[a]Julius Eduard Maximilian Dittrich (1844-1917) and Karl May had been to prison in Zwickau at the same time. Later, Dittrich worked as an editor in charge of articles on the military for several newspapers. He also wrote numerous books, mostly on military history.
Lebius drank much wine, while I only sipped. He became increasingly agitated, while I remained calm and circumspect. He tried very hard to convince me and my wife that he had the stuff it took to be a "real man". This was his favourite expression, which he often used. Incessantly, he spoke about his principles, his views, his plans, about his great skillfulness, his ample experiences, and his excellent success as a journalist and an editor, as a publisher and a manager, as a leader of the flock and a tribune of the people.
This man attempted to impress us in a manner which only a quite ordinary, imprudent person would use, who is thus convinced of his own outstanding qualities, that he does not even consider that others might laugh about his conduct. When he saw that I did not respond to any of his tricks, his efforts became more desperate. He had to convince me of his excellent qualities, at any price! After all, he needed money, lots of money! And I seemed to be his final hope to get it! Therefore, in his financial angst, he revealed to us the most secret principles of his business and his way of life. Because of the large amount of wine, he believed he could win us over by this, but only affirmed our repulsion. Since I have to be brief here, I will only reproduce the three most important ones of these principles of his. These are:
1.Editors and journalists like us usually have no money. Therefore, we also cannot afford the luxury of a personal opinion. We want to live. Therefore, we sell our services.Whoever pays the most, gets us!2.Every person has some dark spots on his character or in his life.Even every employer, every official, every policeman, every judge or prosecutor has such a skeleton in his closet.These things have to be found out, wisely and clandestinely. No difficulty may be a discouragement in this. And once it has been found out, the game is won. A note will then be placed in the newspaper, telling the person concerned that all is known, but in a manner so that he cannot sue. Then, he will be in our hands, and we can do with him as we please. He will surrender. In this manner I have already often worked to the benefit of my readers!3.In a social respect, mankind can be divided into sheep and rams, masters and servants, those who command and those who obey. Whoever wants to stop being a human member of the flock,has to cast aside the conscience of the flock.Once he does so, all who are still burdened by this conscience will come running after him. It does not matter at all which flock he might want to belong to. He can leave one and join another, he can switch sides. This does not hurt him. He only has to make sure that it is done with the necessary warmth and conviction, for this elates the crowd. If the social democrats do not follow him, the others will!
When the three of us heard these astonishing lessons, Max Dittrich burst out in rage several times; my wife was quiet with amazement; but I left the room to overcome my disgust! Thus, Lebius received neither money nor anything else from me. So, he came to realize that this unprecedented self-incrimination had not just been entirely in vain, but that by it he had also delivered himself into our hands. Now, the three of us were the most dangerous people there were for him.He could never allow us to state our case in court,but rather had to do everythingto portray us as untrustworthy persons, who had no right to testify under oath.It is very important to me to emphasise this in particular, for
this is the only right key for all of his later actions, which would hardly be understandable without this key, because the hatred this man has against the three of us seems to be almost inhuman.
Even before he left on this night together with Max Dittrich, I had purposefully complained about the many letters in which I, not being a rich man at all, had been besieged with requests for money, and did so in a manner which had to keep any educated, honourable man from approaching me with similar wishes: As soon as the very next day, he wrote me the following letter:
"Dresden-A., 5/3/04."Dear doctor!
"Dresden-A., 5/3/04.
"Cordially thanking you for the friendly reception and your hospitality, I am asking you, in case you should visit the art exhibit or should happen to come to Dresden on another occasion, to have lunch or coffee with us.
"In one respect, I have to go back on the agreement we reached yesterday. I cannot accept your offer to work for us free of charge. We will pay ten pfennig per line, which would be the same price you are likely to have received from other newspapers.
"What you have told me yesterday, I have considered one more today. It would seem to me that in spite of the colossal sales of your works, the profit could still be increased extensively. My experiences as a bookseller and publisher have taught me that the value of properly managed propaganda and direct advertisement cannot be overestimated at all.
"My wife and I send our regards to your wife and you withadmirationandgratitude,yours truly
"Rudolf Lebius."
"Rudolf Lebius."
Let me point out that he addressed me as "doctor", though, during his visit, I had, and not just once, made clear to him that he should refrain from doing so. But he did not do so, for, after all, this title was serve him as a weapon against me!
At about this time, Max Dittrich wrote a booklet about me and my work. He was so imprudent to show the manuscript to Lebius. The latter came rushing to Radebeul right away, to ask me to use my influence on Dittrich that he should let him, Mr. Lebius, publish this work. It goes entirely without saying that he and his request were rejected, and I wrote to Mr. Max Dittrich that I would never want to see him again, if he would consider letting this man have the booklet.
This second visit of Mr. Lebius took at most ten minutes. After he was gone, I was missing a photograph, he had stolen from me. He was never allowed to return again. Nevertheless, he had repeatedly pretended to have been a guest at my house at numerous occasions and to have studied me very carefully.
The next day he wrote to me:
"Dresden-A., 7/12/0434 Fürstenstraße.
"Dresden-A., 7/12/0434 Fürstenstraße.
"Dear doctor!
"I would very much like to publish Dittrich's
booklet and would also make the greatest efforts to put it in
wide circulation.But on account of my resignation from the
`Sachsenstimme'
"Would you perhaps grant me a loan for three years at 5 percent?Perhaps, I will pay the debt back to you as early as one year from now.
"To show my gratitude for this, I would promote the booklet in such a way that the whole world would talk about it. After all, I am particularly experienced in this area.
"Things will work out with my newspaper, and even on a very solid basis. Now it is up to me to work and to showthat I have the stuff it takes to be a real manetc. etc. Best regards to your wife
"Yours trulyRudolf Lebius."
Rudolf Lebius."
I did not answer. I was of the opinion that a man with honour could not proceed after such a silence, especially since I hadtotally rejected Lebius concerning the booklet.But on August the 8th, he nevertheless wrote again:
"On the 4th of this month, I have become the sole proprietor of the "Sachsenstimme" at favourable conditions. I can now act as I please. To gain some independence from the printer,I would like to take a loan of a few thousand marks (3 to 6) for half a year.There is no risk involved. The Jewish interested businesses are behind me, who have, as the past season has shown, supported me to a large extent. The Christmas sales will give me the money to pay you back.Would you grant me this loan? I am very willing do something for you in return.The large number of academic employees allows my paper to rise above the majority the of Saxonian newspapers. We are furthermore able to send those articles, you might have an interest in, to 300 or more German and Austrian newspapers and highlight the article concerned in blue. Something like this will infallibly have its effect. In Dresden, I am sending my paper to all public bars (1760). Most sincerelyRudolf Lebius."
Rudolf Lebius."
At the same time, I found out that Lebius owned nothing at all, but had taken the oath of manifestation[a], that he had not payed the printer of his paper, that he quite generally had nothing but debts, and that he even owed royalties. That his newspaper had a solid basis, was untrue, the same thing goes for the "large number of academic employees" and other things. Intentional deceptions like this ought to brought before the public prosecutor. Let me draw your attention to how he starts and ends his letters: "Dear Sir ... With outstanding admiration!" "With great respect and admiration!" "Dear doctor ... With admiration and gratitude." When he saw that this flattery failed to do its effect, he did not write to me any more, but to Dittrich. He did so on August the 15th, 1904:
[a]This oath forces a debtor to disclose all of his possessions. A debtor who refuses to take this oath can be sent to prison.
"Dear Mr. Dittrich!
"I will give you one percent for negotiating the loan.I do not need more than 10.000 marks.But I would also make do with less. I will sent you your fee on the 20th of this month as agreed.
"Couldn't youuse your persuasionon doctor May to pay me an advance?
"Friendly greetingsR. Lebius."
R. Lebius."
Then, on August the 27th:
"Dear Mr. Dittrich!
"My wife is going to see Dr. Klenke on September the 1st, to get a small amount he owes us. She will use this opportunity to pay you your royalties. You have my written promise that I will give you 1 percent of the money which I will obtain from H.V. or Dr. M. (May) on account of your intervention. You will receive the money right away . . . .
"Friendly greetingsLebius."
Lebius."
This refers to the fact that he owed Max Dittrich royalties in the amount of 37 marks and 45 pfennigs, which he, though this amount was very small, was unable to pay. As a consequence of this, a mirror has been seized from his house by the court. When he received an order to pay the 37 marks and 45 from Dittrich instead of my 10.000 marks, he wrote to him on September the 3rd:
"Dear Mr. Dittrich!
"I have urged Mr. Klenke M.D. to pass the amount of 40 marks from my account to you. Your behaviour towards me strikes me as most peculiar, perhaps even insulting.
"SincerelyR. Lebius."
R. Lebius."
But this Dr. Klenke also never considered paying the debts of Mr. Lebius, and thus it was only logical and consequential that on September the 7th, the following threat reached me in the form of a postcard:
"Dear Sir!
"A certain Mr. Lebius, editor of the `Sachsenstimme', has told another gentleman that he was writing an article against you. I have just overheard it in a restaurant. A friend is warning you of this man."B."
"B."
Of course, I was instantly fully aware of the author and the purpose of this card. The report of the court'ssworn expertsalso statesthat nobody but Lebius, in his own hand, could have written it.Obviously, he quite definitely expected me to pay the 10.000 marks in response to this extortion. If I would not pay up, I could not just be sure of the vengeful article he threatened to write now, but even of more of the kind and other things as well; this had to worry me. But even now, I did not respond and was facing the unavoidable article with a clear conscience, which appeared on September the 11th, 1904, in number 33 of Lebius's paper, the "Sachsenstimme", and bore the triple headline:
"More light on Karl May
160.000 marks income for a novelist
160.000 marks income for a novelist
A famous author of colportage from Dresden."
This man had given his word to my wife and me, not to publish anything. He had even only been admitted to our house after having made this promise, and now he nevertheless published something, and in what manner and for what reasons! He turned everything upside down; he twisted everything! He put all the words he pleased into our mouths and kept to himself what we had actually said, to avoid exposing himself to ridicule. This text contains more than 70 immoralities, twists of the facts, and direct lies. But this was only the beginning; the continuations followed soon enough. This article in number 33 of the "Sachsenstimme" had been written in such a manner that Lebius was still able to turn around, if I should now finally give him the money. And already in number 34 there came a very clear hint, telling me what would happen, if I could not be moved to pay. This hint consisted of an advertisement by Münchmeyer, which spoke volumes to me. You ought to know that the proprietor of Münchmeyer's business had told me: "The publication of the other novels doesn't hurt you too much yet; but as soon as I'm done with the `Lost Son' and start placing advertisement for it, you'll be lost! This one will be such a blow that you'll be unable to continue existing as an author after this!" And this "Lost Son" had now been advertised for in number 34 of the "Sachsenstimme". This was just as if they had written to me in gigantic letters: "But now, finally, surrender the money, or it will go on in this style!" The most dangerous extortionist is he who goes about his business in this cunning manner, which is even more clear than a spoken word, but is beyond the reach of any public prosecutor. But I nevertheless did not pay anything. Then, in number 44, there came a second elaboration, in number 46 a third, and in number 47 a fourth. In number 46 the connection of Mr. Lebius with Münchmeyer's business was demonstrated more clearly to me than before, for it said that the owner of this business had a large stack of old letters, written by me, in his possession and could therefore give very detailed information on me, if he only wanted. But the truth was that he did not possess a single old letter from me; I, on the other hand, knew now precisely that Lebius had taken on the job of executing the Münchmeyers' plan "to destroy me in the eyes of all of Germany by publishing my prior convictions in all the newspapers". I was convinced that the payment of those 10.000 marks would silence him right away, but I would have been ashamed to look into the mirror, if I had given him even a single pfennig.
As I had thought, so it happened: Already in number 48, there came without any provocation, out of the blue, the announcement: "The four years which Mr. Karl May had been sentenced to spend in Waldheim were, according to our information, the consequence of the burglary of a watchmaker's shop." But I have never committed any burglary. You see, that they did not care about the truth, but only about "destroying". This number 48 was published on Christmas Eve. At this time, posters were displayed in the windows of book-stores of Dresden, announcing the "Sachsenstimme" with these large, red letters:"The prior convictions of Karl May".There could not be a more striking evidence that this was not about literature, but rather the execution of perfectly despicable intentions! Therefore, let me put an end to this cruel show here. I cannot bring myself to listing all these so very great deeds of Mr. Lebius in detail. I only want to say in summary that he proceeded in this manner, until, after some time, he had to flee from Dresden. I have compiled the lies, he has spread about me in his articles from his time in Dresden, to prove them in court. In spite of the brief time, there are not less than 142 of them. There probably never was another human being who has surpassed this! But I am explicitly emphasising that this list, by no means, contains everything, but rather only a selection. I could more than double this number, though it is already very high. I have remained silent on this issue for a long time, until I could not bear it any longer. Once this time had come, I finally had to defend myself. I filed a complaint with the public prosecutor's office for extortion. I submitted his letters, and the threatening postcard from September the 7th, 1904, as well. The experts declared that it necessarily must have been Lebius who had written it. But the above mentioned office was of the opinion that this was insufficient to start an investigation. And Lebius did his best in all of his statements to portray me as a person who deserved no credibility. The definite proof of his skillfulness in this he had given by reporting to the royal prosecutor's office in Dresden that the owner of the hotel on the Mount Sinai had been in Dresden and had been talking very badly about me. And yet, everyone knows that up to this day there has never been a hotel on the Mount Sinai! I guess, this sufficiently proves that the creativity of this Mr. Lebius stops at nothing. Twice, I filed a private lawsuit against him. One of them was retracted by me during the proceedings, merely because I was so disgusted with all the filth I had to deal with there. The other one got him a fine of 30 marks at the first instance; but he was acquitted in the appeal, because my lawyer had become ill and sent a replacement, who argued the case without being fully informed.
This is all I have done against the attacks of Mr. Lebius, which were just as numerous as they were incessant. This was surely little enough! That I answered to reporters whenever they came to ask me, goes without saying. It would be asking too much from me to demand that I should lie to these gentlemen out of fear of Mr. Lebius. Nevertheless, he still pretends up to this day that it was not me who is pursued and assaulted by him, but rather him by me.
Even after he had fled from Dresden, leaving behind a rather
sizeable amount of debts, his attacks against me did not stop.
Let me just mention the article in the Austrian teachers'
magazine, by which he stirred up about 40.000 teachers to join in
the campaign against me. I kept silent. I even kept silent, when
in Wilhelm Bruhn's magazine "Wahrheit"
I answered that I would not think of descending back into the old filth. My wife said to his wife in a calm and friendly manner that it was the most beautiful duty of married women to work towards reconciliation and to soften the harshness of life; then we left.
This was on September the 2nd or 3rd.One month later,on October the 1st, the following letter arrived from Berlin; I was away travelling:
"Dear Sir!
"Though you would not know me, I would like to take the liberty of asking you, whether you could give me any more detailed information on a certain Mr. Lebius, formerly a resident of Dresden. The above mentioned gentleman, a former social democrat, has filed a private suit for gross insult against me, in my capacity as the former editor in charge of the `Vorwärts'[a]. In court, I will have to demonstrate what a `honourable gentleman' Mr. Lebius is. On account of an advice by an colleague from Dresden, I am now turning to you with every confidence, that you might perhaps be able to give me any kind of information about this gentleman. If this should be the case, I am looking forward to your kind response, which would very much oblige me.
"Most sincerelyCarl Wermuth,Editor of the `Vorwärts'."
Carl Wermuth,Editor of the `Vorwärts'."
[a]"Vorwärts"
I repeat that I was travelling and was therefore unable to grant this wish, even if I had wanted to. On April the 5th, 1908, this was
a full half year later,
a full half year later,
I received another letter from the editor's office of the "Vorwärts":
"We regret that you have not spoken out yetregarding the accusations against you by Lebius, or respectively that you havenot supplied us with the necessary evidenceon the slanderous acts of Lebius in respect to you. As I have been told by my colleague Wermuth, your wife has informed us that you were currently travelling and that you wereunable to supply us with the desired material against Lebius.I am hoping that you have returned from your journey in the meantime und that you will now . . . ."
I guess, this sufficiently provesthat it is not me who is pursuing Mr. Lebius, but that he is pursuing me.Mr. Lebius pretends that I had approached him at that time on the anniversary of the battle of Sedan[a]to be able to assist the "Vorwärts". Hereby, I am proving that I did not know anything about this complaint for gross insult at this time yet, but rather that the "Vorwärts" only informed me about it one month later anddid not even receive an answerto this after another six months had passed! Thus, I had spared Mr. Lebius for a full six month, though it had been made so convenient and easy for me by the social democratic party to get my revenge against him.That I do not pursue him, but am, again and again, being forced by him to act in self defence,is, by the way, also proven by the fact that I have avoided up to this day to testify as a witness against him. The situation concerning this testimony in favour of the editor of the "Vorwärts" had been like this:
[a]September the 2nd.
Lebius had sued the "Vorwärts" for gross insult, and the "Vorwärts" had named me as a witness, of course without bothering to ask me first. Lebius was told by his conscience that he could probably not expect many kind words from this witness. Yes, the thought even occurred to him that I had already known about my role as a witness when we met at the Café Bauer. This enraged him. He sent his wife to my wife to Radebeul, to make threats against me. My wife wished this meeting to take place in my house; but Mrs. Lebius refused. The two women met at the restaurant of our railroad-station. There, Mrs. Lebius wanted to dictate to us, instructed by her husband, what and how I had to testify as a witness. In particular, I was supposed to declare in court that he had not written that threatening postcard of September the 7th in Dresden. If I did not do this, he would have to start the old fight against me anew. My wife rejected all of this most decisively, for were were now more convinced than ever that he was its author. Thus, his wife returned to Berlin, without having accomplished her mission.
Once Lebius had realized that this attempt had failed, he decided to render me unfit to testify under oath, and he planned to do so by means of a pamphlet, which had to be published soon enough before the appointed time when I was supposed to appear as a witness. But since this pamphlet, in order to be able to have its effect, had to be written in such a manner which absolutely inevitably had to be followed by a criminal prosecution of the author, which Lebius did not want to bring on himself, he looked around for a man to act as a front, who did not know him and Karl May yet and was sufficiently inexperienced, gullible, and in need of cash to get involved in this, for a few hundred marks, which would quite certainlylead to a prison sentencefor him,without even suspecting a thing.He found him in the shape of certain Mr. F.W. Kahl from Basel, pulled him into his web, and spun such a network of self-praise and lies around him, that this young, perfectly honest man almost considered it to be an honour to be allowed to put himself into the service of such an important, mentally, socially,and also in legal matters so very outstanding man.
Lebius, as he generally and always did, approached this matter, too, in an extraordinarily clever and cunning manner. In the beginning, he did not mention that it wassolelya pamphlet againstme. He let the young man believe that he was supposed to write ascientificwork on famous, or rather infamous, men. He gave him their names; my name was also among them. But when Kahl went to his work and received his instructions on a daily basis, these were to the effect that, one after another, all of these "famous and infamous" men disappeared, until Karl May was the only one left. And the "scientific" work was to turn into a pamphlet of the very lowest and most dangerous kind. Kahl realised this with every day more and more clearly. He started to suspect that, under the cover of perfect kindness, he was to be led to his doom. When he told Mr. Lebius straight out what he suspected, Lebius thought the best thing would be to confess the entire purpose of the pamphlet to him. He admitted to the following:
Lebius has sued the editor of the "Vorwärts" for gross insult.
The "Vorwärts" has named Karl May as a witness against Lebius.
Therefore, it is necessary for Lebius to destroy Karl May.
In order to achieve this, he will publish this pamphlet, he currently working on.
The appointed time for Karl May's testimony is in the beginning of April.
Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that the pamphlet will be ready for distribution by April the 1st.
If the pamphlet should only be ready by a later date, it would be useless; in this case, he would not have to bother writing it at all.
It will be sent to the newspapers, which will report about it. This shall influence the judges.
It will also be presented to the judges directly. As soon as this will happen, May will be ruined as a witness.
When the honest, young man heard this, his scruples became even greater than they had been before. When he said so and expressed his worries of being punished in court, Lebius suggested the following to him:
As authors, we are anyhow and always with one foot in prison.
To have been sentenced in court, is good advertising for us. I also have already been convicted many times.
You have no reason at all to be afraid of the courts. You have no prior convictions, you may testify under oath. But May may not testify under oath.
May is under police supervision. He has been forbidden to live in a city. Therefore, he lives in Radebeul.
I have a great talent for dealing with the courts. Once I start talking, the judges are all on my side!
When a person in a trial writes such a pamphlet, this makes an enormous impression on the judges!
Mrs. May has begged me with tears in her eyes to have mercy on her husband.
May has to be destroyed by this pamphlet. All the rest is unessential,only there to conceal the true purpose!
The consequence of these and similarly peculiar verbal expectorations was that Kahl decided, to distance himself from this matter. He prohibited Lebius to print anything he had written or even to abuse his name for this pamphlet. He directed the very same ban also against the publisher. He thought that by such means he had ascended quite definitely back out of this morass. But he did not know Lebius and his audacity yet. The pamphlet was published, and even precisely on April the 1st. Its title was:
Karl May,one who corrupts the German youthbyF.W. Kahl -- Basel.
Karl May,one who corrupts the German youthbyF.W. Kahl -- Basel.
Kahl only found out from a Swiss newspaper that the pamphlet
had nevertheless been published, and even under his name. He
instantly took the appropriate steps. The appointed hearing, when
I was to be questioned as a witness, which Lebius had been so
afraid of, had not taken place. Whether he had nevertheless
presented the pamphlet to the judges or not, I do not know. But
he has, without delay, sent them to the newspapers, and even with
summaries and commentaries etc., the slanderous nature of which
you can get an idea of by just reading the following lines, which
he has sent to the "Neue Züricher Zeitung"
"Mr. May has waged his revenge against me by undermining my financial position by means of slander and driving my into bankruptcy. As soon as I had established myself in another town, he again appeared on the scene, the repeat the same manoeuvre. In doing so, before striking another blow against me, he loves to visit me at my apartment and to beg, with tears in his eyes, for peace."
This is not the place for me to talk about the contents of this pamphlet. It goes entirely without saying that my prior convictions had been listed, and even more than these. He distributed this all over the place, to "destroy" me according to the Münchmeyers' method. I obtained an injunction against it. It was no longer allowed to be printed and to be distributed. And I filed a private complaint for gross insult against him. This complaint could not be trailed in court, because my lawyer had lost all of my evidence, and these were far more than a hundred items. They were only found again with him, after it had already been too late. So, I was forced to agree with the suggestions for a settlement, which the presiding judge had made. Lebius took back all of his accusations against me, the material as well as the formal ones, stated that he regretted his attacks against me, and promised to leave me alone from now on. He did so with his signature. It was impossible for me not to believe in such a promise, given in court. And yet, it was a betrayal and an unconscientious act beyond comparison of his, to make this promise to me, for he could only make itwith the intention of breaking it.This was because he had contacted with my ex-wife. She felt, as all ex-wives do most of the time, unreasonably resentful against her ex-husband; he was planning on using this for his purposes. He came to see her in Weimar, where she lived. There, she lived calmly and contently of her alimony of 3000 marks, which I payed her, though I did not have to give her anything, because she had been the only guilty party. I had also amply supplied her with all conceivable things. Then, this man came to her and got all the bitterness, she had worked herself into, out of her, to fabricate out of this, supplemented with his own additions and distortions, a rope to hang me with. He promised her just as sacredly and solemnly as he once promise it to me, that nothing, nothing at all would be published, but straight away, he went to write for the edition of his "Bund" from March the 28th, 1909, an article under the headline: "A spiritistic writing medium as the main witness of the editors of the `Vorwärts'". With this alleged writing medium he was referring to my current wife.
It is a perfectly unbelievable filth, which is there being hurled against me and my current wife, and even by cunningly using and adapting the embittering agents, which exist in the emotional state of ex-wives. When the poor, unfortunate woman read this, she was shocked. So he did not keep silent! He had not kept his word! She instantly rushed to him to Berlin, to make him answer for himself. Once she was there, he had her stay. He turned her over to his brother-in-law Heinrich Medem, a former lawyer and notary, who, together with him, became her counsel. At first, they both persuaded her to give up her 3000 marks of alimony, and then forced her to pawn her valuables, for this would "give a better impression to others". This rather means that other people were supposed to think that I was the one who had plunged this woman into such poverty and such misery! Lebius has literally admitted this in his letter to the concert-singer Mrs. vom Scheidt, which is the object of the current private lawsuit, and the presiding judge at the first instance has praised him by saying in public: "That's very noble of you!"
Lebius had promised this woman, now that she had lost all of her income and was facing a desolate future, to pay her 100 marks a month for the rest of her life, Lebius with whom even attempts to repossess his belongings for debts of two or three marks had been futile! At first, she believed him; but he knew just too well that this promise was not legally binding. It was all nothing but a bombastic show! She borrowed 500 marks from acquaintances, to be able to live. But he gave her, little by little, only 200 marks, but by no means as a gift, only borrowed, for when he realised that she was distancing herself from him and sought to be closer to me again, he threatened her to sue her for the payment of 300 marks on account of these 200 marks.
And what did she get out of rejecting all of her income, throwing herself into filthy misery and worry, abandoning her nice, well-arranged conditions, even selling or pawning her jewelry? Nothing, nothing at all asides from becoming the tool for the revenge of Mr. Lebius, being trained like an animal by him to think, speak, and write about me precisely as he pleased, and being in every respect entirely at the mercy of him and Medem, his brother-in-law. For when I was forced, due to the article in the "Bund" mentioned above, to sue my ex-wife, Lebius and Medem designed her written statements so that only Lebius benefited from them for his attacks against me, and she had to sign things in the process the purpose and implications of which she did not even suspect! There had been times, when, in tears, she refused to sign such a statement. But she was nevertheless forced to do it! Until finally, she came around to the realisation that things could impossibly go on in this direction and in this manner, if she would not want to be completely ruined! She turned to me and asked for forgiveness. I took pity on the poor, manipulated woman. I retracted the criminal charges and the complaint for gross insult against her. And now, I found out in what a cunning manner she had been lured by Lebius out of her safe, calm position over to him, to be economically destroyed and morally exploited, or rather to be used against me with the aim of mutual ruin. He said his letter, which is the object of this current lawsuit:
"Being advised to do so by my lawyer, I have indeed demanded, in regard to my settlement of the lawsuit with May, that Mrs. Emma should first pawn a part of her jewelry, for this gives a better impression to others."
So, because I have settled my lawsuit with him, because he has apologised in court to me for his insults, and because he had promised in court to leave me alone from now on and forever, so therefore,"in regard to this",my wife now had to pawn her valuables, so thatIwould be referred to as the scoundrel, by whom she had been driven into such a wretched existence! What is the word for such a behaviour? And after he had, in such a manner, caused her to lose all of her former income and her jewelry, he writes in this letter of his: "I have also instructed my syndic, Privy Councillor Mr. Ueberhorst, to prepare steps for meto get my money back!" Could there be any expression by means of which the train of Lebius's thoughts and the manner of his actions would be comprehensively characterised?
This poor woman, who has, in alost every respect, been completely stripped of all she had by Lebius, was by no means the first or only devorcée, he got into his power to achieve his purposes. It is rather a very particular tactical habit of his, to pit ex-wives against their husbands. The most striking example of this is the case of Max Dittrich. Mentioning it here only briefly, I am asking you to payparticular attentionto it, because it isof the utmost importancefor the evaluation of Mr. Lebius.
As you already know, when this gentleman visited me, I had invited the editor and military author Max Dittrich to join me as a witness, since I was suspicious and cautious, to be protected against possible upcoming lies and swindles on Mr. Lebius's part by a fully credible witness. Mr. Dittrich had been present that day, from the beginning to the end, and had heard every word I had said. To have such a witness, became, as time moved on, more and more embarrassing and dangerous for Mr. Lebius. He therefore decidedto render him unfit of taking the oath,the very same thing he has also done to meand is still doing today.This is, as will be demonstrated later,a personal trickof his, which regardsas infallible-- -- -- rendering a person unfit to testify!
In this, he adheres to the principle he elaborated to us at his visit: Every person, every policeman and judge, every official has a skeleton in his closet, is guilty of something he has to keep secret. This has to bediscoveredandput into the newspaper;this is the way to achieve domination and to be known as someone who has the energy it takes to be a"real man".Lebius did so here as well. The first wife of Max Dittrich had died; he had divorced his second wife; now his nervous system had become severely ill due to a ship-wreck, in which he just barely escaped death, sustaining dangerous injuries. This presented itself as highly interesting material, which simply had to yield something! So, Mr. Lebius ventured forth to look for the "skeleton in the closet", the "secret" guilt and sin. He searched everywhere, by means of letters, conversations, personal visits. Wherever he thought he could find out something, he came to call. He did not even have the decency to except Dittrich's relatives. Sneakily, he obtained access to Dittrich's old sister-in-law, Dittrich's nephews and nieces, and even Dittrich's second wife, who had remarried and led a happy, quiet marital life. He drew everything out of them, without them even suspecting why and what for. They answered trustingly and without reservations. But when he suddenly, giving them quite a shock with it, dropped the words "court" and "oath", they felt the clutches they had fallen into. They were unable to say anything bad and asked him to leave them out of it. He promised it to them. Dittrich's second wife felt especially uneasy about the prospect of being dragged into the filth of Lebius. Her present husband was a kind and good gentleman, but unrelenting in regard to the very strict ideas he had in respect to his "honour". For his wife to be on Lebius's side insuchan affair, would necessarily have brought on the most severe consequences for him and her! So, she asked Lebius not to involve her in this under any circumstances, and did not shy away from giving her his most sacred promise. But then he went about his business as fast as he could and published in number 12 of his "Sachsenstimme" a report, of which I am only going to quote a few points, which are not even the worst:
"Max Dittrich had no children from his first wife, but two from his stepdaughter, before she was even 16 years old."
"The grief over her husband's immorality was what killed his wife."
"Though his second wife was very tolerant, Dittrich finally went to such extremes, that a divorce became inevitable."
"For several years, he had an affair with his wife's niece, who was 16 years old and lived in the same house."
"Then, he started an affair with a young girl."
"His wife had him watched by an detective agency."
"During the divorce proceedings, Dittrich lived with his lover and also had his daughter with him."
"Now, he is partially an invalid due to a severe, syphilitic neurological disease" etc.
You can imagine how shocked his relatives had been, once they had read this and were summoned as witnesses to appear in court, because, most naturally, Max Dittrich had sued Mr. Lebius! The niece had to questioned at home; she was ill and confined to her bed. Dittrich's ex-wife, in her mental anguish, went to see the judge and told him honestly that this disgusting matter would be absolute murder against the happiness of her present marriage, having hardly any chance to survive this. This outstanding gentleman did not have solely the law in his mind, but in addition also a human heart in his chest and dealt with the interrogation in an accordingly humane manner.
Even if we were to suppose that all of the items listed by Lebius were based on facts, every more or less educated and not entirely brutish person would surely have to ask himself, whether the publication of such things waspermissableaccording to thelawor themoral codex of the press.I am convinced that everyone, except for Lebius, will answer "No!" to this question. Though this would, at any rate, suffice to characterise this gentleman, it is not by a long shot all of it, for if someone would take the time to look through the files of Dittrich versus Lebius, he would, in the end of these, see yet another light being shed on Mr. Lebius. This is because there he confesses that his slander against Max Dittrich
had not been true,
had not been true,
and declares that he was willing to pay the costs of the trial! I believe, this is all one has to know to be now fully acquainted with this gentleman.
Whether someone jumps out from behind a bush and murders another person, or whether he bumps off people from the columns of an uncivilised newspaper as often as he pleases, the legislation of the future will surely have to regard and to treat this so very differently than nowadays. And yet, there are, thank God, already in this time some authorities of a high mind and of mankind's ethos, who regard the killing of a humansoulas at least just as punishable as the murder of a humanbody.
On March the 27th, 1905, Lebius had hurled the accusations listed above in his "Sachsenstimme" against Max Dittrich, and on the following November the 18th, he declared to the second criminal division of the Royal Superior Court of Dresden, as it has been recorded:
"I declare that I hereby retract the insulting statements, which I have made against the plaintiff in the issue of the `Sachsenstimme' from March the 27th, 1905,