[London,] 26 November [1860] 

Dear Frederick, 

My wife’s condition has improved, in so far as this is possible 
under the circumstances. It is going to be a lengthy business. What 
might be called the paroxysm of the disease is now over. 

Allen believes that the only explanation for the infection is the 
state of extreme nervous excitation in which she has been these 
many months. 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to ask Heckscher to send ~ 
the enclosed to the ‘Reform’ without delay. 

The day before yesterday, Petsch actually advertised Herr Vogt 
in the Hermann and the Athenaeum as due to appear this week.* 

From its date you will see that I scribbled the piece for the 
Reform as long ago as Saturday. I had intended to send it to you 
with an accompanying letter, but suddenly felt so unwell that any 
kind of writing was out or question. Allen gave me some medicine, 
and today I feel all right again. Regards to Lupus. 

Your 
K. M.° 
Sir, 

Your acceptance of the following declaration would much oblige 
me. You will be receiving a copy of my anti-Vogt pamphlet in the 
course of next week. 

I am, Sir, 

Your most obedient Servant, 
Karl Marx 

To the Editorial Board of the Reform 
Declaration 

At the beginning of February 1860 the editorial board of the 
Reform were kind enough to publish a declaration by myself‘ 
which began with these words: 

a4 The advertisement appeared in the Athenaeum on 24 November and in the 
Hermann on 1 December 1860. - > Given below is the text of Marx’s declaration 
published in the Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 336 (supplement), 1 December 
1860. - © K. Marx, ‘To the Editors Of the Volks-Zeitung. Declaration’. 

‘I hereby make it known that I have taken steps preparatory to 
instituting legal proceedings for libel against the Berlin National- 
Zeitung in connection with the leading articles in Nos. 37 and 41 
regarding Vogt’s pamphlet Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine 
Zeitung. I reserve the right to answer Vogt in writing at a later 
date.’ 

In the course of February 1860 I brought a libel suit in Berlin 
against F. Zabel, the responsible editor of the National-Zeitung. My 
lawyer, Legal Counsellor Weber, resolved at first on an official 
investigation. With a ruling of April 18, 1860 the Public Pros- 
ecutor* refused to ‘take action’ against F. Zabel, on the grounds 
that there was ‘no public interest’? involved. On April 26, 1860 his 
refusal was confirmed by the Chief Public Prosecutor.” 

My lawyer then began civil proceedings. The Royal Municipal 
Court in a ruling of June 8, 1860 prohibited me from proceeding 
with my lawsuit on the grounds that the genuinely defamatory 
‘utterances and statements’ of F. Zabel’s were ‘merely quotations 
from other persons’, and that ‘the intention to insult’ was not 
present. The Royal Court of Appeal for its part declared in a ruling 
of July 11, 1860 that the alleged use of quotation did not affect the 
culpability of the articles, but that the defamatory passages 
contained in them did not refer to my ‘person’. Furthermore, ‘in 
the present case’ the intention to insult ‘could not be assumed’. 
Thus, the Royal Court of Appeal confirmed the negative ruling of 
the Municipal Court. In a ruling of October 5, 1860, which I 
received on October 23 of this year, the Royal Supreme Tribunal 
found that ‘in the present case’ no ‘legal error’ on the part of the 
Royal Court of Appeal ‘could be discerned’. The prohibition on 
suing F. Zabel was thus definitely sustained and my claim did not 
reach the stage of being accorded a public hearing. 

My reply to Vogt will appear in a few days. 

London, November 24, 1860 
Karl Marx