London, 27 February 1883 

Dear Mr Bernstein, 

I recently had a little dispute with Viereck which has forced me to 
break with him. As he might possibly come to Zurich for the con- 
gress °°? and make use of the occasion to mention the matter in private 
conversation, I am concerned lest in that event /zs version be the only 
one to go the rounds. I therefore authorise you to read this letter to 
anyone Viereck may discuss the matter with, but at all events to 
Bebel and Liebknecht. 

Some little while before Christmas Viereck, or rather his wife, * sent 
me the visiting card of one Deinhardt, a Munich engineer, with three 
questions of a chemico-physico-industrial nature and asked me to get 
hold of the information if possible. [ sent the card to Schorlemmer in 
Manchester who rightly suspected from the questions a pushful and 
importunate inventor and for good measure appended a ‘motto’ to 
his extremely terse reply. Here is the card as returned to Viereck: 

“). Has ozone come into use alongside chlorine and chloride of lime for bleaching 
rags in English paper mills? —.No. 

‘2. Compared with other bleaching agents, does ozone offer a manufacturing 
concern any noteworthy advantages in a technical or financial sense? — No. 

“3. Is the production and use of ozone in an industrial concern attended by 
considerable difficulties? — Yes. 

‘C. Deinhardt, Engineer (printed on card). 

“Motto: Apage inventor!’ » 

In this form the card went back. So if Viereck did not wish to show 
Deinhardt the motto, all he had to do was copy questions and 
answers onto a sheet of paper or a postcard, and that would have 
been that. 

Next I received No. 7 (17 January) of the Siiddeutsche Post (which 
Viereck sent me in exchange for The Labour Standard) and, in the 
‘Letter Box’, saw the following: 

‘To Mr Deinhardt, engineer of this city. The author of the ‘electrotechnical revo- 
lution’ writes to tell us that, despite information to the contrary supplied by Prof. Schorlemmer, 

* Laura Viereck-” Be off with you, inventor! 

of Manchester, he must stand by his contention that the production of ozone would be 
effected by means of a dynamo, etc.’ 

What was the meaning of this? How was it that this purely private 
piece of information found its way into the paper rather than into 
a proper letter box? And how could Viereck have had the impudence 
to make public use in his paper of private information supplied by 
Schorlemmer for Deinhardt—-on Viereck’s own evidence an ex- 
tremely importunate man — purely to oblige Viereck? Either Viereck 
didn’t know what he was doing or he did it out of revenge for the 
‘motto’. 

But there is nothing whatever in the 3 questions and answers that 
turns on whether the production of ozone is effected by means of a 
dynamo; a dynamo is not mentioned at all. Thus, by indirectly 
attributing to Schorlemmer a statement actually denying that the 
production of ozone is effected with a dynamo, Viereck is guilty of 
outright falsification; he is attributing to Schorlemmer things he has 
never said. But obviously it cannot be a matter of indifference to a 
chemist whose reputation extends beyond Europe if someone attributes 
to him things about chemico-physical questions he has never said, and 
does so publicly in the university city of Munich where, after all, there 
are also chemists and physicists who might possibly read it. 

So I sent the paper, as was only my duty, to Schorlemmer who sent 
me the following letter for Viereck: 

‘If anyone’ (I am quoting from memory) ‘publishes a private communication 
without permission, then it is improper. But if in addition he goes on to distort the said 
communication, then it is barely ethical.’ 

Accordingly Schorlemmer called for the publication of the card as 
it stood, with questions, answers and motto, in order that the matter 
might be clarified. 

Whereupon a long letter arrived from Viereck addressed to me. 
Deinhardt, he said, had bombarded him with three letters on the sub- 
ject of ozone (so the Apage inventor was wholly appropriate!). By 
sending him [Viereck] the above-mentioned letter I was now holding 
a pistol to his head (which is untrue, let him show it to you; all I did was 
demand in polite terms full satisfaction for Schorlemmer), while 
Schorlemmer’s letter and the demands made therein were even more 
intemperate. He could not, he added, publish the motto (needless to 
say this request was not intended seriously) and the remainder only if 
Schorlemmer withdrew the insulting expressions contained in his let- 
ter; for the time being he could not admit having made a mistake, but 

must refuse to accede to our peremptory demands in ‘this entirely un- 
qualifiable form’. 

‘I did not even know, his letter goes on, ‘that Prof. Schorlemmer read the Suddeutsche 
Post and surely cannot in any circumstances assume that you had sent him this issue ad 
hoc*! For I regard it ... as out of the question that you could inform against me and 
I should have been only too pleased had you suggested what steps ought to have been 
taken to pacify the much agitated professor.” ... '"'/i2 of his readers consisted of party 
members ... nothing ought to be imputed to him that was ‘inconsistent with the con- 
duct of a man of honour’, etc. 

So they make improper use of Schorlemmer’s name and, on their 
own admission, distort what he says because they hope he won’t find out. 
And when I, the sole cause of his involvement in the affair, tell him 
about it, then I am ‘informing’ against Viereck. Not Schorlemmer but 
Viereck is the injured party, because Schorlemmer characterises 
Viereck’s conduct, and with great restraint at that. Not a word about 
the falsification of which Schorlemmer was the victim. 

Well, Viereck may read our reply to anyone he chooses. We sent 
him a statement, addressed not to him but to the editorial board, i.e. 
a statement intended for publication, together with a request that at 
the same time they print questions and answers. What does Viereck 
do? First, a polite apology in the “Letter Box’, to wit: 

‘We profoundly regret this tiresome misunderstanding’ and promise to put the 
matter right. 

And then? In No. 17, 9 February: 

‘In regard to the electrotechnical revolution. On being consulted, Prof. Schorlemmer of 
Manchester supplied the following information which we herewith print in order to 
clear up a (!} misunderstanding {!)’: (the questions and answers follow). 

The clarification of this ‘misunderstanding’ is tantamount to the 
total obfuscation of the affair, as is satisfaction for Schorlemmer to 
attempted mockery and to further misuse of his name. Thereafter I 
returned the Stiddeutsche Post unopened. Yet another postcard from 
Viereck, asking what he had done to deserve being rebuffed in’ this 
insulting (everything is insulting!) way, etc. What I said in my reply — 
also per postcard —- he can read to you himself if he likes. ‘One must 

* for this purpose