London, 7 September 1860 
9 Grafton Terrace, Maitland Park, 
Haverstock Hull 

Dear Lassalle, 

I was delighted to hear from you again at last, although sorry 
that you should have no better news for me as regards your 
health. I myself am still suffering from my liver complaint; not as 
painful as gout (nor as distinguished, at least in English eyes), but 
perhaps even more disruptive when it comes to brain-work. 

There are two main reasons for postponing the publication of 
my anti-Vogt piece,* aside from my being necessarily engaged on 
more urgent work. These are: 

1. I wanted to wait until the end of the lawsuit against the 
National-Zeitung, but have now decided not to. 

The lawsuit has passed through the following stages: First the 
Public Prosecutor’ and then the Chief Public Prosecutor‘ dis- 
missed the action, because ‘no public interest’ would be served by ex 
officio intervention. Next came the civil action. The Municipal 
Court issued a ‘ruling’ to the effect that the action be dismissed, 
because the defamatory passages were merely (which, N.B., is 
incorrect) ‘quoted’. The High Court declared the Municipal Court’s 
argument to be mistaken, but arrived at the same conclusion, 
because the libellous passages neither did nor could refer to me 
(this the court proves by dint of ‘misquoting’), the National-Z. had 
no intention to insult, etc. The very style of the ‘ruling’ is enough 
to betray the fellows’ embarrassment. Now we have reached the 
Supreme Tribunal. Thus, I have now so far improved my 
knowledge of Prussian justice as to know that it is up to the 
officers of the judiciary whether a private individual gets a public 
hearing at all. For all these rulings are mere ‘preliminaries’ aimed 
at precluding any sort of encounter between myself and the 
Nat.-Z. in open court. In his letters Legal Counsellor Weber, who 
appears to know nothing about my friendly relations with the 

a Herr Vogt - > Lippe - © Schwarck 

Prussian government, throws up his hands in dismay at these 
‘inexplicable’ rulings. 

As you know, I instituted the lawsuit against the Nat.-Z. before I 
was in possession of Vogt’s book.* However, I was on the right 
track, for the Nat.-Z., with commendable tact, had picked out 
all—but really all—the actionable libels (I am speaking here of 
calumnies within the meaning of the Code, not mere abuse by the 
fellows, which I did not wish to attack in court) from Vogt’s 
concoction and had even, in some cases, added to their sting. But 
on every single count I found myself in the position, not of 
demanding that my opponent provide proof that it was true, but of 
myself being able to provide proof that it was false. The only 
exception was the matter of hundreds of threatening letters sent 
to Germany for the purpose of extorting money. In this instance, 
of course, it was the N.-Z.’s business to get friend Vogt to send 
them one of those threatening letters. 

Hence the courts realised that, as soon as the case came up in 
open court, the verdict must go against the N.-Z, and this, not to 
mention a legal victory for me, would indeed be ‘contrary to the 
public interest’. The ‘Supreme Tribunal’ wil] find some other 
subterfuge. But in this way the Prussians are at any rate supplying 
me with material whose pleasing repercussions in the London 
press will soon be brought home to them. 

2. The real snag just now is the question of a publisher. 

The thing can’t very well appear in Prussia since various 
passages relating to Stieber, etc., would lay the publisher open to 
prosecution. My negotiations in Hamburg, etc., have so far been 
of no avail. Either the chaps want to have nothing to do with it, or 
else they take the liberty of laying down conditions as to the tone 
and contents of the piece, to which I cannot, of course, agree. 
O. Meissner would have taken the thing, had he not previously 
published Demokratische Studien, to which, besides yourself and 
Grün, Vogt, along with his whole clan, Bamberger, Simon, etc., 
contributed. 

The best thing would be to get the thing printed over here and 
distributed on the Continent by some German bookseller here (as 
Vogt did from Geneva). But, unlike Vogt, I have no Bonapartist 
subsidies, with which to get the pamphlet of some 12 to 15 sheets 
printed in this country. 

’ So that’s how matters stand. As you will have gathered, my 
attitude towards Vogt is not as mild as German publishers would 

« Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, Geneva, 1859. 

wish it to be vis-a-vis the Herr Professor. I treat him en canaille* 
and as a figure of fun, i.e. in accordance with his deserts. 

Masses of inquiries have reached me from Switzerland and 
America about the publication of the scrawl. 

My wife sends her kind regards. For months I have avoided 
Freiligrath, not wanting to have a disagreeable encounter with 
him; nor, at a crucial moment, could I relish the cowardly hedging 
(on account of his business connection with James Fazy, who is his 
principal). {But what I thought particularly unseemly was the way 
he continued to consort with Blind on an intimate footing, after I 
had shown him legal documents proving that Blind had, under 
incriminating circumstances, extracted from Wiehe, the com- 
positor, a false deposition for publication in the Allgemeine Zeitung 
relative to the flysheet Zur Warnung.”!°} Nevertheless, in the 
eyes of the world we are ‘friends’ just as we have always been. But 
intercourse between our families has been completely broken off. 
As you know, my wife is of a determined disposition. 

I hope you will soon send better news of yourself. 

Salut. 

Your 
K. M.