Dear Leiteysen! Yu.* conveyed to me your resolution for the meeting regarding formulation. I was entirely satisfied with the "Confidential Communication," but in my opinion, the verdict should be more impressive, more categorical. In particular, I would propose:

§ 3 merge with § 4, since § 3 by itself is incomplete and yields nothing.

To § 1 add: "from careful examination of all data concerning Gurovich as a person, the commission has formed the conviction that in his moral qualities Gurovich bears absolutely no resemblance to a sincere and honest revolutionary."

To § 2. "Consequently, Gurovich spoke untruth or must have concealed much about his means of livelihood."

§ 3. See above (and § 4).

* Pseudonym not disclosed. Ed.

§ 5. The commission finds that even if in any single one of these instances it were possible to admit that the gendarmes could have learned the facts through some other, accidental and unknown means, then the comparison of all these instances together makes such an assumption absolutely impossible and permits no doubt whatsoever concerning Gurovich's betrayal.

Transpose §§ 6 and 5.

§ 7. Insert "unanimously and insistently." Add: "The commission finds that this opinion is fully confirmed by many detailed facts communicated to it, which cannot be published for reasons of conspiracy. But some of these facts the commission communicates in its confidential circular to the revolutionary organizations."

"Taking into account" transfer from the introduction to the conclusion sections, since many points are not connected with one another and are not themselves very weighty.

Taking into account all the foregoing, the commission holds that the defendant Gurovich's reference to the absence of fully definite evidence and indubitable proof cannot in any way serve his exoneration. Such a crime as secret service in the political police cannot, generally speaking, except in completely exceptional cases, be proven by fully definite evidence and such concrete facts as any outside person could verify.

Examining, however, all evidence in their totality and carefully verifying the numerous statements of revolutionaries, the commission has arrived at the unquestionable conviction that (in greater detail) Mikhail Ivanovich Gurovich (rank*, etc. in greater detail) was an agent of the security department and acted in the revolutionary organizations of St. Petersburg as a *p r o v o c a t e u r*.

The commission therefore invites all honest Russian citizens to apply to Gurovich the strictest boycott.

* Here it would be well to add: age, distinctive marks, etc., and express the desire to publish his photograph.