1. Considering that in the newspaper Freiheit, Arbeit Dr. Gottschalk 
describes Citizen Karl Marx as a friend and co-thinker of Franz 
Raveaux, deputy of the Assembly in Frankfurt, whereas Citizen 
Marx stated at the committee meeting of February 8 that, although 
at present he supported the candidature of Raveaux and Schneider 
II, he was a long way from agreeing with these persons in principle; 
that, on the contrary, the first named precisely during the period 
when he was most prominent was mercilessly attacked in the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung; but that at the present moment there could be no 
question of red democrats and colourless democrats, since for the 
time being the main thing was to oppose the absolute monarchy, and 
to achieve this aim both red and colourless democrats would have to 
unite against the wailers; 

2. furthermore, that Dr. Gottschalk took the opportunity of the 
Democratic Congress in Frankfurt*!’ to state that he was able to 
utilise the Cologne workers just as much for a red monarchy as fora 
red republic, thus alleging that the workers themselves were merely a 
machine blindly obedient to him; 

3. that the attacks against Raveaux in the above-mentioned 
newspaper are of a very base, malicious nature because they make his 
bodily infirmity a subject of reproach and call it a sham; 

4. that the other attacks in the newspaper are for the most part 
wholly without foundation, and owing to their silliness are not even 
worth refuting, but nevertheless betray petty hatred and spite and 
the base, malicious character of their author; 

5. that Dr. Gottschalk after his acquittal had a plan, about which he 
spoke to a number of members of the Workers’ Association, to 
re-organise the Workers’ Association and for this purpose to place 


Appendices 499 


himself (as president), together with five others chosen by him as 
committee members, at the head of the Association, this betrays a 
despotic frame of mind and conflicts with the most elementary 
democratic principles; 

6. that in attempting to set up such a new organisation he has 
deserted the party of the real proletarians, and has thrown himself 
into the arms of the petty bourgeois by desiring to raise the monthly 
subscriptions of members to five silver groschen; 

7. that Dr. Gottschalk made changes in the newspaper of the 
Association, as a result of which its publication was interrupted for 
fourteen days,*! without having been authorised to do so by the 
Association, in fact without even giving any direct notice of this to the 
Association or its Executive Committee; this is a violation of the 
rights of the Association that is totally unjustifiable and because of 
Dr. Gottschalk’s departure shortly afterwards, it even cannot be 
defended on the grounds of necessity or urgent reasons; 

8. that Dr. Gottschalk, after his acquittal, instead of fulfilling the 
expectations of the Cologne workers and resuming his previous 
progressive activity among them, to the astonishment of all went 
away without saying a single word of farewell to them or thanking 
them for their loyal support; 

9. that Dr. Gottschalk, owing to excessive sensitivity, went into exile 
of his own accord, and from Brussels he issued a declaration which 
certainly could not serve in the least to explain or justify his 
behaviour, since in it he, a republican, speaks of his being called back 
either by “the hitherto supreme arbiter in the country’ or by “the voice of 
the people’ ,*!° therefore considering the supreme arbiter to be 
something other than the voice of the people as a whole; that by the 
supreme arbiter in this passage he could only have meant the King,? 
thereby putting himself directly on the side of the legitimists and 
monarchists; that, on the other hand, in this declaration he once 
again mocks the people by expecting that it would call back someone 
who acknowledges and appeals to a supreme arbiter other than the 
voice of the people itself; that he plays the part here of the most 
ignoble type of time-server, seeking to keep a path open for himself 
to both the King and the people; 

10. that Dr. Gottschalk has not deigned to give any reply to the 
request of the Workers’ Association that he should explain his 
so-called declaration, a declaration which is incomprehensible, and 
especially that he should state what he understands by “the hitherto 
supreme arbiter”; 


9 Frederick William IV.— Ed. 


500 Appendices 


11. that Dr. Gottschalk, without being called back by anyone, 
nevertheless returned to Germany, whereby the whole story of his 
voluntary banishment is dissipated into thin air and is bound to seem 
a badly calculated electoral manoeuvre, bearing in mind that in the 
meantime his brothers and friends have been working very actively 
for his election to the Berlin Assembly; 

Considering all this, branch No. 1 of the Cologne Workers’ 

Association declares: 

that it in no way approves of Dr. Gottschalk’s behaviour after 
his acquittal by the jury at the trial here, and that it 
emphatically and indignantly repudiates the imputation that 
the Workers’ Association would allow itself to be misused in the 
interests of a red monarchy or misled by spiteful personal 
attacks on individuals, or permit a president with a subservient 
committee to be foisted on it, or call back a voluntary exile who, 
in order to be redeemed, appeals for clemency simultaneously 
to the King and to the people, or in general to allow any 
individual whoever he may be, to treat the Workers’ Associa- 
tion as if it consisted of stupid boys.