NECHAYEV
Is he a
political criminal or not?
We have
published, on August 16, a document protesting against the arrest of a man who
is held, rightly or wrongly, for Nechayev, the Russian political agitator. In
publishing this document, we have had the strongest desire to see this beau
right that the Swiss guarantee aux émigrés, this right of asylum which we
enjoy, preserve intact its original purity and sanctity.
The
Russian government pursues Nechayev, as every despotic government does, when a
man has made an attempt, even a fruitless attempt, to overthrow it. Everyone understands how, at any price, the Russian government seeks to have this man in
his power. Nechayev today finds
himself on the hospitable soil of
Switzerland; consequently, as a political criminal, Russia cannot demand
his extradition. To seize him, there remained only one means, that of making
him an ordinary criminal. On such occasions, despotism has not qualms about
using anything: lies, slander, the lowest intrigues, nothing disgusts it,
provided that it reaches its goal. But the lower the cunning of the Russian
government, the its enthusiasm for depriving the émigré of his right of asylum
grows, and the more we feel that it is a duty for to bring to light its
cowardly artifices. That is why we judge it necessary to explain in a few words
the nature and character of the trial of Nechayev. We will limit ourselves to
the stenographic reports which, after a preliminary revision, have been
published by the government in the Russian gazettes. That will be sufficient to
convince anyone that the Nechayev’s crime is of a purely political nature.
To avoid any misunderstanding, we feel
compelled to express with even greater precision and clarity, all that has been said in our declaration of August 16. We are far from sharing the
ideas of Nechayev, his principles and especially their practical application. We
could even prove, if we had to, that he has long held us as his political adversaries.
However, this does not stop us, quite the contrary, it obliges us to testify, on
our honor, that all the actions of Nechayev, from the organization of a secret
society to the murder of a certain Ivanov, belonged to the political domain, and
not to that of ordinary crimes. That is why Nechayev cannot be delivered to the
Russian government. We must also not here that there exists, between Russia and
Switzerland, no extradition agreement.
But
before concerning ourselves more deeply with the Nechayev case, let us say a
few words about the country where it took place. It is well known that the
Russian people are, of all the peoples of Europe, the one that is most
oppressed. A despotic, murderous yoke smothers, in its very beginnings, every
social movement; individual liberty is something unknown in that kingdom of the
knout; so is it necessary to speak of the position of the Russian people? Everyone,
however little they know of Russia, knows that, of the 80 million inhabitants,
70 million, despite the highly praised emancipation of the peasants, dies under
the burden of a slave’s labor, and why? To provide for the enormous upkeep that
the state gives to some employees charged with stifling every human feeling in
the people, with pursuing those who would try to awaken in them some ideas
independence. As for the people themselves, they think themselves fortunate when
they have morsel of bread made from bad flour and dried tree bark.
Is it
astonishing that after that the miserable state of the people strongly moves
the student youth whom the influence of the bureaucracy has still not corrupted?
Is it astonishing that the shameful exploitation of the masses by the government
offends too profoundly the ideas of justice inherent to the life of study? They
have lined up on the side of the people, because they have seen their
sufferings, and because they appear too bitter. And it is not only with words
that they have struggled to prove their sympathy to their oppressed brothers;
no, their best, their most noble part has not drawn back before any sacrifice, if
some good could result from it for the people. prison, le banishment, even the
death penalty could never weaken its energy, and no sooner does the government stifles
one of these movements in favor of people, than another emerges, in a new form.
It would
take too long to recount the history of all these movements. That is not our
goal. We have touched on it, in passing, only to show the milieu in which Nechayev
has acted. It is noted that the members of the secret alliance by him belonged,
for the most part, to the student youth. That society was founded in Moscow, in
1869, under the name of Jury vengeur du Peuple.[1]
Its aim was to raise up the people. Nechayev, who surpassed all
the others by his truly remarkable energy, was its most influential member. He
was a fanatic, formed under the rude influence of the conditions of Russian
life and of the miserable, desperate state of the people. The members of the association
had given themselves body and soul to their idea, and lived only to achieve the
emancipation of the people; they had made in advance the sacrifice of their
blood.
The
public prosecutor even characterized them by the following words: “And that
is why, gentlemen judges, I hold this conspiracy to be dangerous. Men of
very different opinions and ideas have gathered to form a single collective
whole. And if they sacrifice everything to reach their goal, we can confirm that
their conspiracy is dangerous to the state, although their association is few
in number and does not posses considerable funds. That is why, gentlemen, I
have come to the deep conviction that the secret society of which I have spoken
is truly dangerous, not because of the number of its member and the pecuniary
means at its disposal, but because of its internal organization, the spirit and
energy that animate its members.” (Gazette de Saint-Pétersbourg, 1871, N1
188.)
Let us
return now to Nechayev, and repeat, in an impartial manner and without
ourselves pronouncing in any manner, how they are spoken of in the trial.
All the
accused are in agreement in maintaining that he has given certain proofs of a
remarkable energy, that he has exerted a tireless activity, and that he is
fanatically devoted to his cause.
Here is
what the prosecutor said in his statement: I do not want to make a detailed
characterization of Nechayev here; that would be unnecessary, from the moment
that he did not appear before the Jury.[2]
However, I want to say enough about him to illuminate the general
character of the case. Nechayev is the son of a poor artisan. He was born in
the village of Ivanovo, in the district of Schnisk, government of Vladimir; according
to the communication of Pryjoff,[3]
he only learned to read and write in his sixteenth year, and had received, all
in all, at Ivanovo, only a very incomplete education. Despite that, Nechayev being
born in a village, having passed all his childhood and early youth there, acquired
the experience and the necessary qualities for the success of his projects; he
has familiarized himself with the life and ideas of the people, he has learned
to know their needs, so that, as Mr. Pryjoff said, he has been and will always be a child of the people.
After leaving Ivanovo, Nechayev took courses at the University of Moscow, after which he became master of a parish school in St. Petersburg. In a relatively short period of time, he was able to build relationships; he perfected his education in several branches, and
achieved a remarkable degree of
knowledge of which he always knew how to take advantage. “All the
accused speak of Nechayev as on a man of great energy. All that facts that we
have in hand are convincing proofs of it. Some say that he allowed himself only
two hours of sleep, and others that he had given himself body and soul to his
cause. So that we can deduce from the testimonies of all the accused that Nechayev
was animated by a great devotion to the common cause and to the ideas that it
strove to realize.” (Feuille d'Avis de Saint-Pétersbourg, 1871, N1 188.)
And it
is not us, but the public prosecutor who characterized Nechayev and his
companions in this way.
From the
foundation of the secret society, there entered a man who, according to the
testimony of the members of the “Jury vengeur du Peuple,” only did harm
to the common interest, and through his conduct inspired suspicion in the other
members of the society. The accused Uspensky, a member of the association,
charged with gathering facts on the activity of each of the members of the
society, said that he received from different sides some details suggesting that
this man, called Ivanov, had got himself accepted as a member of the society
only with the intention of denouncing the whole affair to the government
(Feuille d'Avis de St.-Pétersbourg, 1871, Nos 181, 183 et 209). Then
from this a double question presented itself, a question that it was necessary to
be posed and resolved as follows: to rid themselves of such a dangerous man, or
expose the whole cause, the entire organization, and all the members to an
imminent peril. So five members, including Nechayev, resolved to kill Ivanov in
order to safeguard their work. They accomplished their resolution. Soon after, the
murder of Ivanov and the secret association were discovered, from which has
resulted endless searches, and arrests without number. However, Nechayev, with
the help of his friends, succeeded in fleeing the country. The trial began; in
the official acts of the Russian government it bears the following title: “Legal
trial of the Conspiracy having for aim the overthrow of the present Government of
Russia.”
This
title alone proves from what point of view the Russian government considered the
whole affair,—it they took it to be a political matter or not. They summoned 84
accused persons to appear before the court as participants of the conspiracy,
63 were detained in prison. They were all divided into different categories and
each of them subjected to a special legal examination. To the first category
belonged the 11 indicted. They were all accused of conspiracy against the
government, four among them, in addition, were implicated in the affair of the murder
of Ivanov (Uspensky, Pryjoff, Nicolaieff et Kusnetzoff). The gathering of these
four accused with the seven others, who had in common with them only the
conspiracy, proves well that the affair had a purely political character and
that the government only considered if from that point of view.
It is
entirely natural that the Russian government tried hard to accuser those who
had killed Ivanov of having only acted according to motives of personal
interest. It strove to demonstrate that that Ivanov had been the victim of a
vengeance, entirely personal; but the opposite appears clearly, as much from
the declarations of the accused, as from the statements of the lawyers.
Thus the
accused Uspensky said: “Nechayev had not grudge whatsoever again Ivanov, any
more than I did. Nechayev, besides, absorbed by his work and activity, could
not in any way concern himself with personalities such as they were The
revolutionary principles with which they were penetrated to the bottom of his
heart excluded for him every ideal of personal vengeance, if even it had been
useful to the association. I am finally persuaded that Nechayev was too human
to sacrifice the life of anyone to a personal sentiment (Feuille d'avis de St-Pétersbourg,
1871, N1 194). »
The
lawyer for the accused Uspensky, prince Ourousoff speaks of him in the
following terms: The question bearing on what had to be done, when one person
harmed the entire association, a question posed theoretically, could not be
resolved otherwise, according to the dialectic of his organization, than by the
removal of that person (Ivanov) at any cost. For the society there was only one
means of smashing that obstacle—it was death; there remained to him absolutely
on that alternative (Feuille d'avis de St-Pétersb. 1871, No
191).
We have already said that Nechayev
had managed to escape. The
ardent desire of the Russian to have him in its hands, drove the Russian agents
to such procedures, that it would be ridiculous and stupid, if one could not
see secret and malicious intentions in it. Thus, during the month of May in the
year 1870 a young man, named Siméon Sérébrénnikoff, was arrested at Geneva. Despite the testimony of all those who knew
him and Nechayev and who testified that he had no resemblance with that latter,
despite the testimony of his close acquaintances, he was detained in prison for
12 days. In that way a perfectly innocent man was deprived for 12 days of his
liberty and compromised as well, for the Russian agents learned of the
correspondence that he exchanged with his friends. That correspondence contained
nothing which could, in a free country, have compromised a man, but to the
Russian government, a single word is often enough, an unfavorable judgment bearing
on some person fulfilling a state function, to expoose to prosecution a man who
would be convicted of it. Thus Mr. Sérébrénnikoff cannot today return to his
homeland, and without having committed any crime. And that is certainly not an
exceptional case. The Russian agents took the liberty of still other exploits
on the soil of the Swiss Republic. At Geneva lives a certain Russian certain émigré
named Outine. The Russian government found it necessary to take the contents of
his papers; then they simply accused him of being a counterfeiter. A search
took place at his home, and as one would imagine, they could not find the
shadow a false Russian bill, nevertheless the Russian agents learned what they
desired to know.
We hve presented enough facts so
that everyone can get an idea of
the nature of the trial.
We do not draw on our own conclusions, but instead on the official acts
themselves,[4]
that is why we ask ourselves: Who could maintain now that the crime de
Netschajeff is not a political crime?
We
appeal to the justice, conscience, and good judgment of the Swiss Republic. The
country which offered an asylum to Don Carlos, to Isabelle, who had poured the
blood of the people in floods, this country does not wish, and cannot consent
to surrender Nechayev, who, apart from its principles and from the result to
which his conspiracy has led, has always been a firm and passionate champion against
one of the worst governments of Europe.
We are
persuaded that on the soil that gave birth to William Tell, an émigré, despite
the cunning of the despotic governments, will always find an asylum.
Alexandre OELSNITZ
Zemphiri
RALLY
Valérien
SMIRNOFF Russian
Woldemar
HOLSTEIN political
Lazare
GOLDENBERG émigrés.
Michel
BAKOUNINE
Woldemar
OZEROFF
[Working
translation by Shawn P. Wilbur]
[1]
Narodnaya Rasprava, often translated as “The People’s Vengeance.” Bakunin’s
French here translates to something like “The Avenging Jury of the People.”
[2]
We must remark here that, according to the laws of Russia, no defendant can be
condemned in absentia, and that is
why Nechayev, who succeeded in fleeing to a foreign country, did not appear at
all in the trial.— Note in original.
[3]
One of the accused. .— Note in original.
[4]
These documents, the indictments, among others, will be translated by us, and presented
to the Swiss government which can verify the translation and the official character.
No comments:
Post a Comment