1. SCHILY’S EXPULSION FROM SWITZERLAND 

A letter from Schily about his expulsion from Switzerland which 

exemplifies the treatment meted out to non-parliamentary ref- 

ugees** can unfortunately only be printed in extract, owing to 

lack of space. The letter begins by recounting how two German 
refugees, B. and I.,* both friends of Schily, left Geneva, were 
arrested during their journey through Switzerland and, having 
been liberated by Druey, returned again to Geneva. 

“At their request,” Schily continues, “I went to Fazy to find out whether anyone 
was looking for them and he reassured me by saying that there was no reason at 
Cantonal level to disturb their incognito and that no inquiries about them had . 
reached him at Federal level either. I would do well, however, to have an interview 
with the chef du département de justice et de police, M. Girard, mentioning his name 
and what he had told me. This I did with more or ‘ess the same success and 
leaving my address behind in case there were any Federai inquiries. A few weeks 
later I was visited by a police officer who requested me to give him the address of 
B. and I. I refused, hurried around to the aforementioned Girard and upon being 
threatened by him with expulsion unless I gave him the address, I explained to 
him that according to our previous agreement 1 couid be appealed to as an 
intermédiaire, but not as a dénonciateur. To which he replied: ‘Vous avez i’air de 
vouloir vous interposer comme ambassadeur entre moi et ces réfugiés, pour traiter 
de puissance à puissance.’> [ replied: ‘Te n’ai pas l'ambition d’étre accreédité 
,,ambassadeur prés de vous.’* And in fact I was then dismissed without any of the 
ceremony to which ambassadors are entitled. On my way home ? :earnt that B. and 
I. had just been discovered. and that they had been arrested and led off so that I 
could regard Girard’s threat as superseded by events. But I had reckoned without 
April 1, for on this ominous day in 1852 ] was requested by a police officer. 71 the 
middle of the street, to accompany him to the Hôtel de Ville, where some questions 

a Elard Biscamp and Peter {mandt.— Ed. 

6 “It looks as if you would hike to act the ambassador between me anc these 
refugees, to mediate as between equal powers.”— Ed. 

© “I have no ambition to become an ambassador accredited to you.” — Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 297 

were to be put to me. Once arrived there it was explained to me by State 
Councillor Tourte, the Genevan Commissar for the expulsion of refugees and ad 
latus4 to Trog, his counterpart at Federal level, who happened to be in Geneva at 
the time, that I was expelled and that he must send me to Berne without delay; all 
of this to his greatest regret, since there was no complaint against me at Cantonal 
level, but the Federal Commissar insisted on my expulsion. To my request to be 
allowed to see the latter he replied: ‘Non, nous ne voulons pas que le commissaire 
fédéral fasse la police ici.’ This statement, of course, contradicted his earlier one 
and in general he now abandoned his role of Genevan State Councillor, which 
consisted in resisting Federal demands for expulsion with liberal prudery, in 
yielding only to force, sometimes also yielding, with pleasure or resignation, to the 
application of gentle pressure. Another feature of this role was to noise it abroad 
that the person expelled was a spy and that it had been necessary to remove him in 
the interests of the ‘good cause’.... Thus Tourte told the refugees afterwards that 
he had had to get rid of me because I was in league with the Federal Commissar, 
together with whom I had sought to frustrate his (Tourte’s) measures to protect 
the refugees, i.e. that I was in league with the same Commissar who, much to his 
regret, had given orders to expel me. Quelles tartines!4 What lies and contradictions! 
And all for a little aura popularis!¢ Of course, wind is what that gentleman uses to 
keep his balloon airborne. Grand Councillor and State Councillor of Geneva, 
member of the Swiss Council of States or National Council, a born Counsellor of 
Confusion, he needs only to become a member of the Federal Council ~~ to ensure 
that Switzerland will enjoy peaceful days in accordance with the saying: Providentia 
Dei et confusione hominum Helvetia salva fuit.”' 

On arriving in London Schily sent a letter of protest about 
Tourte’s slander to the Genevan Indépendant, which was under the 
influence of Raisin, whom we shall mention later, and which had 
shortly before printed a scathing attack on the assinine slanderous 
fabrications with which “the liberal faiseurs were driving the 
refugees out of Switzerland”. His letter was not published. 

“From the Hotel de Ville in Geneva,” Schily continues, “I was transferred to 
gaol, and on the following day I was sent by mail coach to Berne with a police 
guard. There M. Druey held me in close confinement for two weeks in the 
so-called Old Tower....” 

In his correspondence with the imprisoned Schily, which we 
shall refer to in due course, Druey placed all the guilt on the 
Canton of Geneva, while for his part Tourte had asserted that the 
entire responsibility lay with the Federal authorities, since there was 

a Assistant.— Ed. 

b “No, we don’t want the Federal Commissar playing the policeman here.” — Ed. 

¢ Marx uses English: “gentle pressure”.— Ed. 

4d What follies!— Ed. 

e Whiff of popularity (a phrase from Cicero’s De haruspicum responso, 20, 43).— Ed. 

f The providence of God and the confusion of man have been the salvation of 
Switzerland.— Ed. 

& Busybodies.— Ed. 

11* 

298 _Karl Marx 

no complaint against him on the part of the Canton of Geneva. He had 
received a similar assurance shortly before from Raisin, the 
Genevan examining magistrate. Schily has this to say, among other 
things, about the latter gentleman: 

“On the occasion of the Federal Shooting Competition which was held in 
Geneva in the summer of 1851, Raisin had taken over the editorship of the Journal 
du tir fédéral, which appeared in French and German. He engaged me to work on 
the paper, promising me a fee of 300 francs in exchange for which I was supposed 
inter alia to record flagrante delicto* the opening and closing speeches in German of 
the President of the Committee Tourte. I owe a debt of gratitude to Tourte for 
having made my task much easier by his habit of addressing more or less the same 
enthusiastic words to the various deputations of marksmen, varying his phrases 
slightly according to whether he was eulogising the Bear of Berne, the Bull of Uri,> 
or other members of the Confederation. In particular, when he would come to the 
refrain ‘But if the moment of danger ever arrives, then we shall, etc.’, I would 
calmly lay down my pen and when Raisin asked why, I could answer: c'est le refrain 
du danger, je le sais par coeurs Instead of my hard-earned fee of 300 francs, I 
managed only to extract 100 from Raisin, and only with the greatest difficulty 
although he did open up the prospect of collaborating on a political review he 
intended to establish in Geneva in order to be independent of all the existing 
parties and be able to oppose any side and especially the then ‘liberal’ government 
of Fazy and Tourte, even though he belonged to it himself. He was the very man 
for such an enterprise—able, as he used to boast, ‘d’arracher la peau a qui que ce 
soit’....4 Accordingly, he commissioned me to establish contacts for this journal in 
the course of a journey through Switzerland which I undertook after my Federal 
Shooting labours. I did so and on my return I drew up a written report on the 
results achieved. In the meantime, however, the wind had begun to blow from 
another direction and he found himself returning full sail from his expedition of 
piracy into the peaceful harbour of the existing government. J’en étais donc pour mes 
frais et honoraires for which I vainly pestered him and continue to do so to this 
day, and have still received nothing even though he is now a wealthy man.... 
Shortly before my arrest he asserted categorically that there was no question of my 
being expelled, his friend Tourte had himself assured him that it was not necessary 
for me to take any preventive measures with regard to Girard’s threats, etc. ... In 
reply to a letter which I sent him de profundis,! from my old prison tower, asking 
him for a small instalment of the money he owed me and for an explanation of the 
incident (my arrest, etc.), he preserved a stubborn silence, even though he assured 
the person who brought him the message that he would comply with all my 
requests.... 

‘““A few months later I received a letter from K.,8 a reliable, unprejudiced man, 
informing me that my expulsion had been the work of the refugee parliamen- 

In the very act of committing an offence.— Ed. 
An allusion to the arms of the Cantons of Berne and Uri.— Ed. 
“Tt is the refrain about danger, I know it by heart.” — Ed. 
“To skin a man alive.” — Ed. 
That was the last I heard of my expenses and fees.— Ed. 
Literally: out of the depths. Figuratively: from a state of extreme suffering 
(Psalms 130:1).— Ed. 
8 Presumably a letter from Friedrich Kamm written in 1852.— Ed. 

~ oO an Oo mw 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 299 

tartans, and this was confirmed mordicus by a few lines written by Ranickel, which 
he enclosed. This view was also confirmed by many experienced observers with 
whom I later had an opportunity to discuss the matter.... Yet I did not hate the 
parliamentarians like that hyena Reinach, who used to drag the late-lamented 
Imperial Regent Vogt, day after day, from the Imperial tomb to the dinner table in 
Berne where Vogt sat like the reincarnation of the ‘chained Prometheus’, and then, 
entre poire et fromage,> would savagely devour both his mummy and the reincarnated 
form to the horror of those present. It is true that I was no admirer of the 
parliamentarians’ deeds, quite the reverse! But is it likely that these gentlemen 
intended to punish me for this by an Imperial ban—regarding Switzerland as part 
of the Empire because both the Imperial Constitution and the most recent 
resolution of the Imperial Diet lie buried there? I think it more likely that the 
presumption of their persecution of myself is connected with the parliamentary 
rebellion mentioned in my previous letter‘ against the Geneva Refugee Committee 
formed by myself, Becker and a number of Genevan citizens.... Why these 
gentlemen wished to usurp the right to distribute the refugee funds was a matter 
about which even they differed among themselves. Some of them, among them 
Dentzel from the little Chamber of Baden, preferred, contrary to our practice of 
giving aid above all to penniless workers, to wipe away the tears of professional 
sufferers, heroes of the revolution, patriotic sons of the nation, who had seen 
better days.... Is fecit cui prodest as the saying goes in the trade, and since my 
activities were, it is true, inconvenient to these gentlemen, the suspicion arose that 
they had made use of their influence in important places to bring about my 
removal. It was known that they had the aurem principis¢ or, at any rate, they were 
close enough to it to whisper something or other about my restiveness, and that 
princeps Tourte especially had frequently gathered them around himself....” 

Having described how he was moved from the Old Tower in 
Berne to Basle and then over the French frontier, Schily 
continues: 

“As far as the expense entailed in expelling refugees is concerned, I cherish the 
hope that the costs were defrayed not by the Federal Treasury, but by that of the 
Holy Alliance. For one day a considerable time after our entry into Switzerland, 
Princess Olga was sitting at luncheon in a Berne restaurant with the Russian chargé 
d'affaires there.f Entre poire et fromage (sans comparaison to the terrible Reinach) Her 
Highness remarked to her table companion: ‘Eh bien, Monsieur le baron, avez-vous 
encore beaucoup de réfugiés ici?’ ‘Pas mal, Princesse,’ he replied, ‘bien que nous en 
ayons déja beaucoup renvoyé. M. Druey fait de son mieux a cet égard, et si de 
nouveaux fonds nous arrivent, nous en renverrons bien encore.’& This was overheard 
and passed on to me by the waiter on duty, a quondam volunteer in the Imperial 
campaign where he served under my august command.” 

2 Convincingly.— Ed. 

b Over the dessert.— Ed. 

© Schily’s letter of February 8, 1860 (see this volume, pp. 43-46).— Fd. 

4d He did it who benefits by it (Seneca, Medea, III, 500-01).— Ed. 

e¢ Ear of the authorities.— Ed. 

f Pavel Alexeyevich Krtidener.— Ed. 

8 “Well, Baron, are there still many refugees here?” “Quite a few, Your Highness, 
although we have already sent many of them back. M. Druey does his best in this 
respect, and if we receive new funds we shall be able to send back even more.” — Ed. 

During Schily’s removal his travel-effects vanished mysteriously 
and irretrievably. 

“It has remained a mystery to this very day how my effects could have vanished 
in Le Havre from the chaos of bundles accompanying a German émigré train (into 
which we had been incorporated in Basle by Klenk, the emigration agent, whom 
the Federal authorities had hired to transport us to Le Havre, with the result that 
all the luggage belonging to the refugees and emigrants had become hopelessly 
confused), unless it had been achieved with the aid of a list of the refugees and their 
baggage. Perhaps the Swiss Consul in Le Havre, the merchant Wanner, to whom we 
were sent for further transportation, knows more about it. He promised that we 
would be fully compensated. Druey later confirmed this promise in a letter which I 
sent to Advocate Vogt in Berne to enable him to pursue the matter in the Federal 
Council. However, I have not been able to get it back from him up to now, nor have 
I ever received a reply to any of the letters I wrote to him. On the other hand, in the 
summer of 1856 my complaint was rejected by the Federal Council and I was 
warned to keep the peace, without being given any reasons for this decision.... 

‘““All this and all the expulsions involving so many gendarmes, handcuffs, etc., 
are mere trivia, however, compared to the peculiarly cosy good-neighbourly 
arrangement of sending home the so-called less serious offenders of the Baden 
campaign, providing them with special travel passes and directing them to report 
on their arrival to the local authorities where, instead of being allowed to resume 
their occupations, as they had been led to expect, they were subjected to all sorts of 
unexpected penances. The silent sufferings of all those extradited in this way (for 
extradition is the correct word) are still waiting for their chronicler and avenger. 

“The Swiss Tacitus speaking of Switzerland says that it does a man credit ‘if his 
faults may be mentioned without detracting from his greatness’. There is no lack of 
materials for praise of this kind; to praise Switzerland in this manner does not spoil 
its figure ... qui aime bien chdtie bien. And in fact I for my part have an 
irrepressible love for Switzerland by and large. I like both the country and the 
people. Keeping a gun as part of his household equipment, always ready and 
skilful in using it to protect historical traditions of good repute and modern 
achievements of good quality, the Swiss in my eyes definitely deserves respect. He 
is entitled to the sympathies of others because he himself feels sympathy for others 
who struggle to improve their situation. ‘I would rather that God had lost his best 
pair of angels,’ a Swiss farmer said in his annoyance at the failure of the South 
German uprising. He might not have been prepared to risk a team of his horses 
for it, but he would have been more likely to risk his skin and his gun. In his heart 
of hearts the Swiss is not neutral, even if he practises neutrality because of, and in 
order to preserve, his inherited possessions. Incidentally the old crust of neutrality 
which cloaks his better nature will probably soon burst asunder with all these 
foreign feet trampling on it—for that is after all the essence of neutrality—and 
there will be a big bang and that will clear the air.” 

Thus far Schily’s letter. In the Prison Tower in Berne he was 
not able to arrange a personal meeting with Druey, but he did 
manage to exchange letters with that gentleman. In reply to a 
letter from Schily inquiring into the reasons for his arrest and 
asking permission to consult his lawyer, Herr Wyss in Berne, 
Druey wrote on April 9, 1852. 

4 He who loves well chastises well.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—XII. Appendices 301 

‘“.. Lautorité genévoise a ordonné votre renvoi du Canton, vous a fait arréter 
et conduire a4 Berne a la disposition? de mon département, parce que vous vous 
étes montré un des réfugiés les plus remuants et que vous avez cherché 4 cacher I. 
et B., que vous vous étiez engagé a représenter a |’autorité. Pour ce motif et parce 
que votre séjour ultérieur en Suisse nuirait aux relations internationales de la 
Confédération, le Conseil fédéral a ordonné votre renvoi du territoire suisse, etc. ... 
Comme votre arrestation n’a pas pour but un procés criminel ou correctionnel, 
mais une mesure de haute politique’ ... il n’est pas nécessaire que vous consultiez 
Pavocat. D’ailleurs, avant de ... autoriser l’entrevue que vous me demandez avec M. l’avocat 
Wyss, je desire savoir le but de cette entrevue.” < 

The letters which Schily was permitted, after numerous com- 
plaints, to write to his friends in Geneva had all to be submitted 
beforehand to M. Druey to inspect. In one of these letters Schily 
used the expression “Vae victis”.>’ Druey wrote to him about it in 
a letter dated April 19, 1852: 

“Dans le billet que vous avez adressé 4 M. J.,4 se trouvent les mots: vae victis... 
Cela veut-il dire que les autorités fédérales vous traitent en vaincu? S’il en était 
ainsi, ce serait une accusation mensongere, contre laquelle je devrais protester.” ¢ 

Schily replied to the mighty Druey in a letter dated April 21, 
1852: 

‘Je ne pense pas, M. le conseiller fédéral, que cette maniére de caractériser les 
mesures prises 4 mon égard puisse me valoir le reproche d’une accusation 
mensongére; du moins un pareil reproche ne serait pas de nature a me faire revenir 
de l’idée que je suis traité avec dureté; au contraire, adressé a un prisonnier, par 
celui qui le tient en prison, une telle réponse me paraitrait une dureté de plus.” 

a Marx has: “déposition”’.— Ed. 

b Marx has: “police”.— Ed. 

c “The Genevan authorities have ordered your expulsion from the Canton; they 
have had you arrested and conducted to Berne and put at the disposition of my 
department, because you have shown yourself to be one of the most restive of the 
refugees and have tried to conceal the whereabouts of I. and B., of which you were 
obliged to inform the authorities. For this reason and because your further residence 
in Switzerland would have harmed the international relations of the Confederation, the 
Federal Council has resolved on expelling you from Swiss territory, etc. ... Since the 
purpose of your arrest was not the institution of any criminal or civil action against 
you, but is a measure necessitated by considerations of high politics ... there is no need for 
you to consult a lawyer. In any event before ... authorising the interview you request with 
M. Wyss, your lawyer, I should have to know for what purpose you want to consult him. ”’— Ed. 

d Abraham Jacoby.— Ed. 

e “The note you have written to M. J. contains the words: vae victis.... Is that 
supposed to mean that the Federal authorities treat you as one treats a defeated 
opponent? If this is the implication, it is a lying accusation against which I should feel 
bound to protest.” — Ed. 

f “TI do not believe, Federal Councillor, that the way in which I have described the 
measures taken in my regard can be thought to merit the reproach of making lying 
accusations; at the very least such a reproach is hardly likely to persuade me that I am 
not being treated harshly; on the contrary, for me as a prisoner to receive an answer ltke 
this from the person who keeps me in prison seems to be another harsh act.” — Ed. 

Towards the close of March 1852, shortly before Schily’s arrest 
and the deportation of other unparliamentary refugees, the 
reactionary Journal de Genéve published all sorts of wild gossip 
about communist plots among the German refugees in Geneva: 
Herr Trog was said to be busy cleaning out a nest of German 
communists with a brood of 84 communist dragons inside it, etc. 
Alongside this reactionary Genevan paper a scribbler in Berne 
who belonged to the parliamentary gang—it must be assumed that 
it was Karl Vogt since he repeatedly claims in the “Magnum 
Opus” that it was he who had rescued Switzerland from the 
clutches of the communist refugees—was busy spreading similar 
news in the Frankfurter Journal over the initials “ss”. For example, 
he wrote that the Genevan Committee to aid German refugees, a 
committee consisting of communists, had been overthrown because 
of its inequitable distribution of the available funds, and that it 
had been replaced by upright men (namely parliamentarians) who 
would soon put an end to these evil practices. He wrote further 
that the dictator of Geneva seemed at last to be prepared to 
comply with the ordinances of the Federal Commissars, since two 
German refugees belonging to the communist faction had shortly 
before been put under arrest and brought from Geneva to Berne, 
etc.”> The Schweizerische National-Zeitung, which appears in 
Basle, published an answer from Geneva in its issue No. 72, of 
March 25, 1852, in which it said inter alia: 

“Every unbiassed person knows that just as Switzerland is concerned only with 
the consolidation and constitutional development of its political achievements, so 
too the feeble remnants of the German emigration in this country are occupied 
entirely with earning their daily bread and other perfectly harmless pursuits, and 
that the fairy-tales about communism are the product of hallucinations on the part 
of philistines or else are concocted by politically or personally interested informers.” 

After the Berne parliamentary correspondent of the Frankfurter 
Journal had been described as one of these informers—the article 
concludes: 

“The refugees here are of the opinion that in their ranks there are a number of 
so-called ‘decent men’ on the pattern of the former ‘Biedermen and Bassermen of 
the Empire’ who, driven by nostalgia for the flesh-pots of home, %9 seek to pave 
the way for their own pardon at the hands of their native rulers by reactionary 
expectorations of this kind. We should like to send them our best wishes for a 

a A pun on the names of Friedrich Karl Biedermann and Friedrich Daniel 
Bassermann, Biedermann means “honest man” and, in an ironical sense, “philistine’”’. 
Bassermansch means “homeless tramp” or “beggar” .— Ed. 

Herr Vogt— XII. Appendices 303 

speedy departure as they will then cease to compromise the refugees and the 
government that gives them asylum.” 

Schily was known to the refugee parliamentarians as the author 
of this article. It appeared in the Basle National-Zeitung on 
March 25, and on April 1 Schily’s wholly unmotivated arrest took 
place. ““Tantaene animis caelestibus irae?”’? 

2. THE REVOLUTIONARY CONGRESS IN MURTEN 

After the Murten scandal? the German refugees in Geneva, with 
the exception of the refugee parliamentarians, issued a protest 
addressed “To the Supreme Department of Justice and the Police 
of the Confederation”, from which I print the following pas- 
sage 7*°: 

“.. The monarchs did not rest content with their previous diplomatic gains. 
They rattled their sabres all around Switzerland and threatened military occupation 
so as to make a clean sweep of the refugees. The Federal Council at any rate has 
expressed its concern about this danger in an official document. And lo and 
behold! There were further deportations, justified this time by the notorious 
assembly in Murten and the claim that traces of political and propagandistic 
activities had been uncovered by the investigation following it. As far as the facts 
are concerned this claim must be categorically rejected.... From the legal point of 
view, however, it is important to bear in mind that wherever the rule of law 
obtains, actions proscribed by the law can only be punished by penalties laid down by the 
law, and this holds good for deportation too, if it is not to appear as the arbitrary 
action of the police. Or was perhaps here too the intention to play off diplomacy 
against us and to say: we have been forced to act thus out of consideration for foreign 
powers, in the interests of international relations? Very well, then, if this is the 
position, the cross of the Confederation should hide its head in shame before the 
Turkish crescent, which, when the myrmidons searching for refugees knock on the 
Porte,4 shows its horns and does not eat humble pie.¢ If this is the position, then 
give us our passports so that we can go to Turkey and when the door has closed 
behind us, hand over the keys to the Swiss bastion of liberty to the Holy Alliance as 
a feudum oblatum{ and hold them in future as the insignia of chamberlains of the 
Holy Alliance, with the motto: Finis Helvetiae!” 8 

a “Can heavenly spirits cherish resentment so dire?” Virgil, Aeneid, I, 11.— Ed. 

6 See this volume, pp. 50-55.— Ed. 

© Switzerland’s national flag.— Ed. 

d A pun in the original: an der Pforte klopft (literally, “knocks on the door”. Pforte 
in German means both “door” and “the Porte”, i.e. the Turkish Government).— Ed. 

€ In the original: nicht zu Kreuze kriecht—“‘does not crawl to the cross”.— Ed. 

f Feudal fief — Ed. 

8 End to Switzerland! (by analogy with Finis Poloniae!—End to Poland! See p. 148 
of this volume).— Ed. 

3. CHERVAL 

I realised from Joh. Ph. Becker’s letter? that the “associate of 
Marx” or the “associates” of Cherval mentioned by the Vogt of 
the Empire? could only be Herr Stecher, now resident in London. 
Up to that time I had not had the honour of making his personal 
acquaintance, although I had heard many complimentary descrip- 
tions of his great and many-sided artistic talents. In consequence 
of Becker’s letter we met for the first time. The following is a 
letter from my “associate” to me.‘ 

“17 Sussex St., London W. C. 
October 14, 1860 

“Dear Herr Marx, 

“I am glad to be able to give you some information about Nugent 
(Cherval-Cramer) who was mentioned in Vogt’s pamphlet of which you were kind 
enough to send me an extract. In March 1853 I came to Geneva after a trip to 
Italy. Nugent arrived in Geneva at around the same time and I made his 
acquaintance in a lithography workshop. I had myself just taken up lithography 
and since Nugent had a thorough knowledge of it, and since he was extremely 
agreeable, energetic and industrious by nature, I accepted his proposal to share an 
atelier with him. What Vogt says about Nugent’s activities in Geneva is roughly the 
same as what I heard for myself at the time, if you discount the usual 
exaggerations to be expected from journalists or pamphleteers. There was very 
little success. I knew only one of the group, a good-natured and hard-working, but 
otherwise imprudent and light-minded young man. And since he was one of the 
leaders it must be presumed that N. was everything in the group and the others 
nothing but curious listeners. | am convinced that neither stone nor copper plates 
were ever engraved, although I heard N. talk of such matters. My own 
acquaintances were mainly Genevans and Italians. I was aware that later on I was 
thought to be a spy by Vogt and other German refugees, whom I did not know. 
But I took no notice of it—the truth will always out. I was not even offended; it 
was So easy to arouse suspicion as there were spies aplenty and to discover who 
they were was not always a simple matter. I am almost certain that Nugent did not 
correspond with anyone in Geneva after he had been expelled from there. I later 
received two letters from him inviting me to join him in Paris to help him with a 
project on medieval architecture, which I did. In Paris I found Nugent to be 
utterly remote from politics and correspondence. All this of course suggests that I 
myself could be ‘the associates of Marx since I neither saw nor heard of anyone else 
whom Nugent had induced to come to Paris. Of course Herr Vogt could not know that 
I had never had any contact with you, either direct or indirect, and that I probably 
never would have had, if I had not moved to London where by chance I have had 
the pleasure of meeting you and your esteemed family. 

“With best wishes to you and your ladies, 

H. Cal. Stecher”’ 

a See this volume, pp. 60-64.— Ed. 
b See Carl Vogt, Mein Prozess..., S. 175.— Ed. 
¢ This letter has not been found.— Fd. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 305 

4. THE COMMUNIST TRIAL IN COLOGNE 

In this section I wish to make public information concerning the 
Prussian Embassy in London and its correspondence with Prussian 
authorities on the Continent during the Cologne trial. This 
information is based on the confessions of Hirsch which were 
published by A. Willich in April 1853 in the New- Yorker Criminal- 
Zeitung under the title “Die Opfer der Moucharderie, Rechtfer- 
tigungsschrift von Wilhelm Hirsch”’.* Hirsch, who is at present in a 
Hamburg gaol, was the principal tool of Police Lieutenant Greif 
and his agent Fleury. It was on instructions from them and under 
their direction that he forged the false Minute-Book submitted as 
evidence by Stieber in the course of the communist trial. I give 
here a number of excerpts from Hirsch’s memoirs. 

(During the Great Exhibition) “the German associations were kept under 
surveillance by a police triumvirate: Police Superintendent Stieber for Prussia, a 
Herr Kubesch for Austria and Police Commissioner Huntel of Bremen”. 

Having volunteered to act as an informer, Hirsch had an 
interview in London with Alberts who was Secretary at the 
Prussian Embassy. He gives this account of their first meeting: 

“The meetings of the Prussian Embassy in London with its secret agents take 
place at a public house well fitted for the purpose. The Cock, in Fleet St., Temple 
Bar, is so unobtrusive that but for a golden cock pointing to the entrance the casual 
passer-by would hardly notice it. I went through a narrow passage leading to the 
interior of this old English tavern and asked for Mr. Charles, whereupon a 
corpulent personage introduced himself to me with such an amiable smile that 
anyone seeing us would have taken us to be old friends. The Embassy agent (for 
this is what he was) seemed to be in very high spirits and his mood was still further 
improved by brandy and water. He enjoyed it so much that for a long time he 
seemed to have completely forgotten the purpose of our meeting. Mr. Charles at 
once revealed that his true name was Alberts and that he was the Embassy Secretary. 
To begin with, he informed me that in fact he had nothing to do with the police 
but that he would act as an intermediary in this case... A second meeting took place 
at his home in 39 Brewer St., Golden Square, and it was here that I made the 
acquaintance of Police Lieutenant Greif. Greif looked the true policeman: medium 
height, dark hair and a beard of the same colour cut in the regulation style, with 
the moustache meeting the side-whiskers and the chin left shaven. His eyes looked 
anything but intelligent and they protruded fiercely in a permanent glare, 
apparently the result of frequent association with thieves and rogues.... Like Herr 
Alberts, Herr Greif introduced himself to me by the pseudonym of Mr. Charles. 
The latest Mr. Charles was at least in a more serious mood and he even felt it was 
necessary to test me.... Our first meeting ended with his instructing me to give him 
an accurate report on all the activities of the revolutionary émigrés.... On the next 

a This article was published in instalments in the Belletristisches Journal und 
New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitung on April 1, 8, 15 and 22, 1853. Excerpts from it are 
contained in Marx’s notebook. For his assessment of it see his article ‘‘Hirsch’s 
Confessions” (present edition, Vol. 12).— Ed. 

306 Karl Marx : 

occasion Herr Greif introduced me to what he called ‘his right hand’, namely ‘one 
of his agents’, he added. This turned out to be a tall elegantly dressed young man 
who also gave his name as Mr. Charles. The whole political police seems to have 
adopted this pseudonym and I now had three Charleses to deal with. The latest 
specimen seemed to be the most remarkable. He said that ‘he too had been a 
revolutionary but that all things were possible and I had only to go along with 
him’.” 
Greif left London for some time and parted from Hirsch 

“expressly commending me to the latest Mr. Charles who, he said, acted always 
on his instructions. I should not hesitate to confide in him. Moreover, even if 
certain things should appear strange to me I should not be surprised. To make this 
clearer he added: “The Ministry sometimes requires various things, chiefly 
documents; if these are unobtainable we should find some way out!’” 

Hirsch states further that the latest Charles was Fleury. 

“He had earlier been employed in the office of the Dresdner Zeitung, which was 
edited by L. Wittig. When he was in Baden, he was, as a result of recommendations 
he had brought from Saxony, sent by the provisional government to the Palatinate 
to take in hand the organisation of the Landsturm, etc. When the Prussians 
occupied Karlsruhe he was taken prisoner, etc. He suddenly reappeared in London 
towards the end of 1850 or early in 1851; from the outset he went here by the 
name of de Fleury and was known by this name in refugee circles. He was hard 
up, at least he seemed to be, stayed in the refugee barracks set up by the Refugee 
Committee and drew subsidies. Early in the summer of 1851 his position suddenly 
improved; he moved into a respectable apartment and at the end of the year he 
married the daughter of an English engineer. He turned up later in Paris as a 
police agent.... His real name is Krause and he is the son of Krause the cobbler who 
was executed some 15 or 18 years ago in Dresden together with Backhof and 
Beseler for the murder of Countess Schénberg and her maid.... Fleury-Krause told 
me many times that he had been working for different governments since he was 
14.” 

It is this same Fleury-Krause whom Stieber admitted in open 
court in Cologne to be a secret Prussian police agent working 
directly under Greif. In my Revelations Concerning the Communist 
Trial in Cologne 1 wrote of Fleury: 

“Fleury is not indeed the Fleur de Marie of the _ police 
prostitutes, but he is a flower’ and he will bear blossom, albeit only 
fleurs-de-lys.” * 

This prophecy has in a sense been fulfilled; some months after 
the communist trial Fleury was sentenced in England to several 
years in the hulks? for forgery. 

* Fleurs-de-lys [lilies] is the French colloquial name of the letters T. F. (travaux 
forces, forced labour), the brand-mark of criminals. [Note by Engels to the 1885 edition 
of the Revelations. See present edition, Vol. 11, p. 442.] 

a A pun: Fleur de Marie—the heroine in Eugéne Sue’s novel Les mystéres de Paris, 
fleur—a flower.— Ed. 
b Marx uses the English word.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 307 

“As the right-hand man of Police Lieutenant Greif,” Hirsch writes, “Fleury 
dealt directly with the Prussian Embassy during Greif’s absence.” 

Fleury was in contact with Max Reuter who stole the letters 
from Oswald Dietz, at that time archivist of the Schapper-Willich 
League.**! 

“Stieber,” says Hirsch, “had learned from the agent of the Prussian 
Ambassador in Paris Hatzfeldt, the notorious Cherval, of the letters written by the 
latter to London. Stieber got Reuter to find out where they were, whereupon Fleury 
stole them on Stieber’s orders and with Reuter’s aid. These are the stolen letters 
which Herr Stieber was not ashamed to exhibit ‘as such’ to the jury in Cologne.... In 
autumn 1851 Fleury had been in Paris with Greif and Stieber after the latter 
had, through the mediation of Count Hatzfeldt, made contact with Cherval, or more 
correctly, Joseph Craémer with whose assistance he hoped to engineer a plot. With 
this end in view consultations were held in Paris between Messrs. Stieber, Greif, 
Fleury, two other police agents, Beckmann* and Sommer, and the famous French 
spy Lucien de la Hodde (who went by the name of Duprez) and they gave Cherval 
directions according to which he was to tailor his correspondence. Fleury often 
laughed in my presence over the scuffle he had provoked between Stieber and 
Cherval. And the man called Schmidt who in the guise of secretary of a 
revolutionary league in Strasbourg and Cologne had gained admission to the 
society founded at the behest of the police by Cherval, was none other than M. de 
Fleury.... Fleury was undoubtedly the sole agent of the Prussian secret police in 
London and all proposals and offers that the Embassy received went through his 
hands.... Messrs. Greif and Stieber were accustomed to relying on his judgment.” 

Fleury informed Hirsch: 

“Herr Greif has told you what has to be done.... At Police Headquarters in 
Frankfurt they are themselves of the opinion that our primary aim must be to 
make the position of the political police secure, the means we use to achieve this are 
immaterial; the September plot in Paris is already one step in this direction.” 4 

Greif returned to London and expressed satisfaction with 
Hirsch’s work but demanded more. In particular he wanted 
reports on “the secret meetings of the Marx party”. 

“At all costs,” the Police Lieutenant concluded, “we must draw up reports on 
the League meetings. Do it any way you wish as long as you don’t overstep the 
limits of credibility. I am too occupied to attend to it myself. M. de Fleury will work 
with you as my representative.” 

Greif’s occupation at that time consisted, as Hirsch states, in a 
correspondence via de Ja Hodde-Duprez with Maupas concerning 

* The same man» who figures in the Arnim Trial. [Note by Marx in the 1875 
edition of the Revelations, to which Appendix 4 to Herr Vogt was supplemented.] He 
was already then Paris correspondent for the Kélnische Zeitung and was to 
remain so for many years. [Engels’ addition to Marx’s note in the 1885 edition 
of the Revelations.] 

* Beckmann.— Ed. 
» See this volume, pp. 55-56.— Ed. 

the arrangements for the mock escape of Cherval and Gipperich 
from the St. Pélagie gaol. On being assured by Hirsch that 

“Marx had not founded any new central organisation of the League in 
London ... Greif agreed with Fleury that in the circumstances we should for the 
time being prepare reports on meetings of the League ourselves. He, Greif, would 
vouch for their authenticity, and in any case his submissions would be accepted”. 

So Hirsch and Fleury set to work.“The content” of their reports 
on the secret meetings of the League I held 

“was provided”, Hirsch states, “by reports of discussions that took place from 
time to time; the admission of new members, the founding of new sections in 
obscure corners of Germany, or a new organisation; speculation to the effect that 
in Cologne Marx’s imprisoned friends did or did not have any prospects of being 
released; letters that had come from this person or that, and so on. On this last 
point Fleury usually took care to mention people in Germany who had become 
suspect as a result of political investigations or who had been involved in some 
political activity or other. Very often, however, we had to have recourse to our 
imagination and then we would report on the activities of a non-existent member 
of the League. But Herr Greif said that the reports were excellent and that anyway 
we had to have them at all costs. Some of the writing was done by Fleury alone but 
mostly I had to help him as he was unable to describe the smallest detail without 
errors of style. In this way the reports came into being and without a moment’s 
hesitation Herr Greif declared his willingness to vouch for their authenticity”. 

Hirsch then describes how Fleury and he visited Arnold Ruge in 
Brighton, and Eduard Meyen (of Tobian memory*) and _ stole 
letters and lithographed material from them. Not content with this, 
Greif-Fleury rented a lithographic press from Stanbury Press, 
Fetter Lane, and together with Hirsch began to produce “radical 
pamphlets”. That “democrat”, F. Zabel, could learn a lesson or 
two here. Let him take note of this: 

“The first pamphlet I’ (Hirsch) “wrote was entitled An das Landproletariat at 
Fleury’s suggestion; and we managed to make a few good copies of it. Herr Greif 
sent these copies as documents emanating from the Marx party. To make it seem 
more plausible we included in the reports of the so-called League meetings, which 
came into being in the manner described above, a few words about the dispatch of 
such a pamphlet. One other product of this kind was fabricated; its title was An die 
Kinder des Volkes and I do not know under whose auspices Herr Greif sent this 
one in. We later abandoned this trick chiefly because it was so costly.” 

At this point Cherval arrived in London after his mock escape 
from Paris and was attached to Greif at a weekly salary of £1 10s., 

“in return for which he was required to make reports on the contacts between 
the German and French émigrés”. 

Publicly exposed and expelled from the Workers’ Society as a 
242 

apy? 

a See this volume, p. 239.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—XII. Appendices 309 

“Cherval very understandably described the German émigrés and their organs 
as being as insignificant as could be—since he found it quite impossible to get hold 
of any information on the subject which ne could pass on. By way of compensation 
he compiled a report for Greif on the non-German revolutionary party which put 
Munchausen’s tall stories in the shade”. 

Hirsch now returns to the Cologne trial. 

“Herr Greif had already been questioned a number of times about the contents 
of the League reports prepared at his instance by Fleury in so far as they had any 
bearing on the Cologne trial.... There were also particular commissions in 
connection with the trial. On one occasion Marx was alleged to be corresponding 
with Lassalle via an ‘ale-house’ and the Public Prosecutor required further 
information.... Rather more naive was the Public Prosecutor’s request asking for 
precise information about the financial assistance that Lassalle in Dusseldort was 
allegedly sending tc the defendant Roser in Cologne ... it was believed that the true 
source of the money was in London.” 

I have already recounted in Section III, 4 how Fleury, acting on 
instructions from Hinckeldey, was to find someone in London who 
would be willing to appear before the jury in Cologne in the guise 
of H.,* the witness who had disappeared, etc. After a detailed 
account of this incident Hirsch goes on: 

‘Herr Stieber had meanwhile urgently requested Greif to supply him, if at all 
possible, with the original minutes of the League meetings that he had been 
reporting on. Fleury was of the opinion that he could produce an original 
minute-book if only the requisite people were available. Above all, however, he 
would need specimens of the handwriting of some of Marx’s friends. 1 made use of this 
last remark in order to extricate myself from the whole undertaking; Fleury 
alluded to the topic only once again and after that he said nothing more. Around 
this time Stieber suddenly appeared in Cologne with a Minute-Book of the 
League’s central organisation in London.... I was even more astonished when | 
found that the minutes as reported in extract in the papers were absolutely 
identical with the reports concocted by Fleury at Greif’s behest. It was evident that 
Herr Greif or Herr Stieber himself had had a copy made somehow or other, for the 
minutes in this allegedly original document bore signatures while those submitted by Fleury 
had none. From Fleury himself I learned about this miracle only that ‘Stieber can 
contrive anything, it will be a sensation!” 

As soon as Fleury heard that “Marx” had had the handwriting 
of the ostensible signatories of the minutes (Liebknecht, Rings, 
Ulmer, etc.) witnessed in a London Police Court” he wrote the 
following letter: 

“To the Royal Police Presidium in Berlin; dated from London. 

‘it is the intention of Marx and his friends here to discredit the signatures on 
the League Minutes by having handwriting specimens legally authenticated. These 
specimens are to be produced in the Court of Assizes as the really authentic ones. 
Everyone familiar with the English laws knows that on this point they can be 

a Haupt (see this volume, p. 67).— Ed. 
b Marx uses English: Police Court.— Ed. 

manipulated and that a person who vouches for the authenticity of a thing does 
not actually give any true guarantee. The person who gives you this information 
does not recoil from giving you his name in a matter like this where the truth is at 
stake. Becker, 4, Litchfield St.” “Fleury knew the address of Becker, a German 
refugee living in the same house as Willich. It might very easily happen later on 
that the suspicion of authorship would fall on the latter who was an opponent of 
Marx.... Fleury looked forward eagerly to the scandal that would result. The letter 
would be read out in court, but of course too late, he thought, for any doubts 
about its authenticity to arise before the trial was over.... The letter, signed by 
Becker, was addressed to the Police Presidium in Berlin, however it went not to 
Berlin but to ‘Police Officer Goldheim, Frankfurter Hof in Cologne’, and an 
envelope for this letter arrived at the Police Presidium in Berlin with a note stating 
that ‘Herr Stieber in Cologne would give a complete explanation as to its use....’ Stieber 
made no use of this letter; he was unable to do so because he was forced to drop 
the whole Minute-Book.” 

With regard to the Minute-Book Hirsch says that 

“Herr Stieber declared” (in court) “that he had had the Minute-Book in his 
hands for two weeks but had scrupled to produce it; he declared further that it 
had come to him by a courier called Greif.... Hence Greif had personally delivered 
his own work. How can this be reconciled with a letter of Herr Goldheim’s in which he 
informed the Embassy that ‘the Minute-Book was produced so late only in order to 
avoid scrutiny as to its authenticity....’” 

On Friday, October 29, Herr Goldheim arrived in London. 

“As Herr Stieber had to face the fact that it was not possible to uphold the 
authenticity of the Minute-Book he sent a deputy to negotiate with Fleury about it 
on the spot. At issue was the question whether a proof could not be obtained after 
all. His discussions were fruitless and he returned without any decision having been 
reached. Fleury was left in a state of despair for Stieber was now resolved to expose 
him rather than compromise the police chiefs. But I did not realise that this was 
the cause of Fleury’s disquiet until Herr Stieber made his declaration soon 
afterwards. In panic, M. Fleury now resorted to his last expedient. He brought 
me a specimen of handwriting for me to use to copy out a declaration, sign it 
‘Liebknecht’ and take an oath before the Lord Mayor of London that I was 
Liebknecht.... Fleury told me that the handwriting was that of the person who had 
written the Minute-Book and that Herr Goldheim had brought it with him” (from 
Cologne). “But if Herr Stieber had received the Minute-Book per Greif, the courier 
from London, how was it possible for Herr Goldheim to bring a specimen of the 
handwriting of the alleged Minute-Book writer from Cologne at the very moment 
when Greif had just arrived back in London?.... What Fleury gave me consisted 
of a few phrases and a signature....” Hirsch “copied the handwriting as 
closely as he could and wrote that the undersigned, i.e. Liebknecht, declared that 
the signature of Liebknecht legally witnessed by Maix and Co. was false and that 
this, his signature was the only genuine one. When I had finished and had the 
handwriting in my hands” (i.e. the specimen given him by Fleury to copy), ‘which 
fortunately I still possess, I told Fleury, who was not a little taken aback, that I had 
had second thoughts and would not go through with it. Inconsolable at first, he 
then announced that he would swear to it himself....For safety’s sake he would have 
the writing countersigned by the Prussian Consul; and he went to the Consulate at 
once. I waited for him in a tavern; when he got back he had the countersignature 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 311 

and he next went to the Lord Mayor to swear the oath. But the plan fell through 
as the Lord Mayor wanted further guarantees and Fleury could not give them—so 
the oath remained unsworn.... Late in the evening I saw M. de Fleury again, and 
for the last time. That very day he had been unpleasantly surprised to read Herr 
Stieber’s declaration concerning him in the Kélnische Zeitung. ‘But I know that 
Stieber could not have acted differently, otherwise he would have had to 
compromise himself,’ M. de Fleury said very truly by way of consoling himself.... 
‘There will be a great explosion in Berlin if the Cologne prisoners are convicted, M. de Fleury 
said to me at one of our last meetings”. 

Fleury’s last meetings with Hirsch took place at the end of October 
1852. Hirsch’s confessions are dated the end of November 1852; 
and at the end of March 1853 came the “explosion in Berlin” (the 
Ladendorf conspiracy).***" 

* The reader will be interested to see the testimonials that Stieber himself gave his 
two accomplices Fleury-Krause and Hirsch. He writes of the first in the Black Book,244 
II, p. 69: 

“No. 345. Krause, Carl Friedrich August, from Dresden. He is the son of Friedrich 
August Krause, a farmer executed for his part in the murder of Countess Schonberg 
in Dresden in 1834, and afterwards” (after his execution?) “a corn-dealer, and of his 
widow Johanna Rosine née Gdllnitz, who is still living. Carl Friedrich was born on 
January 9, 1824, in the vineyard houses at Coswig near Dresden. From October 1, 
1832, he went to the charity school in Dresden; in 1836 he was admitted to the 
orphanage in Antonstadt, Dresden, and in 1840 he was confirmed. He was then 
apprenticed to Herr Gruhle, a Dresden merchant, but in the following year he was 
arrested and detained by the Dresden Municipal Court for repeated theft. However, the 
period of detention was counted towards his sentence and he was released. After this 
he lived with his mother without taking a job, but in March 1842 he was arrested again 
for breaking and entering and this time he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. On 
October 23, 1846, he came out of gaol and returned to Dresden and began to associate 
with the most notorious thieves. Then, the Rehabilitation Society took him up and found 
him a job in a cigar factory and he remained in this job without interruption or any 
further misdemeanour until March 1848. But after that date he gave in to his idleness 
again and began to frequent political societies” (as a government spy; see above his 
admission to Hirsch in London). “Early in 1849 he became a salesman of the Dresdner 
Zeitung edited by the republican literateur E. L. Wittig who is now in America but 
who at that time was in Dresden. In May 1849 he took part in the Dresden uprising 
and became commandant of the barricade in the Sophienstrasse. He fled to Baden 
after the uprising was quelled and there he was empowered by the provisional! 
government of Baden (the decrees of June 10 and 23, 1849) to raise a Landsturm and 
requisition supplies for the insurgents. He was taken prisoner by Prussian soldiers but 
on October 8, 1849, he escaped from Rastatt.’’ (Just as, late; on, Cherval “escaped” 
from Paris. But now comes the part of the bouquet which has the authentic police 
aroma-——it should be borne in mind that this was printed two vears after the Cologne 
Trial.) “According to a report in the Berlin Publizist. No. 39 of May 15, 1853, taken 
from a book printed in New York with the titie Die Opfer der Spionage* by Wilhelm 
Hirsch, a Hamburg shop-assistant” (QO Stieber, you foreboding angel!);. “Krause 

* Die Opfer der Moucharderie, Rechtfertigungsschrift von Wilhelm Hirsch.— Ed. 
» See this volume, p. 7].— Ed. 

5. SLANDERS 

When the communist trial in Cologne was over, Vogt-like 
calumnies about my “exploitation” of the workers were busily 
disseminated, especially in the German-American press. Some of 
my friends living in America—Messrs. J. Weydemeyer, Dr. 
A. Jacoby (a practising doctor in New York and one of the 
defendants in the Cologne communist trial) and A. Cluss (an 
official in the U.S. Navy Yard in Washington)—published a 
detailed refutation of these absurdities dated New York, 
November 7, 1853. Their article contained the comment that I was 
in the right to preserve silence about my private affairs insofar as 
it was a matter of gaining the approval of the philistines. “But 
when faced by the hostility of the mob, the philistines and the 

turned up in London late in 1850 or early in 1851 asa political émigré bearing the name 
of Charles de Fleury. At first he lived in somewhat straitened circumstances but later, in 
1851, his position improved. For after he was admitted to the Communist League” 
(another Stieber lie), “he worked as an agent for a number of governments in the 
course of which, however, he became involved in a number of swindles.” 

So much for Stieber’s gratitude to his friend Fleury who, moreover (as we noted 
above), was sentenced to several years’ imprisonment in London for forgery just a few 
months after the Cologne trial. 

Concerning the worthy Hirsch we can read (op. cit., p. 58): 

“No. 265. Hirsch, Wilhelm, shop-assistant from Hamburg. 't appears that he 
went to London not as a refugee but of his own accord.” (Why this wholly superfluous 
lie? After all, Goldheim tried to arrest him in Hamburg!) “But once there he 
associated with refugees and especially with the communist party. He played a double 
game. Cn the one hand, he was active on behalf of the revolutionary party, while, on 
the other, he offered to spy on political criminals and forgers for a number of 
conunental governments. But he himself became implicated in the worst possible frauds 
and swindles. In particular, he was guilty of forgery, so that everyone should be on 
their guard against him. Together with various other individuals he even manufactured 
false paper money merely in order to extract high rewards from the police for 
uncovering forgeries. He was eventually unmasked by both sides” (namely, both by 
police forgers and non-police ones?) “and he has now returned from London to 
Hamburg where he lives in poor circumstances.” 

Thus far Stieber on his London accomplices to whose “truthfulness and reliability” 
he is never tired of testifying. It is interesting to see how utterly impossible it is for this 
model Prussian to speak the simple truth. He cannot even restrain himself from 
smuggling? quite purposeless lies into the—true and false—facts taken from the 
documents. On the testimony of such professional liars—and they are more 
numerous now than ever—hundreds of people are sent to prison and in this lies what 
is nowadays called salvation of the state. {This note to Appendix 4 was added by 
Engels in the 3rd (1885) edition of the Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in 
Cologne. ] 

a A pun on the name Stieber and the verb hineinstiebern (to smuggle in, 
insert).— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 313 

degenerate idlers, it does harm to the cause in our view and so we 
break that silence.’ ? 

6. THE WAR BETWEEN FROGS AND MICEb 

In my pamphlet The Knight, etc., from which I quoted above, I 
wrote on p. 5: 

“...On July 20, 1851 the ‘Agitation Union’ was founded, and on 
July 27, 1851 the German ‘Emigré Club’. From that day ... dates 
the struggle on both sides of the ocean between the ‘Emigrés’ and 
the ‘Agitators’, the great war between frogs and mice. 

Now who will give me words and who the tongue, 
To sing of such brave deeds in sonorous sounds! 
For ne’er was strife upon this earth begun 

More proudly fought on bloodier battle grounds; 
Compared to this all other wars are roses. 

To tell of it my lyric art confounds 

For on this earth there ne’er was seen such glory 
Or noble valour bright as in this story. 

(After Boiardo, Orlando innamorato, 
Canto 27,)’¢ 

Now it is by no means my intention to go into the details of “the 
story” of this strife or into the agreement entitled, verbotenus,* 
“The Preliminary Agreement about the Treaty on the Alliance” 
(under which name it was publicised throughout the entire 
German-American press), which was reached between Gottfried 
Kinkel in the name of the Emigré Club, and A. Goegg on behalf 
of the “Revolutionary League of the Two Worlds”, on August 13, 
1852. I would only remark that with a few exceptions the entire 
parliamentary emigration joined in the farce on one side or the 
other. (Of course, names like K. Vogt were at that time avoided by 
every party if only for propriety’s sake.) 

At the end of his revolutionary pleasure and fund-raising tour 
of the United States, Gottfried Kinkel, the passion flower of 
German philistinism, wrote a “Denkschrift tiber das deutsche 
Nationalanlehn zur Förderung der Revolution”, dated Elmira,N. Y., 
February 22, 1852, in which he gave vent to views which at least 

a J. Weydemeyer, A. Cluss, A. Jacoby, “An die Redaktion der New-Yorker 
Criminal-Zeitung, November 7, 1853”, New-Yorker Criminal Zeitung, No. 37, 
November 25, 1853.— Ed. 

b See this volume, p. 87.— Ed. 

© See present edition, Vol. 12, p. 488.— Ed. 

d Literally.— Ed. 

possess the merit of great simplicity. Gottfried believes that 
engineering a revolution is much like making a railway. Once the 
money is there, the railway, or the revolution will follow in due 
course. Whereas the nation should cherish a longing for revolution 
in its heart, the makers of revolution should have cash in their 
pockets, and everything therefore depends on “a small well- 
equipped band of men with a plentiful supply of money”. It is 
remarkable into what bizarre byways of thought even melodramatic 
minds are driven by England’s commercial wind. Since everything 
here, even public opinion,* is organised with the aid of shares, why 
not float a joint-stock company “for the promotion of the 
revolution ’”’? 

In a public meeting with Kossuth, who was also engaged at that 
time on a revolutionary fund-raising campaign in the United 
States, Gottfried expressed himself in highly aesthetic terms: 

“Even from your clean hands, Governor, the gift of freedom would be a bitter 
pill, and I would moisten it with the tears of my shame.”» 

Hence Gottfried, having looked the gift-horse so sharply in the 
mouth, assured the governor that if the latter should present to 
him “the revolution in the east” with his right hand, he, Gottfried, 
would present to him “the revolution in the west” in return. Seven 
years later, in the Hermann, a paper he had founded himself, the 
very same Gottfried assured his readers that he was a man of rare 
consistency,° and that having proclaimed the Prince Regent‘ as 
Emperor of Germany before the military court in Rastatt,”” he had 
always kept this as his motto. 

Count Oskar Reichenbach, one of the three original regents and 
the Treasurer of the Revolutionary Loan, published the accounts 
in London on October 8, 1852, together with a statement in which 
he dissociated himself from the enterprise. At the same time he 
declared that “in any event I neither can nor will hand the money 
over to citizens Kinkel, etc.” Instead he invited the shareholders to 
hand in their provisional loan certificates in exchange for the 
money in his hands. His own resignation as treasurer, etc., he said, 

“was motivated by political and legal considerations.... The assumptions on 
which the idea of the loan was based have not been realised. The sum of 20,000 

a Marx uses the English phrase: “public opinion” .— Ed. 

b G. Kinkel, “Denkschrift iber das deutsche Nationalanlehn zur Förderung der 
Revolution”, New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, March 2, 1852.— Ed. 

© G. Kinkel, “Brief des Herausgebers an einen Freund in Amerika”, Hermann, 
March 26, 1859.— Ed. 

d William.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 315 

dollars which had to be raised before the loan could be proceeded with, has 
therefore not been acquired.... The proposal to found a periodical and to promote 
agitation found no echo. Only political charlatans or revolutionary monomaniacs 
could deem the loan to be practicable at present and imagine that an equitable, and 
hence impersonal, actively revolutionary use of the money by all party groups is 
possible at this moment.” 

But Gottfried’s faith in revolution could not be shaken so easily 
and so he procured a “resolution” that allowed him to carry on the 
business under another name. 

Reichenbach’s statement of the accounts contains some interest- 
ing data. 

“The Trustees,” he says, “cannot be held responsible for contributions which 
may have been made later by the committees to persons other than myself, and I 
would ask the committees to take note of this when calling in the certificates and 
settling accounts.” 

According to his computations £1,587 6s. 4d. was received, of 
which London had contributed £2 5s., and “Germany” £9. The 
expenditure amounted to £584 18s. 5d. and was broken down as 
follows: Kinkel’s and Hillgartner’s travel expenses: £220; other travel 
expenses: £54; lithographic press: £11; cost of provisional certifi- 
cates: £14; lithographed correspondence, stamps, etc.: £106 1s. 6d. On 
Kinkel’s instructions, etc.. £100. 

The Revolutionary Loan ended up with £1,000, which Gottfried 
Kinkel keeps in the Westminster Bank as earnest money for the 
first German provisional government. And despite all this, there is 
still no provisional government. Perhaps Germany believes that 36 
actual governments are quite sufficient. 

Certain American loan funds which were not incorporated into 
the central London Treasury were at least employed here and 
there for patriotic purposes. Such was the case with the £100 
which Gottfried Kinkel gave to Karl Blind early in 1858 to 
transform into “radical pamphlets”, etc. 

7. PALMERSTON-POLEMIC 

“Council Hall, Sheffield, May 6th, 1856 

“Doctor, 

“The Sheffield Foreign Affairs Committee instruct me to convey to you an 
expression of their warm thanks for the great public service you have rendered by 
your admirable exposé of the Kars-Papers? published in the People’s Paper. 

“T have the honour, &c. 

“Dr. Karl Marx’’> Wm. Cyples, Secretary 

a Marx’s series of articles ““The Fall of Kars” (see present edition, Vol. 14).— Ed. 
b Marx quotes the letter in English.— Fd. 

8. STATEMENT BY HERR A. SCHERZER 

Herr A. Scherzer, a man who has played a praiseworthy role in 
the workers’ movement since the 1830s, wrote to me from London 
on April 22, 1860: 

“Dear Citizen, 

“I cannot let the occasion pass without protesting about a passage in the 
monstrous tissue of lies and the infamous calumnies of Vogt’s pamphlet which 
concerns me personally. I am referring to the statement in Document No. 7, 
printed in the supplement to the Schweizer Handels-Courier, No. 150, of June 2, 
where it says: “We know that at this very time fresh efforts are being made from 
London. Letters signed by A. Sch... are being sent from there to both associations 
and individuals, etc.’ These ‘letters’ appear to be the reason why Herr K. Vogt 
wrote elsewhere in his book: ‘At the beginning of this year (1859) a new arena for 
political agitation seemed to be opening up. The opportunity was seized in a 
moment so as to regain some influence if possible. The tactics have not altered in 
this respect for years. A committee About which “no-one knows nothing”, as it says 
in the old song, circulates letters through an equally unknown president or 
secretary, etc.,etc. Having reconnoitred the terrain in this manner, a number of 
“travelling brethren” turn up in the country and at once start to organise a secret 
league. The association which is to be compromised learns nothing of these 
goings-on which remain the work of a number of sectarian individuals. For the 
most part even the correspondence conducted in the name of the association 
remains quite unknown to it, but the letters refer always to “our association”, etc., 
and the inquiries of the police, which follow inexorably, and are based on 
documents that have fallen into their hands, always affect the association as a 
whole, etc.’ 

“Why did Herr K. Vogt not print the whole letter which he alludes to in 
Document No. 7? Why not ‘reconnoitre’ the source he has relied on for his 
information? It would have been easy for him to discover that the public Workers’ 
Educational Society in London chose its correspondence committee, to which I had 
the honour to be elected, in open session. When Herr Vogt speaks of unknown 
secretaries and the like, I am very pleased to be unknown to him, but am happy to 
be able to say that I am known to thousands of German workers, who have all 
derived benefit from the erudition of the men whom he vilifies now. Times have 
changed. The period of secret societies is past. It is ridiculous to talk of secret 
leagues or sects, when problems are dealt with openly in a workers’ society, where 
strangers attend as visitors at every meeting. The letters. signed by me were so 
formulated that it was impossible for anyone to come to harm in consequence. We 
German workers in London had only one interest at heart and that was to learn 
about the mood of the workers’ associations on the Continent, and to found a 
newspaper which would represent the interests of the working class and which 
would do battle with writers in the pay of the enemy. It naturally did not occur to a 
single German worker to act in the interests of a Bonaparte, a thing of which only 
a Vogt or people of his kind are capable. We undoubtedly hate the despotism of 
Austria with a far deeper loathing than Herr Vogt, but we do not seek its defeat in 
the victory of another despot. Every people must liberate itself. Is it not striking 
that Herr Vogt arrogates for himself the very means which he accuses us of having 
used against his own activities? Herr Vogt asserts that he is not in the pay of 
Bonaparte, and that he only received money to set up a newspaper from 
democratic sources. In saying this he hopes to exonerate himself, but how can he 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 317 

be so obtuse, with all his learning, to cast suspicion on workers, and hurl 
accusations at them for concerning themselves with the well-being of their country 
and for making propaganda about the need to establish a newspaper? 

“With my most sincere respects, 
A. Scherzer” 

9. BLIND’S ARTICLE IN THE FREE PRESS 
OF MAY 27, 18594 

“The Grand Duke Constantine to be King of Hungary 

“A Correspondent, who encloses his card, writes as follows: — 

“Sir,— Having been present at the last meeting in the Music Hall, I heard the 
statement made concerning the Grand Duke Constantine. I am able to give you 
another fact: — 

“So far back as last summer, Prince JérOme-Napoléon detailed to some of his 
confidants at Geneva a plan of attack against Austria, and prospective rearrange- 
ment of the map of Europe. I know the name of a Swiss senator to whom he 
broached the subject. Prince Jéroéme, at that time, declared that, according to the 
plan made, Grand Duke Constantine was to become King of Hungary. 

“I know further of attempts made, in the beginning of the present year, to win 
over to the Russo-Napoleonic scheme some of the exiled German Democrats, as 
well as some influential Liberals in Germany. Large pecuniary advantages were 
held out to them as a bribe. I am glad to say that these offers were rejected with 
indignation.” >

10. HERR ORGES’ LETTERS 

“Dear Sir, 

“I heard today from Herr Liebknecht that you would be kind enough to 
put a legal document at our disposal, relating to the origins of the pamphlet 
against Vogt.c May I ask you urgently to send it to us as quickly as possible, so that 
we can produce it in court. Please, send the document against a receipt and charge 
us for any expenses you may have incurred. Incidentally, my dear Sir, the liberal 
party sometimes misjudges the Allgemeine Zeitung. We (the editors) have gone 
through fire and water and have passed all the tests of political commitment. If you 
do not consider the separate piece of work, the individual article, but our whole 
activity you will probably come to realise that no German newspaper strives as we 
do, without haste, but without rest, for unity and freedom, power and culture, for 
spiritual and material progress, for greater patriotic awareness and higher moral 
standards of the German nation, and that no paper achieves more than ours. You 
should judge our deeds by their effects. Asking you once more most urgently to 
grant my request, and assuring you of my greatest respect, 

“Yours sincerely, 
Hermann Orges 
‘Augsburg, 16/10” 

a See this volume, pp. 122-24.— Ed. 
b Marx quotes this report in English.— Ed. 
© See this volume, pp. 119-24.— Ed. 

The second letter, dated the same day, was only an extract of the 
first, and was posted, as Herr Orges states, “only for safety’s 
sake’’. In it he likewise requests “the most urgent dispatch of the 
document about the origins of the well-known pamphlet against 
Vogt, a document which, as Herr Liebknecht writes, you have 
been so kind as to put at our disposal”. 

11. CIRCULAR AGAINST K. BLIND 

I include here only the concluding section of my circular against 
Blind of February 4, 1860, which was written in English’: 

“Now, before taking any further step, I want to show up the 
fellows who evidently have played into the hands of Vogt. I, 
therefore, publicly declare that the statement of Blind, Wiehe and 
Hollinger, according to which the anonymous pamphlet was not 
printed in Hollinger’s office, 3, Litchfield Street, Soho, is a deliberate 
lie. First, Mr. Vogele, one of the compositors, formerly employed by 
Hollinger, will declare upon oath that the said pamphlet was printed 
in Hollinger’s office, was written in the hand-writing of Mr. Blind, 
and partly composed by Hollinger himself. Secondly, it can be 
judicially proved that the pamphlet and the article in Das Volk have 
been taken off the same types. Thirdly, it will be shown that Wiehe 
was not employed by Hollinger for eleven consecutive months, and, 
especially, was not employed by him at the time of the pamphlet’s 
publication. Lastly, witnesses may be summoned in whose presence 
Wiehe himself confessed having been persuaded by Hollinger to sign 
the wilfully false declaration in the Augsburg Gazette.” Consequently, I 
again declare the above said Charles Blind to be a deliberate liar. 

Karl Marx” 

From the London “Times”, February 3rd. 

“Vienna, January 30th—The Swiss Professor Vogt pretends to know that 
France will procure for Switzerland Faucigny, Chablais, and the Genevese,* the 
neutral provinces of Savoy, if the Grand Council of the Republic will let her have 
the free use of the Simplon.’ 4 

4 Marx quotes this excerpt from the circular in English (see this volume, 
pp. 10-11).— Ed. 

6 The Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung. — Ed. 

© Genevois.— Ed. 

d Marx quotes this report in English (see also this volume, p. 195).— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—XII. Appendices 319 

12. VOGELE’S AFFIDAVIT 

“I declare herewith: 
that the German flysheet Zur Warnung (A Warning) which was afterwards 
reprinted in No. 7 (d.d. 18th June 1859) of Das Volk (a German paper which was 
then published in London) and which was again reprinted in the Allgemeine Zeitung 
of Augsburg (the Augsburg Gazette)—that this flysheet was composed partly by 
Mr. Fidelio Hollinger of 3, Litchfield Street, Soho, London, partly by myself, who 
was then employed by Mr. Fidelio Hollinger, and that the flysheet was published in 
Mr. F. Hollinger’s Printing office, 3, Litchfield Street, Soho, London; that the 
manuscript of the said flysheet was in the handwriting of Mr. Charles Blind; that I 
saw Mr. F. Hollinger give to Mr. William Liebknecht of 14, Church Street, Soho, 
London, the proofsheet of the flysheet Zur Warnung; that Mr. F. Hollinger 
hesitated at first giving the proofsheet to Mr. W. Liebknecht, and, that, when 
Mr. W. Liebknecht had withdrawn, he, Mr. F. Hollinger, expressed to me, and to 
my fellow workman J. F. Wiehe, his regret for having given the proofsheet out of 
his hands. 

“Declared at the Police Court, Bow Street, in the County of Middlesex, the 
eleventh day of February 1860, before me, Th. Henry, one of the Police Magistrates 
of the Metropolis. 

“LS. A. Vogele”’ 2 

13. WIEHE’S AFFIDAVIT 

“One of the first days of November last—I do not recollect the exact date—in 
the evening between nine and ten o'clock I was taken out of bed by 
Mr. F. Hollinger, in whose house I then lived, and by whom I was employed as 
compositor. He presented to me a paper to the effect, that, during the preceding 
eleven months I had been continuously employed by him, and that during all that 
time a certain German flysheet Zur Warnung (A Warning) had not been composed 
and printed in Mr. Hollinger’s Office, 3, Litchfield Street, Soho. In my perplexed 
state, and not aware of the importance of the transaction, I complied with his wish, 
and copied, and signed the document. Mr. Hollinger promised me money, but I 
never received anything. During that transaction Mr. Charles Blind, as my wife 
informed me at the time, was waiting in Mr. Hollinger’s room. A few days later, 
Mrs. Hollinger called me down from dinner and led me into her husband’s room, 
where I found Mr. Charles Blind alone. He presented me the same paper which 
Mr. Hollinger had presented me before, and entreated me to write, and sign a 
second copy, as he wanted two, the one for himself, and the other for publication 
in the Press. He added that he would show himself grateful to me. I copied and 
signed again the paper. 

“I herewith declare the truth of the above statements and that: 

‘“1) During the 11 months mentioned in the document I was for six weeks not 
employed by Mr. Hollinger, but by a Mr. Ermani. 2) I did not work in 
Mr. Hollinger’s Office just at that time when the flysheet Zur Warnung (A 
Warning) was published. 3) I heard at the time from Mr. Vogele, who then worked 
for Mr. Hollinger, that he, Vogele, had, together with Mr. Hollinger himself, 
composed the flysheet in question, and that the manuscript was in Mr. Blind’s 
handwriting. 4) The types of the pamphlet were still standing when I returned to 
Mr. Hollinger’s service. I myself broke them into columns for the reprint of the 

4 Marx gives this document in English (see also this volume, p. 128).— Ed. 

flysheet (or pamphlet) Zur Warnung (A Warning) in the German paper Das Volk 
published at London, by Mr. Fidelio Hollinger, 3, Litchfield Street, Soho. The 
flysheet appeared in No. 7, d. d. 18th June 1859, of Das Volk (The People). 5) I 
saw Mr. Hollinger give to Mr. William Liebknecht of 14, Church Street, Soho, 
London, the proofsheet of the pamphlet Zur Warnung, on: which proofsheet 
Mr. Charles Blind with his own hand had corrected four or five mistakes. 
Mr. Hollinger hesitated at first giving the proofsheet to Mr. Liebknecht, and when 
Mr. Liebknecht had withdrawn, he, F. Hollinger, expressed to me and my fellow 
workman Vogele his regret for having given the proofsheet out of his hands. 

“Declared and signed by the said Johann Friedrich Wiehe at the Police Court, 
Bow Street, this 8th day of February, 1860, before me Th. Henry, Magistrate of the 
said court. 

“LS. Johann Friedrich Wiehe” @ 

14. FROM THE TRIAL PAPERS 

“Gouvernement Provisoire 

République Frangaise. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. 

Au nom du Peuple Frangais 
“Paris, | Mars 1848 
“Brave et loyal Marx, 

“Le sol de la république frangaise est un champ d’asile pour tous les amis de la 
liberté. La tyrannie vous a banni, la France libre vous rouvre ses portes, a vous et a 
tous ceux qui combattent pour la cause sainte, la cause fraternelle de tous les 
peuples. Tout agent du gouvernement frangais doit interpréter sa mission dans ce 
sens. Salut et fraternité. 

“Bruxelles, le 19 Mai 1848 

“Mon cher Monsieur Marx, 

“Jentends avec un grand plaisir par notre ami Weerth que vous allez faire 
araitre 4 Cologne une Nouvelle Gazette Rhénane dont ii m’a remis le prospectus. I} 
p 8 prosp 

a Marx gives this document in English (see also this volume, pp. 129-30).— Ed. 
b “ Provisional Government 
French Republic. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. 
In the name of the French People 
“Paris, March 1, 1848 

“Honest, worthy Marx, 

“The soil of the French Republic is a place of asylum for all the friends of 
freedom. Tyranny has expelled you, a free France opens its doors to you once 
more, to you and to all those who fight for the sacred cause, the fraternal cause of 
all the peoples. Every official of the French Government should interpret his task in 
this sense. With fraternal greetings. 

Ferdinand Flocon, Member of the Provisional Government.”— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices . 32] 

est bien nécessaire que cette feuille nous tienne au courant en Belgique des affaires 
de la démocratie allemande, car il est impossible d’en rien savoir de certain ici par 
la Gazette de Cologne, la Gazette Universelle d’Augsbourg et les autres gazettes 
aristocratiques de |’Allemagne que nous recevons a Bruxelles, non plus que par 
notre Indépendance Belge dont toutes les correspondances particuli€res sont congues 
au point de vue des intéréts de notre aristocratie bourgeoise. M. Weerth me dit 
qu'il va vous joindre a Cologne pour contribuer a l’entreprise de la Nouvelle Gazette 
Rhénane: et il me promet en votre nom lenvoi de cette feuille en échange du Dé- 
bat social que je vous enverrai de mon coté. Je ne demande pas mieux aussi 
que d’entretenir avec vous une correspondance sur les affaires communes a nos 
deux pays. II est indispensable que les Belges et les Allemands ne restent pas 
trop étrangers les uns aux autres, dans l’intérét commun des deux pays: car il 
se prépare en France des événements qui ne tarderont pas a mettre en jeu des 
questions qui toucheront les deux pays ensemble. Je reviens de Paris ow j'ai passé 
une dizaine de jours que j’ai employés de mon mieux a me rendre compte de la 
situation de cette grande capitale. Je me suis trouvé, a la fin de mon séjour, juste 
au milieu des affaires du 15 mai.?46 J’assistais méme 4 la séance ou s’est passé le fait 
de Virruption du peuple dans l’assemblée nationale.... Tout ce que j'ai compris, a 
voir !’attitude du peuple parisien et a entendre parler les principaux personnages 
qui sont en ce moment dans les affaires de la république frangaise, cest qu’on 
s'attend a une forte réaction de l’esprit bourgeois contre les €vénements de février 
dernier; les affaires du 15 mai précipiteront sans doute cette réaction. Or, celle-ci 
ameénera indubitablement dans peu de temps un nouveau soulévement du peuple... 
La France devra bient6t recourir a la guerre. C’est pour ce cas-la que nous aurons 
a aviser, ici et chez vous, sur ce que nous aurons a faire ensemble. Si la guerre se 
porte d’abord vers l’Italie nous aurons du répit... Mais si elle se porte sur-le-champ 
vers ce pays-cl je ne sais pas trop encore ce que nous aurons a faire, et alors nous 
aurons besoin du conseil des Allemands... En attendant yannoncerai dans le Débat 
social de dimanche la publication prochaine de votre nouvelle feuille... Je compte aller 
a Londres vers la fin du mois de juin prochain. Si vous avez occasion d’écrire a 
Londres a quelques amis, veuillez les prier de m’y faire accueil. Tout a vous 
cordialement, 

L. Jottrand, Avt.” 4 

a “My dear Mr. Marx, I hear with great pleasure from our friend Weerth that 
you intend to publish a Neue Rheinische .Zeitung in Cologne of which he has 
sent me the prospectus. It is extremely necessary for this paper to keep 
us in Belgium informed about the affairs of German democracy, since it 
is not possible to learn anything definite about this from the Kélnische 
Zeitung, the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung and the other aristocratic German 
papers which we receive here in Brussels, any more than from our Indépendance 
Belge, all of whose special reports are written from the standpoint of the 
interests of our bourgeois aristocracy. Herr Weerth has told me that he is 
going to join you in Cologne to collaborate on the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 
and he has promised me in your name to send me copies of it in exchange for 
the Débat social which I shall forward to you. I can ask nothing better than to 
correspond with you about the affairs common to our two nations. It is in the 
interest of both our countries that Belgians and Germans should become better 
acquainted with each other, for in France events are about to take place which in a 
short time will pose problems affecting both our countries. I have just come back 

“Bruxelles, 10 Février, 1860 

“Mon cher Marx, 

“N’ayant pas de vos nouvelles, depuis trés longtemps, j’ail regu votre derniére? 
avec la plus vive satisfaction. Vous vous plaignez du retard des choses, et du 
peu d’empressement de ma part de vous répondre a la question que vous m’aviez 
faite. Que faire: Page ralentit la plume; j’espére cependant que vous trouverez 
mes avis et mon sentiment toujours les mémes. Je vois que votre ,derniére est 
tracée a la dictée par la main de votre secrétaire intime, de votre adorable moitié: 
or Madame Marx ne cesse de se rappeler du vieux hermite de Bruxelles. Qu’elle 
daigne recevoir avec bonté mes salutations respectueuses. 

“Conservez-moi, cher confrére, dans vos amitiés. Salut et fraternité. 

from Paris after spending ten days there during which time I did my best to gain 
an understanding of what is happening in this great metropolis. At the end of my 
stay I found myself in the midst of the events of May 15. I was even present at the 
session of the National Assembly during which the people rushed into the 
Chamber.... As far as I have understood both from seeing the attitude of the 
people of Paris and from listening to the speeches of the leading statesmen in the 
French Republic at the present time, a powerful reaction is expected against the 
events of February last on the part of the bourgeoisie; the events of May 15 will 
doubtless hasten this reaction. And this will undoubtedly lead in a short time to a 
new uprising by the people.... France will soon have to have recourse to war. It is 
for this reason that we ought to consider here and in your country what common 
action we should take in that event. If to start with the war is directed against Italy 
we shall have a breathing space; ... but if it is directed against this country from the 
very beginning I do not yet know what we should do, and we should then be in 
need of the advice of the Germans.... In the meantime I shall announce the 
approaching publication of your new paper in the Sunday edition of the Débat 
social.... I plan to go to London towards the end of June. Should you have 
occasion to write to any of your friends in London, I would be grateful if you 
could ask them to receive me kindly. 

“With cordial greetings, . 
L. Jottrand, Lawyer” 
See also this volume, pp. 263-66.— Ed. 

a This refers to Marx’s letter to Lelewel of February 3, 1860 (present edition, 
Vol. 41).— Ed. 

6 “My dear Marx, not having heard any news from you for a long time, I was 
very glad to receive your last communication. You complain about the delay and the 
lack of urgency on my part in answering the question you put to me. But what 
can one do: age slows down the pen. Nevertheless, I hope that you will find my 
opinions and my feelings the same as ever. I see that your last letter was written 
at your dictation by the hand of your private secretary, your charming wife. So 
Madame Marx still remembers the old hermit in Brussels. Please, convey to her 
my respectful greetings. 

“Continue to include me, dear colleague, among your friends. With fraternal 
greetings. 

Lelewel” — Ed. 

Herr Vogt—XII. Appendices 323 

“5, Cambridge Place, 
Kensington, London, 
February 11th, 1860 

“My dear Marx, 

“I have read a series of infamous articles against you in the National-Zeitung and 
am utterly astonished at the falsehood and malignity of the writer. I really feel it a 
duty that every one who is acquainted with you, should, however unnecessary such 
a testimony must be, pay a tribute to the worth, honour and disinterestedness of 
your character. It becomes doubly incumbent in me to do so, when I recollect how 
many articles you contributed to my little magazine, the Notes to the People, and 
subsequently to the People’s Paper, for a series of years, utterly gratuitously; articles 
which were of such high value to the people’s cause, and of such great benefit to 
the paper. Permit me to hope that you will severely punish your dastardly and 
unmanly libeller. 

“Believe me, my dear Marx, most sincerely, yours, 

Ernest Jones 
“Dr. Karl Marx’? 

“Tribune Office, 
New York, 
March 8th, 1860 

“My dear Sir, 

“In reply to your request I am very happy to state the facts of your connection 
with various publications in the United States concerning which I have had a 
personal knowledge. Nearly nine years ago I engaged you to write for the New 
York Tribune, and the engagement has been continued ever since. You have written 
for us constantly, without a single week’s interruption, that I can remember; and 
you are not only one of the most highly valued, but one of the best paid 
contributors attached to the journal. The only fault I have had to find with you has 
been that you have occasionally exhibited too German a tone of feeling for an 
American newspaper. This has been the case with reference both to Russia and 
France. In questions relating to both, Czarism and Bonapartism, I have sometimes 
thought that you manifested too much interest and too great anxiety for the unity 
and independence of Germany. This was more striking perhaps in connection with 
the late Italian war than on any other occasion. In that I agreed perfectly with you: 
sympathy with the Italian people. 1 had as little confidence as you in the sincerity of 
the French Emperor, and believed as little as you that Italian liberty was to be 
expected from him; but I did not think that Germany had any such ground for 
alarm as you, in common with other patriotic Germans, thought she had. 

“T must add that in all your writings which have passed through my hands, you 
have always manifested the most cordial interest in the welfare and progress of the 
labouring classes; and that you have written much with direct reference to that 
end. 

“I have also at various times within the past five or six years been the medium 
through which contributions of yours have been furnished to Putnam’s Monthly,24? a 
literary magazine of high character; and also to the New American Cyclopaedia, of 
which I am also an editor, and for which you have furnished some very important 
articles. 

a Marx gives the letter in English.— Ed. 

“If any other explanations are needed I shall be happy to furnish them. 
Meanwhile I remain, yours very faithfully, 

Charles A. Dana, Managing Editor of the N. Y. Tribune 
“Dr. Charles Marx’ @ 

15. DENTU PAMPHLETS 

I have shown that the Dentu pamphlets are the source from 
which the German Da-Da derives his wisdom about world history 
in general and ‘“Napoleon’s salutary policy” in particular. The 
“salutary policy of Napoleon” is a phrase from a recent leading 
article by “democrat” F. Zabel. What the French themselves think 
and know about these pamphlets can be seen from the following 
extract from the Paris weekly, the Courrier du Dimanche, No. 42, of 
October 14, 1860. 

“Pour ce qui regarde le moment actuel, prenez dix brochures au hasard, et vous 
reconnaitrez que neuf au moins ont été pensées, élaborées, écrites ... par qui? par 
des romanciers de profession, par des chansonniers, par des vaudevillistes, par des 
sacristains! 

“Parle-t-on dans les gazettes de mystérieuses entrevues entre les puissances du 
Nord, de la Sainte-Alliance qui ressuscite? Vite voila un faiseur agréable de 
couplets assez littéraires, et méme (jadis) passablement libéraux, qui court chez 
Yinévitable M. Dentu et lui apporte sous ce titre ronflant: La coalition, une longue et 
fade paraphrase des articles de M. Grandguillot. L’alliance anglaise semble déplaire 
parfois a M. Limayrac? Vite, un M. Chatelet, chevalier de lordre de Grégoire le 
Grand,?48 et qui doit étre sacristain quelque part, si j’en crois son style, publie ou 
republie un long et ridicule factum: Crimes et délits de l’Angleterre contre la France. 
Déja Yauteur du Compere Guillery (Edmond About) avait jugé a propos de nous 
édifier sur les arcanes politiques de la monarchie prussienne, et avait donné du 
haut de ses chutes théatrales, des conseils de prudence aux chambres de Berlin. On 
annonce que M. Clairville va prochainement élucider la question de l’isthme de 
Panama, si fort embrouillée par M. Belly; et sans doute quelques jours aprés la 
conférence royale du 21 Octobre,?49 on verra paraitre 4 toutes les vitrines de nos 
libraires une splendide brochure rose qui portera ce titre: Mémoire sur l’entrevue de 
Varsovie par le corps de ballet de l’Opéra. 

“Cette invasion, en apparence inexplicable, des questions politiques par les dii 
minores de la littérature, se rattache a bien des causes. Nous en citerons ici une 
seule, mais qui est la plus immédiate et la plus incontestable. 

“Dans le marasme presque universel d’esprit et de coeur, ces messieurs, qui 
font le triste métier d’amuseurs publics, ne savent plus par quel moyen secouer et 
réveiller leurs lecteurs. Les vieilles gaités de leurs refrains et de leurs anecdotes leur 
reviennent sans cesse. Eux-mémes se sentent aussi mornes, aussi tristes, aussi 
ennuyés que ceux qu’ils entreprennent de dérider. Voila pourquoi a bout de 
ressources, ils se sont mis, en désespoir de cause, a écrire les uns des mémoires de 
courtisanes, les autres des brochures diplomatiques. 

“Puis, un beau matin, un aventurier de la plume, qui n’a jamais fait a la 
politique le sacrifice d’une heure sérieuse d’étude, qui n’a pas méme au coeur le 

a Marx gives the letter in English.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt— XII. Appendices 325 

semblant d’une conviction, quelle qu'elle soit, se leve et se dit: ‘J'ai besoin de 
frapper un grand coup! Vovons! que ferai-je pour attirer sur moi attention 
générale qui me fuit d’instinct? Ecrirai-je un opuscule sur la question Léotard ou 
sur ja question d’Orient? Révélerai-je au monde surpris le secret de boudoirs ot je 
n’entrai jamais, ou celui de ia poiitique russe qui m’est ius étrange encore? Dois-je 
m’attendrir en prose voitairienne sur les femmes éclaboussées ou en prose évangélique 
sur les malheureuses populations maronites “59 traquées, dépouillées, massacrées 
par ie fanatisme mahometan? Lancerai-je une apoiogie de mademoiselle Rigol- 
boche ou un plaidoyer en faveur du pouvoir temporel? Décidément, j opte pour la 
politique. J’amuseral encore mieux mon »ublic avec ies rois et les empereurs, 
qu’avec les lorettes. Cela dit, notre surnumeraire ae la littérature boh¢me compulse 
le Moniteur, hante quelques ‘ours ies coionnades de !a Bourse, rend visite a 
quelques fonctionnaires et sait entin de cuei coté souffle le vent de la curiosité 4 ia 
ville, ou ceiui de la faveur a la cour: u choisit alors un utre que ce vent puisse 
enfler d’une facon sutfisante et se repose content sur ses lauriers. Aussi bien son 
oeuvre est faite désormais; car aujourd’hui,en matiére de brochure, il n’v a que 
deux choses qui comptent, le titre et les relations que i’on suppose entre |’écrivain 
et ‘de hauts personnages’. 

“Est-il nécessaire de dire, aprés cela, ce que valent les brochures qui nous 
inondent? Ramassez un jour tout ce que vous avez de courage, tachez de les lire 
jusqu’au bout et vous serez effrayés de Pignerance inouie, de la légéreté intolérable, 
voire méme de l’'amoindrissement de sens morai qu'elles décelent dans ieurs 
auteurs. Et je ne parle pas ici des plus mauvaises... Et chaque année nous courbe 
plus bas, chaque année voit apparaitre un nouveau signe de décadence 
intellectuelle. chaque année ajoute une honte littéraire nouvelle a celles dont i 
nous faut déja rougir. De telle sorte que les pius optimistes se prennent quelquefois 
a douter de demain, et se demandent avec angoisse: Scrtirons-nous de la?’’@ 

2 “As to the present state of affairs, pick any ten pamphlets at random and you 
will find that at least nine of them nave been devised worked out and written ... oy 
whom? By professional novelists, song-writers, vauceville-writers or sextons. 

“Tf the newspapers mention mysterious meetings between the northern powers 
or a oroject to resurrect the Hoiv Alliance, immediately some amiable person 
manufacturing fairly iiterary songs, and even «formerly) passably iiberai songs, wiil 
run otf to the inevitable M. Dentu and suppiv him, under the resounding titie: “La 
Coalition’, with a lengthy and insipid paraphrase of the articies of M. Grandguil- 
‘ot. If the ailiance with Engiand seems sometimes to displease M. Limayrac, a 
M. Chatelet, knight of the Order of Gregory the Great, and a man who must be a 
sexton somewnere or other, to judge him by his style, quickly publishes or 
republishes a long, ridiculous account: Crimes et aélits de l’Angleterre contre la France. 
The author oi Compére Guillery (Edmona About) has aiready deemed it expedient 
to edify us with stories about the political secrets of the Prussian monarchy and 
from tne heights of his theatrical fiascos ne has nonoured the Chambers of Beriin 
WHA iis prucent advice. 7t has been announced that M. Ciairviile will soon 
enscidate “Ge nroblem of the [sthmus of Panama waich has been so thoroughly 

pscorec fy Mi ‘Melly: and no doubt a tew tiavs aiter the rovai conrerence ©: 
stsber “Tl we shail see in the windows oi ail our bookshops a spiencid pink 
varruet cearing the utle: Mémoire sur Ventrevue de Varsovie par 'e corps ae ballet de 

.3 apparently inexplicable invasion of the political arena by the lesser gods of 
“verature has manv causes. We shall only mention one here, but that one is the 
inost paipable and the most indisputable of all. 

The phrase “the salutary policy of Napoleon” quoted above was taken 
from the National-Zeitung. Strangely enough the Paris correspon- 
dent of the Manchester Guardian which is regarded throughout 
England as a paper publishing mostly reliable news—has reported 
the following curiosity: 

“Paris, November 8.... Louis-Napoleon spends his gold in vain in supporting 
such newspapers as the National-Zeitung.” (Manchester Guardian of November 12, 
1860.) 

“Amidst the almost universal decline of intellect and heart, the gentlemen who 
have the dreary task of amusing the public are at a loss for the means to astonish 
and rouse their readers. They continually reproduce the old jokes of their refrains 
and their anecdotes. They are themselves as depressed, as melancholy and as bored 
as those whom they undertake to cheer up. This is why out of sheer despair, when 
they have come to their wits’ end, some of them begin to write the memoirs of 
courtesans, and others diplomatic pamphlets. 

“Then, one fine morning, an adventurer of the pen who has never sacrificed a 
single hour of serious study to politics, who does not even have the ghost of a 
genuine conviction of any sort in his heart, gets out of bed and says to himself: 
‘1 must strike a great blow! Let’s see. what shall I do to attract the notice of the 
general public which instinctively ignores me? Shall I write an article on the 
Leotard affair or on the Eastern Question? Shall I reveal to an astonished world 
the secrets of boudoirs which J have never entered, or the mysteries of Russian 
politics of which I know even less? Shall I melt with emotion in the Voltairean 
manner about the fate of fallen women, or bewail in Biblical prose the wretched 
Maronite population persecuted, plundered and slaughtered by Moslem fanaticism? 
Shall I sing the praises of Mademoiselle Rigolboche or pen an apologia of temporal 
power? I have it: I shal! settle for politics. I shall entertain my public better with 
kings and emperors than with loose women.’ Having said which, our supernumer- 
ary of the literary Bohéme wades through the Moniteur, hangs around the 
colonnades of the Stock Exchange for several days, visits a few officials and in the 
end he knows which way the wind of the town’s curiosity is blowing, or the 
direction of the favour of the Court. He then selects a title capable of capturing a 
sufficient portion of this wind, whereupon he rests on his laurels. He has now done 
everything necessary: for these days only two things are needed to make a 
pamphlet: the title and the relations thai may be supposed to exist between the 
author and ‘people in high places’. 

“Is it stili necessary. after all this, to speak of the value of the pamphlets which 
are flooding the market? H one day you pluck up all your courage and try to read 
them right through to the end you will be appalled by the extraordinary ignorance, 
the unbearable irivolousness and especially the utter debasement of moral 
principles thai they reveal in their authors. And I am not speaking of the worst of 
them... And every year sees the standard sink still lower, every year brings new 
evidence oi Intellectual decadence, ever: year brings a new literary dishonor to 
add to those whicit already make us blush. Things have come to such a pass tha: 
even the greates: optimists sometimes wonder what the morrow will bring anc 
anxiously ask themseives: Shali we ever be able to escape from all this?”— Ed. 

* Marx quotes the passage from The Manchester Guardian in English and gives the 
German translation in brackets.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— XII. Appendices 327 

However, I think that the normally so well-informed correspond- 
ent of the Manchester Guardian is mistaken this time. For F. Zabel 
is said to have gone over to the Bonapartist camp to prove that he is 
not in the pay of Austria. At any rate, this information reached me 
from Berlin and it fits well into the— Dunciad. 

16. POSTSCRIPT 

a) K. VOGT AND LA CIMENTAIRE 

While the last of these pages were being printed, I accidentally 
came across the October issue (1860) of the Stimmen der Zeit. 
A. Kolatschek, the former publisher of the Deutsche Monatsschrift, 
the organ of the refugee parliamentarians, and hence, in a 
manner of speaking, the literary superior of the “fugitive Regent 
of the Empire’’, tells the following story about his friend Karl Vogt 
on p. 37: 

“The Geneva joint-stock company, La Cimentaire, which numbered none other 
than Herr Karl Vogt himself among its directors, was founded in 1857. By 1858 the 
shareholders were down to their last farthing and the public prosecutor 
immediately put one of the directors in gaol on charges of fraud. At the time of 
the arrest Herr Vogt happened to be away in Berne; he returned in haste, the man 
who had been arrested was set at liberty, the charges were suppressed ‘for fear of 
causing a scandal’, but the shareholders lost everything. But after such an example 
as this it cannot really be maintained that property is very well protected in Geneva 
and the error of Herr Karl Vogt in this respect is all the stranger since he was, as 
we have mentioned, one of the directors of the company concerned. And even in France 
in similar cases it is customary to search for the culprits among the directors, to put 
them into gaol and to use their property to satisfy the civil claims of the 
shareholders.” 

This should be compared with the account given by Joh. Ph. 
Becker in his letter (in Chapter X) about the bank incident which 
drove M. James Fazy into the arms of the Decembrists.* Such details 
as this are a great help in solving the riddle of how “Napoléon le Petit” 
became the greatest man of his age. As is well known “Napoléon le 
Petit” himself had to choose between a coup d’état and-——Clichy.**' 

b) KOSSUTH 

The following excerpt from a memorandum of a conversation 
with Kossuth proves incontrovertibly that Kossuth knows perfectly 
well that it is Russia that constitutes the greatest threat to 

a See this volume, pp. 230-35.— Ed. 

Hungary. The memorandum’? comes from one of the most 

celebrated radical members? of the present House of Commons.” 

‘Memorandum of a conversation with M. Kossuth on the evening of May 30th, 1854, 
at.... 

““., A return to strict legality in Hungary (said he, viz. Kossuth) might renew the 
union of Hungary and Austria, and would prevent Russia from finding any partisan in 
Hungary. He (Kossuth) would not offer any opposition to a return to legality. He 
would advise his countrymen to accept with good faith such a restoration, if it 
could be obtained, and would pledge himself not in any way to be an obstacle to 
such an arrangement. He would not himself return to Hungary. He would not him- 
self put forward such a course for Austria as he had no belief in Austria’s return to 
legality, except under pressure of dire necessity. He gave me authority to say, such 
were his sentiments, and if appealed to, he would avow them, though he could not 
commit himself to any proposal, as he could not expect Austria to abandon her 
traditional scheme of centralisation till forced to do so.... He would have consented 
in 1848 to Hungarian troops being sent to resist attacks of the Piedmontese” 
(M. Kossuth went much further in 1848 since he ensured that Hungarian troops 
would be sent against the Italian “rebels” by delivering a violent speech in the 
Imperial Diet in Pest), “but would not employ them to coerce Austrian Italy, as he 
would not consent to foreign troops in Hungary.” 253 

The mythopoeic power of popular fantasy has always shown 
itself in the creation of “great men”. Simon Bolivar is undeniably 
the most convincing illustration of this. As for Kossuth, he is, for 
example, celebrated as the man who abolished feudalism in 
Hungary. Nevertheless he is in no way connected with the three 
great measures: universal taxation, the abolition of the feudal 
burden of the peasantry and the abolition without compensation of 
the tithes paid to the Church. The motion for universal taxation (the 
nobility having previously been exempt) was put by Szemere; the 
motion to do away with corvée, etc., by Bonis, the deputy for 
Szabolcz, and the clergy itself, acting through Jekelfalussy, a deputy 
and a canon, voluntarily relinquished its rights to raise tithes.”