went from the majority to the minority, and on May 29, 1905 withdrew from the minority by resigning from the editorial board of *Iskra*. We do not approve of these transitions, but we believe that we cannot be blamed if members of the "swamp" after prolonged wavering are inclined to follow us.

5) In his letter to the Bureau (June 16, 1905), Citizen Plekhanov very inopportunely forgot to mention his letter of May 29, 1905, published in *Iskra* (No. 101), an accurate and complete translation of which we have already provided to you.

6) In saying that the other faction of the party groups itself around the former Central Organ of the party *Iskra*, Citizen Plekhanov again forgets to add that the conference of the "minority" (May 1905) abolished the statute worked out at the II Congress and did not create a new Central Organ. We believe that the International Socialist Bureau should have a complete translation of all resolutions of this conference. If *Iskra* does not wish to send them to the Bureau, we are prepared to undertake this ourselves.

7) Citizen Plekhanov states that only 2 surviving members of the Central Committee spoke in favor of convening the III Congress (the rest were arrested). Citizen Plekhanov's letter is dated June 16, 1905; the following day, the 17th, in No. 4 of *Proletarii*, the Central Organ of the party created by the III Congress, the following statement was published: "Having familiarized ourselves with the open letter of the Central Committee to the Chairman of the Party Council, Citizen Plekhanov, and being in complete solidarity with the Central Committee, we find it necessary—for reasons that will be understood by comrades informed of the course of internal party affairs—to publicly declare our solidarity with the Central Committee." Pseudonymous signatures: Ma, Bem, Vladimir, Innocenty, Andrey, Voron. Confidentially we can inform you that these pseudonyms belong to arrested members of the Central Committee. Consequently, as soon as the members of the Central Committee learned of the conflict between the Central Committee and Citizen Plekhanov (and thus also the Council) on the question of convening the congress, the majority of them immediately spoke out for the Central Committee against Citizen Plekhanov. We urgently request the International Secretariat to inform us whether Citizen Plekhanov deemed it necessary to acquaint the Bureau with this important statement of the arrested members of the Central Committee, which completely refutes his assertions in the letter of June 16?

8) Citizen Plekhanov is mistaken in saying that both factions asked him to remain as the party's representative in the International Bureau. To date, the Central Committee of our party has not made any request on this matter. As we reported to you several days ago, this question has not yet been finally resolved, although it has been placed on the agenda.

9) Citizen Plekhanov believes that it is not difficult for him to be impartial on the question of our disagreements. After all that has been set forth above, we believe that this is quite difficult for him, and at the present moment at least, almost impossible.

II. I proceed to Comrade Bebel's proposal regarding our affairs.

Here I find it necessary to make the following remarks: 1) I am only one of the members of the Central Committee and responsible editor of the Central Organ of the party *Proletarii*. On behalf of the entire Central Committee, I can decide only foreign affairs and certain other matters specifically entrusted to me. In any case, all my decisions can be overturned by a general meeting of the Central Committee. I cannot, therefore, decide the question of the Bureau's intervention in the affairs of our party. But I immediately sent to Russia to all members of the Central Committee your letter, as well as the letters of Citizens Bebel and Plekhanov.

2) To expedite the Central Committee's response, it would be very useful to receive certain necessary clarifications from the Bureau: a) Should the word "intervention" be understood as only conciliatory mediation and advice having only moral, but not coercive, force; b) or does the Bureau have in mind a binding decision made by arbitration? c) does the Executive Committee of the Bureau propose to grant the right of final and unappealable decision on the question of our disagreements to the general meeting of the International Socialist Bureau?