**The Caucasus.**

The Organizational Committee, having examined the question of the Caucasian delegation on the basis of literary data and testimony of witnesses, comrades from the Caucasus, has arrived at the following unanimous decision:

1. Among the decisive votes at the Congress, it is necessary and the only correct approach to count 8 votes from the Caucasian delegation, since in the autumn of 1903 the Central Committee approved the charter of the Union Caucasian Committee, and according to this charter the Union Caucasian Committee was given, as a Union committee, 8 decisive votes at the Congress.

2. As regards the statements contradicting this by comrade Glebov in the Soviet and the decision of the Soviet in May 1904 to consider, temporarily, pending clarification of the question, the votes of the four individual Caucasian committees (Baku, Batumi, Tiflis, Imereti-Mingrelian) as decisive votes, the Organizational Committee cannot consider Glebov's statement and the Soviet's decision an obstacle to accepting the conclusion indicated in paragraph 1, since comrade Glebov proved to be clearly uninformed and therefore inadvertently misled the Soviet.

3. Considering it beyond doubt that there are now three delegates from the Caucasus with six decisive votes, the OK notes that a member of the Union Caucasian Committee, comrade Leonov, makes the following statement regarding the fourth delegate with two decisive votes: The Union Caucasian Committee intended to entrust the Batumi Committee with confirming this 4th delegate. When the Batumi Committee gave an indefinite and evasive response on this matter, the Union Caucasian Committee at a session at which Leonov was present expressed the wish that in the event of the absence at the Congress of a special delegate from Batumi, the decisive votes of the fourth delegate be transferred to comrade Kamenev (Yuri).

4. Having noted this, the OK entrusts the decision of the question concerning the fourth delegate from the Union Caucasian Committee to the Congress itself.

**Kremenchug.**

Regarding the legal standing of the Kremenchug Committee, the Organizational Committee notes:

1) The Kremenchug Committee was approved by the Central Committee only in August 1904, according to comrade Mark, a member of the CC, who participated in the CC session at which this approval took place.

2) In the list of the Party Soviet published in no. 89 of *Iskra*, among 33 legally qualified organizations, the Kremenchug Committee is not listed.

On the basis of the foregoing, the OK resolves: not to consider the Kremenchug Committee among the fully authorized organizations with the right to a decisive vote at the present Congress.

**Yekaterinoslav.**

The Organizational Committee, having heard the report of comrade Morozov, delegate of the Yekaterinoslav Committee of the majority, and the written communication of comrade Evgeny, a member of the old committee in Yekaterinoslav, has arrived at the following unanimous decision:

The Organizational Committee sees no grounds for considering the present Yekaterinoslav Committee of the majority less legitimate than the committee of the minority, either from a formal standpoint or from the standpoint of continuity and connections with the local workers.

However, in view of the fact that the OK lacks the possibility of hearing explanations from the other side, it does not adopt a resolution concerning the decisive vote of the delegate from the Yekaterinoslav Committee of the majority, entrusting the decision of the question to the Congress itself.

Concerning the legal standing of the Kazan and Kuban committees, the OK reached no decision, since the votes of the CC and the BKB were divided.

The BKB holds that these committees cannot be recognized as legally qualified, since at the May 1904 session of the Soviet (delegates from the CC: Lenin and Glebov) in the list of committees approved by April 1, 1905, these committees are not listed. Even if the Kazan and Kuban committees were approved by the Central Committee after May 1904, in any case they would receive the right to representation only after a year. Moreover, at the July general assembly of the CC in 1904 there could not have been approval of these committees, for the protocols of this assembly were completely delivered by Glebov to Lenin abroad, and in these protocols there is no information about the approval of the Kazan and Kuban committees. Finally, at the August or September session of the CC, at which CC member comrade Mark was present, nothing was said about the approval of the Kazan and Kuban committees.

The CC holds that since these committees are placed in the list of *Iskra* apparently on behalf of the Party Soviet, we have no grounds to recognize these committees as legally unqualified.

Written in April, no later than 11 (24)

Printed from the manuscript