Letter to J. M. Weber, February 13, 1860

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

MARX TO J. M. WEBER

IN BERLIN

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 herewith 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.

I have simultaneously begun an ACTION FOR LIBEL 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 I 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 Flugblätter macht'), column 3 (towards the bottom) reads:

'In the Allgemeine Zeitung Blind has twice declared 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 Vögele', 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 insinuates not only that / 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.'

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 ilic chief occupations of the Brimstone Gang' (ostensibly under my COIIHII.UK!, \\<IS to compromise people at home in Germany in such a way that they were forced to pa\ moim' 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 FACT—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 Morgenblatt? 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. I 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 lengths

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 Flugblätter 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 likewise 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 / 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 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 Flugblätter 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 well 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 will 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.