{London,] 13 March 1865 

Dear Engels, 

There are mistakes in your financial statement, viz. you sent me 
£235 on 8 June, £350 at the beginning of July (the letter enclosing 
the money isn’t dated, but I can tell from a letter of 5 July which 
said it was about to be sent) and £200 on 9 November 1864; on the 
other hand, the last £40 itemised on the statement you said would 
eventually follow (in the enclosed letter dated 9 November) but you 
never sent it. I hope that you will be able to convince yourself of 
this on checking your books again, and if so, that you will send me 
the money by return of post, before I leave for the continent (with 
my niece), which will probably be at the end of this week.'” 

With regard to Schweitzer’s brazenness, I have decided on a 
different course. There are some things about which one would be 
glad to enlighten the public but can only do so in response to direct 
provocation, and then one must not miss the opportune TIME OF A REPLY. 
And such is the case with Schweitzer’s comments connected with 

* Caroline Schmalhausen 

the garbage from Blind.'” I intend to reply in the Düsseldorfer 
Zeitung actually on behalf of both of us, but I shall sign in my name 
alone, as it would be ludicrous to imply you shared responsibility for 
‘Achilles,'” and as I shall be quoting mainly (exclusively, if my plan 
works out) from Schweitzer’s letters to me anyway. 

My plan therefore is this: 

Schweitzer is reproducing, in print, the lies put out by the Neue 
Frankfurter Zeitung, knowing them to be lies. (Is the article in the 
form of an editorial in the paper, or what?) Viz.: 1. neither 
Lassalle’s name nor any mention of Lassalle appeared in the 
prospectus we received ‘printed as manuscript’. (Liebknecht had 
prevented that.) 2. In note of 30 December Schweitzer most humbly 
asks my pardon for so brazenly using passage from private letter 
of condolence, as both introduction and conclusion to his hymn of 
adulation. 3. By means of short extracts from Schweitzer’s letters 
from 30 December 1864 to 15 February 1865 (his last letter), I 
shall show that the conflict over ‘tactics’ was a lasting one from the 
first, trial number? right up until we announced our withdrawal,” 
and was by no means a quarrel suddenly picked, as man-of- 
honour Schweitzer pretends, with his support for Blind’s shit. At 
the same time, this little mosaic of excerpts from Schweitzer’s 
letters will show with what servility this selfsame brute behaved 
towards us, until he suddenly turned vicious on being kicked. This 
will make salutory reading for bourgeois and workers alike (and 
for Riistow). All in all, good introduction for the break with 
‘Lassalleanism’, which is in any case inevitable. (Of course, as far as 
student Blind is concerned, if that water-newt should ever come out 
again, I shall always treat Lassalle as a dead lion set beside a live 
ass. It is indecent that such an ‘uneducated’ Baden publican 
should even presume to put himself on a level with a man who has 
studied Heraclitus and the Roman law of inheritance.) 

Let me know by return if you approve of my plan, as I can’t 
afford to lose any time.'”? (And don’t forget to tell me in what 
form Blind’s twaddle appeared in the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung.) In 
my opinion, it’s necessary. 

Although, unlike you, I don’t have the pleasure of correspond- 
ing with the Too-Clever-By-Haif,“ nor of being able to foul his 
nest for him, nevertheless I’ve been infernally Harassep just 
recently, quite apart from the furuncles, which won’t go away; 
e.g., last night I didn’t get to bed until 4 o’clock in the morning. 

a of 15 December 1864 -> K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘To the Editor of the 
Social-Demokrat’. - © Gottfried Ermen, Engels’ partner 

Besides my work on the book,’ the Inrernarionay Assocration takes 
up an enormous amount of time, as I am wn ract the ueap of it. 
And what a waste of time! (And it would come just now, with the 
French business and the election business '*> here, etc., all at the 
same time.) E.g. the French shit: 

28 February. Tolain and Fribourg here from Paris. Meeting of 
the Cenrrat Councit, where they state their case and bicker with 
Le Lubez until 12 o’clock at night. Then reconvene in Bolleter’s 
tavern, where I had another 200 odd cards to sign. (I have now 
got them to change this stupid practice by having our handwriting 
engraved on the plate, and only the Genera. Secretary” signs by 
hand. Meanwhile, the remaining 1,000 cards or tHE oLp epirion had 
to be signed tn THE oLp STYLE.) 

1 March. Polish meerinc.’™ 

4 March. Suscommrrrer meeting about the French question until 1 
o'clock in the morning. 

6 March. Suscommirrre meeting about ditto until 1 o’clock in the 
morning. 

7 March. Srrrinc or rue Centra Councu. until 12 o’clock at night. 
Resolutions passed. (I enclose resolutions, along with the private 
instructions which the Crenrrar Counc is sending to Schily, who, as 
you can see from resolution V, has been appointed Cenrrar Counci. 
DELEGATE (AMBASSADOR) AT Paris.) 

(This meeting of 7 March, in which Le Lubez was utterly 
culbuté° was very embarrassing and stormy, and left the English in 
particular with the impression THat THE Frenchmen STAND REALLY IN NEED 
or A Bonaparte!) In between times, people dashing this way and that 
to see me in connection with the conference with Bright which 
was held last Saturday (11 March), etc. Reported briefly on same 
to Jones (he had enquired beforehand about it on Friday), 
instructed him to convey the letter to you.'*! 

Wei, mon cher, que faire?’ He who says ‘A’ must also say ‘B’. 

You will see from the enclosed Nordstern (sez THE 2 FIRST LEADERS) 
that, despite his hatred for us, Bruhn immediately seized the 
opportunity to attack Schweitzer, out of sheer professional 
jealousy.’ This is most important since Bruhn’s paper is of longer 
standing, and this has at least sowed dissension in the camp of these 
fellows themselves. 

A short notice about your pamphlet will appear in Bender’s 
Anzeiger this week. I sent one to the Hermann (Juch), saying he 

a Capital - > William Cremer - © overturned - 4 what is to be done, my dear 
fellow? - © Londoner Anzeiger, 17 March 1865 

should form his own opinion of it, etc.” This he will do. I chose this 
approach because with Juch I'd always poked fun at the notices sent 
to the Hermann by Blind, for Blind and about Blind, and the two of 
us here are generally regarded as one person. 

Salut. 
Your 
K. M.