No answer has been received from the Odessa group. As for the invitation to the Ekaterinoslav group, this is an Organizational question! The [Organizational] Committee leaves it open until the meeting on the spot °).
The [Organizational] Committee resolves to send an invitation to the congress with consultative vote to the Ukrainian Social Democratic Union (execution taken upon itself by the Central Committee]). The Committee of foreign organizations is invited with a consultative vote.

3) Based on the above-mentioned factual data and guided by the provision of the Party Charter that the congress is considered valid if it is attended by organizations having together the right to more than V2 of the decisive votes, as well as the agreement between the Central Committee and the Bureau of Committees of the Majority7), the Organizational Committee resolves that the congress must be opened immediately. But, based on the statement of the Central Committee that the Party Council, when making its decision regarding the congress published in No. 95 of *Iskra*, was not sufficiently informed about all the factual conditions of the convocation of the III Party Congress and the state of Party affairs in Russia, due to the Council not receiving corresponding written and oral communications, the Organizational Committee resolves to postpone the opening of the congress for 7 days 8), during which the Central Committee informs the Party Council regarding the factual data on the convocation of the congress.
[4. After the specified period, the Organizational Committee arranges its last meeting at the congress venue and, having received from the Central Committee a report on the final actions of the Council regarding the congress, publishes it for the information of the entire Party and its delegates at the congress, opens the congress on April 25th (N.S.) 1905.]
4. On April 25th N.S., the Organizational Committee holds its final meeting at the congress venue and opens the congress9).
5. All delegates located abroad are notified of the opening day of the congress.

For the Central Committee Nikitich. [L. B. Krasin.]
For the Bureau of Committees of the Majority Zemlyachka *).

*) The signatures on the manuscript of Nikitich and Zemlyachka are genuine.
Ed.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE

*) The Organizational Committee was formed on March 25 (12), 1905. According to the agreement between the Central Committee and the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, the Organizational Committee included the entire composition of the Bureau of Committees of the Majority and the Central Committee (for more details on the Organizational Committee, see Protocols of the 3rd Congress, pp. 22-26). The provided protocol of the O.C. was written by N. K. Krupskaya. The meeting took place in Geneva.
2) In the letter of the C.C. of the R.S.-D.L.P. to the Chairman of the Party Council G. V. Plekhanov of April 23 (10), 1905, it is said: ... "The Kiev Committee, although it adopted a resolution against the congress on March 25, subsequently elected a delegate to the congress and sent him abroad."
Works, Vol. UN, p. 230 and Protocols of the congress, p. 35.^
3) The number 4 means - 4 delegates from the Baku, Batumi, Tiflis, Imereti-Mingrelian committees.
4) Delegates from the Siberian and Smolensk committees did not appear at the congress, betraying the trust of the committees that elected them. (Protocols of the III Congress, p. IZ.)
5) The Tver Committee forwarded its mandate to the congress to Parvus (abroad), who did not appear at the congress. (Ibid., pp. 58 and 67.)
°) At the beginning of February 1905, in Ekaterinoslav, an organization of Bolsheviks began to function parallel to the Menshevik committee. The congress, at the suggestion of the credentials commission, recognized this organization as a parallel group to the committee, and its delegate (Zharkov - Leshchinsky) was granted a consultative vote.
7) This refers to § 1 of the "agreement between the Central Committee and the Bureau of Committees of the Majority" of March 25 (12), 1905, according to which the O.C. immediately organizes the congress, regardless of the resolution of the Party Council on the issue of convening the congress. (§ 1 of the "agreement" was published in *N1 15 of *Vpered* of April 20 (7), 1905 in Lenin's article: "The Exposed Council" Works, Vol. VII, pp. 225-228).
s) The congress actually opened on April 25 (New Style) 1905.
°) The last meeting of the O.C. took place not on the 25th, but on the 24th of April 1905 (Protocols of the Congress, p. 41.)

AT THE CONGRESS

In the documents of this section, the names of the delegates of the 3rd Congress are very often encountered. In order not to overload the text with relevant explanations, we provide here a list of all participants of the 3rd Congress and their revolutionary pseudonyms, found in Lenin's papers. The first name is the pseudonym under which the delegate appears in the printed protocols of the congress; in bold italics is his permanent name, in brackets are the revolutionary pseudonyms found in the documents published in this collection. All documents of this section, except for the just mentioned list of members of the congress and Lenin's mandate to the congress, were written by Lenin and are printed from the originals.

MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS.

Delegates
Organizations
With decisive vote
1. Barsov — *Totskaya*, *Mina* (Leonov),
2. Valerianov — *Losev, V. N.* (Semyon)
3. Golubev— *Dzhaparidze, A.*
4. Gradov — *Kamenev, L. B.* (Yuri).
5. Zimin — *Krasin, L. B.* (Winter, Nikitich, Tidevein, Yavein).
6. Kamsky — *Obukhov, V. M.* (Volgin, Saratovets)......................................
7. Konstantinov—*Vladimirov, M. K.*
8. Kuznetsov — *Litvinov, M. M.* (Latyshev, Papasha, Felix)...............
9. Lepin, V. P. (Frey, Ulyanov).
10. Leskov — *Bomanov, N. V.* (Berger).
11. Letnev — *Lyubimov, A. I.* (Zolmer, Karp)....................................................
12. Maksimov— *Bogdanov, A. A.* (Werner, Rakhmetov, Reinert, Ryadovoy, Sysoyka)
13. Manin (Yulin)— not established.
14. Mikhailov — *Postolovsky, D. S.* (Alexandrov, Vadim, Derua, Dubois, Mikhailov, conciliator)
Caucasian Union.
Ural Committee.
Caucasian "
»
»
Party Council and C.C.
Saratov Committee.
Polesie "
Riga "
Odessa "
Northern "
Party Council.
Tula Committee.
Tver "
North-Western Committee.

15. Masalsky— *Kramolnikov, G. D.* (Samarets)......................................
16. Nevsky — *Torin*
17. Orlovsky — *Borovsky, V. V.* (Josephine, Schwarz, Felix Alexandrovich)
Samara Committee.
Caucasian Union.
Nikolaev Committee

18. Osetrov — *Aristarkhov* (Bagrov).
Kursk Committee,
19. Osipov — *Zemlyachka, R. S.*
St. Petersburg "
20. Petrov— *Kvitkin, O. A.* (Panov).
Orel "
21. Rybkin — *Anashkin* (Letuchy).
Caucasian Union.
22. Sergeev — *Rykov, A. I.* [Alexey, Vlasov]..................................................
Moscow Committee.
23. Sosnovsky — *Desnitsky, V. A.* (Stroev)............................................
Nizhny Novgorod »
24. Filippov — *Rumyantsev, P. P.* (Voronezhets, Schmidt) ................
Voronezh "
With consultative vote
1. Andreev — *Alekseev, N. A.*
2. Belsky — *Krasikov, P. A.* (August Belsky, Pavlovich).
3. Voinov — *Lunacharsky, A. V.*
4. Dashin — *Fridolin, V. Yu.* (Varenka).
5. Diogenov — *Shevelkin*
6. Dedushkin — *Shklovsky, G. L.*
7. Zharkov — *Leshchinsky, M. S.* (Morozov)............................... ....................
8. Kitaev— Essen A. M. (Bour).
9. Lyadov, M. N. (Rusalka)
10. Sablina — *Krupskaya. N. K.*
11. Savich — *Summer, Zh. A.* (Lyubin, Izmail).
12. Tigrov — *Avilov, B. V.* (Volkov).
13. Shchensky — *Skrynnik, N. A.* (Shchur).
14. Yablochkin — not established.
Organization not indicated.
Committee of Foreign Organizations.
Editorial Office of "Vpered".
Ural Union.
Arkhangelsk Committee.
Minsk Group.
Ekaterinoslav Committee.
Organization not indicated..
»
)>
»
»
»
Kazan Union.
Kharkov Group.
Odessa Committee.
Organization not indicated«

Lenin's mandate to the Third Party Congress was sent abroad in a letter from Dyadenka (L. M. Knipovich) from Odessa. The letter, copied by hand by N. K. Krupskaya, is kept in the archive of the Lenin Institute.
19629*
* LENIN'S MANDATE TO THE THIRD PARTY CONGRESS
FROM THE ODESSA COMMITTEE.
[March 20, 1905]
At a meeting on 20/IV - 05, the Odessa Committee elected Comrade Lepin as its delegate to the 3rd Party Congress, to whom it hereby transfers its mandate.
Members of the Committee: Tomich [M. Korpnevsky], Osip [K. O. Levitsky], Ltsur [N. A. Skrypnik], Dyadenka [L. M. Knipovich], Petr, Alexander.
Odessa Committee of the R. S.-D. R. P.
*) The meeting of the Committee at which Lenin's election to the congress took place was not on April 20, but on March 20. (See "Prolet. Revol." for 1925, No. 7 (42), pp. 51 and 37-39.)

* QUESTIONNAIRE.
[April 1905]
In view of the convocation of the 3rd Party Congress, some practical comrades ask us to publish the following statement. It would be highly desirable that, during the upcoming discussion of the organizational question at the congress, the instructions and opinions of as many comrades as possible who have worked in Russia should be taken into account and discussed especially carefully. Therefore, let everyone who has worked respond and answer the following questions. The Vpered editorial board will collect them together and transmit them to the congress, so that each delegate will be able to take advantage of the collective experience of the mass of comrades. Here is an approximate list of the main questions, the clarification of which is necessary for revising the statute and drawing up resolutions of the congress. 1) Place and time (and duration) of work? 2) Did you work as a member of a committee or one of the committee institutions, and which one? Factory circle, etc.? 3) How large was the number of members of each of the committees or committee departments, organizational groups, etc. known to the writer? How many workers and intellectuals in each? 4) What was the custom of co-opting from the periphery into the committee? Is it possible to indicate the average term of work in the periphery? Are there any examples of discontent due to co-optation, etc.? It is necessary to strictly separate the period before the 2nd Congress and after it in all answers. Detailed information about the period before the 2nd Congress is especially desirable. 5) How many party organizations, groups, circles, etc. were there in total in the locality where NN worked? List each group, its number of members, functions, etc.) 6) Were there any groups (organizations, circles, etc.) not considered party, but adhering to the party? 7) How were relations conducted between the periphery (and all
1.

QUESTIONNAIRE

different kinds of peripheral circles) and the committee? Did these forms of communication satisfy the workers? 8) Do you consider it possible and desirable to introduce the principle of election? If not, why? If so, how exactly? It is desirable to indicate exactly to which circles the right to vote should be extended.
9) Do you consider it useful to separate intellectual and working-class committees (groups, circles, organizations, etc.)? If not, why? If so, please indicate the form of separation. 10) Did the committee elect a central, executive group, or not? If so, how exactly? How often was it checked? Were they satisfied with its establishment? 11) Do you consider written statutes of local organizations useful and possible? 12) Do you consider it useful to introduce into the party statute any norms regarding local organizations (committees and other)? If so, please outline these norms. 13) Do you consider it desirable to define in the party statute the exact rights of the Central Committee to introduce (and exclude) members from committees and other organizations? What should be the exact rights of the Central Committee.
14) Is it desirable to protect the autonomy of local committees with special norms, and which ones in particular? 15) How often did the committee or the group, circle, etc., where you were a member, meet? If possible, list exactly all the meetings during your work. If this is not possible, determine approximately. Were there any inconveniences with frequent meetings? What is the average number of possible and necessary meetings per month, according to your experience, and what is the number of members of the meeting?

* NOTE TO THE CONGRESS.
[End of April 1905]
To be printed (hectographed?) in 50 copies for members of the congress.
1) Regulations of the II Congress *) (1 page printed).
2) Draft agenda of the III Congress (from No. 8 Vpered) (10 - 15 lines printed).
3) Resolutions (5 - 6 pages printed) and the party statute (2 pages printed) adopted at the II Congress.
4) Two draft resolutions to the III Congress (from Nos. 11 and 12 Vpered) * 1 2).
5) The party program (II Congress) (2 pages printed).
Draft resolutions.
71ft
2 .
1. 6. 8. (3) 3) Voinov.
3. 4. 5. (3) 3) Lenin.
2. (1) 3) Ryadovoy
- f № y +
 JW 4 4)
7. (1) *)??? 5)
Abstracts?
1. Party crisis 6) ...
Voinov or Ryadovoy.
2. Organizational question...
Ryadovoy 7).
3. Support of the peasant
movement...
Lenin or
P. [Rumyantsev] 8).
4. Attitude to the uprising...
Lenin or Ryadovoy 9).
5. Agreement with Socialists
Revolutionaries for the uprising... Lenin 10).

NOTE TO THE CONGRESS

6. Attitude towards liberals...
Voinov 11).
7. Improvement of
propaganda and agitational work... V. Bar-
[ ]? Dash[ ]?
Bour? 12)
8. War. Voinov.
1) At the 3rd Congress, the regulations of the 2nd Congress were adopted with minor changes.
2) Refers to the draft resolution "On the attitude of the Social Democratic Labor Party to the peasant movement" (in the article: "The Proletariat and the Peasantry", and "On our agrarian program" (Collected Works, Vol. VII, pp. 161 - 162 and 171 - 172.)
3) The first numbers in each line 1, 6, 8; 3, 4, 6; 2, 7 mean the resolutions respectively to the abstracts outlined on the right side of the document. Next to the numbers are the names of the proposed authors.
The numbers in brackets indicate the number of resolutions attributable to one author.
4) "+ No. 1 + No. 4" means that, in addition to the draft resolution to the 2nd abstract, Bogdanov was entrusted with draft resolutions on the 1st and 4th abstracts.
5) Three questions before the number 7 correspond to 3 questions posed after the proposed candidates on the abstract on "improving propaganda and agitational work" (see the right side of the document, point 7).
6) There was no separate report on this issue at the congress.
7) The rapporteur was Ryadovoy (Bogdanov). (Protocols, pp. 304-311.)
8) The rapporteurs at the congress were Lenin and Tskhakaya. (Protocols, pp. 264-269.)
9) The rapporteurs at the congress were Voinov (Lunacharsky) and Bogdanov. (Protocols, pp. 114-132.)
10) The rapporteur was Lenin. (Protocols, pp. 424-428.)
11) The rapporteur was Borovsky. (Protocols, pp. 418-420.)
12) On this issue, Fridoin had an introductory speech at the congress, and a resolution was adopted, the draft of which was read out by Bogdanov. (Protocols of the congress, pp. 437-440.)