Books: My Life and My Efforts

K >> Karl May >> My Life and My Efforts

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

| KARL MAY, |
| one who corrupts the German youth |
by
| F.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 Zuericher Zeitung" Zuerich>:

"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 Muenchmeyers' 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 it _with_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 `Vorwaerts'". 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 that _I_ would 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
me _to_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 devorcee, 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 pay _particular_attention_ to it, because it is _of_
_the_utmost_importance_ for 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
decided _to_render_him_unfit_of_taking_the_oath,_ the very same
thing he has also done to me _and_is_still_doing_today._ This is,
as will be demonstrated later, _a_personal_trick_ of his, which
regards _as_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 be _discovered_ and _put_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 in _such_ an 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 was _permissable_ according to the
_law_ or the _moral_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,_
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 human _soul_ as at least just
as punishable as the murder of a human _body._

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, |
| ! ! ! as untrue ! ! ! |
| and that I am expressing my regret concerning the statements |
| made in the `Sachsenstimme' and that I am therefore |
| ! ! ! asking the plaintiff for his forgiveness ! ! !" |

Then, when a few years later, Lebius started an argument and
lawsuits with the "Vorwaerts" in Berlin, they listed the military
author Dittrich as a witness against him. Instantly, Lebius
resorted to his well-known trick, to eliminate witnesses by means
of the press. He once again published precisely the same things
he had, at that other time, published about Dittrich and than
retracted before the Superior Court of Dresden
| ! ! ! as untrue, ! ! ! |
begging for forgiveness. Dittrich was therefore forced to sue him
again and to point out this retraction and plea for forgiveness.
What did Lebius do? He declared in his written statement to the
Royal Inferior Court of Charlottenburg from December the 24th,
1909, that, at that time, he had only made this apology and this
confession of the untruthfulness of his statements
| "for reasons of an economic nature". |
His conditions had been thus tight at this time that he could not
afford to travel to Dresden to attend the trial. Thus, he
personally is the one who is drawing the following moral portrait
of himself:

| In 1905, Lebius defames the military author Dittrich in his |
| paper, published in Dresden. |

| In 1905, Lebius declares to the Superior Court of Dresden |
| that these defamations were all lies and asks for |
| forgiveness. |

| In 1909, Lebius publishes in his Berliner paper these |
| defamations, he had described as lies, once again, as if they |
| were the truth. |

| In 1909, Lebius declares in his written statement to the |
| Inferior Court of Charlottenburg that he had previously lied |
| to the Superior Court of Dresden. |

And why this tangle of lies in court! And how is it possible for
a human being, who would have to possess some sense of honour and
shame, to declare himself in court as a liar and then to describe
this declaration also as a lie? He himself has given us the
answer to this question: He was in a tight situation;
| ! ! ! he had no money ! ! ! |

So, when Lebius has no money, this is a perfectly sufficient
reason for him _to_lie_to_judges_and_court_authorities_and_to_
_present_his_character_in_such_a_way_that_no_cautious_person_
_could_ever_believe_anything_he_says_again!_

I could continue for hours to talk about Lebius in this manner.
But for the purposes I want to achieve today, what I have said up
to here will suffice. I had made notes of the lies, Lebius had
spread about me, not all of them, but only the most striking ones.
By now, there are _more_than_five_hundred,_ I can prove him guilty
of in court. In the last three weeks alone, he has served me with
four plaints for gross insult, though I had nothing whatsoever to
do with these insults. This is what is commonly called an
execution! And in all this, he always insists, as I have already
mentioned, most expressly that I am the one pursuing him, not him
pursuing me. In response to his many, terrible articles from the
years 1904 and 1905, I have only sought assistance once from the
public prosecutor's office and twice from the courts. After this,
I have kept silent to all of his further attacks, until he forced
me by means of the alleged Kahl-pamphlet, to defend myself,
because I _was_to_be_"destroyed_in_the_eyes_of_the_judges"._ And
even in this case, I have forgiven him, settled the matter with
him, retracted my complaint in return for his promise to leave me
alone from then on, though the judge in charge said, that Lebius
would have to face _a_severe_punishment_ if it got to trial. See
the court files 20 B. 254 08/34, signed Schenk, Nauwerk. I bore
it, when Lebius, in spite of his promise in court to leave me
alone from then on, manipulated my ex-wife against me, exploiting
her, depriving her of her income and her jewelry, _and_almost_
_reduced_her_to_beggary._ She had been lured by him into taking
steps in courts against me, which almost have to be described as
insane. And in doing so, he had the guts to pretend in the first
instance of the current trial for gross insult,
| "that he had represented her interests and could therefore |
| claim protection according to article 193 [a]!" |

[a] I do not know how this law might have changed in the last 90
years. In its current version, article 193 of the German
penal code states that certain insulting statements are only
punishable, if the insult consists in the form, not the
contents of the statement. Among others, these kinds of
statements are those made to defend a right or to protect a
valid interest.

Never before, a greater lie has been uttered than this one! By
manipulating Mrs. Pollmer, Lebius has only pursued his own private
interests concerning the lawsuits, _while_the_interests_of_this_
_poor_woman_were_callously_trampled_upon_by_him._ It is an outrage
that, to top it all off, he even demands the protection of article
193 for this!

The newspapers have repeatedly described him as a person "to whom
the lives of others mean nothing in the pursuit of his goals". My
ex-wife had even used another, extremely bad word instead of
"person", without him daring to hold her responsible for this in
court. Whether this accusation is true, or whether it is an
exaggeration, I could prove with many examples; but I only want
to give this one: After the trial in Charlottenburg on April the
12th of this year, which had been completely misrepresented in the
newspapers' reports, the "Boston American" in Boston,
Massachusetts, published the following note, which had been sent
to them from Berlin:

"Author of pious books, a bandit. Berlin - - - Mr. Charles May,
the millionaire, philanthropist, author of pious books, and an
outstanding personality of Germany, has today been branded by a
jury as the perpetrator of many, serious crimes, committed in the
mountainous area of southern Saxony, where, 40 years ago, he led a
gang of robbers. _May_collapsed_and_was_placed_under_the_
_protection_of_his_friends,_to_prevent_him_from_committing_
_suicide_ etc." To make up such monstrous distortions of the
truth, in order to "destroy" me, this does surely constitute a
disrespect for the lives of others, or does it not? But let this
be enough on this Mr. Lebius. The place for all the rest is the
court, but not here. To let my readers see things clearly, there
is only one more fact to be stated: Muenchmeyer's lawyer Dr.
Gerlach is his lawyer as well, and both are giving each other help
and assistance to the largest possible extent. There are two more
extremely interesting champions for Muenchmeyer's cause I have to
mention, who, though in respect to their intelligence, neither of
them comes close to Gerlach or Lebius, nevertheless leave a
striking impression as god-fearing, Catholic monks in the company
of those pursuing the interests of the colportage, who are
Protestants or have even seceded from the church.

One of them is the Benedictine Father Ansgar Poellmann in Beuron.
I had been facing a Benedictine Father in court once before. His
name was Willibrord Bessler and called himself a professor. He
had published a serious insult against me in the "Stern der
Jugend" . I found out that he had his domicile
in the Benedictine abbey of Seckau in Styria; so, I travelled
there and had him summoned to the district court of Leoben.
There, it turned out that he did have the right to bear the title
of a professor at all. He gave me the following written apology:

"Responding to a request to give a more detailed definition of the
terms `professor' and `author for the youth', attributed to me in
various writings, I hereby state that I am a teacher at the
private secondary school of the abbey of Seckau and that I am a
correspondent for the youth-magazine `Stern der Jugend'.
Furthermore, I truthfully declare that I regret the article
contained in the above mentioned magazine (1903 No. 25) on the
medical conditions of the author Karl May and that I formally take
back those words he objected to in court.

"Seckau, October the 20th, 1904.
Father Willibrord Bessler
O.S.B." [a]

[a] OSB = Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (of the order of Saint
Benedict). The original book incorrectly reads "O.S.P.".

And now there was once again a Benedictine Father, I had to sue in
court! The name of the abbot seems to be Ildefons Schober in both
cases. Might it be the same person? Not in Seckau and not in
Beuron, but elsewhere, Benedictines have printed lots of illegal
copies of my "traveller's tales" without my knowledge, until I
forbade them to do so. I do not know how it is possible for an
religious order to print and distribute my works without any
permission, and still to insult and persecute me in such a public
manner, or rather to put me and these very same works under the
ban! In vain, I am making every effort to find a logical
connection between these two. After all, it goes entirely without
saying that I could not possibly have allowed this printing to go
on! By the way, this Father from Beuron is the very same who
wants to "put a figurative noose around my neck, to whip me out of
the temple of German art with it". So, first they print copies of
my books without asking me, and then they drive me out with their
whips! This is how Father Poellmann characterises his own order,
which has truly done more than enough for the benefit of our
literature, so that it should not be given such a reputation by
one of its members!

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23