**Source: PSS vol. 19**

The Duma debates on the interpellation by the Social-Democrats and Trudoviks concerning the violation by the tsarist government of Article 96 of the Fundamental Laws have not yet concluded. But they have already so clearly outlined the state of affairs, the newspapers have already shouted so much about the notorious Stolypin "declaration of March 31"{98}, that it will be quite fitting to pause on this instructive episode in the history of the June Third regime.

Our Duma fraction was entirely correct in presenting an interpellation to the government concerning its violation of Article 96 of the Fundamental Laws, and in acting insofar as it were "in defense of" legality, "in defense of law," "in defense of June Third legality," and so forth and so on. We say "insofar as," because the S.D.s were undoubtedly undertaking here a complex task, one that requires skill to undertake properly; – they were deploying a weapon, undoubtedly double-edged, capable of wounding its bearer with the slightest error or even clumsiness in its use, – speaking without metaphor: capable of imperceptibly diverting the S.D.s from the position of class struggle to the position of liberalism.

The Social-Democrats would have committed such an error if they had simply spoken of their "defense" of the Fundamental Laws without clarifying the special character of this "defense." The Social-Democrats would have committed an even greater error if they had transformed the defense of the Fundamental Laws or legality in general into a sort of slogan like "struggle for legality" – that would have been Cadet-like.

Fortunately, our Duma comrades did neither one nor the other. The first speaker on the interpellation, Gegechkori, specifically began with an exposition of the special character of the Social-Democratic stance in favor of the Fundamental Laws. Gegechkori began most adroitly with Count Bobrinsk's denunciation, who at the congress of the united nobility shrieked, with more than transparent hints at the Social-Democrats, about the necessity of "removing these troublemakers from the bosom of the State Duma"{99}. "I declare," replied Gegechkori, "that, despite the denunciation, despite violence and threats, the faction that sits within these walls will not retreat one iota from the tasks and aims it has set itself – the defense of the interests of the working class."

Bobrinsk was inviting the government to expel from the Duma those who systematically agitate against June Third legality. Gegechkori began by declaring that neither violence nor threats will force the S.D.s to retreat from their activity.

Gegechkori specifically emphasized: "We, of course, are less concerned than anyone else with the maintenance of the authority, if such exists, of the Third State Duma"… "precisely we, principled opponents of the existing political order, have protested every time that reaction sought to curtail the rights of popular representation to its advantage"… "when open attacks are being made on the Fundamental Laws, then we, principled opponents of the Fundamental Laws, are compelled to take them under our protection." And in concluding his speech, Gegechkori, separating himself from the fetishists of legality, said: "… If we present this interpellation, if we venture into excursions or into the realm of juridical interpretations, it is only in order once more to expose the hypocrisy of the government…" (p. 1988 of the stenographic report).

Gegechkori expressed consistently democratic, republican views of the socialists, saying: "our laws will only then correspond to the interests and needs of the mass of the population when they are dictated by the immediate will of the people," and the "noise from the right," noted at this point in the stenographic report, particularly emphasized that the arrow had hit its mark.

And another S.D. speaker, Comrade Pokrovsk, spoke even more clearly and definitely in his speech, speaking of the political significance of the interpellation: "Let them (the Octobrists), then, do this directly and openly, let them candidly adopt the slogan of the Right: 'down with the rights of popular representation, long live the ministerial anteroom.' There is no doubt that the majority is working toward creating in Russia such a moment when constitutional illusions completely perish, only black reality remains, from which the Russian people will draw the appropriate conclusions" (I quote from the report in *Rech'* of April 1).

This very placement of the whole question on the ground of exposing the hypocrisy of the government and the Octobrists, on the ground of destroying constitutional illusions – this is the only correct Social-Democratic approach to the interpellation concerning the violation of Article 96 of the Fundamental Laws, an interpellation submitted to the Third Duma. In our party's agitation, at workers' meetings, in circles and groups, and finally in private conversations with workers unaffiliated with any organization concerning the Duma incidents, it is necessary to put precisely this aspect of the matter in the forefront, it is necessary to explain the role of the workers' party, exposing the bourgeois-Black-Hundred deception right within the bourgeois-Black-Hundred Duma itself. Insofar as in such a Duma there could not be complete clarity in the presentation of the question and complete agreement from the perspective of a revolutionary Social-Democrat, insofar is our task to supplement what our comrades have said from the rostrum of the Tauride Palace and to popularize in the masses, to make their appearances comprehensible and close to the masses.

What is the essence of the history of the violation of Article 96? This article is found in Chapter 9 "on laws" and defines the cases of exemption from the general order, the cases in which regulations and ordinances of the military and naval departments are presented directly to the tsar, not through the State Duma and the State Council. New expenditures require appropriations (authorizations) by resolution of the State Duma – to this the article amounts.

A year ago the staffs of the naval general staff were being discussed in the State Duma. Heated disputes arose as to whether the establishment of these staffs fell under the jurisdiction of the Duma or not. The Right (the Black Hundred) asserted that it did not, that the Duma had no right to interfere here, that it did not dare to encroach upon the rights of the "supreme leader" of the army, that is, the tsar, who alone, without any Duma, had the right to approve the military and naval staffs.

The Octobrists, Cadets, and Left asserted that this was the right of the Duma. The question thus stood on whether the Black Hundred, with Nicholas II at their head, wished to interpret restrictively the rights of the Duma, wished to curtail rights that were already incredibly curtailed. The Black-Hundred landowners, and at their head the richest and most Black-Hundred landowner, Nicholas Romanov, made out of a particular, petty question a matter of principle, a question of the tsar's rights, a question of the rights of autocracy, accusing the bourgeoisie (and even Octobrist bourgeoisie) of attempting to curtail the tsar's rights, to limit his power, to "separate the leader of the army from the army," and so forth.

Whether to interpret the tsar's power in the sense of completely unlimited autocracy, in the old way entirely, or at least in the sense of the most modest limitation of tsarist power – to this the disputes boiled down. And these disputes became heated a year ago almost to the scale of a "political crisis," that is, to threats to expel Stolypin, whom the Black-Hundredists accused of "constitutionalism," to threats to dissolve the Duma of Octobrists, whom the Black Hundred called "Young Turks"{100}.

And the State Duma and the State Council approved the staffs of the naval general staff, that is, recognized this question as falling under their jurisdiction. Everyone awaited whether Nicholas II would approve the decision of the Duma and the State Council. On April 27, 1909, Nicholas II issued a rescript to Stolypin, refusing to approve the staffs and charging the ministers with elaborating "rules" on the application of Article 96.

In other words: the tsar once again openly and decisively took the side of the Black Hundred and came out against the smallest attempts at limiting his power. The charge to the ministers to draw up new rules was a blatant order to violate the law, to interpret it so that it would turn out to be annihilated, to "clarify" it in the sense of the notorious Russian senatorial "clarifications." Of course, it was said that the rules should remain "within the bounds of the Fundamental Laws," but these words were the most outrageous hypocrisy. The ministers elaborated such "rules," – and Tsar Nicholas II approved them (they are called the rules of August 24, 1909, by the time of their approval), – that the law turned out to be circumvented! By the interpretation of the "rules" approved without any Duma, Article 96 of the Fundamental Laws turned out to be nullified! The military and naval staffs turned out to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Duma by these "rules."

There resulted a splendid picture of all the phantasmal nature of Russian "constitutionalism," all the audacity of the Black Hundred, all the tsar's proximity to the Black Hundred, all the mockery of autocracy toward the Fundamental Laws. Of course, the coup d'état of June 3, 1907 had already provided a hundred times more striking, more complete, more accessible and open picture for the broad popular masses on this theme. Of course, if our S.D.s in the Duma were unable to submit an interpellation concerning the violation of the Fundamental Laws by the act of June 3 – were unable to do so only because the bourgeois democrats and the Trudoviks, including them, did not provide a sufficient number of signatures to gather the required thirty names for the interpellation – then this demonstrates all the narrowness of the boundaries of specifically Duma forms of propaganda and agitation. But the impossibility of submitting an interpellation on the act of June 3 did not prevent the Social-Democrats from constantly characterizing this act in their speeches as a coup d'état. And, of course, they could not and should not have refused to expose how autocracy mocks the Fundamental Laws and the rights of popular representation, even on a comparatively minor pretext.

The comparative unimportance, pettiness, insignificance of such a question as that of the staffs of the naval general staff, on the other hand particularly sharply emphasized all the sensitivity of our counter-revolution – emphasized its fear for the army. The Octobrist rapporteur in the Duma, Mr. Shubinsk, in his second speech of March 26, turned most definitively toward the Black-Hundredists, revealing that it was precisely the fear for the army that provoked this extreme sensitivity of the counter-revolution to the question of whether the smallest interference of representative institutions in the approval of military and naval staffs was permissible. "… The name of the supreme leader of the Russian army is indeed a great name…" – exclaimed the bourgeois lackey of Nicholas the Bloody. "… Whatever assertions you (deputies of the State Duma) may make here, whatever words you may say about someone wanting to take away someone's rights, you will not take the army away from its supreme leader."

And Stolypin in his "declaration" of March 31, having endeavored to confuse his answer with completely empty, saying-nothing and plainly false speeches about "pacification" and the supposed weakening of repressions, – nonetheless stood quite definitely on the side of the Black-Hundredists against the rights of the Duma. If the Octobrists turned out to agree with Stolypin, that is nothing new. But if *Rech'* of Messrs. Milyukov and Co. called Stolypin's answer "rather conciliatory with respect to the rights of the State Duma" (No. 89 of April 1 – editorial article following the leading article), – then we have merely a further example of how low the Cadet party has fallen. "The history of recent years demonstrates," said Stolypin, "that our army could not be corroded by the rust of revolution…". Could not be corroded – this is actually false, because the well-known events of soldiers' and sailors' uprisings of 1905–1906, the well-known statements of the reactionary press of that time, testify that revolution did corrode and consequently could have corroded the army. Did not corrode it completely – that is true. But if in the midst of the counter-revolution of 1910, several years after the last "disturbance" in the troops, Stolypin says (in that same declaration) that he was seized by "an anxious thought upon hearing the speeches of several preceding orators," that this "anxious thought" consists in the "bad impression of some sort of discord of various factors in the structure of the state regarding our armed forces," then this completely exposes Stolypin and all the Black-Hundred gang of Nicholas II's court together with him! This proves that the tsar's gang continues not only to fear, continues directly to tremble for the army. This proves that the counter-revolution continues firmly to stand on the point of view of civil war, on the point of view of the direct and urgent necessity for the means of military suppression of popular uprising. Ponder the following phrase of Stolypin's:

"History… teaches that the army falls into disarray when it ceases to be united in obedience to one sacred will. Introduce into this principle the poison of doubt, instill in it even fragments of thought that its organization depends on a collective will, and its might will cease to rest on an invariable force – on supreme power." And in another place: "I know that many wished… to stir up disputes, ruinous for our army, concerning rights" (namely: the rights of the State Duma, the rights of "collective will").

As murderers conjure up the phantoms of their victims, so the heroes of counter-revolution are reminded of the "ruinous" influence on the army of "collective will." To Stolypin, as a faithful servant of the Black Hundred, "Young Turks" loom in the Octobrists, leading to "disarray in the army" through subjecting it to collective will, through permitting "fragments of thought" about such subjection!

The executioners and murderers of the June Third monarchy are raving in broad daylight, they have reached utter dementia, if Young Turks appear to them in the Octobrists. But these delirious ideas, this dementia – a political illness, bred by the sense of the precariousness of their position, the sense of acute fear for the army. Were these gentlemen Stolypin, Romanov and Co. in any way capable of approaching with even a modicum of coolness the question of the relation of "collective will" to the army, they would immediately see that the tsar's silent approval of the decisions of the Duma and the State Council on the naval staffs would have passed for the army ten times less noticeably than the Duma debates on the question of the Duma's rights, on the question of possible "disarray in the army." But precisely this is characteristic of our counter-revolution – that it exposes itself through its fears, that it is likewise incapable of calmly approaching the question of disarray in the army, as a murderer cannot calmly hear of the participants and circumstances of the murder.

The Black-Hundredists themselves gave a principled exposition of the comparatively petty and unimportant question of naval staffs, Nicholas II gave it, Mr. Stolypin gave it, and it remains for us only to express satisfaction at their clumsiness caused by their fears. It remains for us only to compare the excellent words of Comrade Pokrovsk on the demise of "constitutional illusions," on the necessity for the people themselves to draw conclusions from the undeniable "black reality," with the excellent in their frankness reasoning of the *Moskovskiya Vedomosti* on the "declaration of March 31."

In the leading article of April 3 this newspaper writes:

"…This very matter, as we have already clarified in the past year, is very simple. The State Emperor did not approve the matter of the staffs conducted in legislative order and established them by an order of supreme administration, to which even the existing law (not to mention the question of the natural rights of supreme power) gives clear authority…".

There. There. The "natural right" of Russian monarchy – to violate the Fundamental Laws. Therein lies the whole point.

"…The Duma opposition, however, had the audacity to submit an interpellation on this occasion, which concerns the actions of supreme power…".

Precisely! The *Moskovskiya Vedomosti* correctly completes what the S.D.s could not complete in the Duma. The interpellation amounted precisely to a recognition of the actions of the tsar (and the minister Stolypin submitting to him) as a violation of the Fundamental Laws.

Furthermore, the *Moskovskiya Vedomosti* attacks the "revolutionary opposition" and "revolutionary press" for the theory of the conquest of popular rights through revolution and refutes that there could be any sort of "promises" in the "declaration of March 31."

"…The very talk of 'promises' is ridiculous and constitutes an expression of the degree to which revolutionary delusions cloud minds even among persons not officially reckoned to the revolutionary camp. What sort of 'promises' can a cabinet give?… The cabinet will fulfill its lawful duties, loyal to the guidance of supreme power… And one can only wish that this declaration be understood more deeply by the Duma in all its sense, and thereby help to cure the gentlemen deputies of a deep-rooted infection of revolutionary 'directives'."

Precisely so: to understand the declaration (and the position of the government) more deeply and to cure oneself by means of it of constitutional illusions – therein precisely consists the political lesson of the Social-Democratic interpellation concerning the violation of Article 96.

*Sotsial-Demokrat* No. 13, April 26 (May 9), 1910

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Sotsial-Demokrat*