1 The present letter from L. Krasin was received abroad no earlier than 
the end of June. Therefore, one may suppose that it was written and sent
AROUND THE MIDDLE OF JUNE (O.S.).
230.
В. И. LENIN ON BEHALF OF THE FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE 
OF THE CC — PARIS SECTION 
OF THE FOREIGN LEAGUE.1
To the Paris Section.
End of June — beginning of July 1904. Geneva.

Since the Bundist in question, about whom the section writes, did not 
appeal to the C.C. (which he would have had every right to do, according 
to the &... rules of our Party), the C.C. does not deem it necessary to 
conduct an investigation into the matter, which is probably based on a 
simple misunderstanding.

1 After V. Noskov's departure from Geneva, the Foreign Section of the CC 
received at the end of June — beginning of July — the following letter from 
F. Dan: "By order of the Paris section of the Foreign League of the R.S.D.L.P., 
I inform you that the section unanimously resolved to appeal through the 
administration of the League to the C.C. with a proposal to investigate the 
matter concerning a Bundist who describes in the latest issue of "Poslednie 
Izvestiia" the reception given to him by a representative of the Irkutsk 
Committee of the Party. The section also requests that you inform it of the 
result of this investigation." Dan's letter was forwarded to Lenin, who at that 
time was also away from Geneva. Lenin drafted the reply to Dan's letter printed 
here. In sending both back to the CC's foreign agents in Geneva, N. Krupskaya, 
undoubtedly in accordance with Lenin's wishes, wrote: "Wait with the reply 
until Boris arrives."

The case with the Bundist in question, which is discussed in Dan's letter 
and in Lenin's draft reply to it, consisted in the fact that the Irkutsk Committee 
of the RSDLP refused assistance to a Bundist who had fled from Siberia. The 
actual circumstances of the Irkutsk Committee's refusal to assist the fleeing 
Bundist are set out in detail in a letter from V. Gutovskiy, signed "— len, 
former member of the Irkutsk Committee," to the editorial office of "Iskra" 
No. 70 of (August 7) July 25.

In No. 68 of "Iskra" of (July 8) June 29, in the "From the Party" section, 
a note "Can This Be?" was published on this occasion. At the beginning of 
this note, the aforementioned fact is transmitted from the words of the Bundist 
himself in the following manner: "In No. 184 of 'Poslednie Izvestiia,' the Foreign 
Committee of the Bund published a letter from a comrade who fled from Siberia, 
relating that the Irkutsk Committee of the Party refused to render him any 
assistance whatsoever in escaping from his place of exile, on the sole ground 
that he, the fugitive, by his views — is a Bundist." Further, the author of 
the note, without waiting for the circumstances of the matter to be clarified, 
expresses condemnation of the Irkutsk Committee's conduct, calling it "an 
action... a flagrant violation of the best traditions of our party."

The fact that the League and "Iskra" hastened to seize upon this petty 
incident in order to discredit the Irkutsk Committee, which stood on the side 
of the party majority, testifies to the extreme unscrupulousness of means which 
the minority practiced in its struggle within the party.

231.
18785
N. K. KRUPSKAYA — M. M. LITVINOV.
To Felix.
July 2* [1904. Geneva.]
Dear Felix, I have written you not two, but four letters in all, 
one got stuck with Anton, and I don't know where another one is. 
I wrote to you with the cipher we agreed upon, but only in a more 
complex manner. Now I shall write according to your method.
Nil has already left here, we have had a complete break with him. 
He refused even to speak in a comradely manner, refused even to 
discuss the situation together. About three months ago "they" elected 
a bureau from among their number. It turned out that they interpret 
the rights of bureau members very broadly indeed — these members, 
according to their interpretation, decide all matters at their own 
discretion, without even consulting the opinion of the rest of the 
collegium. On the basis of such an interpretation, Nil and Valentin 
consider themselves entitled to speak on behalf of the entire collegium. 
Thus, on behalf of the entire collegium, they had decided to suspend 
the distribution of "Shag." Nil was pointed out to have no such rights 
(he immediately declared that he had been sent as the sole representative 
of the collegium); he yielded and signed an agreement that in matters 
concerning the collegium, he would act only with the consent of the 
other members of the collegium abroad. At first things went well, but, 
after speaking with Tony,** Nil became even more suspicious and hostile 
toward Masha*** and her friends. Indeed, no,

* In the manuscript, undoubtedly a typographical error; the date is marked "2/VI," but according to the 
content of the letter it should be: "2/VII." — Ed.
** — with the editorial office of "Iskra." — Ed.
*** — with the foreign section of the CC. — Ed.