LETTER TO ATTORNEY A. KAHN 1  
Sent 26. V. 13 by registered printed matter Gutachten *  
Poronin (Galicia), 26. V. 1913  
Dear Sir!  
I am sending you enclosed a German translation of the conclusion of the French advocates. I think — and I too was formerly an advocate — that the matter is quite clear and prepared. Usurpation of the function of arbitrators (and this is the essence of the whole case) has been proved.  
From the point of view of civil procedure and civil law, only the following formulation of the question is admissible, in my opinion.  
The most important — if not the only important document — is the letter of Zetkin and Kautsky of 18. XI. 1911 2.  
In this letter my opponents themselves admit that an arbitration agreement existed, that they were arbitrators, and that they resigned these duties. Since this letter represents, both formally and in substance, a genuine decision of an arbitration court, the usurpation of the duties of arbitrators is thereby completely proved.  
People who, without having authority to do so, act as arbitrators and attempt to dispose of other people’s money, will inevitably be convicted by the court and sentenced to return the money, and also to pay the legal costs.  
The court has no right whatsoever to touch upon the question of the content of the arbitration agreement, etc. Civil law protects the procedure of arbitration only from a purely formal aspect and guarantees the obligatory enforcement of its formally correct decisions. Just as a formally correct decision of an arbitration court is sacred and inviolable for a civil court, so a formally incorrect decision of an arbitration court is void.  
Therefore the court has nothing to do with what moral obligations (toward the party, the faction, etc.) the “holder” of the money had.  
The decision of a civil court, which refe  
* — conclusion.

...would be binding upon such obligations, promises, or private groupings, etc., would undoubtedly be illegal and would be overturned by any court of cassation.

The certificate issued by the bank (dated 30. VI. 1911)³ absolutely proves that I was the "holder" of the money. Regarding movable property, the matter concerns possession of it as property. The opposing party must prove that I was not the owner, and this they will never be able to do (parties, factions, and so forth are not legal entities).

Consequently, the former "holder" (prior to the conclusion of the arbitration agreement and the commencement of the arbitration court's work) undoubtedly has the right under the law to demand the money from the former arbitrators. A civil court must necessarily restore this "holder" to his right of possession.

That Zetkin and Kautsky violated the agreement and did not fulfill their obligation, that they must be sentenced to return the money to me, is therefore already proven by the two aforementioned documents.

I do not recognize any other formulation of the question, and if you share my point of view, I propose the following plan to you. You will send me a declaration, as brief and convincing as possible (the first draft of which, strictly speaking, is the first part of this letter). I will transmit it (together with the opinion of the French lawyers) to an influential person, etc. If, after two months, I receive the money back without a court process, I undertake to pay you a specified fee.

Please return the opinion immediately and reply whether you agree with this plan of action.

Translation from German

¹ This letter is a reply to the letter of lawyer A. Kahn dated May 20 (O.S.), 1913, in which he reports on sending documents and requests further instructions on the matter of conducting the process against the "holders"—C. Zetkin and K. Kautsky. In the letter, he also asks to forward the opinion of the French lawyers.
² See this collection, p. 50, note 5.
³ On June 30 (N.S.), 1911, V. I. Lenin received a letter from the "holders" proposing to place the sum of money entrusted to them at their disposal, and on July 7, the National Discount Bank in Paris, based on V. I. Lenin's letter, transferred the money to the "holders" and informed Vladimir Ilyich of this.
⁴ Lenin Miscellany XXXVIII

LIBERAL POLITICKING 1
One of the important outcomes of the budget debates has been insufficiently appreciated, and partly even unnoticed by our political press. This outcome is the bloc of Cadets and Octobrists in voting on the question of the formula concluding the general debates on the budget.

What is important is precisely the principled significance of this bloc. It is not too late to return to an assessment of this principled significance, and one should return to it more often.

How did the matter stand? The Nationalists introduced a formula of transition. “In essence,” wrote Rech (No. 130), “it contained things that were acceptable even to the Cadets. It sharply condemned financial, economic and railway policy.”

This is an outrageous falsehood. There was nothing sharp. The words: “insufficient attention”, “threatening slowness”, etc., are absolutely not sharp. The formula also contains no condemnation of economic, etc., policy in general, but rather the wishes of the Black-Hundred landlords, grumbling about capital snatching a good morsel from them.

To find this landlords’ formula “acceptable”, to be unable to distinguish whence—from the right or the left—the principled criticism comes, this is a model of petty and obtuse liberal politicking.

But let us go further. If the formula is “in essence” acceptable to you, Messrs. Cadets, where then is your political honor and conscience? Just listen:

“But behind the scenes (!!) of the Duma it was very definitely (!!) said that this formula was inspired by extra-Duma circles, least of all sympathetic to any kind of parliamentary formulas” (Rech, ibid.). The formula was “an instrument of personal struggle against V. N. Kokovtsov 2 in favor of certain favorites” (ibid.).

A striking political ill-breeding of Russian liberal “society” is needed, or more precisely: a centuries-old upbringing in a spirit of boorishness is needed, to be able to tolerate such explanations!

A liberal and even (no joking!) democratic party is guided by backstage reports!! And people do not even understand that they are committing a political abomination, that they put themselves entirely on the level of the Purishkeviches and the Novoye Vremya’s “What do you command?” 3 — this is the worst of all!

Firstly. Rech itself admits that “the Nationalists, with some grimace, were forced (?) to accept Shingarev’s proposal 4 to replace the words: financial department, with the word: government. So, not a shadow of the “personal” remained in the formula!..