Date: 1914-02-09
Source: ru:LS/v38

Paris, June 1, 1912
Dear Comrade, I am enclosing yet another document that may be of interest to you.
I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm receipt of this document—as well as those documents my wife sent you on May 23—and arrange a meeting with me*.
Please accept, dear comrade, my fraternal greetings.
V. Ulyanov
Translation from French
1. It has not been possible to determine which document is being referred to.
In her letter to J. Ducos de la Haille, N. K. Krupskaya wrote:
“May 23, 1912
Most Gracious Sir!
My husband, Mr. Ulyanov, has left for a few days; he asked me to forward the following documents to you for your review:
1) “Social Democrat” — the Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party, No. 11, published February 26, 1910.
The French translation was delivered to you on May 20, 1912.
2) A letter from three “holders,” dated June 30, 1911—original and translation.
*
On the envelope, V. I. Lenin wrote: “M. Ducos de la Haille. 58 Avenue de Clichy. 58 Paris.”

3) A notice from the director of the National Accounting Bank in Paris, dated July 7, 1911, informing Mrs. Zetkin that a check for 24,445.30 marks and 30 Swedish bonds had been sent to her.
4) A letter from Mr. Kautsky, dated October 2, 1911, conveying Mr. Mehring’s refusal—original and translation.
5) A letter from Mr. Kautsky, dated October 18, 1911, again communicating his refusal—original and translation.
6) A letter from Mrs. Zetkin (and Kautsky), dated November 18, 1911—original.
The translation was delivered to you on May 20, 1912.
7) A letter from Mrs. Zetkin, dated November 16, 1911, stating her refusal—original and translation.
8) A resolution adopted by the Conference of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (held in January 1912) concerning the sum of money then held by Mrs. Zetkin.
Please accept, sir, my best assurances.
II. Ulyanov
Address: M. Oulianoff. 4 Rue Marie Rose. Paris. XIV” (Central Party Archive of the CPSU).
In his reply dated June 3 (N.S.), 1912, J. Ducos de la Haille confirmed receipt of the documents sent by N. K. Krupskaya and of V. I. Lenin’s letter, and pledged to arrange a meeting.
N. K. Krupskaya had been a member of the RSDLP since 1898, a close comrade and the wife of V. I. Lenin.
After the Second Congress of the RSDLP, she served as secretary of the editorial boards of the Bolshevik newspapers “Forward” and “The Proletarian.” While working abroad, she maintained extensive correspondence with party organizations in Russia. During the years of the First World War, she took an active part in the activities of Bolshevik sections overseas, serving as secretary of their Committee (KZO).
26036
LETTER TO LAWYER J. DUCOS DE LA HAILLE
Paris, June 10, [19]12
Dear Comrade, on June 15 I will be compelled to leave Paris.
In light of this, it is absolutely essential that our agreement be finalized and signed no later than Friday, June 14.
That is why I am sending you the draft agreement I have proposed and respectfully request that you arrange a meeting with me as soon as possible*.
Please accept, dear comrade, my fraternal greetings.
Vl. Ulyanov
*
On the envelope of this letter, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Recours. M. Ducos de la Haille. Lawyer at the Court of Appeal. 58 Avenue de Clichy. 58 Paris. 18th.”

1900 – March 1917

DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH LAWYER J. DUCOS DE LA HAILLE
Mr. Ducos de la Haille undertakes to establish a collegium of lawyers—that is, to invite two additional attorneys, one of whom must be a member of the Socialist Party.
This collegium of lawyers shall prepare and sign a reasoned opinion containing the following:
1°. The full text of the principal and decisive documents—that is, the documents which are both necessary and sufficient to substantiate Mr. Ulyanov’s claim before the court.
2°. A thorough and detailed analysis of these documents, demonstrating that Mrs. Zetkin is in the wrong, that she must immediately return the disputed funds to Mr. Ulyanov, and that she would be committing a breach of trust if she refuses to do so.
3°. An analysis of any legal obstacles in this case—if any exist—and proof that these obstacles are purely formal, and that Mr. Ulyanov can—and indeed should—bring Mrs. Zetkin to trial in Stuttgart.
Mr. Ulyanov undertakes to pay Mr. Ducos de la Haille the sum of five thousand francs if, thanks to this opinion rendered by the collegium of lawyers and to other measures that Mr. Ducos de la Haille deems beneficial, Mrs. Zetkin returns the funds to Mr. Ulyanov by August 1, 1912.
Otherwise, Mr. Ulyanov undertakes to pay Mr. Ducos de la Haille the sum of ? -------I must reiterate what I have already told you: we can only afford to pay a very, very modest fee—and precisely for this reason we stipulate a very high honorarium in the event of success. It is highly likely that, with skillful handling, this case will lead to complete success without the need for litigation. No serious jurist could deny the following principle:
“If two parties enter into an arbitration agreement and one party places the disputed funds in the custody of three appointed arbitrators—then the resignation of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to terminate the arbitration agreement, and the ‘holders’ are obligated to return the funds to the person who paid them.”
The only obstacle that might arise is that the arbitration agreement has not been signed. But this obstacle is illusory, because a letter signed by all three arbitrators proves that Mr. Ulyanov had promised to pay them the funds. Consequently, the central fact—the existence of the arbitration agreement—is established,

and civil law—which does not interfere in the substance of the arbitration agreement, nor in the underlying issues, motives (moral, political, etc.) that ought to have guided the arbitrators—civil law ensures that the formal obligation is fulfilled: Mr. Ulyanov has discharged his duty by paying the funds to the arbitrators, while the arbitrators—especially the former arbitrator Mrs. Zetkin—have failed to fulfill their own obligations and must now return the funds.
If the collegium of lawyers submits its opinion:
1) to Mrs. Zetkin; 2) to Mr. Bebel, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the German Party; 3) to the Executive Committee of the Württemberg Socialist Party—then it is highly probable that Mrs. Zetkin will acknowledge that she is in the wrong and will return the funds.
The sophism employed by my opponent—I have studied it privately—deserves special attention. This sophism proceeds as follows: suppose we are obliged to return the funds. But to whom? Has it been proven that Mr. Ulyanov was, in fact, the rightful owner of those funds? Did he not act on behalf of some group—perhaps the Central Committee, or another such entity?
Mrs. Zetkin’s defense must be exceedingly weak if she can resort to such a sophism. After all, the very task of the arbitrators was to determine to whom the funds belonged, belong, and ought to belong. Once the arbitrators have resigned, they no longer have the authority to dispute questions of ownership, of relations among various groups, and the like—but they are bound only to return the funds to the person who paid them* (and who, in every letter addressed to the arbitrators, was recognized as a party—or one of the contracting parties).
I myself have been a lawyer; I have studied French law and German civil procedure, which govern relationships arising from arbitration agreements.
I have no doubt that Mrs. Zetkin is utterly in the wrong.
If it proves difficult to find French lawyers who know German**, I could translate for you the relevant articles of the German Civil Procedure Code*** and the commentaries of Germany’s most renowned authors: Haupp and Stein.
*
Here, V. I. Lenin inserted the note: “and who was the owner, the ‘holder’ of these funds prior to the conclusion of the arbitration agreement.”
** French Law: Code de procédure civile, art. 1012 (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 1012).
*** German Law: “CivilproceBordnung” § 1033. Cf. Recueil périodique Dalloz, année 1889, 1ère partie, page 32 (“Civil Procedure Law” § 1033. See the Periodical Collection of Dalloz, Year 1889, Part 1, Page 32): “An arbitration agreement terminates its effect and

1900 – March 1917

P.S. It remains to be shown—and this is not difficult at all—that the declaration published in the Central Organ “Social Democrat” constitutes an actual arbitration agreement, and that the “holders” are, in fact, the arbitrators themselves².
Translation from French
1. August Bebel was one of the most prominent figures in German social democracy and the international labor movement.
2. The “Declaration of the Bolsheviks” to the January Plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP
was published in No. 11 of the newspaper “Social Democrat” on February 26 (13), 1910 (see also “The CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Party Congresses, Conferences, and Plenums of the Central Committee,” 1970, Vol. 1, pp. 296–298).
“Social Democrat” was the Central Organ of the RSDLP—a clandestine newspaper; it was published from February 1908 to January 1917 under the leadership of V. I. Lenin.
26037
LETTER TO LAWYER J. DUCOS DE LA HAILLE
[June 15, 1912]
Dear Comrade, I am enclosing a translation of that letter, the original Russian text of which—published in a certain address—I have already forwarded to you.
I earnestly request, dear comrade, that you arrange a meeting for me on Monday morning: I will be leaving in the evening on Monday.
Please let me know by pneumatic mail whether I might have the opportunity to speak with you on Monday at 9 or 10 o’clock in the morning*.
Fraternal greetings,
V. Ulyanov
V. Oulianoff.
4 Rue Marie Rose.
Paris. XIV.
Once one of the arbitrators resigns and declares his intention to withdraw from the performance of his duties, the execution of the arbitration agreement becomes impossible” (decision of the Cassation Division).
Fuzier-Hermann: “Repertoire général,” vol. IV, § 532 (“General Reference Work,” Volume IV, § 532): “The resignation of a single arbitrator is sufficient to annul the arbitration agreement.”
*
On the envelope of this letter, V. I. Lenin wrote: “R p e i t a t i-
q u e. M. Ducos de la Haille. 58 Avenue de Clichy. 58 Paris.”

Lenin Collection X XXVIII'