1

I believe that it would be irrational for the Congress to confirm organizations immediately. I am against granting them a decisive vote. Regarding the coup d'état, I disagree with Comrade Kamsky.

2

From the conclusion of the Mandate Commission it is evident that in total we have 75 decisive votes in the party, so that, without doubt, given the present composition, our Congress must be recognized as lawful. Taking into account the suspicious attitude toward our Congress that exists now, one must recognize as praiseworthy the "liberal" striving of the Mandate Commission to confirm as large a number of committees as possible, in order to increase the required legal majority for the Congress. From this perspective I am even prepared to express sympathy for this "liberalism," but, on the other hand, it is necessary to be cautious and impartial equally toward all, and, proceeding from these considerations, I cannot fail to take a negative stance toward the Mandate Commission's confirmation of the Kazan and Kuban committees. In issue No. 89 of *Iskra* they were published in the list of fully-fledged committees, but in the list of fully-fledged organizations contained in the protocols of the Party Council, they are absent. At a session of the Party Council, Comrade Martov cited the list of fully-fledged committees as of 1 September 1904.

(An excerpt from the Party Council protocols is read):

"Martov reads his resolution:

The Council resolves that this same period from the time of confirmation of an organization is taken as the moment for recognition of its vote in calculating the number of organizations that have spoken in favor of convening the Congress. Organizations represented at the II Congress and elected by it are considered fully-fledged in this respect from the moment of adoption of the party statute. For organizations not represented at the II Congress, the moment of their confirmation is considered to be the moment of their confirmation by the CC.

II. By virtue of this, until September 1904, only the following are considered to have the right to decide the question of convening the Congress: 1) the CC, 2) the Central Organ, 3) the Foreign League, 4–20) committees: Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa, Nikolaev, Don, Ekaterinoslav, Saratov, Ufa (now Urals), Northern, Tula, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Baku, Batumi, Tiflis (until the expiration of one year from the moment of confirmation of the Caucasian Union), 21–23) unions: Mining (Donetsk), Siberian, and Crimean.

With the full-fledged status of these organizations, the number of votes at the Congress to which they are entitled equals 46. Together with the 5 votes possessed by members of the Council, the total number of votes at the Congress equals 51 votes, and for its convening there is required, consequently, 26 votes, i.e., the votes of 13 fully-fledged organizations from among those enumerated here. The CC is proposed to present to the Council the dates of confirmation of new committees that have appeared since the Congress."

The first part of the resolution was adopted unanimously.

Subsequently, Comrade Glebov in his speech at that same session cited a list of newly formed committees.

(Comrade Glebov's speech from the Council protocols):

"I agree with Comrade Martov and can only point to the newly formed committees: Smolensk and Astrakhan, confirmed in September 1903; Voronezh (Struggle Fund) in January 1904; Riga – in January; Polesie – in April; North-Western – in April; Kursk – in January; Orel-Bryansk – in September 1903; Samara – in September 1903; Urals (Ufa) – in April."

These facts were published in Comrade Orlovsky's brochure "The Council Against the Party," and to this day the Council has not refuted them, has not published the time of confirmation of the disputed committees, which speaks to the fact that, evidently, there is no proof of this confirmation. At that same Council session, Comrade Martov in one of his speeches pointed out that, in his opinion, 2 more committees should be confirmed in August, namely Kremenchug and Poltava, but again – not a word about Kazan and Kuban.

Subsequently, after the July Declaration{50}, Comrade Glebov sent me the complete protocols of the CC sessions, from which the confirmation of neither the Kazan nor the Kuban committee is evident, and after this at the CC sessions, as testified by CC member Comrade Letnev, there was likewise no mention of their confirmation; true, CC member Comrade Zimin seems to recall something about the confirmation of the Kazan and Kuban committees, but cannot say anything definite.

The Commission's decision to recognize the committees as fully-fledged on the basis that it has been factually established that they have been working for more than a year is not correct, and therefore I propose that these committees be considered as lacking proper status.