From the English.

To the Editor of the "Free Press"

9, Grafton Terrace, Maitland Park,

Haverstock Hill, London, February 4, 1860

Sir, You will remember that the "Free Press" of May 27, 1859, published an article under the heading, "The Grand-Duke Constantine to be King of Hungary". In this article, although not by name, yet in a manner intelligible to all German refugees, reference was made to  
Herr Vogt  
of Geneva as a Bonapartist agent, who, at the outbreak of the Italian war, had offered  
"ample bribes"  
to the Liberals in Germany and the German democrats in London. The author made no secret of his unbounded joy at the indignant rejection which these bribery attempts had met with. I assert that the author of this notice was  
Herr Karl Blind.  
If I am mistaken, you can correct me.

Some time later an anonymous German leaflet was circulated in London, entitled  
"Zur Warnung"  
, which in fact may be regarded as a reproduction of the article in the "Free Press", only it added further details and Vogt’s name. After it had been reprinted in a German newspaper published in London under the title "Das Volk", the anonymous leaflet then found its way into the columns of the Augsburg "Allgemeine Zeitung", which was thereupon sued by Herr Vogt for libel. In the meantime I had received from Herr Vögele, a compositor then employed by Herr Hollinger, the printer of the newspaper "Das Volk", a written declaration stating that the leaflet had been printed in Hollinger’s premises and set up by  

Herr Karl Blind.  
This declaration, as I communicated to you at the time, was forwarded to the Augsburg "Allgemeine Zeitung".

After the court in Augsburg had declined to decide the case,  
Herr Blind  
finally made a statement in the Augsburg "Allgemeine Zeitung". Not content with flatly denying his authorship of the anonymous leaflet, he  
declared  
in the most positive terms  
that the leaflet had not issued from Hollinger’s printing office.  
As proof of this latter assertion he submitted to the public a declaration signed by Hollinger himself and a certain Wiehe, a compositor who, according to his statement, had been continuously employed by Hollinger for eleven months. To this joint declaration of Blind, Hollinger, and Wiehe I replied in the Augsburg "Allgemeine Zeitung".  
Blind  
, on his part, however, repeated his denial and again appealed to the testimony of Hollinger and Wiehe.  
Vogt  
, who from the outset and for personal reasons had designated  
me  
as the secret author of the leaflet, then published a  
pamphlet  
which bristled with the basest calumnies against me.

Before I take further steps, I must expose the fellows who have evidently played into Vogt’s hands. I therefore publicly declare that the statement by Blind, Wiehe, and Hollinger, according to which the anonymous leaflet was  
not  
printed in Hollinger’s premises, 3, Litchfield Street, Soho, is an  
infamous lie.  
Firstly, Herr Vögele, one of the compositors formerly employed by Hollinger, is ready to declare upon oath that the said leaflet was in fact printed in Hollinger’s premises, was written in the handwriting of  
Herr Blind  
, and was in part set by Hollinger himself. Secondly, it can be legally proved that the leaflet and the article in the "Volk" were struck off from the same type. Thirdly, it will be shown that Wiehe was  
not  
continuously employed by Hollinger for eleven months, and in particular was  
not  
employed by him at the time when the leaflet was published. Finally, witnesses can be called in whose presence Wiehe himself confessed that he was persuaded by Hollinger to sign the  
deliberately false declaration in the
Augsburg
"Allgemeine Zeitung".  
Consequently I again declare the above-named  
Karl Blind  
an  
infamous liar.  
If I am in the wrong, he can easily refute me by an appeal to an English court of law.

Karl Marx