1

I shall answer briefly to both objections{119}. Comrade Martov says that I propose unanimous agreement of both collegiums on the cooptation of members; this is incorrect. The Congress decided not to grant a veto right to each of the members of the two, perhaps quite extensive collegiums, but this does not mean that we cannot grant this power to the institution that coordinates all the activity of the joint work of the two centers. The joint work of the two centers requires complete unanimity and even personal union, and this is possible only through unanimous cooptation. After all, if two members find that cooptation is necessary, then they can convene the Council.

2

Martov's amendment contradicts the already-adopted point concerning unanimous cooptation in the Central Committee and Central Organization{120}.

3

Comrade Martov's interpretation is incorrect, because an exception contradicts unanimity{121}. I appeal to the Congress and ask it to decide: should Comrade Martov's amendment be put to a vote.

4

On the merits, I would not dispute with Comrades Glebov and Deich, but I considered it necessary to mention the League in the statute, first, because everyone knew of the League's existence, second, in order to note the League's representation in the party according to the old statutes, third, because all other organizations are in the position of committees, while the League is being introduced in order to emphasize its special position{122}.