I wish to reply to the remarks concerning the legality of convening the congress. The Central Committee acknowledged that the congress is illegal. The Central Committee itself called its message to the Party Council “penitent.” But did the Central Committee have anything to repent of? The congress is perfectly legal. True, according to the letter of the Rules it may be considered illegal; but we would fall into a caricatured formalism if we understood the Rules in that way. According to the sense of the Rules, the congress is perfectly legal. The Party does not exist for the Party Council, but the Party Council for the Party. As far back as the Second Congress, in connection with the incident with the Organising Committee{43}, it was pointed out, and by Comrade Plekhanov himself, that discipline in relation to a lower body gives way before discipline to a higher body. The Central Committee indicated that it was prepared to submit to the Party Council, if the Party Council would submit to the Party, i.e., to the congress. This is a perfectly legal demand. The Party Council, however, answered it with a refusal. But, they say, the Central Committee suspected the loyalty of the Party Council and expressed no confidence in it. Yet in all constitutional countries citizens have the right to express no confidence in certain officials or institutions. This right cannot be taken away from them. Finally, even if the Central Committee had acted illegally, did that give the Party Council the right to act illegally too? Where is the guarantee of that article of the Rules according to which the Party Council shall convene a congress if half of the fully empowered votes have spoken in favour? In the Rules of the German Social-Democratic Party there is an article granting the control commission the right to convene a congress should the Vorstand[51] refuse to convene it. We lack such a paragraph, and the guarantee of the convening of a congress lies entirely with the Party itself. From the standpoint of the spirit of the Rules, and even of their letter, if taken as a whole, it is clear that the Party Council is the plenipotentiary of the committees of the Party. The plenipotentiary of the committees refuses to carry out the will of its principals. If the plenipotentiary does not carry out the will of the Party, the Party has no alternative but to carry out that will itself. And the committees of our Party not only had the right, but were obliged to convene the congress themselves. And I affirm that the congress has been convened perfectly legally. Who is the judge in the examination of this dispute between the Party Council and the committees? The very same committees, the Party. The will of the Party was expressed long ago. The procrastinations and dilatory tactics on the part of the centres abroad could not alter it. The committees were obliged to convene the congress themselves, and it has been convened legally.

I reply to Comrade Tigrov. Comrade Tigrov says that the Party Council ought not to be judged. The Organising Committee, by its report, is judging the Party Council. It seems to me Comrade Tigrov is mistaken in saying that one cannot judge in absentia. In politics one constantly has to judge in absentia. Do we not constantly judge, in our writings, at our meetings, and everywhere, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Bundists, and others? What are we to do, if we are not to judge in absentia? The Party Council, after all, does not wish to appear before the congress; in that case we would have to judge no one, ever. Even official courts judge in absentia, if the accused does not wish to appear in court.