AND THEODOR HAGEN AND STEPHAN 
ADOLPH NAUT 

[Draft] 
{London,] 4 March 1850 

1. Schuberth. Letter answered. The 2nd issue” must, as 
promised, not cost more than the first. As regards the 450 copies, 
no change can now be made for the first quarter. For the 2nd he 
should put forward proposals. The arrangement for Kdhler’s 
payment has nothing to do with this. 

What Schuberth says about success contradicts his earlier 
information and our reports. 

In future nothing to be set aside without asking us. For the 3rd 
issue “Yo Die for the Republic’ can stand. 

50 copies to be sent here. The correspondence from South 
Germany* no longer to be used.” 

2. Hagen. Same as Schuberth. Should organise proper supervi- 
sion of the printer and also obtain from the latter a certificate re 

* Yours ever - > Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue. - © F. Engels, 
The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution, IV. - 4 by Joseph Weydemeyer - 
© H. G. Voigt 

number of copies.** The correspondence from South Germany no 
longer to be used. 

He should vigorously oppose the censor’s presumption and 
place his name on the title page as the responsible editor.*” 
Should section [V of The Campaign for the German Imperial 
Constitution create difficulties, this should be reported at once. 

3. Naut. Terms for printer—price as in Hamburg; for Eisen: 
25 per cent for Cologne, 50 per cent for all other copies, incl. all 
expenses, excepting, perhaps, postage from London and advertise- 
ments ordered by us. 

The printer must deliver 5 sheets in 10 days and fix penalty for 
breach of contract. 

Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXV, : 2 . : 
Moscow, 1934 Published in English for the first 
time 
110 

MARX TO EDUARD von MULLER-TELLERING 

[Rough copy] 
London, 12 March 1850 

For the letter you wrote yesterday to the Workers’ Society, I 
would send you a challenge, were you still capable of giving 
satisfaction after your disgraceful calumnies against Engels and 
after the well-founded sentence of expulsion pronounced by the 
Workers’ Society executive committee.** I await you on a different 
field to strip you of the hypocritical mask of revolutionary 
fanaticism behind which you have so far skilfully contrived to hide 
your petty interests, your envy, your unassuaged vanity and your 
angry discontent over the world’s lack of appreciation for your 
great genius—a lack of appreciation that began with your failure 
to pass your examination, 

Had you reflected a little, you would have been obliged to 
assume that if, as a witness, I was compelled to report a fact 
detrimental to yourself, I for my part would do everything i in my 
power to avoid a scandal which must doubly compromise me: in 
the eyes of the Workers’ Society, to which you were recommended 

by me, and in the eyes of the public, for whom you exist only in as 
much as you were a contributor to my newspaper.” 

Your letters to me, and they are available for publication, prove 
that you did all you could to foist upon me the role of ‘democratic 
Dalai Lama and incumbent of the future’. What proof have you 
that I ever accepted that absurd role? The only thing you could 
reproach me with is that I did not immediately break with you or 
denounce you to the others after the Klapka affair, on the 
compromising nature of which I forthwith bluntly expressed my 
views to you in the presence of witnesses.*” I admit my weakness. 
Only Becker’s” statement that, 4 weeks prior to the appearance of 
your glib pamphlet attacking the Westdeutsche Zeitung, you again 
offered to collaborate on that paper, a statement supported by 
the testimony of Freiligrath and Hagen, only your wholly 
unsubstantiated calumnies against Engels convinced me that what 
I had regarded as an isolated instance of precipitancy was the 
connecting link of an entire system. It was, by the way, wise of you 
not after all to appear yesterday at the final appointment which 
Willich had yet again arranged for you at your request. You knew 
what was to be expected from a confrontation with me. 

K. Marx