at a social gathering which i must not describe because i do not wish to make it recognizable, i had an unusual privilege. we were drinking tea and talking—politics, of course, for no one any longer talks of anything else in russia—when the door opened and a tall and very stately couple entered. a general exclamation hailed the new arrivals. they were welcomed with striking heartiness and invited to the table, as people who had returned from a long journey. when introduced to them i, of course, did not understand their names, and contented myself with enjoying the handsome appearance and elegance of the gentleman as well as of the lady until i could ask my neighbor at table why these people were welcomed with such surprising warmth.
"he has just come out of prison," was the hastily whispered reply.
the communication had such an effect that i was unable to finish the meal. it is not a usual thing for a western european to sit among the guests of a prominent family with people who have just been[pg 218] discharged from prison. moreover, among us, culprits do not look like this uncommonly handsome pair. finally, it is not customary with us to receive with such heartiness people who have just discarded prison shackles. i therefore asked for the name and crime of the new-comer. i was told, and at once i understood everything.
this courtly gentleman was a russian noble and a prominent lawyer. at my request he related in german his prison experiences. he had, it seems, been arrested at night and immediately incarcerated. his wife had taken the children out of bed, because even the beds had to be searched for forbidden literature, and the like. the pretext for this night visit of the police had been that the lawyer had been informed against as having given shelter to a political fugitive. for this reason search was made even in the cradle of the smallest child, in order to make sure that the criminal was not hidden there. the true ground, however, was that mr. von x——, as a lawyer, defended political criminals and must be dealt with accordingly. eleven days were spent in examining him. the search of the house revealed nothing; for only the most reckless have a trace of forbidden literature in their houses, although struve's osvobozhdenie[7] is read almost everywhere. no other accusation could be brought against a man so highly honored. he was also not [pg 219]altogether without means of defence in his large clientage. his case had caused a great sensation. the outbreak of the russo-japanese war had, however, caused the authorities to content themselves with treating him to the pleasures of a short residence in a police hole, and they refrained for the time being from exiling or banishing him from the place of his practice—an experience which might easily enough happen after a much longer investigation to lawyers less noted or of lower rank.
after this little incident, noteworthy enough to a foreigner, i became much interested in the troubles of lawyers, and obtained the amplest information on the subject. i even incidentally made the acquaintance of one of the officially disciplined lawyers of kishinef, but was unable to converse with him, as he spoke no language other than russian. he was a vigorous man, rather young, with heavy, dark hair and beard, and of a distinctively russian type. as the son of a priest, he ought to have had, according to the ideas of people of discretion, something better to do than to interfere with the programme of the government. but dr. lokoloff, the lawyer in question, is a remarkable man. he believes it to be an advocate's duty to uphold justice; and he absolutely refused to admit that justice in russia is a matter of politics. i managed to learn more about the proceedings against dr. lokoloff from a well-informed colleague of his whose name i, of course, may not disclose. since the simple[pg 220] recital of such a case is more instructive than whole volumes of generalizations, i will give it in detail as related to me. i may, however, promise that the case is by no means the worst i have heard of, as the government takes much severer measures to terrorize lawyers and to prevent them from defending "politically inconvenient" persons. the case of lokoloff, moreover, calls for more detailed treatment because the massacre perpetrated at kishinef, in the name of the czar, has at last drawn public attention to the conditions in his dominions.
the participation of the government organs in the "pogrom" of kishinef was exposed by another lawyer, dr. paul n. von pereverseff, who expiated his accusation with exile to archangel, where he and his wife now live in a village, while his children are being sheltered by relatives. pereverseff had gone to kishinef after the disturbances, and had there made the acquaintance of pronin, krushevan, stefanoff, and baron levendahl, at that time in command of the gendarmes at kishinef. since he came as counsel for the accused, and was a russian nobleman above suspicion, he at once enjoyed the confidence of these honest men. thus he learned that pronin, the colleague of krushevan and the protégé of plehve, in his character of member of the committee for poor culprits, gave exact instructions to the prisoners how they should speak in the legal proceedings. pereverseff soon became convinced that the chief[pg 221] culprit—namely, plehve, who had planned to administer punishment to the jews, and to present a new accusation against them to the czar, would not appear at the bar. instead there would appear only the poor wretches who had been directed to plunder and kill the jews by order of the czar.
dr. lokoloff arrived at kishinef in may, 1903, as advocate for the injured parties, and learned there from pereverseff what the latter had already discovered. he then made a personal investigation extending over several months, in the course of which he discovered also that the "pogrom" of the police and of baron levendahl had been instigated by direct orders from higher authorities. he gave expression to this conviction in the course of the proceedings, and was, in consequence, imprisoned on an order telegraphed direct from the minister of the interior to prince urussoff, the governor, on december 9, 1903.
on the day following the despatch of the telegram a letter from plehve reached prince urussoff, in which the former desired that the proceedings of lokoloff in kishinef be immediately reported and his exile to the north decreed. prince urussoff himself visited lokoloff in prison, and made him acquainted with plehve's message, whereupon lokoloff wrote a protocol in answer to four charges based upon data furnished by the gendarmes, as follows (the accusation is given first and is followed by lokoloff's answer):
[pg 222]
"i. it is asserted that you have come to kishinef in a professional capacity, with the ostensible purpose of affording legal assistance to the injured parties, but in reality to carry on, in conjunction with other persons whose activity in opposition to the government is well known, a private investigation parallel with the legal one, to incite the jews to make biased statements, serviceable to the purposes of the opposition, and to bring forward groundless complaints.
"answer. yes, i have carried on an investigation, and in so doing have only discharged my duty. it is not forbidden in our country to conduct investigation openly or secretly. my course of action was dictated solely by the interests of my clients and the inadequate official investigation. very rich men took part in the disturbances; but the official investigation detected only poor ones as the accused. the interests of the injured persons, however, demand that the rich culprits also be brought to justice. the investigation made by me was no secret. the governor, the state attorney, the court of appeal, and the county court knew of it; and i received my information in regard to the disturbances from inhabitants of the city. in order to secure this information, i questioned many hundreds of people who had been witnesses of the disturbances. my offices were in special rooms, which were known to the police. the assertion that the testimony was biased and false is itself false.
"ii. you have deliberately spread false assertions in order to discredit the local authorities in the eyes of the government.
"answer. i have never deliberately spread false assertions in order to discredit the local authorities in the eyes of the government.
"iii. you have made use of your official position as counsel to publish information concerning proceedings in closed sessions, including the deliberately false assertion that in the legal process the connivance of the authorities in the organization of the disturbances, with[pg 223] the help of the authorities and of the troops, was proved.
"answer. i have never said that the disturbances were organized by the government. but from very exact statements of witnesses, i consider it proved that the disturbances were organized with the help of very many official persons—as, for instance, baron levendahl. [here followed an exact statement of the details of the action of levendahl, which space will not permit me to give.] the judge during the investigation, freynat, himself acknowledged to me that the leaders of the incendiaries were agents of levendahl. i myself demanded the attendance of judge freynat as a witness to this. he was called, but not until after all the lawyers had been excluded!
"the agents of levendahl, who were imprisoned with the murderers, were set free in the course of a few days, as is testified to by witnesses.
"iv. you are in very intimate relations with persons who belong to the radical opposition. these persons are dr. doroshevsky and miss nemtzeva.
"answer. relations are not forbidden. i made the acquaintance of dr. doroshevsky and miss nemtzeva only because they took part in the 'pogrom,' to the extent of saving many jews. miss vera nemtzeva is, moreover, the daughter of a respected proprietor."
lokoloff wrote to the governor from prison to the effect that the accusations were groundless, and that he was not guilty. on the receipt of this letter prince urussoff visited him in his cell and admitted that, in his judgment, lokoloff was, in fact, wrongfully imprisoned. the imprisonment, however, had been in obedience to an order from the minister of the interior. the prince showed lokoloff a copy of a letter which he had sent to plehve. this [pg 224]letter stated that according to prince urussoff's interpretation of the law the action of lokoloff did not constitute a crime, and that therefore he could not order his banishment to the north, but that lokoloff was "fanatically convinced" that the "pogrom" had been organized with the connivance of the authorities, and that he had unconsciously imparted this conviction to those with whom he came in contact. therefore his residence in kishinef must be considered dangerous.
after some days urussoff received a telegram from plehve directing that lokoloff be liberated and that he be expelled from kishinef.
plehve's order was communicated by the governor to lokoloff, who expressed his astonishment that he should be expelled from kishinef, while pronin, who in urussoff's own opinion was one of the chief offenders, was allowed to remain. this order, he added, would not tend to a feeling of confidence in justice in bessarabia.
as a matter of fact, the expulsion of lokoloff was generally looked upon as fresh evidence of the complicity of the government in the disturbances.
no one in kishinef now knows anything more about the affair. pereverseff, who had directly attacked the government, was severely punished and banished; lokoloff was expelled. "all quiet in schepko street."
of course the members of the legal profession in russia do not regard the matter with indifference.[pg 225] at a meeting of the association of lawyers' assistants the sympathy of those present was extended to lokoloff; and at the monthly banquet of the literary alliance at st. petersburg the members even went so far as to express its disapprobation of the action of the government in the affair.
the minister of justice, muraviev, however, the worthy colleague of plehve, explained to a deputation of lawyers which congratulated him on his jubilee in january last, that he was favorably disposed towards the profession, but that advocates would do well to avoid "pleading politically," since it was very prejudicial, indeed dangerous, to the profession, which might easily suffer for its independence. a word to the wise, etc.
such are the joys of the legal profession in russia, and such is the fate of those who speak in defence of the right. the people of other countries will appreciate the services to truth and justice which, in spite of all obstacles, the undaunted advocate performs.
such are some of the stern realities of an advocate's life in russia, and such the possible, nay probable, fate of any one who "pleads politically" in defence of the right. it will be apparent to the citizens of other countries at what a cost the conscientious members of the legal profession discharge, in spite of endless obstacles, their duty to truth and justice.
footnote:
[7] liberation.