Congrès de Lyon
The Lyon Congress
Louise Lévi
May 26-28, 1901
Unofficial analytical report
FIRST DAY
Sunday, May 26
AUGAGNEUR is elected president. The congress appoints Renou and Gérault-Richard as assessors, Briand as secretary.
VAILLANT, proposed as assessor, had refused, declaring that no member of his organization would serve on the bureau.
An address of sympathy to the Russian people fighting for liberty is voted. The amendment of the P.S.R. asking to add a censure of the French ministry for its genuflections before the Russian government provokes a lively tumult and invectives not only between organizations but also between members of the same organization — for example, within the autonomous federations. In the end, the addition is adopted amid the noise.
REVELIN reads the report of the General Committee on the responses to the unification proposal. He proposes placing the question of socialist unity at the head of the agenda, in accordance with the decision of last year’s congress, and appointing a commission to examine the unification proposal.
JOINDY denounces the two currents at work in socialism: one, which is traditional, the revolutionary current, and the other, the opportunist current, which is tending to emerge. Some believe they can bring about unity by setting aside questions of principle; the opposite course must be followed. He therefore asks that the votes of certain deputies on the Zévaès amendment, the conflict between the groups of the eleventh arrondissement of Paris, and the Gelez affair be examined.
DE LA PORTE shares his view as to the necessity of addressing questions of principle, but asks that the agenda be respected, and believes that the points raised by Joindy will be better placed during the debate on parliamentary tactics.
WILLM reads the declaration issued by the secretariat of the P.O.S.R. after consultation with all its groups. This manifesto affirms that the General Committee’s unification proposal has the approval of all P.O.S.R. groups. It supports the creation of autonomous regional federations but asks that there not be a single federation for the Seine department, and declares, on the other hand, that the unification of the socialist party would present dangers if it were to open socialism to dubious elements. Believing that the historic role of the organizations is not over, the P.O.S.R. has given its delegates the mandate to support the maintenance of these organizations. It declares itself hostile to the participation of a socialist in the government, all government being by definition hostile to socialism. As regards Millerand, “the question is whether Millerand belongs to no socialist organization, in which case his actions escape our judgment; but if he belongs to some organization or federation, we ask to be informed, so that we may judge his actions.” Finally, the P.O.S.R. calls for the creation of a socialist newspaper to be the official organ of the Party.
The Joindy proposal is referred to the commission.
GAUTHIER reads a declaration on behalf of the P.S.R., the A.C., and the federations of Doubs and Haut-Rhin. This declaration condemns the method called “new action.” For the present, unification is not possible, but the P.S.R. asks, in the interest of the Socialist Party, that the congress seek the means to establish links between the various organizations. He finally tables a motion of censure against Millerand. (Agitation)
DELESALLE hopes that the P.O.F. will soon join the great socialist family. (Guesdists massed in the galleries cry: “Never!”) He tables the following resolution: In the departmental federations and in the General Committee, each organization’s share of representation shall be proportional to its actual importance. “We must prepare transitional measures capable of gradually bridging the gaps that separate us. Let the commission be invited to present, in addition to the unification proposal, these transitional measures, which will avoid proclaiming a unity of apotheosis capable of producing the worst tragedies.”
DE LA PORTE asks that the congress keep the question of parliamentary tactics on its agenda. He reads a declaration on behalf of the federations of Marne, Seine-et-Oise, Basse-Normandie, Ain, Jura, Deux-Sèvres and Vendée, and the groups of Montpellier, etc. This declaration denounces the ambiguity that results for socialism from Millerand’s presence in the ministry. He asks that, Millerand having committed only himself by entering the ministry, socialism entirely disengage its responsibility.
BRIAND, who signed this declaration, says it is well to affirm that the Socialist Party was never committed by Millerand. “The most authoritative leaders of French socialism were wrong not to protest when Millerand delivered a speech containing a program that was no longer revolutionary in character; but it is only fair to say that they bear a share of responsibility that must be attributed to them. I protested then, as I protest now, even though I am Millerand’s friend and consider him an honest man. It is a duty of friendship that I fulfill here, in pronouncing these words at the very moment I prepare to vote for the motion I have just tabled; but I do not wish my vote to be interpreted as a vile demonstration — it will not have the meaning of a condemnation of Millerand. It is the vote of a socialist who judges another from the standpoint of principles and who does not wish to be thought capable of having debased himself before certain provocations that perhaps do not proceed from concerns of principle. The ground having thus been cleared, I hope there will remain no more misunderstandings between us and that we will examine the conditions under which militants and socialist groups, ceasing a sterile agitation, will organize the Party for revolutionary action, and we will demand that the parliamentary elements of socialism adopt a less evolutionary stance and concern themselves with organizing the country in a revolutionary manner.”
VAILLANT rejects the accusation brought by Briand. He had warned Millerand against delivering the Saint-Mandé speech. “We immediately made the necessary reservations with Guesde. From Millerand’s entry into the ministry, I considered that, by the very fact that a ministerial party was being formed within socialism, the latter was running the greatest moral and material danger. If this situation persisted, the Socialist Party would soon be lost; it would separate itself from the working class, and the working class would disown it. It is necessary to declare that at no time did Millerand represent the Socialist Party; it is necessary to repudiate the ministerialist faction. That is why we rally to the De la Porte proposal and ask the congress to vote on it immediately. Then the situation will be clarified, cleansed. We ardently desire unity, yet we still believe it impossible because we remain in an inorganic situation. And it is at this moment that the attempt has been made to bring together men still too profoundly divided by divisions of principle and fact. If we tried to achieve perfect unity, the Socialist Party, far from seeing its forces grow, would see them diminish. Instead of constructing an ideal plan for unity, we ask that the means simply be sought to establish permanent links between the various organizations, which will allow us to act in the face of the clerical and Caesarian peril and to bring our friends of the P.O.F. back among us. That is why I ask you to vote for citizen Gauthier’s proposal.”
JAURES asks for the De la Porte proposal to be referred to the commission. He finds that in the terms of this proposal there are elements that can be accepted and others that cannot. “It is childish to deny that the arrival, even irregular, of a socialist in the ministry was not a sign of socialism’s growth. I do not wish to say that this participation is useful to socialism, but one cannot refuse to see in it a remarkable sign, as citizen Lafargue recognized the day after Millerand’s entry. But whatever one’s view, it is certain that it was an individual act, that it was without in any way engaging the collective responsibility of the Socialist Party that citizen Millerand entered and remained in the ministry. And if you believe it necessary to renew this declaration, we will gladly do so with you. But take care that ambiguous expressions may not have crept into the declaration, expressions that could be taken tomorrow as an excommunication against a personality or against those who supported him. (Tumult) The very agitation I observe here shows the danger of voting on the De la Porte motion without examining it carefully. Earlier, when the Saint-Mandé banquet was discussed, citizen Vaillant appealed to the memory of various deputies; I was sitting beside him and I can testify that he made reservations about the Saint-Mandé speech; he acknowledged that it was wise to mark the boundaries on the right, but not on the left, to allow the Party to extend to the Revolution. But there was no excommunication. And now, another example of the singular misunderstandings in which we are entangled: Among the signatories of the De la Porte motion, I see the signature of the Charente federation and its representative, citizen Hubert Lagardelle. Well, this citizen wrote an article for the International Review of Chicago. In this article (which dates from May 1, barely a month and a half ago), citizen Lagardelle surveys the workers’ movement in France over the past half century; he declares that the growth of the workers’ movement is the most striking sign of social democracy; he notes that France, at first behind, has regained its rank in recent years, and he pays tribute to the influence exercised by the presence of a socialist minister in the ministry and especially to the law on the Labor Council. There is therefore a misunderstanding, and I consequently ask that the proposal be referred to the commission. — Another example of misunderstanding: A report on the bourgeois budget is a fragment of bourgeois power. Through the postal and telegraph budget, you furnish the bourgeoisie with all means of communication, including military communications. And yet one of your own accepted the function of rapporteur. — Let us not embitter the divisions tending to arise among us; but when events lead someone among us to accept a share of responsibility, let us not cast blame upon him. The De la Porte proposal must therefore, to avoid any surprise, be referred to the commission. And in reply to citizen Vaillant, I say to him: Where are our differences of principle? Our goal, all of us, is communist society. Will you say that our methods differ in that we are reformists and you are revolutionaries? Your party has never denied that partial reforms increase the strength of socialism. By what right do you then contest our method? There is no irreducible difference between the means we employ, and therefore we are entitled to give to a party that has unity of aim, unity of organization. I am not one of those who wish to impose authoritarian unity; but it suffices that certain of our comrades fear it for it to be necessary to seek, in a transitional organization, the means of reconciling with the maximum of unity the autonomy of the organizations. By what means shall we do so? The commission will decide. But that does not prevent us from tracing in advance the plan of unity that will act by attraction upon all socialists. Prejudices will be dispelled, and socialist unity will be achieved in the hearts, in the minds of French social democracy.”
PONARD, on behalf of the autonomous federations, offers some additional observations regarding the De la Porte proposal: “It was not in our thought to pronounce any excommunication against anyone; but citizen Briand overstepped his rights in certain words he uttered. We agree that citizen Millerand did not commit the Party. But why does this question come back every year within the party? We have been suspected of ministerialism. We are opposed to the government of men; we are for the administration of things. It is in this principle that we tabled the De la Porte motion and that we promote the organization of autonomous federations. We believe that unity can be achieved at this very congress. Where do the organizations draw their life if not from the people, from the federations themselves? I therefore ask that unity be organized on the basis of the autonomous federations.”
LAGARDELLE believes that the present ambiguity must be ended. “For the third time the Party meets, and if we do not want this to be an eternal comedy, the question of principle must finally be settled. In an article in Cosmopolis, published a year before Millerand’s entry into the ministry, citizen Jaurès said that socialism cannot accept a parcel of power, that one day it will need all of it. — It is a question of an obstacle to Party unity, not a mystical unity but practical, real unity. One cannot equate voting for a measure of a bourgeois ministry with the constitution of a ministerialist party. I believe that Millerand’s reform work is good, but not that Millerand represents socialism in the ministry. What contradiction is there between these two opinions? We must put an end to ambiguities, at the moment when the radical party is appropriating part of our program by discovering an economic program for itself, so that in the elections a confusion fatal to socialism cannot arise.”
MEUNIER, on behalf of the federation of Nord and Pas-de-Calais, asks for the close of general discussion after three more speakers have taken the floor; he also asks that the commission have a majority rapporteur and a minority rapporteur.
DE LA PORTE declares that his friends and he will call for a vote by mandate.
GROUSSIER defends Sembat, called back to Paris, against certain words of citizen Jaurès. “I am astonished that citizen Jaurès, who has been in Parliament, could have confused executive power and legislative power; for if citizen Jaurès’s thesis were pushed to its limit, it would be necessary to forbid any socialist from entering not only a committee but any Parliament at all. We believe there are certain budget committee reports that no socialist should ever take on; but the postal and telegraph budget is not a danger to socialism and it concerns almost exclusively the situation of a great number of workers, minor civil servants. For my part, I find that as regards Millerand’s personal work, he acted in the best interests of the proletariat — but the question cannot lie there; a member of the budget committee commits only his own responsibility, whereas in government it is otherwise — one cannot say that a minister, whoever he may be, always has his full freedom.”
JAURES, interrupting: “The postal budget brings in millions for bourgeois society.”
GROUSSIER: “The proletariat cannot accept that a socialist remain in power when he has been struck down.”
The session is adjourned and reconvened for nine o’clock the next morning.
SECOND DAY
Monday, May 27
ALLEMANE is named president; Légitimus and Camelle are appointed as assessors, Bonnevial as secretary.
The agenda resumes.
FOURNIERE asks that no vote be taken before the proposals are examined by the commission.
DE LA PORTE, on behalf of the signatories of the proposal he tabled the day before, asks for a vote on the priority of the Willm motion; he adds that citizens Cipriani, Chaucheprat, and Sémanaz, representing unions, support the declaration. (Tumult)
REVELIN asks that the vote be taken not on a procedural question but on the question of principle, and supports the referral to the commission, while declaring that on the substance he is fully prepared to vote for a formula disengaging the Party’s responsibility. “I believe it is possible to find a formula that wounds no one and rallies the whole Party.”
VAILLANT, interrupting: “The De la Porte formula is such.”
REVELIN: “It suffices for me, citizen Vaillant, that comrades do not think so, for me to ask that the motion be examined carefully.” (Voices from the P.S.R.: “We will vote only for the De la Porte motion.”)
REVELIN: “Let us not proceed by a vote of division; let the congress seek a vote of union.”
The close of discussion is voted by the congress.
A vote by mandate is requested. The vote by mandate is granted.
While the votes are being counted, a vote by acclamation takes place on the P.O.S.R. proposal denouncing the war in China. (Cries: Down with war! War on war!)
It is decided to appoint the commission. There are approximately one thousand mandates represented; one commission member is granted per twenty-five mandates.
Result of the vote on referral of the De la Porte proposal to the commission:
For referral to the commission: 744 mandates; against referral to the commission: 402 mandates.
The De la Porte proposal is consequently referred to the commission and the session is suspended until two o’clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION
The federations of Haut-Rhin and Doubs, considering that the De la Porte proposal is of primary importance, ask that this proposal be examined before anything else and that the congress adjourn until the commission has brought its conclusions.
The president announces that the commission has begun its work, and that the report on the De la Porte proposal and the report on the P.S.R. proposal will come first.
MONAGINOT recalls that the essential mission of the congress is the unification proposal. He asks that the report on this question come first in discussion.
BAGNOL rallies to the Landrin proposal.
VIVIANI declares that he is prepared to rally to the Landrin proposal on the condition that the commission be in a position within an hour or an hour and a half to come deliver a report on the various questions. (Cries from the P.S.R.)
VIVIANI: “But that is materially impossible. And it is the afternoon and perhaps the evening that will be lost. And there is a question, that of the accusations you have been bringing for some time against certain deputies. (Tumult) And I am astonished that the accusers are not prompt to mount this tribune to bring the proof of these accusations and to examine whether the votes in favor of the ministry come from those deputies who are called ministerialists. On one side as on the other, there may have been errors committed, but the balance sheet of these faults must be drawn up. And I see a revolutionary deputy who refused to come sit beside our president Allemane and who recently nearly crushed me in the streets of Toulon while riding in a carriage alongside a general and an admiral.” (Tumult)
ALLARD says that citizen Viviani, who claimed he would not raise personal questions, was the first to inflame the debate. “As for the attitude of the deputies, I do not believe that a single one of them would shrink from discussion, but perhaps this debate should not be entered into when several of the deputies, like citizen Vaillant, are on the commission. As for the reproach made to me about the Toulon festivities, I wonder what possible comparison there can be between accepting a portfolio in a ministry and accepting a seat in a carriage. By raising this question, someone sought to make a wretched diversion.”
VIVIANI, having tried to retake the floor, is greeted at the tribune by an indescribable tumult, and even scenes of fisticuffs break out.
LANDRIN says that the sad scenes just witnessed show the wisdom of his proposal. He again calls for the session to be suspended.
KOSCIUSZKO appeals for conciliation, affirming that he follows in the wake of no personality; “but the agenda must be followed, and if citizen De la Porte saw fit to introduce a proposal that is now being examined by the commission, that is no reason not to continue our work, and in particular the question of admitting trade unions.”
GADOUT, MEUNIER, and several other delegates express the sentiment of sorrow they feel seeing the attitude of the congress, the hateful demonstrations occurring there, and the impotence to which it is reduced by the fault of its members. Individual personalities must disappear before the general interest.
The president says the bureau faces two proposals: one, to discuss the entry of unions and cooperatives into the Socialist Party and the conditions of this entry; the second, to suspend the session. The first will be put to a vote.
The P.S.R. demands, amid great tumult, priority for the Landrin agenda item.
The majority of the congress having pronounced in favor of the first proposal, there is great tumult.
The president reads a declaration by citizen Landrin on behalf of the P.S.R., the A.C., and the federations of Doubs and Haut-Rhin. These organizations declare that they are withdrawing not from the congress but from the present session.
All these organizations withdraw.
The majority of the congress continues to discuss the agenda.
LEVY speaks in favor of admitting unions into socialism, but on the condition that union members first be adherents of the federations of their region.
Several speakers speak for the entry of unions and cooperatives into the Socialist Party; other speakers speak against. The latter, basing themselves on the trade union congresses, fear that unions may be diverted from the economic struggle.
The session is adjourned at six o’clock and reconvened for nine o’clock the next morning.
THIRD DAY
Tuesday, May 28
COLZY is named president, with Barrat and Hahn as assessors and Guillemin as secretary.
The agenda calls for the commission’s report. Citizen Briand has the floor.
BRIAND: “The commission found itself from the start confronted with a difficulty bearing on the method of work it would adopt. Citizen Vaillant had tabled, on behalf of his friends, a motion according to which the commission was to study the ministerial question first and immediately bring the commission’s resolution to the congress. Citizen Jaurès did not oppose having the ministerial question taken up first, but asked that the commission immediately afterward take up the unification proposal and the various other questions referred to the commission. A fairly lively discussion ensued. I asked that the first question be dealt with and only afterward a decision be taken. The method of work was thereby simplified, and the discussion was engaged and continued late into the night. The first resolution brought before the commission was the P.O.S.R. motion, the second the De la Porte motion; a third proposal was tabled by citizen Thison of the federation of Poitou, Anjou, Saintonge, and Vendée — it held that Millerand, having committed only himself by entering the ministry, the Party’s conduct toward him could only be guided by the general interests of socialism. Citizen Marius Richard of the Gard federation proposed an amendment to the De la Porte proposal; he wanted the words ‘while acknowledging the progress that Millerand brought about in the trade union field’ added after the words ‘the congress declares.’ The discussion was as thorough as possible. From it emerged the tendency that it was impossible for the Socialist Party to address to Millerand, either directly or indirectly through the organization to which he might belong, the summons to leave the ministry, and this precisely in the desire to disengage the Party from all compromise. The P.S.R. rallied to the De la Porte proposal. Under these conditions, it was on this proposal that the discussion was engaged. The whole question bore on the necessity of disengaging the Party’s responsibility, and it is there that we found ourselves in disagreement, and it is there that the congress will have to decide between two resolutions presented, one by the majority, the other by the minority of the commission. For my part personally, the words ‘has placed himself outside the Party’ caused me concern; these words were maintained, and I must declare that while maintaining my signature at the bottom of the motion, I make reservations about these words; we had no idea of condemning anyone. Others wished to see in it a sort of expulsion from socialism of citizen Millerand. To remove all misunderstanding, I have, for purposes of conciliation, tabled a motion that is identical to that of our comrade De la Porte, with the difference that we do not consider that Millerand expelled himself from the Party by the sole fact of entering government. Our motion is identical in its theoretical premises, but we add: ‘That is to say, by accepting of his own private initiative a function, etc., he could not have committed the Party’s responsibility,’ and further: ‘declares moreover that the attitude of the Party and of the parliamentary group toward the ministry must be the same as toward any bourgeois ministry, that is, guided solely by the interests of the Socialist Party.’ Such was our motion, inspired by the concern to disengage the Party without striking individuals. But I must say that citizen De la Porte maintained his motion, which he will come to explain shortly. He acknowledges having sometimes supported the ministry by his votes, but says that while he may have been ministerial, he is not ministerialist — that is, he is not in favor of supporting the ministry as a ministry, but for what its acts may have contained of a republican nature. This position had struck me personally. I observed that certain militants regarded the ministry too much as a socialist ministry and were astonished that it had not yet overturned everything; for our Party is still a bit too demagogic and it is well to enlighten it on the situation. And we were all in agreement on the commission to tell the proletariat that this ministry is not a socialist ministry, that it may have a certain socialist good will, but that this is not the socialist ministry, the socialist power. This declaration, we wish to make. In my motion, the Socialist Party is disengaged in a clear and precise manner. Some comrades prefer the De la Porte motion because it says that by entering the ministry, Millerand left the Socialist Party; but many of the signatories did not mean to express an excommunication by this. And moreover, these comrades seem to wish to include in the same excommunication all those who have since supported Millerand. You will have to take responsibility for your motion before the socialist congress. You will inaugurate in the Socialist Party a method by which a man can be expelled without being heard, without your having had the courage to hear him face to face. It must be known under what conditions Millerand entered the ministry. A very interesting debate for history took place yesterday within the commission. Here is what we learned: Millerand appeared one day before his group, the parliamentary group — the Socialist Party had constituted with all republican groups a committee of defense that was a sort of provisional government for the eventuality that the situation became more revolutionary. Millerand appeared designated by the Saint-Mandé program as likely to take a share of power. The first mistake was to let this program pass without protest and to post it everywhere in electoral districts. I had denounced this program. Where are those who went into the country to denounce this program? And how many times the manifestos posted in the cities did not resemble the circulars posted in rural districts! Let us all deplore these base acts, these petty cowardices. Millerand appeared one day before his group and told them: ‘I was offered a combination in which I would have had a portfolio; this combination fell through.’ You, socialists, should have spoken sternly to Millerand? — Things went otherwise. Citizen Vaillant himself was troubled by the circumstances; however, I acknowledge that he said, but in a friendly tone: ‘Citizen Millerand, if you enter such a combination, we warn you that it is under your personal responsibility and that we will be obliged to disengage the Party, for we do not accept the participation of a socialist in government.’ Cadenat wished to bring a motion before the parliamentary group to force the group to take a position. The group was for Millerand. He belonged to the Independents, but the Independents were then so weak as to practically not exist. Cadenat wanted a resolution adopted, but he was stupefied to find the parliamentary group so troubled by the situation that he saw it melt like butter, and he found himself alone with his motion and his good intentions. You should have stood up to Millerand and cried: No! And it is two years later that you wish to declare Millerand dead when he could stand before you. It is certain that at that moment, the impression Millerand must have taken away was that he would not be encouraged, that they would not stand with him, but that he would not be considered as excluding himself from the Socialist Party. Citizen Vaillant was solely concerned with having Galliffet removed, but he did not tell Millerand: You must not enter the ministry.”
A voice from the P.S.R.: “Millerand is an assassin!” (Tumult)
EBERS to BRIAND: “Politician!”
BRIAND to EBERS: “And it is you, Ebers, who calls me a politician!… I say that when a worker comes to call us politicians, I excuse it, but you, Ebers!…” (Tremendous tumult)
BRIAND: “You declare that Millerand committed faults and you wish to condemn him without hearing him. The difference between our two motions is that we do acknowledge he committed faults; but before judging him we wish to hear him. You wish to march toward unity over corpses — that is not a socialist thought. And I ask you, comrades of the P.S.R., I who have often been with you, to acknowledge the step the other side of the congress has taken toward you by subscribing to my motion. Do you think it cost them nothing! Think of the workers, who tomorrow will severely judge your fratricidal intentions. This congress will choose between those who wish to pronounce solely on principles while reserving the right to judge later, severely if need be, the persons, and those who wish to secure committee victories. The majority within the commission was divided thus: 23 votes against the De la Porte motion, 10 votes for.”
DE LA PORTE corrects the figures; the Seine-et-Oise delegate has left the congress. “When I refused to rally to the Briand motion, it is because I understood that behind this motion lay a policy we wish to combat. If one declares that Millerand is not outside the Party but outside the Party’s control, what then is the position one wishes to create for someone declared sufficiently free from the Party that his acts escape all Party control, that he can commit any action with impunity? But how can you expect him to come defend himself before the congress? We believe that this nightmare of ministerialism must be banished from all our dreams for the future, and we want it to be stated before the assizes of the proletariat whether the Party intends to commit itself to ministerialism or to anti-ministerialism. We do not want a tactical question to be erected into a method. We say that the Socialist Party must conduct itself toward the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry as toward any bourgeois ministry, and we do not say that personal friendship or a question of sentiment should lead to approving acts that would be condemned in any bourgeois ministry. Do you find in the Briand motion a solution, and is it not perpetuating ambiguities? It has been said that we intended to exclude other militants. Let me declare that we wished to say that Millerand, for the entire duration of his ministry, was to be considered excluded from the Party, and that if he wished to re-enter the Socialist Party, he would have, like a simple bourgeois, to apply for admission anew. We are not seeking the exclusion of other citizens. The day we consider that there are grounds for excluding twenty militants, we will say so, but we are not saying it, and you have no right to accuse of disloyalty citizens with whom you have always maintained friendly relations, when you yourselves invoke friendship to excuse a minister.” (Tumult)
JAURES: “It is a stab in the back!”
DE LA PORTE: “Citizen Jaurès came to tell us that citizen Lagardelle had written, in one of his articles, that it was a singular fiction to consider as belonging to the Socialist Party those who had supported a man excluded from the Socialist Party; and it was then that citizen Cabardos, delegate from Seine-et-Oise, declared that he did not know this article, and it was then that he withdrew his signature. But I ask whether one can suspect the loyalty of a man whose only fault is no longer sharing the opinion of a certain number of men who support Millerand. — The question before us is extraordinarily clear. The P.O.S.R., which is no longer here (?), had posed it very simply. You cannot escape the dilemma it posed. We ask you whether Millerand can be considered as having left the Party by virtue of his entry into the ministry, or whether he never belonged to it. We believe he was a member of the Party until his entry into the ministry, and that at that point he considered himself disengaged from the Party. You want a motion that allows you to claim the congress refused to pronounce. But we ask you why you refuse to adopt the formula that you yourselves are obliged to take up again in your discussions. We want you to proclaim what you yourselves acknowledge to be the truth, and that without ambiguity. It is a singular abuse of words to claim that Millerand’s entry into the ministry provoked no protests, when the parliamentary group was fractured by Millerand’s entry into the ministry. You claim the elected officials refused to pronounce against the ministry. Lassalle, although not belonging to the P.S.R., nevertheless voted for an inquiry that other members of the parliamentary group refused…”
LASSALLE: “I did not call them assassins!”
DE LA PORTE: “We are not asking for executions. On the question of the elected officials, there are only two officials under scrutiny, and they are so by order of the General Committee: Palix and Narbonne. We have made no demand for excommunication. We did ask, it is true, for a debate on parliamentary tactics to be instituted, but you know that this question could not come to discussion before the General Committee. On the purely ministerial question, you have only to consider the question of principle without concerning yourselves with what we may have said or written about the question of parliamentary tactics. In accepting the functions of rapporteur, I asked to state very clearly what I think and what some of the signatories of the motion I defend think with me. Lagardelle and I believed that it was not possible for a socialist to participate in power, for you have inscribed the conquest of public powers in our program, and it is too difficult to distinguish between those one can conquer and those one cannot. We adopted the Delesalle motion, which forbids any socialist participation, and such was our position at the last congress. We have therefore not changed, as has been claimed. And now we ask you to vote for the minority motion and to say whether or not Millerand still belongs to the Socialist Party. The motion is of such clarity that no one can avoid answering it.”
The close of debate is proposed.
Another delegate asks that each side of the congress designate two speakers to address the question.
JAURES finds the number of two too limited; he asks for three speakers from each side, because citizen Lagardelle and his friends declare that he, Jaurès, wishes to stifle the debate.
This latter motion is voted. Ten minutes per speaker is proposed. — Accepted.
BRIAND: “A few brief explanations to clarify certain points of my motion. I had no malicious intention toward certain comrades; I am surprised that De la Porte could have had this impression, when yesterday, within the commission, Jean Longuet and others protested when ideas of excommunication were attributed to some comrades. I said only that the De la Porte motion was ambiguous and that it was necessary to know what these words ‘outside the Party’ meant. I observe that the motion has been considerably clarified and that it therefore becomes similar to ours and means only that Millerand is at present absent from the Party; that if later he applies for admission, we will examine it like any other application. Where then will militants see a difference? The two motions are identical and yours will not even say as clearly that there may be grounds for asking Millerand for explanations. The Kautsky motion and the Delesalle motion settled the question as regards the future; one must therefore not attribute to my motion an intention it does not have. — As regards the history of Millerand’s entry into the ministry, I must further point out that the protest took place only after Millerand’s entry into the ministry and not before.”
VAILLANT: “We supported the De la Porte motion because it is the clear answer to ministerialism, because it allows no ambiguity. On the subject of the historical explanations that were given, I wish to clarify a few points. The socialist group was not convened to discuss the Millerand case; but citizen Millerand came the day before the cabinet was formed and said that he had been considered for a combination, but he said it as a retrospective fact. I replied that if similar negotiations were resumed, I would feel obliged to declare that the Socialist Party would in no way participate in such combinations, for socialism cannot participate in bourgeois power. Millerand made a gesture of acquiescence. The group gradually dispersed; I did not hear the Cadenat motion; if I had heard it, I would not have needed to support it, for I believed the attempt would not be renewed and I would not have wished to admit participation as possible. I repeat, the group was not convened for that purpose; Millerand was telling us about the fact as a simple matter of curiosity, and yet negotiations were taking place. That evening, Millerand’s friends announced to my friends that the cabinet was formed, and the next day it was announced to Dubreuilh, as if coming from Jaurès, that the cabinet was definitively formed with Galliffet. I wrote Millerand a letter as warm as possible begging him to deny it. Since the Saint-Mandé speech we had considered Millerand a possible candidate for the ministry, and we did not think there was anything else to do but disengage the Party, but I was asking Millerand to disengage his solidarity with the assassin of 1871. We believed that there would be no protest too strong against Millerand’s entry into the ministry, and when Millerand replied to my telegram with another telegram saying he believed he had done his duty and that the future would judge, we immediately brought our protest to the Havas agency. Then came our manifesto with a doctrinal exposition condemning the entry of a socialist into the ministry, for we believe that socialism cannot have a delegate in bourgeois power. If Millerand has since been compromised, it is above all by his friends, who wished to make him the representative of socialism in the ministry. It is time to end the ambiguity. Today citizen De la Porte takes up our resolution of 1899; we believe this formula is necessary to put an end to the ministerialism that persists despite the Kautsky motion, with more danger than ever. We want the Socialist Party to be completely disengaged. As long as the workers’ struggle continues, the Socialist Party cannot have a representative in power. By the Briand motion, the socialist conscience cannot be satisfied, whereas the De la Porte motion alone can restore peace to consciences, an indispensable condition of unity. The P.S.R. understands that the Republic is indispensable for us to hope to obtain the demands we pursue, but it is behind this word that the Versailles reaction was able to shoot down the Parisians with impunity; there is no other government that could have allowed the massacres of Martinique and Chalon to pass. To deprive socialists of instruments of demoralization, justice must be done in the present.”
VIVIANI: “The ordinary frankness of citizen Vaillant allows us to show the discord that exists among the defenders of the De la Porte motion. He has come to say that as for him, Millerand’s exclusion was complete, so that the same motion unites names that do not agree on its meaning. That said, I will very briefly recall the past to which citizen Vaillant has just alluded, and I will at the same time protest against the use M. Poincaré made of my name. It is not true to say that citizen Millerand sought M. Poincaré’s advice before entering the ministry, notwithstanding the feelings of comrades. The divergences between citizens Cadenat and Vaillant, both loyal, prove the confusion that then existed and that there was no imperative order forbidding Millerand from entering the ministry. The Party’s responsibility was merely covered. Why did you not have the firm language you have today? I admire these young men of twenty who settle questions of principle in the silence of their study; but when one faces formidable problems, when one feels the weight of one’s responsibility, one hesitates and one votes as you will vote one day, when you are deputies, I hope; and then, like your elders, you will feel what we felt. Citizen De la Porte gave very conciliatory commentary on his motion. He will allow me to tell him that he is exposing himself to interpretations that go beyond his own; what would remain of a vote on his proposal is the exclusion of which citizen Vaillant speaks and of which citizen De la Porte does not speak, and there would remain a condemnation of those who approved citizen Millerand. He did not sustain himself alone; he was confirmed by our votes and our propaganda; and so why should we not be excluded ourselves? That is the situation, and the trial would extend to organizations — this would not be the preface to unity but the preface to a schism. What do we wish to do? Certainly we are fallible; a unanimous vote must disengage the Socialist Party. It will have the benefit of certain acts that help the working class to liberate itself; it will not bear the responsibility for faults. Justice is far more an individual sentiment than a collective one. What is ministerialism? When we voted, citizen Vaillant and I, for the law on associations, we did not commit an act of ministerialism. And when the Briand motion has been voted, we will find ourselves in agreement; our votes will have a socialist meaning, voting against the ministry when it is at fault, for it when it battles the defenders of Caesarism.”
DE LA PORTE: “I said and I repeat that by our motion we exclude citizen Millerand from the Party — or rather we note that he excluded himself by his entry into the ministry; and when this cause of exclusion has ceased, citizen Millerand will have, like any bourgeois, to apply for admission; then the Socialist Party will have to examine his application as if it came from M. Méline or from anyone else. And when the P.S.R. adds that it will be disposed to maintain this exclusion, I believe I can say on behalf of our friends that we will be of the same opinion and that we too will raise the question of order, barring new circumstances. But, citizens, we cannot tell you that you will not have the right to admit Millerand into this or that of your organizations. How does Briand wish to reconcile this position of a man who is outside the control of a party and who nevertheless does not cease to belong to that party, unless one suppresses all the conditions of justice that now exist in the world? And if citizen Millerand excluded himself from the Party, it is quite evident that we do not have to exclude him, but it must at least be noted. I pose the question to citizen Briand for the last time.”
BRIAND: “You had seemed to admit that there would be no decision to definitively exclude Millerand from the Socialist Party; now your motion implies the absolute exclusion of Millerand, unless, says citizen De la Porte, new circumstances arise. What new circumstances?”
DE LA PORTE: “There may be many new circumstances, some brought about by Millerand and others by ourselves; and there will be one, in my conviction: Millerand will never ask to return among us.”
BRIAND: “I am very satisfied with these explanations. You wish to give yourselves airs of intransigence that, according to your explanations…” (Tumult)
LAVAUD clarifies the position of the P.O.S.R. “We are dishonestly classified among the ministerialists, and we ask to re-read our declaration.” (He reads the declaration already known.)
A delegate from the Seine-et-Oise federation declares that the federation will vote only for the De la Porte motion. It disavows its representative from the previous day who, against the express mandate he had received, voted for the Briand motion. (Tumult)
PARSONS reads a declaration on behalf of a number of the signatories of the De la Porte proposal; this declaration affirms that it is in order to remove the obstacle to unity that the signatories gave their support to the De la Porte motion, and they ask for priority in its favor; but if it is rejected, they declare that they will rally to the Briand motion, which is not exclusive of the De la Porte proposal since it took up its terms. The declaration bears the signatures of citizens Jean Longuet, Parsons, Lagardelle, etc.
RENAUDEL: “I rallied to the Briand motion because we believed it would finally force all socialists to bow before the decisions of congresses.”
A great number of citizens of the P.S.R. demand priority for the De la Porte proposal and a vote by mandate.
The P.O.S.R. vigorously demands priority for its declaration.
BRIAND supports the priority for the P.O.S.R. motion, then asks for a vote afterward on the De la Porte motion. (Tumult)
The president declares that the first proposal received by the bureau is that of the P.O.S.R. and that the delegates of this organization simultaneously requested priority. The authors of this proposal ask that the vote on priority be taken by a show of hands and the vote on the substance by mandate.
Priority is rejected.
A vote is taken on priority for the De la Porte motion. Priority is adopted by a show of hands.
A vote by mandate is taken on the substance of the De la Porte motion.
RESULTS OF THE VOTE:
Mandates represented: approximately 1,010
For the motion: 818
Against the motion: 634
The federations of Doubs, Haut-Rhin, Seine-et-Oise, the central group of the eleventh arrondissement of Paris, etc., read a declaration regretting that the ambiguous situation created over the past two years has not been resolved. “We had come to the congress resolved to create union, but a frank and clear union — you did not wish it; a strong majority pronounced against us. Under these conditions, we declare our withdrawal. We are persuaded that our decision is the best one to take in the interests of revolutionary socialism. Citizen Briand said the proletariat would judge us; it is from the proletariat that we indeed await our judgment.” (The entire P.S.R. cries: Long live the Commune! The right boos. Tumult.)
The president: “The session continues.”
JAURES mounts the tribune. His friends give him an ovation. When the applause has somewhat subsided, he speaks: “Now all the veils are torn and all the masks have fallen; we know what those protestations for unity were worth; and those who accused us of being rebellious toward socialist discipline are those who withdraw the moment they are placed in the minority. The socialist proletariat will judge. And we, who can do ourselves the justice that we have made the greatest efforts over these three days to achieve this unity, have but one answer to give to those who have deserted this hall: to achieve it by all rallying beneath our red flag.”
RENAUDEL: “So the irreparable seems accomplished. On behalf of the signatories of the declaration read earlier (the Parsons, Longuet, Lagardelle declaration, etc.) and on behalf of the autonomous federation of Seine-et-Oise, we affirm that the De la Porte motion, which we had presented jointly with its author, had no other aim than to facilitate union; and our comrade Lagardelle, from yesterday morning, wished to replace the words ‘outside the Party’ with the words ‘has made himself independent of the Party.’ Comrade De la Porte having refused, we are compelled to disavow him. We remain faithful to union. Since the organizations do not wish to disappear, we stay with the proletariat. But we ask you no longer to bring the same spirit. If we were intransigent, you too were; you are not yet sufficiently imbued with the socialist spirit; it is to enlightening the proletariat that you must henceforth devote yourselves.”
A delegate from the Ardèche rallies to the union.
LAVAUD notes that the extreme left voted against the P.O.S.R. motion. We are for union, but we are against the disappearance of the organizations.
REVELIN asks that the unification question be taken up immediately.
BAGNOL says on behalf of the cooperatives: “We will not leave this hall until unity is accomplished.”
PONARD speaks in the same vein.
VIVIANI appeals to the devotion of all in favor of the proletariat.
CARNAUD speaks in the same vein but rejects all coercion. “We must set the example of love among ourselves.”
The session is suspended.
At the resumption, REVELIN, on behalf of the commission, reports on the work on the unification proposal. The proposal has undergone very slight modifications due to the objections of various federations: “We have added, to the article regulating the introduction of unions and cooperatives into socialism, an article stating that no one may enter the Party if he has been excluded from his union in time of strike or excluded from a socialist group. But we do not wish to settle in advance what the relations of unions and cooperatives with the political party shall be; we do not wish to introduce rigid rules in advance, leaving time to determine them. We merely measure the strength of unions and cooperatives by the number of those enrolled; and as in the common constitution, we grant one mandate per two hundred dues-paying members.” REVELIN concludes by announcing that he will read the unification proposal article by article, each article to be voted on as it is read.
ALLEMANE says he is in favor of later ratification of the proposal by the P.O.S.R. groups.
Delegates from the P.O.S.R. come to declare that they have received a mandate to establish unity. Other delegates from the same organization affirm on the contrary that they have a mandate to maintain the existing organizations without creating a premature unity, while seeking the means best suited to tightening as much as possible the bonds of friendship between organizations.
JAURES, wishing to mount the tribune, is greeted by Guesdists in the galleries shouting: To Chalon, etc. — They are expelled.
REVELIN reads Article 1:
“The French Socialist Party is founded upon the following principles: International understanding and action of the workers; political and economic organization of the proletariat as a class party for the conquest of power and the socialization of the means of production and exchange, that is to say, the transformation of capitalist society into collectivist or communist society.”
This article is adopted without discussion. The same is true of the following articles through Article 16. Here are these articles:
ARTICLE 2. — “It is composed of study and propaganda groups, permanent political committees, unions, and cooperatives that adopt its principles along with its doctrine and tactics.”
ARTICLE 3. — “Unions are invited to join industry or trade federations, and cooperatives are required to allocate a subsidy for socialist propaganda.”
ARTICLE 4. — “Study and propaganda groups, permanent political groups, unions, and cooperatives must join the federation of the department or region. Federations are required to urge, in the most pressing manner, members of their political groups to join the unions and cooperatives of the department or region.”
ARTICLE 5. — “Each federation shall itself establish, in its statutes, the rules according to which the cooperation of socialist groups, unions, and cooperatives shall operate.”
ARTICLE 6. — “Each socialist group must be composed exclusively of Party members, and no one may be enrolled in a socialist group who has been expelled from his union for treachery in time of strike (scabbing).”
ARTICLE 7. — “The groups of a commune or a quarter form a commune or quarter union. The groups in commune or quarter unions are convened in plenary meeting at least once every three months. They coordinate propaganda, designate candidates for municipal elections, and elect the committee of the union of groups.”
ARTICLE 8. — “The groups of a legislative district form a single section. They may designate candidates and appoint a section committee.”
ARTICLE 9. — “The groups of a department or region form a single federation. The delegates of the groups meet each year at the federation congress and elect a federal committee.”
ARTICLE 10. — “Groups of persons originally from departments, founded in Paris or other cities, are attached to the federation of their department of origin.”
ARTICLE 11. — “When the number of groups in a department is fewer than ten, they cannot form a separate federation and must seek admission to the federation of a neighboring department. This provision shall not have retroactive effect.”
ARTICLE 12. — “Decisions of the federation congress, the federal committee, the section, and the union of groups are taken by majority.”
ARTICLE 13. — “Elections of delegates to the commune or quarter union committee, the section committee, and the federal committee take place by list ballot with proportional representation of minorities.”
ARTICLE 14. — “Groups may designate only one candidate or one list of candidates per district. In the event of a conflict between groups, the federal committee shall serve as arbitrator.”
ARTICLE 15. — “No one may be considered a socialist candidate unless he recalls in his professions of faith the principles that served as the basis for the Party’s constitution and unless he is presented by a group.”
It is decided that in all of this, the procedures shall apply for one year only, until the next congress.
The following articles through Article 21 are adopted without discussion.
ARTICLE 16. — “The general direction of the Party belongs to the Party itself, that is, to the national congress that meets each year.”
ARTICLE 17. — “Delegates to the national congress are elected by the federation congresses, by list ballot with proportional representation of minorities.”
ARTICLE 18. — “Each federation shall have: 1. One delegate by right, and if it comprises several departments, one delegate by right per department; 2. One delegate per two hundred enrolled and dues-paying members of socialist groups, or per fraction of two hundred members equal to or greater than one hundred; 3. One delegate per five thousand votes obtained in the first round of the legislative elections immediately preceding the congress, or per fraction of five thousand votes equal to or greater than two thousand.”
ARTICLE 19. — “The congress appoints the delegates to the international secretariat.”
ARTICLE 20. — “The national congress shall fix each year the subsidy to be allocated to the Party’s central body. Each federation’s share is proportional to the number of its dues-paying members.”
STEIN, of the autonomous federations, demands that, in accordance with a decision of the 1899 congress, oversight be exercised over elected officials by the General Committee.
FERROUL proposes that they be under the oversight of congresses.
The congress decides they shall be under the oversight of the General Committee.
The following articles through Article 26 are adopted:
ARTICLE 21. — “The congress may not meet two consecutive years in the same city. The congress designates each year the place where the following congress shall be held.”
ARTICLE 22. — “Socialist cooperatives establish at their congress the rules that will determine their contribution.”
ARTICLE 23. — “Delegates to the General Committee are elected by the federations. The number of delegates from each federation is proportional to the number of its mandates at the national congress. When the federation has more than one delegate, the election takes place by list ballot with proportional representation of minorities.”
ARTICLE 24. — “The General Committee meets at least once a month in ordinary session. At its first meeting, it determines the number and attributions of the commissions that, under its oversight, administer the Party. The General Committee appoints the secretary, the treasurer, and the archivist. The delegates filling these functions receive an indemnity.”
ARTICLE 25. — “The General Committee delivers to the federations the membership cards of Party members. These cards bear on the verso the declaration of principles that served as the basis for the Party’s constitution (Article 1) and the signature of the member. Federations ensure that the Party card delivered to each of their duly enrolled militants bears mention of: 1. The political group or permanent committee; 2. The union; 3. The workers’ cooperative of which he is a member.”
It is decided to suspend the session but to hold an evening session. The session resumes at nine o’clock.
A motion is presented calling for a ban on any socialist seeking the Legion of Honor. Referred to the General Committee, together with all amendments presented on the various articles.
The rest of the unification proposal is adopted without discussion.
ARTICLE 26. — “The General Committee receives the dues collected for the central body by the federations.”
ARTICLE 27. — “The General Committee prepares the reports submitted each year to the national congress. These reports are printed and sent to the federations two months before the congress opens.”
ARTICLE 28. — “The General Committee enforces the decisions of national and international congresses. It oversees the Party press, in accordance with the resolutions of the 1899 Paris congress, elected officials, and all militants. Its essential function is to organize general propaganda and the Party’s collective action.”
ARTICLE 29. — “The General Committee shall prepare, for the legislative and municipal elections, a program preceded by a theoretical exposition of the principles of socialism. This program shall be submitted for examination by the federations and by the national congress of 1902, which shall meet before the legislative elections.”
ARTICLE 30. — “Socialist deputies form a single parliamentary group in the Chamber. This group is founded on the same principles as the Party itself. The members of the parliamentary group establish their internal rules. They must meet and confer to achieve as far as possible unity of vote; they may, if necessary, consult the General Committee.”
ARTICLE 31. — “For propaganda and for strikes, all members of the parliamentary group sign up in turn on the duty roster. The group secretary draws up the roster and communicates it to the General Committee.”
ARTICLE 32. — “The General Committee secretary informs the parliamentary group secretary of the requests addressed to the General Committee. For strikes, the group secretary urgently delegates the enrolled elected officials; for meetings and conferences, the group examines the requests and designates the speakers.”
ARTICLE 33. — “The parliamentary group presents a report each year to the national congress. This report is transmitted to the General Committee, printed, and sent to the federations two months before the congress opens.”
ARTICLE 34. — “For propaganda in the commune and department, municipal councilors, arrondissement councilors, and general councilors, and in general all elected officials, must lend their support to the commune groups and the federal committee.”
ARTICLE 35. — “Socialist municipal councilors form in each council a single municipal group. This group is founded on the same principles as the Party itself. The members of a municipal group must meet and confer to achieve as far as possible unity of vote; they may, if necessary, consult the commune groups union committee and the federation committee.”
ARTICLE 36. — “The municipal group of each commune presents a report each year to the annual congress of the commune groups. In each department, socialist municipal councilors prepare each year a comprehensive report presented to the federal congress. This report is transmitted to the federal committee, printed, and distributed to group members one month before the congress opens. All reports are transmitted to the General Committee of the Socialist Party, which submits a report to the national congress.”
ARTICLE 37. — “The next General Committee shall be constituted on the same basis as the resolutions commission of the Lyon congress. Each federation or national organization shall have one delegate per twenty-five mandates, or per fraction equal to or greater than ten. All federations that were represented at the Lyon congress, regardless of the number of their mandates, shall be entitled to at least one delegate.”
ARTICLE 38. — “The General Committee is charged with preparing a plan for the constitution of socialist groups in the Seine department, with opening a consultation among all groups, and with submitting this plan to the next national congress.”
ARTICLE 39. — “The complete unification of the Socialist Party, that is, the merger of all organizations, may be decided only at a national congress.”
The proposal as a whole is put to a vote and adopted.
The choice of a city for the next congress is discussed. A violent tumult erupts.
STROOBANT proposes Albi, where the workers’ glassworks is located.
JAURES, while acknowledging the thought behind this proposal, questions the material conditions for success of a congress held in Albi. “Nor should the militants, who are wrongly accused of personal preoccupations (applause), be suspected of having wished to place the congress on the terrain of their earliest efforts.”
Dijon, Nantes, Bourg, and others are successively proposed. A dreadful tumult erupts. Certain delegates shout Cambronne’s famous word; others cry: Boo! Boo! The spectacle of the congress is lamentable.
Finally the city of Tours is chosen because of its central location.
Congratulations are voted to Révelin for the devotion he showed in his functions as rapporteur.
A motion in favor of the abolition of regulation is also voted unanimously (to be sent to the abolitionist congress opening the following day), along with thanks to the city of Lyon for the hospitality granted to the congress, and to the organizing commission for the good preparation of the congress.
A very lively and very confused debate begins on the question of the election in the eleventh arrondissement of Paris. Finally a delegate from the Seine federation pledges, on behalf of this federation, to re-examine the question.
RENAUDEL asks that the question of an official Party newspaper be studied. — Voted unanimously.
RENAUDEL reads the manifesto drafted by the commission and addressed to proletarian France. It can be summarized in this sentence: “It is through the autonomous federations that unity is being accomplished.”
Delegates from the P.O.S.R. declare that they are for union and not for unity.
JAURES then asks for a few minutes so that the commission may find a formula allowing the P.O.S.R. delegates to sign the manifesto.
During this deliberation, a declaration signed by Jean Longuet, Buré, etc., is read from the tribune. The signatories refuse to associate themselves with the censure directed at the comrades who withdrew, and deplore their departure.
This declaration is strongly booed.
JEAN LONGUET comes to declare that if he rallied to the Briand motion after signing the De la Porte proposal and after its rejection, it is because the Briand motion gives him a certain satisfaction regarding the ministry, but he regrets the departure of the P.S.R. (Boos)
The commission having found a formula that satisfies the P.O.S.R. in that it implies union without destroying the organizations, the manifesto is voted.
The congress is adjourned to the singing of the Internationale.
L. Lévi
Toward unity: after this congress, the Collectivist Students’ Group of Paris split; the dissidents will no doubt found the Revolutionary Collectivist Students’ Group.