---
Title: Draft of a letter to English newspapers (1888)
Description: Engels's draft letter to an English paper on the expulsion of Bernstein, Motteler, Schlüter and Tauscher, editors of the "Sozialdemokrat", from Switzerland: the Federal Council as Puttkamer's servant, and a warning to English workers.
Author: Friedrich Engels
Date: 1888
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1888%20Draft%20of%20a%20letter%20to%20English%20newspapers
---


*Manuscript of Friedrich Engels (April–May 1888), preserved in the IISG (Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels Papers, inv. H 116, images 2–3: three pages), transcribed from the digital facsimile by the Escuela de marxismo, 2026 (two independent readings and arbitration on the image); attribution according to the MEGA² (I/31); the IISG catalogue dates it "[IV.–V.1888]". Draft without the name of the paper. Diplomatic transcription: spelling, abbreviations and punctuation of the manuscript; deletions as ~~text~~, or ~~[ilegible]~~ when they cannot be read; additions between the lines are given in their place;[^m1] [?] after an uncertain reading. Nothing has been supplied from other editions. [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1888%20Borrador%20de%20una%20carta%20a%20los%20peri%C3%B3dicos%20ingleses)*

To the Editor of —

Sir (Dear Comrade) — The press has already announced that four German Socialists ~~Democrats~~, Bernstein, Motteler, Schlüter & Tauscher, editors & publishers of the Zürich: »Sozialdemokrat«[^m2] have been expelled from Switzerland by the Federal Council of that country, „for having abused of the hospitality extended to them."

This severe measure must appear all the more surprising as the paper in question, during the eight years of its existence, has always carefully refrained from ~~all~~ attacks upon Switzerland & Swiss institutions, & as its language generally has never been more moderate than during the last five months.

The ~~reasons~~ official text of the order of expulsion, along with the reasons upon which the Federal Council bases it, is now before us, & these reasons are indeed surprising. The Federal Council would make us believe that its attention was first called to the „Sozialdemokrat" not by anything published in that paper itself, but by a comic paper printed in the same office in January 1887 & of which only *one* number was brought out! And yet, the „Sozialdem." from the first day of its publication, had ~~been the an object of the constant drawn upon~~ been watched with the greatest & most constant attention by the German authorities &, at their request, of the Swiss authorities too.

The Federal Council ~~further tells us, that once~~ having thus become aware of the necessity of watching the „Sozialdemokrat", now found out, as it tells us, that this paper „was ~~generally~~ written in a generally violent language ~~& in~~ offensive to the authorities of the German Empire." That is to say, the paper did not ~~call~~ proclaim actual & forcible resistance ~~to the public force or existing[?]~~ against the ~~existing[?] &~~ State power in Germany, much less in Switzerland. It merely called ~~by their proper names~~ stigmatised as such, and called by their proper names, the infamies committed in Germany by the authors ~~&~~ of the ~~laws[?]~~ Anti-Socialist Law and their executive tools. That, however, is „abuse of hospitality" in a republic which, itself, celebrates year by year, in hundreds of ~~&~~ commemorative festivals, the homicidal act of William Tell, and brags of the asylum it offers to refugees of all nations.

In consequence of this violent language, we are further informed, an official warning was administered to the „Sozial Demokrat", which however had not the desired effect. Certainly the editors henceforth took care to avoid „coarsely offensive expressions." But ~~th~~ they declined „to change anything in the fundamental programme of the paper" and moreover they „repeated articles which appeal to force", though accompanied by commentaries „~~calculated~~ intended to make people believe in the moderation of the paper itself." To prove this latter grave offence, the federal Council states, that, on April 7, 1888, the „Sozialdemokrat" reprinted certain resolutions passed, in 1866 – twenty two years ago! – by 500 Germans in Zürich, resolutions calling upon the German people to rise in arms against their governments. In 1866 not a single German present at that meeting was molested on account of these resolutions. But ~~the cause[?]~~ if in 1888 the „Sozial Demokrat" merely ~~calls~~ states these facts, that is sufficient to expel four men, connected with that paper, from Switzerland.

Altogether the reasons given are ridiculous. But the fact is, the Federal Council dares not state the real reasons for its action: that Bismarck & Puttkamer, his Home Secretary, are furious at the German Social Democrats in Switzerland having succeeded in unmasking a set of spies & *agents provocateurs*, sent out by the German police in order to procure evidence ~~on which to~~ to enable the government to demand, the prolongation, & with increased stringency, of their Socialist Coercion Bill. The expulsion is Puttkamer's revenge for the defeat[?],[^m3] inflicted ~~to him~~ upon him by the revelations in the Reichstag & by the Sozialdemokrat, by the federal Council ~~is but the [ilegible] [ilegible]~~ acts as Puttkamer's humble servant. The expulsion of our comrades means the extension of the German Socialist Coercion Act to Switzerland; it means that the dynamitards of the Prussian Police will henceforth enjoy in Zürich the same ~~full~~ official protection ~~in Zürich~~ that ~~they~~ is afforded to them in Berlin.

The only country in Europe ~~which~~ where ~~there~~ a right of asylum may still be said to exist, is England. No doubt Bismarck will try, as he has done already, to draw England ~~[ilegible]~~ within the ~~reach~~ nets of his international political police, & to ~~ext~~ place German Socialists, in England too, under his „petty state of siege*".[^m4] ~~However[?]~~ will then be English statesmen prepared to meet him half way? If so, let us hope that English working men will know how to stop their Government from playing the same cowardly & abject part now played by ~~the~~ Swiss federal Council.

I am Sir (Dear Comrade) yours obediently (fraternally)[^m5]

[^m1]: Written between the lines: "ists" (after "Social"), "editors & publishers … »Sozialdemokrat«", "an" (over the deleted "the", itself deleted), "generally" (twice: the first, over "was", deleted), "intended", "grave", "in Zürich", "official", "nets", "will then".

[^m2]: Interlinear addition, written above "Tauscher, have been", with a colon after "Zürich" and the title between »«.

[^m3]: After "defeat" a downstroke like a comma; it may also be a final "s" ("defeats").

[^m4]: The asterisk stands under "siege", before the closing inverted comma; there is no corresponding footnote on these pages.

[^m5]: Additions in pencil, perhaps in another hand, not taken into the text: p. 1, "of" (in "at their request, of the Swiss authorities") struck through and "by" written above; "called" (in "It merely called") struck through; p. 2, "(of that day" above "German people"; in the left margin, in an oval, "(one of the 500", and beneath it "one", deleted; "(in Zürich" above "meeting"; "(by the federal Council[?]" above "on account"; a line enclosing "expel four men … from Switzerland"; "manufacture" above "procure"; "socialist members" above "revelations in the"; p. 3, "before now" above "already"; the figures 2 and 1 above "cowardly" and "abject" (inverting their order); a stroke over the "f" of "federal".