AT LE PERREUX 

London, 28 June 1889 

My dear Laura, 

As to your ‘free and easy’ translation of my aufgeschoben’ etc., I am 
afraid J can, in this tropical heat, muster no more energy than to entirely 
leave to you the responsibility of the same and to do so, as lawyers say, 
‘without prejudice’. All I know is that if this weather lasts, I don’t envy 
you the Congress; the only congress I care for is one with Nim over a 
bottle of beer from the cool cellar. 

4 postponed; see this volume, p.337 

As to this Congress of yours I see, from your letter to Maggie 
Harkness, that it is intended to keep the administrative sittings in 
private. Now I am fully convinced that this question can only be decided 
by the Congress itself, and after having heard the Germans, Austrians, 
etc. But as far as the order of the day questions are concerned, I do not 
see any necessity for insisting upon private meetings at all, and should 
think the Germans themselves would prefer public sittings all through— 
unless there is in some quarters a hankering after a restoration of the 
International in some form or other, and that the Germans would and 
ought to oppose with might and main. Our people and the Austrians are 
the only ones that have a real struggle to go through, real sacrifices to 
make, with always a hundred men or so in prison, and they cannot 
afford to play at international organisations which are at present as 
impossible as they are useless. 

On the other hand, the Possibilists and Co. will do everything to give 
retentissement? to their congress, will probably have no private meetings 
at all, after the vérification des pouvoirs,» and perhaps not even for that— 
and with the odds in their favour in their connection with the bourgeois 
press in France and here, they will get the pull of us—handicapped heav- 
ily as we are—unless we act boldly and have the press admitted as often 
as ever possible. 

From all this, I conclude that it will be best not to have any settled 
opinion upon this or other questions connected with the Congress, but 
to wait until the others have been heard and then come to a conclusion. 
This I would apply also to what Paul writes about making the fusion of 
both congresses impossible.*©* It strikes me that when that question 
crops up, there will be so many practical difficulties that, unless the 
Possibilists give way on every point, nothing is likely to come of it. But 
the Possibilists won’t give way, and as they are sure to make up by 
Trades Unions what they lack in Socialists, and will have a pretty fair 
show of French and English (which two nations, as you know, make up, 
in their own opinion, the whole civilised world) and as they will have 
one Knight of Labour, representing, on his own statement, at least 
500,000, and one American Federationist of Labor,‘ representing 
600,000, they will represent, on paper, an immense number of working 
men and expect us poor Socialists to give in. All I fear is that they may 
make a sham move to put us in the wrong before the public (a trick they 

4 publicity — > verification of credentials 

understand to a T) and that Liebknecht will fall into the trap. In that case 
I reckon upon you especially, upon Tussy and D. Nieuwenhuis to 
open Bebel’s eyes and to prevent the success of Liebknecht’s 
Vereinigungswut.* 

Tussy has replied to Paul’s question about Lavy; I was not there, she 
knows all about it.4¢* 

In my opinion the two congresses might sit side by side without any 
harm—they are essentially different in character, the one of Socialists 
and the other chiefly of aspirants to Socialism, and I do not think Bebel 
would under these circumstances be prepared to go in for union at any 
price. He wrote to me that the fusion could only take place on the foot- 
ing of perfect equality, and that will no doubt be the minimum of his 
conditions. But he has never lived outside Germany, and is no judge of 
English or French conditions of life or ideas—and there Liebknecht may 
become dangerous, especially as he is unfortunately, for want of a better 
informed man, the foreign minister of the Germans. One point you must 
press upon Bebel is that the Possibilists and SDF intend using the 
Congress as a means of restoring the International, a thing the Germans 
cannot countenance without calling down upon themselves prosecutions 
innumerable; and that therefore the Germans had better keep away from 
such a congress. 

My congratulations to Paul for his double candidature**°—at 
Avignon he is sure to win, c’est la ville de Laure! he ought to have cards 
engraved Paul Lafargue, candidat, successeur (plus heureux) de 
Pétrarque. But I suppose you have heard these bad puns long and often 
enough at Paris without me. 

I suppose our people in Paris are preparing a projet de réglement* for 
the Congress? That is absolutely necessary to save time, and it should be 
very short and leave all details to the chairman. 

If I have time I shall send Paul a few lines on the question of national 
armament and suppression of standing armies. 

Sam¢ will be about Senegal or Gambia now, we expect to have a few 
lines from Madeira in a day or two. 

Of Schorlemmer not a word. Shall try and stir him up a bit. But perhaps 
he has written to you, he has said to M. Harkness that he intends to be at 
the Congress in Paris. 

4 drive for unification ~ > this is Laura’s town — ‘ candidate, (happier) successor 
of Petrarch — 4 draft procedure — * Samuel Moore 

Parnell has had a letter published in the Labour Elector that he did 
sign in his quality of Hon. Sec. of Labour Elector Association — e cié 
basta.* #66 

Love from Nim. Ever yours 

EE, 

5 p.m. Just received your letter to, and from, Tussy, she writes the 
enclosed on the subject of the private meetings which I fully endorse. I 
shall also write to Bebel tomorrow on the same subject.