London, 8 February 1860 
9 Grafton Terrace, Maitland Park, 
Haverstock Hill 

Dear Freiligrath, 

As an old party friend and an old personal friend, I consider it 
my duty to keep you informed of the steps I have taken in the 
furtherance of the Berlin lawsuit, by reason of which they must 
soon, though not immediately, become known to the public. 

You will recall or have seen from the printed English circular” 
sent you that, besides Hollinger’s written statement, Blind cited 
that of certain compositor, Wiehe, in the Augsburg Allgemeine 
Zeitung (etc.) as evidence that I had been guilty of ‘a plain 

aK. Marx, ‘To the Editors of the Volks-Zeitung. Declaration’. - > K. Marx, 
‘Prosecution of the Augsburg Gazette’. - © K. Blind’s statement in the Allgemeine 
Zeitung, No. 313, 9 November 1859. See this volume, pp. 60-62. 

falsehood’ and that ‘the imputation’ that he, Blind, was the author 
of the pamphlet Zur Warnung, and that the latter had been 
printed for him by Hollinger or, indeed, had come off Hollinger’s 
printing-press ‘was a lie’. I am now sending you an exact copy of 
the sworn statement made by this man Wiehe before the 
magistrate in Bow Street. Of that statement I received an officially 
attested duplicate. One copy of the same is already on its way to 
Berlin for the Public Prosecutor’s dossier 

It would, I think, be superfluous were I at this point to add a 
single word of comment to the document. 

Your 
K. M. 

‘One of the first days of November last—I do not recollect the exact date—in 
the evening between 9 and 10 o'clock I was taken out of bed by Mr F. Hollinger, in 
whose house (3, Litchfield Street, Soho) I was then living, and by whom I was 
employed as compositor. He presented to me a paper to the effect that I had been 
continuously employed by him during the’ preceding 11 months, 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. He promised me money, but I 
never received anything. During that transaction Mr Charles Blind, as my wife told 
me at the time, was waiting in Mr Hollinger’s room. A few days later Mrs Hollinger 
(Mr F. Hollinger’s wife) 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, 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 eleven 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 the time, when the flysheet 
“Zur Warnung” (A Warning) was. published. 

‘3. 1 heard at the time from Mr Voegele, who then worked for Mr Hollinger, 
that he, Voegele, 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 into 
Mr Hollinger’s service. I myself broke them into columns for the reprint of the 
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. 18 June 1859 of “Das Volk”. 

‘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 4 or 5 mistakes. 
Mr Hollinger hesitated at first giving the proofsheet to Mr Liebknecht, and when