London, 13 February 1860 
9 Grafton Terrace, Maitland Park, 
Haverstock Hill 
Dear Sir, 

Last week I wrote to a friend* in Berlin requesting him to 
recommend a lawyer for a libel action, which I am compelled to 
bring against the Berlin National-Zeitung.* Today I have received 
a reply in which my friend names you, Sir, as the most eminent 
lawyer in Berlin. 

I am therefore taking the liberty of asking whether you will 
agree to act as my lawyer in the libel action, further information 
concerning which is given below. 

Should the provisional retaining fee of 15 talers herewit 
enclosed not suffice, kindly telegraph me. I shall then immediately 
despatch whatever additional sum may be required. 

I enclose herewith the power of attorney and trust that this 
instrument will suffice. I would earnestly beg you to institute the 
action forthwith, lest it become statute-barred, and should be much 
obliged if you would inform me by telegraphic despatch that you are 
taking the necessary steps. 

@ Eduard Fischel 

I have simultaneously begun an action For tibet against The Daily 
Telegraph here in London, which paper printed an English 
version* of the National-Zeitung’s calumnious articles.” 

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, 

Dr Karl Marx 
(verte‘) 

The articles in the National-Zeitung alluded to in the preceding 
letter are to be found in No. 37 (dated Sunday, 22 January 1860) 
and No. 41 (dated Wednesday, 25 January 1860), both of them 
leaders. In subsequent letters I shall take occasion to characterise 
the animus by which these articles were inspired. But the specific 
points on which [ wish to bring an action for libel, and which seem 
to me the most cogent from the legal point of view, are the 
following: 

1. In No. 41 (article is headed ‘Wie man radikale Flugblatter. 
macht’), column 3 (towards the bottom) reads: 

‘In the Allgemeine Zeitung Blind has twice declared 4 outright that he is not the 
author’ (i.e. of the flysheet Zur Warnung); ‘nor does he say this to exculpate Vogt, 
with whom he does not agree, but simply for the benefit of the Marx-Liebknecht- 
Biscamp camp ... he’ (Blind) ‘is obviously not a member of the Marx party in the 
narrower sense. It appears to us that the latter did not find it too difficult to turn 
him into a scapegoat, and if the charges levelled at Vogt were to carry any weight, they 
had to be attributed to a definite person who would have to be responsible for 
them. The Marx party could very easily saddle Blind with the authorship of the pamphlet 
because and after he had expressed similar views to those contained in it in 
conversation with Marx and in an article in The Free Press© By making use of Blind’s 
assertions and turns of phrase the pamphlet could be fabricated and made to look as if 
he’ (i.e. Blind) ‘had concocted it.’ 

Here, then, I am actually accused of having ‘fabricated’ a 
pamphlet in another man’s name. Furthermore, in the same article 
(same column, further up), the National-Zeitung itself informs its 
readers that I had sent the A. A. Z. a ‘deposition by the compositor 
Voégele’,*’ in which the latter said that ‘he knew Blind’s handwriting 
from previous manuscripts; he himself had set the first part of the 
pamphlet on Hollinger’s press, and Hollinger himself had set the 
rest’; thus, in the passage quoted above, the National-Zeitung 

a [K. Abel,] ‘The Journalistic Auxiliaries of Austria’, The Daily Telegraph, No. 1439, 
6 February 1860. - > ‘Karl Vogt und die Allgemeine Zeitung’ and ‘Wie man radikale 
Flugblatter macht’, National-Zeitung, Nos. 37 and 41, 22 and 25 January 1860. - 
© PTO -4 Blind’s statements in the Allgemeine Zeitung, Nos. 313 and 345, 
9 November and 1} December 1859. - ¢ [K. Blind,} ‘The Grand Duke Constantine 
to Be King of Hungary’, The Free Press, No. 5, 27 May 1859. 

insinuates not only that I fabricated a pamphlet and fraudulently 
made it appear to be a ‘concoction’ of Blind’s. It insinuates outright 
that I had wittingly sent the Augsb. Allg. Zeitung a spurious 
document. And, to crown its animus calumniandi,* it goes on: 

‘Thereupon, on 2 November, Hollinger declared that it was a malicious 
invention to say that the pamphlet had been printed in his workshop or that Blind 
was its author, adding that his compositor, Wiehe, who had worked for him for 11 
months, concurred with this statement. Marx, always ready with an answer, replied 
in the Allgemeine Zeitung on November 15>: 

‘“Hollinger’s declaration is simply ridiculous. Hollinger is aware that he has 
formally infringed English law by publishing the pamphlet without declaring the 
place of publication.” In addition, Marx several times insists that, before the 
pamphlet came out, Blind had communicated its contents to him verbally and had 
put down in writing exactly what later appeared in the pamphlet; hence, because of 
the similarity in content and form, Blind had, de prime abord, been regarded as the 
author.’ 

Here, in order to introduce the passage cited above, which is 
defamatory to myself, the National-Zeitung omits deliberately that 
part of my statement in the supplement to the Augsburg A. Z. of 
21 November 1859 which is of most significance to lawyers, and 
to English lawyers in particular. I enclose the cutting from the 
Augsburg A. Z., in which I have underlined for your benefit what 
was deliberately omitted from my statement by the National- 
Zeitung.’ 

In accordance with universal legal usage, it should now be 
incumbent on the Nat.-Zeit. to prove that its defamatory charge 
against me is true. But I shall let you have legal evidence to the 
effect that it is false. You will even see that under English law I am 
now in a position, should I so wish, to have Mr Blind consigned to 
the galleys for conspiracy against me. 

2. No. 37 of the Nat.-Zeit., the leading article entitled Karl Vogt 
und die ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’, column 2, reads (I quote): 

‘Vogt reports on p. 136 et. seq: Among the refugees of 1849 the term 
Brimstone Gang; or the name of the Bristlers,© referred to a number of people 
who, originally scattered throughout Switzerland, France and England, gradually 
congregated in London, where they revered Herr Marx as their visible leader.’ 

4 deliberate libel - > This refers to Marx’s ‘Declaration’ of 15 November, published 
in the supplement to the Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 325, 21 November 1859. - © from 
the very start - 4 Marx presumably refers to point 2 of his ‘Declaration’. - © See this 
volume, p. 70, and Marx’s Herr Vogt (present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 38-47). 

I shall let you have evidence to the effect that in this passage 
two quite distinct Genevan societies have been lumped together, 
neither of which ever had, or sought to make, any connection 
with me. But this I consider to be of no more than secondary 
importance. The actual passage upon which I wish the second 
point in the libel action to be based is one that occurs 
subsequently and which I shall now quote: 

One of the chief occupations of the Brimstone Gang’ (ostensibly under my 
conmmanaG, was to compromise people at home in Germany in such a way that they were 
forced to pay money so that the gang should preserve their secret without compromising them. 

Not just one, but hundreds of letters were written to people in Germany threatening 
to denounce them for complicity in this or that act of revolution unless a certain 
sum of money had been received at a specified address by a certain date.’ 

It will now be incumbent on the National-Zeitung to substantiate 
the charge of boundless depravity it brings against me by 
producing in court, not hundreds of letters, not one letter, but one 
single line containing infamous blackmail of this nature, and of 
which it can be proved that it emanated, I won’t say from myself, 
but from any person with whom I have ever had anything to do. 
The passage cited above continues as follows: 

‘Following the principle that “whoever is not unconditionally for us, is against 
us”, the reputation of anyone who opposed these intrigues’ (i.e. the blackmailing 
letters previously described) ‘was ruined, not just among the ‘refugees, but also 
by means of the press. The “proletarians”’ (as whose chief I am portrayed) ‘filled 
the columns of the reactionary press in Germany with their denunciations of those 
democrats who did not subscribe to their views; they became the confederates of the 
secret police in France and Germany.’ 

It will, of course, be easy for the Nat.-Zeit. to find in the ‘columns 
of the reactionary press’ thus filled, one single line emanating 
from myself or friends of mine which contains ‘denunciations 
against any ‘democrat’ whomsoever. 

It is absolutely correct—and this is the only racr—that 
Ferdinand Freiligrath wrote a satirical poem* about Mr Kinkel’s 
revolutionary loan and his revolutionary tour of the United States,’' a 
poem which was first published by my friend Weydemeyer in a 
journal appearing in New York,” and subsequently printed in the 

’ 

« F, Freiligrath, ‘An Josef Weydemeyer. Zwei poetische Episteln’, Epistel 1.- > Die 
Revolution ; 

Morgenblatt2 But that could certainly not be described as a 
‘denunciation’. In actual fact, the so-called democratic emigration 
(German) filled the German press with the most inane tittle-tattle 
about myself. There was only one instance which I felt merited the 
trouble of a reply, but the paper to which I sent the rectifying 
statement did not print it.” 

The only German paper for which I have written since going 
into exile has been the Neue Oder-Zeitung. | was its correspondent 
from about the beginning of January until July 1855. Not once 
did I devote a single line to the émigrés. 

As regards Liebknecht’s articles for the Augsb. Allg. Zeitung 
which likewise never contained a line about émigrés—and which, 
by the by, reflect great credit to him (their content, I mean)— 
these have nothing whatever to do with me. I shall be writing to 
you about this at greater length.‘ 

Needless to say, my alliance with the secret police in Germany and 
France has for me the spice of novelty. 

3. In the above cited No. 41, ‘Wie man radikale Flugblatter 
macht’, the National-Zeitung identifies the ‘party of the proletariat’, 
as whose chief it describes me, and hence myself, with ‘a conspiracy 
of the most infamous sort, with the manufacturing of counterfeit 
paper-money on a massive scale, etc.’ which purportedly took 
place in Switzerland in 1852, and lkewise with similar ‘machina- 
tions’ in 1859 which purportedly caused the German states, ‘after 
the Peace of Villafranca’, to raise the matter with the Swiss 
‘Federal Council’. 

Later, I shall show in greater detail that I had nothing whatever 
to do with these matters having, indeed, abandoned all agitation 
since September 1850, and that, while the Cologne communist trial 
was pending (1851-52),’ I disbanded the communist society to 
which I belonged,” nor have I since that time belonged either to a 
secret or to a public society. That the Nat.-Zeit. was deliberately 
libellous on this point, too, may be deduced from the fact that it 
must have known from the communist trial in Cologne that I myself, 
through counsel there, denounced as a police agent the fellow said 
to have been active in Switzerland in 1852, and that Stieber 
himself was forced to admit that this fellow had been my enemy 
since 1850. If necessary, I can provide you with evidence to the 

a Morgenblatt ftir gebildete Leser - » This presumably refers to the ‘Statement’ by Marx 
and Engels which was to be published in the Weser-Zeitung and the New-Yorker 
Staatszeitung in early 1851 (present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 535-36). - © See this volume, 
pp. 66-67, 

effect that this fellow (Cherval, real name Cramer) never had any 
connection with me, even before 1850. 

4, The final point in the libel action should be based on the 
following passage in No. 41, ‘Wie man radikale Flugblatter macht’, 
column 2, which runs: 

‘Where the money for this generously distributed paper’ (i.e. the Volk, published 
in London) ‘came from, is known to the gods; men, however, are wel] aware that 
Marx and Biscamp have no money to spare.’ 

Taken in conjunction with the animus of the two leading 
articles, with the way I am lumped together with secret police, 
reactionaries and a Brimstone Gang extorting money through 
chantage and revolutionary threats, this sentence can only imply 
that I obtained money for the Volk in a dishonest fashion or by 
underhand means. It is now up to the National-Zeitung to 
substantiate this libel. I, for my part, shall provide you with 
information, not only about the financial contributions obtained by 
me for the Volk, but also, in.so far as this is necessary, about my 
own—in Mr Zabel’s eyes; dubious—financial circumstances; and 
that information will be such as wil] enable you to prove the very 
opposite of the defamatory insinuation put forward by the 
Nat.-Zeit. 

I would beg you, when you reply to this letter, to let me know 
upon which points you require further elucidation.* 

P. S. Since it would otherwise be too late to post this letter, I 
shall send on the power of attorney tomorrow. If at all possible, this 
evening under separate cover. ,