Comrades, I have defended and am defending this candidacy on the grounds that the previous speaker gave at the beginning of his speech, namely, on the basis of the long work that this comrade has done. The only argument against him was the unfortunate incident that played out at the congress. I was unable to be at this meeting due to ill-health, and I did not follow its course. It is only asked whether this unfortunate incident can serve as a ground for recusal? No. I don't think there's any grounds for recusal. There is no doubt that this unfortunate incident deserves to be condemned. But it is asked whether the measure of punishment proposed by the comrade is quite suitable, and whether the measure of recusal or the compulsory deprivation of the comrade of a responsible post for half a year or a year is deserved? I know that the atmosphere at the congress that day was such that the heaviest and most intolerable personal insults were thrown from right to left too easily. That is why, [comrades], I think that for such an incident a condemnation should be made either by a party court, a trial, if one is appointed, but to condemn the incident indiscriminately, to impose the heaviest penalty, the removal from responsible office, would seem to me to be unjust. (Applause.)

Fund 41, op. 1, d. 9, fol. 73 - transcript (typewritten text).

1See doc. 166, note 1 (beginning).

Among the 19 candidates for the Central Committee was a delegate with an advisory vote from the Central Committee of the RCP(b), G.Y. Sokolnikov. He was opposed by a delegate from the Orel organization, who said that Sokolnikov, speaking at the fourth session of the Congress on March 20 with a report on the martial law, was like "an excellent fist fighter with the ability to break the way with his forehead" (RCCHIDNI, f. 41, op. 1, d. 9, l. 73). Sokolnikov was not elected to the Central Committee.