On Monday morning the British delegates met in St. Martin’s Town Hall.James Mawdsley and Tom Mann were nominated for the
chair, when the former was elected by ten of a majority, the S. D. F. delegates voting solid for him. J. R. Macdonald and H. W. Lee were nominated for secretary, when Macdonald received 156 votes to 90 cast for Lee.
The following WM the outcome
of the voting. TheS.DF. in every
case voted for th*-ir own nominees
only, and abstained from voting when
WILL THORNE ASKS THE CHAIRMAN I. L.P.ers were voted upon. Standing
то BELL THE CAT. Orders—Curran, I.L.P. ; Burrows,
S.D.F. Agrarian— Watts, I.L.P.; Pearson, S.D.F. Political Action—
Lansbury, S.DF. ; Glisier, I.L.P. Economic and Industrial Action—
Mrs. Aveling and Adolphe Smith were appointed translators for the British. On the motion of Shaw Maxwell, seconded by Art hur Field, it was agreed, by 223 to 104, to support the Zurich resolution.
The British again met on Thursday morning to consider reports from the Commissions, Keir Hardie moved that whilst considering the reports the section should not decide their vote until they had heard the arguments which might be adduced by other nationalities at the Congress. This was defeated. It was resolved to support the majority report of the Agrarian Commission. Sidney Olivier carried his new standing order re the verification of credentials, afterwards adopted by the Congress.

After the Congress adjourned on Monday, the French delegates met to consider the burning question of the admission of the Yoluntaryists—that is, those who don’t believe in State action. All the leaders were present, as were the rank and file—113 all told. In France the Allemanist party do not officially recognise State action, but rely chiefly on Trade-unionism and municipal action. The Bourse de Travail—Labour Exchange—is the centre of influence for this section. The Possibiliets, on the other hand, are Opportunist?, and use any weapon which for the moment comes handy with which to beat the enemy. The Party Ouvrier—Labour Party— belongs mostly to the Poesibilists section. In addition to these there is the Revolutionary Party and the Marxists. It was known that the delegates to the Congress were fairly evenly divided, and on Monday morning the French section broke up without any decision being arrived at. In the evening, when they assembled, the discussion was again resumed—should non-parlibmentarians be excluded? “We have reached,” said Guesde, ” the parting of the ways, and the decision reached at this Congress must be final.” Feeling ran high, and the discussion was of an exciting kind. The vote by show of hand showed 55 for the Zurich resolution, 53 against. A roll call was demanded, and at the conclusion the figures were, for the Zurich resolution 56, against 57.
In the majority were the following members of the •Chamber of Deputies: Edward Vaillant, M.P. ; Marcel Sembat, M.P. ; Edward Touissant, M. P. ; Pascal Faberot, M. P. ; Artine Grousier, M. P. ; — Degeante, M.P. The following excellent statement of the case from the point of view of the majority is sufficient answer to those who hysterically shout “Anarchist !” at all who disagree with them :

This resolution is based on the conviction that it is absurd to took forward to bringing about an amelioration of the present economic conditions by the conquest of the political power, but that, on the contrary, the economic conditions fix and maintain the political. It maintains that the economic emancipation of the working classes is, and must remain, the great purpose to which all political considerations ought to be subordinated.
Had this, the International Congress, called itself “Parliamentary Socialist and Bourgeois Radical Congress,” we would not—although until now we were represented at every international congress—have knocked at the door of the present one. But as long as it goes by the name of an ” International Socialist and Trades-union Congress,” as long we claim the right to be present.
We deserve very different treatment from that we met with from part of tho German Social-Democratic press. The Berlin Vorwarts has spoken of the efforts we have made during 1895-6 in the following manner:
“The Dutch Anarchists of the Nieu-
wenhuis type move heaven and earth
to be admitted to the International
Socialist Congress. Admittance for PAUL LAI’ARGDB.
these gentlemen is a question of life and
death. If they do not And opportunity make some noise, they fall into oblivion. The London Organising Committee has not the slightest intention to satisfy the desire tor notoriety of these gentlemen, and refers them to the well-known resolution adopted at Zurich. And now we have an opportunity to judge the famous courage of the men of action. Now they formally repudiate all connection with Anarchism in a circular addressed to all Socialist parties. All to be able to spend the same Socialists to whom they have referred for years past in terms of contempt and loathing. But the Congress, which shall have finally to decide this question, will certainly pronounce its judgment without hesitation.”
We must again state that there is no necessity for us to ” formally repudiate” Anarchism, as we are not an Anarchistic but a Communistic party, organised on federative principles. We express our deep disgust at the conduct of the official organ of toe German sister-party, conduct which has been similar in its character for the last few years.”

The letter of our. executive committee asked: “At what International Congress has the German Social Democratic Reichstag-fraction been appointed as European party justice?”
After this letter had been read in the Congress Singer declared that the “Fraction” never had the slightest intention to interfere with the interior quarrels of any party abroad. “The committee of the party, at the request of some Dutch comrades, merely sent £102 10s. for the support of their press. That was only a proof of international solidarity, against which it is impossible to complain.”
“But we who have met with the bitterest animosity of the German Social Democratic Party ; we who during the last years have never found the information of the Berlin Vorwarts concerning the Socialist movement in Holland true, or seen in it an appreciative word concerning our party ; we who are constantly referred to in the German party papers as ‘braggarts,’ feel justified to call the attention of the assembled delegates of international Labour to this inexcusable interference with the affairs of our organisation, and to protest against it. German тйиэисе is exerted even to-day in favour of the seceders, and it is the fault of the German Social Democratic Party and of the editors of their papers that our comrades consider every German Social Democrat as a caluminator of the Dutch Socialist movement, a briber, and an intriguer. Can conduct productive of such results be considered likely to advance the feeling of international brotherhood amongst the workers?”
As the Zwolle resolution had been deemed too binding, and was being misunderstood, the next Congress of the party at the Hague in 1895 adopted the following, which is still binding on the party :,•,”.;
“In consideration that it is absurd to lay down binding rules dealing with questions of tactics which can only be settled as circumstances arise; in consideration that our methods of propaganda depend to a large extent on the conduct of our opponents ; in consideration that participation in or abstention from voting is, after all, only a qustion of utility; in consideration that the greatest danger to the success of the Socialist movement consists in participation in the so-called constructive work of parliament, and consequently that it is wrong to participate in the elections for that purpose; that no money from the party treasury be expended for electioneering purposes.”

COMRADES,—The present report tells of a poriod of struggle, which, we imagine, deserves some attention even outside the boundaries of our small country.
It is not the struggle against the property-holding classes and their government to which we owe the most painful experiences of the three years which have passed since the Zurich Congress. This struggle, the class war, is still carried on by our organisation with the same undaunted spirit. But what will give to the present report a gloomy aspect, and at, the same time make it worth the attention of all organised workers whose experiences differ from ours, is the attempt to introduce discord in our own ranks from beyond the boundaries of our country, an attempt which, in spite of the victory gained by our organisation, has left deep traces behind.
After recounting the history of the Zwolle Congress in 1892, at which the party took the first step towards parting with parliamentary methods, and the police prosecutions which followed, together with the bitter personal misrepresentations to which they were subjected by a handful of opponents, the report tells of the Groningen Congress in 1894, where the following resolution was carried by 47 against 40 votes, with 14 abstentions: “The Congress decides not to take part in elections under any circumstances whatever, not even for purposes of propaganda.” The minority were not opponents, and did not secede, only they felt the resolution was more the outcome of anger at the treatment they were being subjected to than of principle. A new party, however, was formed as the Dutch Social Democratic Party, fifty-four persons attending its first Congress.
“A brief communication in the dissident press threw a strong light upon the circumstances under which the new party was founded.
We all knew that financial considerations had had a great deal to do with it. Still, the members of our organisation were very much amazed and offended when they heard that the party treasury of the German Social Democratic Party had given .£75 to the seceders for the purpose of backing up their organisation. As the information had been published in the dissident press itself, it was impossible to doubt the truth of it.
The executive committee of our party now addressed a letter to the Congress of the German Social Democrats, which took place at Francfort o. Main (21st to 27th October, 1894), and protested against this unheard of interference of the German Social Democratic Reichstag-fraction (the Social Democratic members of the Reichstag) with the inner organisation of the Socialist party in another country,

In the three years that have elapsed since the last International Labour Congress was held at Zurich, the progress of the Socialist movement in the United States was marked by a steadiness not less suggostive of solid foundations than promiseful of permanent results.
The official count gives the latest Socialist vote as follows in States or
towns vvhere we had candidates :
New York (State) 21,025
New Jersey (State), 4,138
Massachusetts (State) 3,24!)
Ohio (State) 1,867
Rhode Island (State) 1,709
Pennsylvania (State) … … … … … … 1,326
Connecticut (State) … … … … … … … 859
Oity of San Francisco (California) … 2,104
City of Chicago (Illinois) 3,375
City of Denver (Colorado)… 158
City of Baltimore (Maryland) 433
City of St. Louis (Missouri) 1,537
City of Detroit (Michigan) … 358
Miscellaneous ‘ … 237
Total ,. … 42,975
As compared with the official returns of the previous year, which gave us a total of 33,133, the above figures show an increase of 9321 votes, or 36 per cent. Eight years ago, our field of political action was limited to the citv of New York, where our candidates received only 2000 votes. Last year (1895), in the twin cities of New York and Brooklyn, which, taken together, constitute what is now known as the “Greater New York,” 16,000 votes were cast for our ticket, showing an increase of 53 per cent, as compared wiih 1894.
A significant feature of our vote in New York State is its solidity ; there was a difference of only thirty-five between our two leading candidates in a total poll of nearly 22,000.
In the spring of 1894 our party scored its first victory in the city of Paterson, N.J., where Comrade Matthew Maguire was elected a member of the Board of Aldermen by a vote of 890 against 888 for his Democratic opponent and 380 for the Republican candidate. In the spring of 1896 he was re-elected by a vote of 1324 against 1112 given to the Democrat, upon whom the two capitalistic parties had practically united, the Republican dummy candidate put up for the sake of appearances polling only 113. Presented by
MATTHEW MAGUIKB, Delegate of the Socialist Labour Party of the United States.
LUCTEN SANIAL,
Delegate of the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance of the.
United States and Canada.

Each nationality was expected to submit a report to the Congress showing the state of the movement in their country. The following are selections from such of the reports as were translated into English :
This report is taken up exclusively with a detailed account of an abortive attempt made by the executive of the Swiss Workers’ League to call an International Congress to consider specially what legislation should be pushed for the protection of the workers. Germany and Austria declined definitely to take part, whilst other organisations wished the gathering well, but did not propose to send delegates. The report concludes as follows :
BRITISH COMRADES,—The Swiss delegates to the International Socialist Workers’ and Trade-union Congress, who have come to your hospitable shores, bid hearty greetings to you the pioneers of Protective Labour Legislation. We know you have been in the first and hardest struggles for this legislation, and, therefore, call on you for assistance, although the Democratic constitutions
of your union* will not entitle you to give us a definite answer. But we beg you, as British delegates, to move in favour of the International Congress for Protective Labour Legislation as proposed by the Swiss Workers’ League. In doing so, you will incite the workers of the other countries to join us. If we have won your solidarity, we shall certainly have the assistance of the workers of other countries.—Yours fraternally, for the Swiss Delegation

The Liverpool Fabian Society, while agreeing in the main wi th the policy of the London Society, as set forth in a pamphlet for the information of the Congress, is of opinion that the clause headed ” b’abian Electoral Tactics” does not faithfully describe the policy of Fabians as a whole. The Liverpool Society has, therefore, unanimously resolved to place before the delegates this brief statement of its own electoral policy, in which, it believes, the majority of Fabians outside London would concur.
The Liverpool Fabian Society does not put forward Fabian candidates, but takes an active part in all elections. It allies itself with the Independent Labour Party, the Social-Democratic Federation, and the Trade-unions, in the endeavour to secure the election of Socialists upon all governing bodies ; it assists in organising and unifying these elements of the young but growing Socialist political party, and supports Socialist candidates under all circumstances; it discourages the adoption of undesirable candidates, or such as cannot command the confidence of the working people, but when the candidate is duly nominated by the party the Society loyally strives to secure his return. Thus the Liverpool Fabian Society deems the building-up of a Socialist political organisation of more importance than the slight temporary advantage which might accrue from securing the return of the better of two non-socialist candidates.
In cases where no Socialist candidate is put forward the Liverpool Fabian Society endeavours to secure concessions from one of the two candidates in return for its support.

Democracy, as understood by the Fabian Society, means simply the control of the administration by freely elected representatives of the people.
The Fabian Society energetically repudiates all conceptions of Democracy as a system by which the technical work of government, such as legislation, administration, and the appointment of public officials, shall be carried on by referendum or any other form of direct popular decision. Such arrangements may be practical in a Russian village ; but in the complicated industrial civilisations which are ripening for Social Democracy, they would be childish. When the House of Commons is thrown open to candidates from all classes by an effective system of Payment of Representatives, and freed from the veto of the House of Lords, the British parliamentary system will be, in the opinion of the Fabian Society, a first-rate practical instrument of democratic government.
Democracy, as understood by the Fabian Society, makes no political distinction between men and women.
The Fabian Society having discovered by experience that Socialists cannot have their own way in everything any more than other people, recognises that in a Democratic community Compromise is the first condition of political progress.

The Fabian Society is perfectly constitutional in its attitude, and its methods are those usual in political life in England.
The Fabian Society accepts the conditions imposed on it by human nature and by the national character and political circumstances of the English people It sympathises with the ordinary man’s preference for gradual, peaceful changes, to revolution, conflict with the army and police, and martyrdom.
It recognises the fact that Social-Democracy is not the whole of the working-class programme, and that every separate measure towards the socialisation of industry will have to compete for precedence with numbers of other reforms. It therefore does not believe that the moment will ever come when the whole of Socialism will be staked on the issue of a single General Election or a single Bill in the House of Commons as between the proletariat on one side and the proprietariat on the other. Each instalment of Social-Democracy will only be a measure among other measures, and will have to be kept to the front by an energetic Fabian section of the working-class party. The Fabian Society therefore begs those Socialists who are looking forward to a sensational historical crisis to join some other Society.