ENGELS TO GUSTAV RASCH”! 
[Draft] 
[London, end of November 1876] 

Dear Mr Rasch, 

The Schaible in question always has to go rushing into the 
breech on Blind’s behalf wherever the latter has made things too 
hot for himself.??? That’s what happened in the 1859 affair. Blind 
(at the end of May or the beginning of June 1859) had printed in 
London an anonymous flysheet, Zur Warnung,* in which Karl Vogt 
was accused of allowing himself to be bribed with Bonapartist 
money and was denounced as a Bonapartist agent of the press in 
Germany. There was a request for its dissemination. This flysheet, 
printed in F. Hollinger’s print-shop in London, was reproduced in 
Das Volk, a German paper printed in the same print-shop, from 
the original type which was still set up. Liebknecht saw the 
corrected proof, with corrections in Blind’s handwriting, in this 
print-shop, and sent the flysheet to the Augsburg Allgemeine 
Zeitung, which reprinted it in June. Thereupon Vogt sued the 
Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung for libel, the latter asked Liebknecht 
to provide proof; he turned to Blind, who stated that he had 
played no part whatever in the matter. Vogt” now distorted the 
matter, making out that Marx was the man behind Liebknecht and 
had written the flysheet. This now gave rise to a dispute between 

2 A Warning - > Deleted in the original: ‘thus winning his law-suit’. 

Marx and Blind in the columns of the Augsburg Allgemeine 
Zeitung. 

Using affidavits sworn by the compositor, Végele,—i.e. legal 
instruments— Marx proved that the latter and Hollinger had set 
the type for the flysheet which had been written in Blind’s hand. 
Blind persuaded Hollinger to make a false declaration, namely 
that the flysheet had not been printed in his shop and that Blind 
had not been the author; in addition, together with Hollinger, he 
persuaded the compositor Wiehe to make an equally false 
statement to the effect that, having worked for Hollinger for 
11 months, he could corroborate the latter’s assertions. Relying on 
this, Blind declared the statement that he was the author to be a 
downright lie. At this, the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung terminated 
the controversy.* Marx replied with a printed circular in English, 
declaring the above statements made by Blind and his witnesses to 
be a DELIBERATE LIE, and Blind himself to be a DELIBERATE LIAR (London, 
4 February 1860).” Blind remained silent. But on 8 February 
1860, the compositor Wiehe swore an affidavit before the 
stipendiary magistrate at Bow Street which contradicted his earlier 
statement: 

1. he had not been employed by Hollinger for 11 months, 

2. he had not been working at Hollinger’s at the time the 
flysheet Zur Warnung was published, 

3. he had heard from Végele at the time that he (Végele) and 
Hollinger had composed the flysheet in question, and that the 
manuscript had been in Blind’s handwriting, 

4. he himself had subsequently broken the types that were still 
standing into columns for reprinting in the Volk, 

5. and had seen Hollinger give Liebknecht the proof-sheet 
corrected in Blind’s hand and heard that, immediately afterwards, 
Hollinger had expressed his regret at having done so, 

6. he had signed his earlier statement under pressure from 
Hollinger and Blind. Hollinger had promised him money while 
Blind had said he would give proof of his gratitude.‘ 

Marx had copies of these documents circulated among various 
circles, and this elicited a reply. On 15 February a statement from 
Schaible appeared in The Daily Telegraph; Schaible sent it (copy) to 
Marx, who replied '* saying that this changed nothing, either as 
regards Blind’s obtaining false testimony by underhand means, or 

a For the details see K. Marx, Herr Vogt (present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 125-27). - 
> K. Marx, ‘Prosecution of the Augsburg Gazette’ (ibid., pp. 10-11). - © Cf. present 
edition, Vol. 17, pp. 319-20. 

as regards Blind’s criminal conspiracy with Hollinger to obtain by 
underhand means Wiehe’s signature for the spurious forged 
document. 

Now, as then—Schaible to the rescue!’ 

Such are the facts. I know nothing further about the sorry 
fellow. 

One more thing. Should you again do me the honour of 
referring to our encounter in London, might I request you to 
refrain in future from suggesting I talked about matters which 
were never the subject of discussion between us.” As to the 
self-determination of human beings, I could only have said that, 
viewed in this general way, it makes no sense to me. As to the 
autonomy of nations, if I discussed it at all it was to deny the 
southern Slavs the right to use it as a pretext for lending 
themselves to Russian expansionist plans, just as I now heartily 
applaud the drubbing inflicted on the Serbs'”; to the best of my 
knowledge, however, we never discussed a social republic or the 
executions in Baden. Again, you have only what were entirely 
fortuitous circumstances to thank for the fact that, consequent 
upon your article, Marx did not declare that he had never seen 
you, and hence could not possibly have conducted these conversa- 
tions. 

I could not reply sooner as someone had borrowed my copy of 
Marx’s Herr Vogt, in which the above may be found on pp. 55 et 
seq.,” and did not return it until yesterday. 

Cordial regards. 

Yours, 
F. E.