Enclosure.
Copy.
* Letter from I. N. Lepeshinsky to the Expedition Collegium and its response to the Geneva group.
To Comrades working in the R.S.D.L.P. Expedition.
In view of the fact that a number of questions have arisen before the Geneva group of the R.S.D.L.P., which are directly related to certain facts of personal conduct by comrades from the staff of the party expedition, the group decided — in the interest of justice and for the purpose of establishing the truth — to invite this staff to its meeting, which is to be held on Tuesday, August 29, 1905 (in Olin's dining room).
For the secretary-correspondent of the group, Olin
August 28, Geneva.
To the Secretary of the Geneva Group.*
In response to the group's letter of August 28, proposing that members of the party expedition appear at the group's meeting on August 29, with the aim of examining "certain facts of personal conduct of the expedition staff," the expedition collegium states that it does not consider it necessary to attend this meeting, as if the group has any grievances against the expedition, it can address them to the representative of the C.C., under whose direct supervision the expedition operates, and he will then examine the matter.
Expedition Collegium.
21113
* LETTER TO P. N. LEPESHINSKY REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE.
[August 29, 1905, Geneva,]
At the request of Comrade Vasilyevich, I am clarifying the part of my decision (that people who poorly perform their work but eagerly gossip about others' shortcomings may appear). The assumption that I wanted to accuse someone here, etc., is unfounded. Every party worker has their own shortcomings and minuses in their work, but one must be cautious not to cross the line into idle talk when criticizing shortcomings or discussing them before the party centers. The entire meaning of my decision lies entirely in this precaution and in the request to immediately stop the wrongly and improperly initiated matter.
N. Lenin.
18251
* 
LETTER TO THE RUSSIAN PART OF THE C.C. REGARDING THE LEGAL PUBLICATION OF BOLSHEVIK LITERATURE.
To the C.C.
September 16, 1905. [Geneva.]
Dear Comrades! I have spoken with the envoy of Ivan Vasilyevich and sent a telegram yesterday expressing my agreement. I leave it to Ivan Vasilyevich or Sergei Vasilyevich to make the necessary cuts in "The Poor" if its acquisition from Petrov is to take place. I agree to taking it from Petrov, but only on the condition that this is not a break with Petrov and a direct deception of Petrov on my part, since I gave Petrov permission to try to get this through. Therefore, 1) in any case, we must reimburse Petrov for the expenses he has already incurred (the envoy of Ivan Vasilyevich agreed to this); 2) we must obtain Petrov's consent in the sense that Petrov submits to the decision of the higher collegium, i.e., I allowed Petrov to try, and the C.C. decided to transfer it to Molot Belov, so that Petrov cannot consider me an untrustworthy partner. If Petrov has already managed to get it through, I would strongly advise not to take it from him, as I do not see how Molot Belov is better than Petrov. 3) I ask you to contact my sister (it is not difficult to summon her), as she may have already made some arrangements on my behalf.
So, regarding Petrov, I will inform everyone here that 1) the C.C. did not approve the contract; 2) we are deprived of the right to conduct separate deals with Petrov for each item, as there is no monopoly; 3) it is recommended to turn to the C.C.'s publishing house, which is more advantageous and more party-oriented.
Is that all? Write and let me know if I have understood you correctly.
Your contract with Znanie Polin is good, but I fear it may be "fictitious." (Editorial Committee = 7 - 4 - 1 = 2!! And these two are overwhelmed by other matters. This is a fiction, not an editorial committee.) Furthermore, having concluded a contract with Znanie Polin, you give all the works (Radim, Kamenev, Werner, Schmidt [Kollontai,] Lyadov, Bazhanov, Fedorovich, etc. — unless Molot Belov has deceived me) to Molot Belov. What does this mean? Znanie Polin for the soul, and Molot Belov for the body, isn't that right? If our meeting does not take place, please take the time to explain the matter in detail in a letter. It is unthinkable for illegal people or members of the R.S.D.L.P. in general to handle a complex and troublesome publishing business. This is why Molot Belov (and Petrov is no worse than Molot Belov) outpaces us. I strongly warn that this will continue to be the case, as Molot Belov has businessmen who are fully dedicated to the task, while the "editorial committee" of Znanie Polin (one can be sure) will not be able to devote even 1/100th of their efforts to this. We will talk, judge, and deliberate, and we have been occupied with this praiseworthy task since summer, for half a year, while Molot Belov and Petrov will be getting things done. I am not saying this as a reproach, as it would be silly to reproach, — it is an inevitable result of circumstances. This will change 1) either with freedom — then everything will change; or 2) if Pyatnitsky takes it up like Belov and Petrov, which is beyond Pyatnitsky's capacity, as he has a multitude of [forces] attention diverted to other matters.
P.S. I received No. 2 of Rabochii.4 I plan to write to you in detail about the feuilleton. The author should not have taken on such topics: it turns out to be some kind of "sentimental" socialism, which is very dangerous.

This refers to the publication of Lenin's pamphlet "To the Rural Poor," which was published in 1905 by the Molot publishing house under the title: "N. Lenin— The Needs of the Village. (To the Rural Poor.) St. Petersburg. 1905" in a somewhat altered version.
8 Petrov — apparently, the publishing house of M. Malikh.
a When speaking of his sister, Lenin refers to A. I. Ulyanova-Elizarova.
4 "Rabochii" — a popular organ of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. (see note 71 to Collected Works, vol. VIII, p. 488).

* LETTER ON THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE SWISS OWNER OF THE PRINTING HOUSE — SCHOLZ.*

October 1905. [Geneva.]
Dear Comrade!
The matter with Scholz has taken such a turn that the possibility of significant financial loss to the party due to the fault of the printing house manager has become evident.
Correction: should read — Teodorovich. Ed.
** At the top of the letter, Lenin wrote: "Sent on October 17, 1905." Ed.