rocholl’s study of German poor-relief law, published in Berlin in 1872. It moves from the political significance of imperial legislation to a qualified appraisal of the book: Rocholl provides a valuable practical exposition of existing law, but falls short of a fully developed scholarly system.

The review’s central conceptual problem is the conflict between freedom of movement and municipal responsibility for poor relief. Traditional Heimatrecht, acquired through express admission rather than closely tied to lasting residence, allowed the allocation of relief costs to become an obstacle to mobility. Imperial legislation, following the Prussian precedent, transformed this corporate municipal right into a political one and separated residence rights from the domicile determining responsibility for support. Inama-Sternegg regards this as a reconciliation of competing interests within public poor relief, while leaving secure residence and political jurisdiction in need of further legal development.

This legislative transformation explains the importance of Rocholl’s undertaking. His earlier work on Prussian poor-relief law prepared him to guide readers through the new German framework. Yet the review distinguishes systematic arrangement from scholarly system-building:

Das Buch, dessen erste bedeutendere Hälfte uns vorliegt, erhebt sich weit über das Niveau einer einfach compilatorischen Arbeit (wie z. B. die Werke von Mascher und Döhl über preussisches Armenwesen), ohne jedoch ein wissenschaftlich durchgearbeitetes System zu bieten.

English translation: The book, whose first and more considerable half lies before us, rises far above the level of a merely compilatory work (such as, for example, the works of Mascher and Döhl on Prussian poor relief), without, however, offering a scientifically elaborated system.

Rocholl’s clear account of current legislation exceeds mere compilation, but remains too close to the statutory text. Historical explanation is almost entirely absent, and the broader perspectives associated with Stein and Gneist do not emerge. For Inama-Sternegg, conceptual and historical reach—not simply orderly presentation—distinguishes a scholarly system.

The criticism is tempered by attention to Rocholl’s stated purpose. The book aims to assist municipal poor-relief associations and administrative courts in applying legislation whose complexity their numerous other duties prevent them from studying comprehensively. Judged against this practical objective, it succeeds:

Und das fleissig, übersichtlich und correct gearbeitete Buch ist allerdings geeignet, dieses Ziel vollkommen zu erreichen, und seine Brauchbarkeit wird jedenfalls noch erhöht durch den mit der II. Abtheilung in Aussicht gestellten Anhang, welcher den Text aller einschlägigen Gesetze enthalten soll, wodurch das Buch zu einem ganz erschöpfenden Compendium des deutschen Armenpflegerechtes zu werden verspricht.

English translation: And the book, diligently, lucidly and correctly executed, is indeed suited to attain this aim completely, and its usefulness will in any case be further increased by the appendix promised together with the second part, which is to contain the text of all the relevant statutes, whereby the book promises to become an altogether exhaustive compendium of German poor relief law.

The promised statutory appendix remains a prospective benefit, not part of the material reviewed. Inama-Sternegg’s final endorsement thus preserves his initial distinction: Rocholl offers an effective instrument of legal administration without supplying a historical or theoretical foundation for further reform. The review’s significance lies in connecting this practical achievement to the broader reorganization of mobility, municipal obligations, and political belonging under imperial law.