Manchester, 7 March 1860 
6 Thorncliffe Grove, Oxford Road 

My dear Sir, 

Having been absent from here for a few days, I was prevented 
answering your letter immediately. 

As to the Printers’ Bill,’°? which I had taken the liberty to ask 
you for in a letter addressed to you on the 6th of February * (if I 
am not mistaken), you have forgotten transmitting it to me. Pray, 
send it to Mrs Marx. 

As to Schaible’s declaration (extorted by my proceedings against 
Blind), it will be sufficient to remark: 

1-st) Whether Blind be the ‘literary’ author of the fly-sheet, is a 
question I have not to deal with. He is the author in the legal 
sense of the word. 

Schaible’s declaration (which ‘circumstances’, he says in the 
Telegraph,” prevented him for three months from making, but 
which I extorted in no time by sending to Louis Blanc a copy of 
the two Affidavits’ at the Bowstreet Police-Court) proves much 
against Vogt. It proves nothing for Blind. It does not exculpate 
him in any respect. He has written (if not drawn up) the 
manuscript; he has printed it in Hollinger’s office; he paid 
Hollinger’s Printer’s Bill; he made two false declarations in the 
Augsburg Gazette’; he and Hollinger entered into conspiracy 
against me in order to induce (and with what success you know) 

a See this volume, p. 49.- > The Daily Telegraph - © See this volume, pp. 31-32 and 
37. - 4 Blind’s statements in the Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 313, 9 November 1859 and 
No. 345 (supplement), 11 December 1859. 

the compositor Wiehe to give them false evidence. This is not all. 
Blind, as you know from the letter he addressed in September to 
Liebknecht, had the cool impudence of stating that he had nothing 
at all to do with the whole affair. Lastly, all the successive steps 
now taken by him and Schaible were forced upon him by the 
menace suspended over his head for a criminal action for 
‘conspiracy’. 

2) Dr Schaible may, for aught I know, have allowed himself to 
be made Blind’s scape-goat. He, as I know, belongs so to say to the 
household furniture of Blind’s. 

3) The principal political end I aimed at, has been obtained by 
Schaible’s declaration. It makes void and annuls the proceedings at 
Augsburg,’““—mere mock proceedings; there being present no 
witnesses, no accuser, no (real) accused, and, in point of fact, no 
tribunal, since Vogt, in his wisdom, had appealed not to that 
description of Bavarian tribunal which, according to the Bavarian 
law, had to decide on the case. In respect to this same Vogt, it will 
suffice to say that at Geneva, his own place of residence, a Swiss 
paper (Die Neue Schweizer Zeitung, The New Swiss Gazette, in its 
number of November 12, 1859) has declared to have indignantly 
repulsed Vogt’s attempt at bribing it with French money.* That 
same paper, in a leading article, called upon Vogt to take judicial 
proceedings against itself, same way as I, in a declaration signed 
with my name, and published in the Augsburg Gazette and the 
Hamburg ‘Reform’, had called upon him to sue the Volk at 
London.'*' Vogt, although a Genevese Stdnderath,? and, therefore, 
a public servant, rested mute to these appeals, while enlisting the 
favour of the stupid German Liberals by the Augsburg comedy, or 
rather farce. 

You will be so kind to consider this letter as confidential, since the 
lawyers who carry on my actions for libel at Berlin and London, 
think it fit that, except on the most urgent emergency, I should 
not break my silence until after the judicial proceedings have been 
closed. 

Yours faithfully 
K. Marx