Chapter 13 Chapter 8 The Law in Swaddling-1

We are forgetting everything.What we remember is not the past, not history, but just the same dotted line that others want to chisel in our memory with constant beating. Whether this is a characteristic of all mankind, I do not know, but it is a good thing to say that it is a characteristic of us Russians.This is a very unfortunate feature.Perhaps, for goodness's sake, it is regrettable.It makes us prey to liars. Therefore, even those public trials, if we don't need to remember - then we won't remember.It was done with a lot of fanfare, and it was written about in the papers, but they didn't put a hole in our brains -- so we don't remember (it's just the daily broadcast stuff that leaves holes in our heads).I'm not talking about young people, of course they don't know it, I'm talking about the contemporaries of those public trials.Ask an ordinary person to count the sensational public trials -- he'll remember the Bukharin case, the Zinoviev case.Frown again and maybe think of the Industrial Party.It was over, and there was no more public trial.

However, the public trial began immediately after the October Revolution.1918 has been a lot.It has been held in many courts.At that time, there were no laws or codes for public trials, and judges could only decide cases by referring to the needs of the workers and peasants regime.Will their detailed history be written by someone at some point in the future? However, it is impossible not to make a brief review.We were obliged, after all, to explore some of the charred ruins in what was then a soft pink morning mist. In those tumultuous days the sabers of war did not rust in their sheaths, nor the revolvers of punishment frozen in their holsters.Sneaking the shooting at night, in the basement, and shooting in the back of the forehead was an afterthought.In 1918, the famous Ryazan Cheka officer Stelmakh shot and killed people in the courtyard in broad daylight, so that the prisoners waiting to be executed could see this scene from the prison window.

At that time there was a formal term called non-judicial sanctions.Not because there were no courts, but because the Cheka existed. Trotsky hatched this little chick with a stiff beak: "Intimidation is a powerful tool in politics, and only a hypocrite does not understand it." Zinoviev did not foresee his doom. Said cheerfully: "The State Political Security Service, like the Vecheka, is the most prestigious in the whole world." Non-judicial sanctions are imposed because they are more efficient, courts exist, trials are conducted, and death sentences are imposed, but it should be remembered that parallel to them and independently of them, non-judicial sanctions.How to envisage the scale of such sanctions? M. Lazis, in his popular introduction to Chekist activities, gives us a period of only one and a half years (1918 and the first half of 1919) and only twenty years in central Russia. Materials from provinces (the figures given here are far from complete, perhaps partly out of modesty): Executed by Cheka (that is, without trial, beyond the courts) - 8,389 people, arrested counter-revolutionary organizations in the country - 412 (a number that is inconceivable if one considers the consistent lack of organizational capacity of our people throughout history, and the general fragmentation and moral decadence of those days), with a total of 87,000 arrests (This number feels a bit shrunk).

What can be compared for evaluation purposes?In 1907, a group of leftist activists published a collection of essays "Against the Death Penalty" (edited by Gerhardt), in which all persons sentenced to death between 1826 and 1906 were named Daoist made a list.Editor's side note: This list is also incomplete (but never more incomplete than the one compiled by Lazis during the Civil War).It counted 1,397 names, of which 233 whose sentences were changed and 270 who were not arrested (mainly Polish insurgents who fled to the West) should be excluded.Eight hundred and ninety-four people remained.This eighty-year figure is 255 times less than the Cheka figure, which covers less than half of the provinces (North Caucasus, the large number of shootings in the lower Volga are not included).Admittedly, the editors of the Proceedings have also used a speculative (and probably exaggerated on purpose) statistic.According to this information, in 1906 alone, 1,310 people were sentenced to death (perhaps not so many were executed, and it should be noted that there were many amnesties at that time).This was the climax of the most reviled Stolypin reaction (a response to revolutionary terror), and there is another figure for this period: 950 executions in six months (Stolypin Repin's Field Court was active for a total of six months).It sounds scary, but for our hardened nerves, it will not cause tension: the Cheka figure is converted into half a year, and it is twice as much - and this is only twenty provinces Yes, and this is without the courts, without the courts.

But -- what about the courts? Of course there is!Courts were also established in the first month after the October Revolution—first, people's courts freely elected by workers and peasants, but judges were required to have "political experience in the party's proletarian organization," according to the District Soviet Executive Committee" Candidates must first carefully examine whether they meet the conditions for appointment" before taking office, and can be removed by the committee at any time. (No. 1 Court Decree of November 24, 1917, Articles 12 and 13) If this is the case - the People's Court will not be elected by the people, but directly appointed by the Executive Committee of the Soviets. , the two are the same thing, because everyone knows that the Soviets represent the interests of the working people.

Second, and one might say first, by the same decree of November 24, 1917, the Workers' and Peasants' Revolutionary Tribunals were established starting from the townships and counties.It was set up as an organ of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and somehow it was made so that revolutionary tribunals popped up everywhere in an instant, while the people's courts did not show up for many months, especially in remote corners. But we will reassure you that the difference between the People's Court and the Revolutionary Tribunal is also not so great: later, in 1919, the principles of criminal law of the Russian Federation appeared, in which the characterization of the two courts was almost the same : For neither of them there is any limit to the applicable penalty, both should have absolute freedom of action: the law does not require any authorization for the execution of the law, and the courts enjoy complete freedom in choosing and employing repressive means (if deprivation of liberty-- The time limit may not be determined until special instructions are received).The people's courts, like the revolutionary courts, are based only on the revolutionary legal consciousness and the revolutionary conscience.The decisions of both courts are final and cannot be appealed to any level of authority.People's courts and revolutionary tribunals are not bound by any form of conditions in their activities. The only sentencing standard is the degree of harm caused by the defendant's behavior to the interests of the revolutionary struggle. The judgment should be suitable for the interests of national defense and labor construction. (At first the revolutionary tribunals even had judges who could be appointed by the local Soviet at any time, and later gained a more definite form of a permanent three-member team, but one member of the three-member team must be sent by the local provincial Cheka agency - so The specific integration between the revolutionary courts at all levels and the Cheka will be realized.)

On May 4, 1918, there was a decree on the creation of the Supreme Revolutionary Court of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee—at that time it was considered that the construction of the Revolutionary Court was finally completed.But, well, it's not far from here! It turned out that in order to maintain the operation of the railway, it was necessary to establish a unified national railway revolutionary court system.And then there's the unified Revolutionary Court System of the Internal Guard. All these systems were working in unison in 1918, leaving no safe haven for crimes and faults in the Russian Federation against the revolutionary struggle of the masses - yet Comrade Trotsky's sharp eyes saw this The incompleteness of a complete system -- so on October 14, 1918, he signed an order for the establishment of a new system -- the Revolutionary Military Court System.

Our leader and inspirer, who is busy with the work of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic and the rescue of the Republic from foreign enemies, has not elaborated on his conception - but has chosen with great success the President of the Central Revolutionary Military Court of the Republic - Comrade Danishevsky, who not only brilliantly established and developed the whole system of these still new courts, but also wrote a pamphlet that gave them a theoretical basis.One of them miraculously survived and fell into our hands.Yes, "Secret" is emblazoned on the cover -- but I might be forgiven for disclosing some of it, given the time. (The above statement about the courts is also drawn from there.)

After the October Revolution, in the spirit of its slogans and the practice that had developed in the army after the February Revolution, the original idea was that the Red Army lieutenants would exercise their powers through elected regimental and divisional courts.But their democratic activities haven't had time to be enjoyed -- and soon not at all.Anyway, field courts have been set up everywhere, such as three-person teams, and the front agencies of the All-Russian Prudential Committee are doing their own work (shooting people), and the anti-espionage agency-the predecessor of the special department, is also their own.In those months of brutality for the Republic, when Comrade Trotsky said in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee: "We, the sons of the working class, made a pact with death, that is to say with victory" --Require all and everyone to cheer up and fulfill their obligations.

"Revolutionary court-martial—this is, first of all, an organ for exterminating, isolating, eradicating, and terrorizing the enemies of the workers' and peasants' fatherland, and secondly a court for determining the degree of guilt of an object" (p. 5), "Revolutionary court-martial— This is a much more extraordinary court than the revolutionary tribunal inserted into the rigid system of the unified People's Court" (p. 6). Could it be "even more extraordinary"?Out of breath, at first I couldn't even believe it: what could be more extraordinary than the Revolutionary Tribunal?Their meritorious activist, custodian of many verdicts of the year, explains to us:

"Along with the judiciary, there should be a kind, which can be called judicial punishment if you want" (p. 8). Does the reader make the distinction now?On the one hand is the "cheka", which is a non-judicial punishment.On the other hand there is the Revolutionary Tribunal, very simplified and merciless, but still in part it seems to be--a court.And between them?Did you guess?And there is precisely one judicial and punishing institution missing between them-you see, this is the revolutionary military court! "The revolutionary court-martial has been the fighting arm of the revolutionary regime from the first day of its existence... Immediately adopted a clear tone and approach that could not be shaken in the slightest... We needed to use the experience accumulated by the revolutionary court skillfully and develop it further ’” (p. 13)—this was before Directive No. 1, issued only in January 1919.Similarly, in order to get closer to the Cheka, it also learned from its experience, that is, a member of the Revolutionary Military Tribunal was appointed by the Special Section of the Front Army.But the Front existed for a limited time—the Revolutionary Courts-Martial did not die when they died, but firmly established themselves in the states and districts "for the struggle and immediate punishment in case of insurrection." (Page 19) Revolutionary court-martial deals with "labor escapes", which "in the present situation are as counter-revolutionary as armed insurrections against workers and peasants" (p. 21), - so many rose up against the workers and against the peasants Guy, who is it?Even - for "rough attitude towards subordinates, failure to perform duties seriously, lack of enthusiasm for work, lack of awareness of one's rights..." (p. 23) and so on.The Revolutionary Military Tribunal is not just for soldiers at all, but also includes all civilians living in the frontline areas.They are the organs of the class struggle of the working people.In order not to dispute with the revolutionary courts acting in parallel, such a division of powers was established: whoever handles the case will be tried by him-no one is allowed to ask for review and appeal to anyone.Sentences were adjusted to the military situation: after the Southern victory in 1920, a directive was issued to the Revolutionary courts-martial to reduce executions—only 1,420 executions were carried out in the first half of the year. Six (not counting the Revolutionary Tribunal! Not counting the Railway Tribunal! Not counting the Guards Tribunal! Not counting the Cheka! Not counting Teko!--Let’s recall Stolypin’s 950th, which stopped the massacre of murders all over Russia For the number of ten, let us recall the eight hundred and ninety-four in Russia in eighty years).In 1920 the Polish War began - and the Revolutionary Tribunals sentenced 1,976 executions by shooting (not counting...not counting...not counting...) in July and August alone persons (p. 43. Figures for subsequent months not provided). The Revolutionary Court Martial has direct and immediate powers to punish deserters and anti-civil war agitators (i.e. pacifists - p. 37).They should distinguish between criminal murder (not shot) and political murder (shot,--p. 38); stealing from private persons ("courts should be sympathetic and gentle" because bourgeois property motivates people to steal) and theft of people's property ("Punishment of the Revolution"). "It is impossible and perhaps unwise to formulate any punishment regulations", but "neither can it be done without instructions and specific measures from above" (p. 39). "Revolutionary courts-martial are often required to work in environments where it is even difficult to determine whether the court is functioning on its own or directly as a fighting force. Often...working in court chambers and Simultaneously on the street".Shooting "cannot be considered punishment, it is nothing more than the physical extermination of the enemies of the working class" and "may be employed for the purpose of intimidating (terrorizing) such criminals" (p. 40). "Punishment is not revenge for sin, it is not atonement...".The court "…identifies the offender to the extent possible based on the offender's lifestyle and history" (p. 44). In the revolutionary court-martial "the right of appeal established by the bourgeoisie loses its own meaning . . . Under the Soviet system, no one needs such delays" (p. "The practice of appealing is absolutely not permitted" and "the right to file an appeal is denied" (p. 49). "For the effects of repression to be as strong as possible, sentences need to be carried out almost immediately" (p. 50). "The revolutionary court-martial - the necessary and faithful organ of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which shall bring the working class through unprecedented economic devastation, through a sea of ​​blood and tears... to free labor, labor happiness and a beautiful world for the poor" (p. 9). There could be more and more references, but enough!Let's take a deep look at that period of history, and walk through the flaming maps of our country at the time, imagining these living areas that are not named in court pamphlets. Every city that was won in the civil war was marked not only by the puffs of gun smoke in the Cheka compound, but also by the sleepless sessions of the Revolutionary Tribunal.One did not have to be a White officer, a senator, a landowner, a monk, a Cadets, a Socialist-Revolutionary, or an anarchist to take a bullet from it.As long as you have a pair of white and tender hands without calluses, you can be sentenced to execution by shooting in those days.But, one can guess, riots in Izhevsk or Votkinsk, in Yaroslavl or Murom, in Kozlov or Tambov, etc., will not pay the price lightly for rough hands. .If one day the files of non-judicial sanctions and the verdicts of the revolutionary courts can fall from the sky and appear in front of us, the most surprising thing among them will be the figures of ordinary peasants.For the peasant riots and uprisings from 1918 to 1921 were innumerable, though they were not reflected in the colored inserts of the History of the Civil War, and no one gave those who had sticks, pitchforks Rush to the machine gun with an axe, and then have their hands tied - ten lives worth one - and the rioters lined up on the execution ground take pictures or film them.The Sapozhikov riot is remembered only in Sapozhikov, and the Peteling riot is remembered only in Peteling.We also see the number of suppressed riots in this comprehensive introduction of Lazis's twenty provinces during the period of one and a half years-a total of three hundred and forty-four. (From 1918 onwards, peasant riots have been called "rich peasant riots", because how can peasants rise up and riot against the workers' and peasants' regime! But how can it be explained that it is not the three or two households in the village who rise up to riot every time, but the Whole villages? Why didn't the masses of poor peasants use the same pitchforks and axes to kill the rioting "kulaks" instead of rushing with them to the machine guns? Lazis said; The rest of the peasants take part in these riots." But what promises more than the slogan of the Poor Peasants' Committee! What is more threatening than the machine gun of the Special Forces (Special Forces)! And how many more utterly accidental people are drawn into the mill and eliminated—this forms an inevitable half of the revolutionary substance of any shot fired. The following is an eyewitness account of the opening of the Ryazan Revolutionary Tribunal in 1919 in the case of the Tolstoyist Ye-v. After the general mobilization order to participate in the Red Army was issued ("Down with war! Put the bayonets in the ground and go back to your homes!" and a year after the slogan was put forward), only in one Ryazan province, until September 1919 In August, "54,697 deserters were caught and sent to the front." (How many others were shot on the spot for public display) Yeh-fu was not a deserter at all, but an open refusal to obey the country's religious beliefs. military service.He was forced to mobilize, but in the barracks he did not carry a weapon and did not practice.The political commissar of the army handed him over to the Cheka in a rage, and wrote a note: "This person does not recognize the Soviet regime." Interrogation.Behind the table sat three men, each with a pistol in front of him. "We have seen heroes like you, and now you will kneel down and agree to go to war immediately, or you will be killed on the spot!" But Ye-fu is firm: he cannot go to war, he is a believer in free Christianity.His case was transferred to the Revolutionary Tribunal. The court hearing was held, and there were about a hundred people in the hall. A polite old lawyer.The learned public prosecutor (the term "prosecutor" was forbidden until 1922) Nikolsky, also an old jurist.A juror is trying to clarify the point of view of the trial ("You are a member of the working people, how can you agree with the views of the nobleman Count Tolstoy?"), the president of the Revolutionary Tribunal interrupts the questioning to prevent the point of view from being clarified .quarrel. Juror: "You say you don't want to kill and dissuade others from doing so. But the White Army started the war and you prevent us from defending. Now we send you to Kolchak, where you advertise your non-resistance!" Ye-fu: "Where you send it, I will go there." Prosecutor: "What the revolutionary court should have jurisdiction over is not any criminal act, but only counter-revolutionary acts. According to the constitution of the crime, I request that this case be transferred to the people's court for handling." President: "Ha! Behavior! You really are, what a legal expert! What we follow is not the law, but our revolutionary conscience!" Prosecutor: "I firmly ask you to put my request in the record." Defender: "I agree with the public prosecutor. The case should be heard in ordinary courts." President: "What an old fool! Where did you find him?" Defender: "I have been a lawyer for forty years, and this is the first time I have heard such insulting words. Please write it down in the transcript." President (laughing): "Write! Write!" There was laughter in the arena.Retired for deliberation.Disputes came from the collegial panel.Finally appeared in court and pronounced: shooting! There was an indignant uproar in the arena. Prosecutor: "I protest the verdict, I will appeal to the People's Commissariat of Justice!" Defender: "I agree with the prosecutor!" Judge: "Everyone exits!!!" The escort took Ye Yifu to the prison and said to him: "Brother, if everyone is like you, it will be fine! There will be no more wars, no white army, no red army!" The escort returned to their barracks Here, a meeting of Red Army soldiers was called.The meeting condemned the verdict.Wrote a letter of protest to Moscow. Ye Fu waited for the god of death to come every day, and saw the shooting with his own eyes from the window, squatting like this for thirty-seven days.The decision to change the sentence was made: 15 years of strict isolation. This is an instructive example.Although the revolutionary legal system can be regarded as a partial victory, how much effort is required from the president of the court!How confused the mind is, how poor the discipline and awareness are!The public prosecution and the defense vented their anger, and the escorts meddled in their own business and revealed the decision.Ah, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the formation of a new judiciary have not come easily!Of course, not all hearings are so sloppy, but not one of them!It took many more years before a desirable line could be defined, perfected, and fixed, that the defense would be in step with the Attorney-General and the courts, that the trial should be in step with all three, and that all popular resolutions should be in step with them. All in unison! It is a noble task of the historian to examine thoroughly this multi-year course.And how do we figure it out in that rosy fog?Who are you asking?People who have been shot can't speak, and people who have been separated can't speak either.Regardless of the defendant, regardless of the lawyer, regardless of the escort, regardless of the bystanders, even if they are still alive, we will not allow us to find them. So, obviously, the only thing that can help us is the prosecution. A few well-wishers kindly gifted us with the undestroyed book of the fierce revolutionary, the first Workers' and Peasants' Military Commissar, Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army, founder of the Extraordinary Court Division of the Judicial People's Commissariat (a copy of the An exclusive post of "Tribune" (but Lenin dropped the term), honorable public prosecutor in previous major cases, and later debunked murderous enemy of the people 11. B. Krylenko If we still want to make a brief survey of the public trials, if we still want to take a breath of the judicial atmosphere in the first years after the revolution - we should read this book, if there is no other way.Everything that is not mentioned, and the situation in other places, can only be made up by thinking. Of course, we prefer to see the shorthand records of those trials, and hear the mournful voices of the first defendants and first lawyers. The order, along with these Revolutionary Tribunal workers, was swallowed. However, Krylenko explained that "due to certain technical tigers" it was not convenient to publish these shorthand records (page 4), but only his indictment and those court judgments which at that time fully complied with the requirements of the prosecutor. The archives of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal and the Supreme Revolutionary Tribunal (before 1923) are said to be "far from being so orderly... . . . page by page, or restore the original text from memory". (!) And "shorthand records were not taken at all during the trials of some of the most important cases (among them the case of the left SR rebellion, the Admiral Schastner case)" (pp. 4-5). strangeness.The trial of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries is no small matter - after the February and October revolutions, this is the third point in the history of our country - the transition to a one-party state governing.And many people were shot.But no shorthand record was made. There is also the "military conspiracy" of 1919, which was "extinguished by the Cheka in accordance with extrajudicial procedures" (p. 7), which "proves its existence" (4. fourteen pages). (A total of more than a thousand people have been arrested in this case - can there be a trial for all of them?) In this way, who has the ability to explain the judicial trials of those years in an orderly manner? ... However, we can still figure out some important principles.For example, the Supreme Public Prosecutor told us that the All-Russia China Executive Committee has the right to intervene in any judicial case. "The All-Russian Central Executive Committee can decide to pardon or execute at its own discretion without any restrictions (page 13, the emphasis is added by me--author 8, for example, changed the sentence of six months to ten years (readers understand, do This matter does not require a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, but, for example, Sverdlov in the office to change a few words on the verdict.) Krylenko explained that all this, "makes our system superior to hypocrisy The theory of the separation of powers", (p. 14) is superior to the theory of the independence of the judiciary. (Yes, Sverdlov also said: "We are not separated from the legislative power and the executive power as in the West, which is very good .All problems can be solved quickly." Especially on the phone.) In his speeches at those courts, Krylenko made a more frank and explicit statement of the general tasks of the Soviet courts: the courts were "at the same time creators of law (in italics Krylenko's reformation) ... and political Tools" (the third page, the boldface is my modification - the author). He is the creator of the law, because there was no law code for four years, the tsar's was thrown away, and his own was not formulated. "I don't want to hear that, that our criminal courts should only work according to the existing written norms. We live in the process of revolution..." (p. 407) "Revolutionary courts are not the kind of arcane law And courts revived by cunning... We create new laws and new morals (p. 22) -- whatever you say here about rights, eternal laws of justice, and the like, we know, ...these things cost us too much." (page 505, emphasis added by me - author) (However, if you compare your sentence with ours, the price may not be too expensive? Maybe there will be eternal justice-a little more comfortable?  …) There is no need for legal mysteries because there is no need to find out--guilty or innocence: the concept of guilt, which is an old bourgeois concept, has now been ruled out (p. 318). In short, we heard Comrade Krylenko say that the Revolutionary Tribunal—this is not that kind of court!On another occasion we hear him say that the Revolutionary Tribunal - which is generally not a court: "The Revolutionary Tribunal is the organ of the class struggle of the workers against the enemy." Its activities should be "from the point of view of the interests of the revolution ...Never forget to achieve the result that best meets the wishes of the workers and peasants." (p. 73) A person is not a person, but "a certain representative of a certain thought." "No matter what personal qualities the "defendant" may have, only one method of evaluation can apply to him: this is done from the point of view of class appropriateness. evaluate. "(page 79) That is to say, you can only exist if your existence is appropriate for the working class. "If this suitability requires the sword of punishment to fall on the defendant's head, then in any case... verbal defenses will not help." (p. 81) such as the lawyer's argument and so on. "In our revolutionary courts we do not follow the letter, nor the degree of mitigating circumstances; in our revolutionary courts we should proceed from considerations of propriety." (p. 524) In those days, many people encountered situations where they were alive, alive, and suddenly learned that their existence was not appropriate. It should be understood that what punishes a defendant is not what he has done, but what he will do in the future if he is not shot. "We not only prevent problems before they happen, but we also prevent problems before they happen." (p. 82) Comrade Krylenko's statement is clear and has universal significance.He has fully revealed the true face of judicial work in that period.Through the water vapor in spring, the clearness of autumn suddenly appeared.Perhaps there is no need to analyze further?Don't need to go through those old cases one by one?Everywhere the spirit of the above statement is firmly followed. Just ask everyone to squint their eyes and imagine a small courtroom that is not yet resplendent, a group of truth-enthusiastic revolutionary court cadres wearing frugal Fletch jackets, emaciated bodies, and faces that have not yet grown rice.The public prosecutor (as Krylenko liked to call himself) was wearing a plain coat with his collar open and a corner of his sailor's shirt showing. The Supreme Public Prosecutor expressed his meaning in this Russian language: "I am interested in factual issues!" "Please specify the opportunity of the trend!" "We are doing an analysis of objective truth." A Latin proverb pops up (admittedly, the same proverb is used from case to case, and another proverb pops up after a few years).You must know that finishing two departments in the rush of revolution is no joke.What made him endearing was that he used to call the accused "professional thugs!"The smile of one of the defendants made him very uncomfortable, and before he delivered any judgment, he shouted at her majesticly: "For you, citizen Ivanova, with your sneers, we will pay, we will Find a way to make it so that Shi Yuan will never laugh again!" (page 296, the emphasis is added by me - the author) So let's start with the analysis, shall we? ... 1 "Russian News" Walled.This is the first and earliest trial -- a trial of speech.On March 24, 1918, the famous "Professor" newspaper published Savinkov's "Writing from the Road".Of course I would have liked to have Savinkov himself caught, but where the hell were we going to find him on the way?So the newspaper was closed, and the old editor Yegorov was dragged to the stand for trial, and he was asked to explain how he dared to do this?Because it's been four months since the new era, it's time to get used to it! Yegorov naively argued that the article was written by a well-known political activist whose opinion, whether the editorial board agreed with it or not, could arouse general interest.He went on to defend; he did not consider Savinkov's assertion as slanderous, namely, "Do not forget that Lenin, Natanson and their associates returned to Russia via Berlin, that is to say, the German authorities gave them Help."--because in fact that is how the German Reich, as a belligerent state, helped Comrade Lenin to return home. Krylenko shouted that he, too, would not prosecute for libel (why not? . . . ), and that the newspaper was tried for its attempt to influence thought (did the newspaper dare to do so?!). Nor does Savinkov's statement that the following sentence is an indictment of the newspaper: "Only a mad criminal can seriously assert that the international proletariat will support us"--because it will support us anyway... The verdict for attempts to influence thought is: this book was founded in 1864 and has survived all sorts of inconceivable periods of reaction—Loris Melikoff's, Pobedonostsev's, Storey's The flat, Kaso's, and who else's newspapers are closed forever from now on!And the editor Egorov ... is ashamed to say, as if in some Greek ... received three months of solitary confinement (if you think about it, it is not so embarrassing: you must know that this is only 1918! If The old man survived - that would get him in again, and he'll be in him many times). Giving and accepting bribes has existed in Russia since ancient times, and will always exist in the Soviet Union, but it is a bit strange to give and accept bribes affectionately in these turbulent times.The trend of giving gifts to the judiciary was all the rage.One more thing to add with trepidation - the gift was also delivered to the Chekamen.The gilded tome history is silent on this, but old people, eyewitnesses recall that in the early years of the revolution, unlike in Stalin's time, the fate of captured political prisoners depended heavily on bribes: taking bribes without restraint and Honestly release people after taking bribes.Krylenko tells us about two such trials, picking only twelve cases over a five-year period.Alas, both the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal and the Supreme Revolutionary Tribunal have crooked their way to perfection, and both have been involved in unseemly incidents. 2 The case of the three investigators of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal (April 1918).In March 1918, Belize, a speculator who was reselling gold bars, was arrested.His wife, as was customary at the time, began to look for a way to buy her husband, and she got in touch with an investigator through referrals, who brought in two others.During the secret meeting, they demanded 250,000 rubles from her, which was reduced to 60,000 after bargaining.If that woman hadn't been stingy with money, if she had given Green an advance payment of 30,000 yuan instead of 15,000 yuan, and more importantly, if she hadn't changed her mind overnight because of the woman's panic, thinking that this lawyer was unreliable, the first二天早晨又急忙去找新的律师雅库洛夫，那末，一切本来会像几百宗同类交易那样顺顺当当过去，根本不会有人知道，案子也不会写进克雷连科的编年史，也不会写进我们的编年史（也更不至于提到人民委员会的会议桌上）。究竟是谁决定让侦查员们吃吃苦头，书里没讲，但看来就是那个雅库洛夫。 在这次审讯过程中有趣的是，全部证人，从那个倒霉的妻子起，都竭力作出有利于被告的陈述，并为他们洗刷罪状。（这在政治案件上是不可能的！）克雷连科这样解释：这是出于庸人的考虑，他们没有把我们的革命法庭当做自己的法庭。（我们也斗胆做一个庸人的设想：是不是经过了半年的无产阶级专政，证人们还没有学会害怕？须知要断送革命法庭的侦查员，可得有包天的胆量。以后你会有什么下场……） 公诉人的论据也很有趣。要知道一个月以前被告还是他的战友、助手，这是一些无限忠于革命利益的人，其中一个叫列斯特的，甚至是"能够对任何侵犯原则的人给予无情打击的严峻的公诉人"--现在该怎么说他们呢？往哪里去找定罪材料呢？（因为纳贿本身还不足以定罪）。很清楚该往哪儿去找；历史！履历！ "如果仔细考察一下"这个列斯特，"那就会发现极有趣的材料"。我们很想知道：这是一个老野心家吗？不是，他是莫斯科大学教授的儿子！并且不是一个普普通通的教授，而是一个由于对政治活动不感兴趣在二十年内经过了历次反动时期而没有受到损害的人！（可是克雷连科本人被接受为校外学生也是在反动时期……）这样一个人的儿子是一个两面派还值得奇怪吗？ 波德盖斯基是一个司法官吏的儿子，父亲无疑是个黑帮分子，不然怎能为沙皇服务了二十年呢？儿子也准备从事司法工作。但是发生了革命--于是就钻进了革命法庭。昨天这还是高尚的，现在却成了丑恶的！ 比他们两人更卑鄙的当然是古格里。他过去是个出版商--他曾给工人和农民提供了些什么精神食粮呢？--他"供给广大读者质量低劣的著作"，不是马克思的著作，而是享有世界声誉的资产阶级教授的书（我们很快就将在被告席上看到这些教授）。 克雷连科既愤慨又奇怪，革命法庭里竟混进了些什么样的人呀？（我们也莫名其妙，工农革命法庭都是由谁组成的呀？为什么无产阶级委托这样一批人去打击自己的敌人呀？） 至于曾伊然以"自己人"身份出入于有权随意放人的侦查委员会的格林律师，这是"马克思称为资本主义制度吸血虫的那一类人的典型代表者"，这类人中除了所有的律师外，还包括全部宪兵、神甫以及……公证人……（第五00页）。 好像，克雷连科已经尽了一切力量要求不考虑"罪责的个人差别"而作出无情的判决--但永远朝气蓬勃的革命法庭这次却有点发蔫、有点发呆，它有气无力地宣布：侦查员们各处六个月的监禁，而律师--罚款（只是利用了全俄中执委的"无限处决权"，克雷连科才在大都会饭店"争取到了判给侦查员各十年徒刑，吸血虫一律师--五年徒刑附加没收全部财产。克雷连科以高度警惕性而名噪一时，并且差点儿没有得到"保民官"的称号）。 我们意识到，无论在当时的革命群众中，以及在我们今天的读者中，这个不幸的案子，不能不破坏对革命法庭神圣性的信念。我们现在怀着更加惶恐的心情转入下一个案件，有关更崇高的机关的案件。 3科瑟列夫塞（一九一九年二月十五日）。科瑟列夫及其伙伴们利伯特、罗登贝格和索洛维约夫以前在东城供应委员会工作（还是和立宪会议军队打仗的时候，在高尔察克以前）。业已查明，他们在那里找到一次获利七万至一百万卢布的生财门路，骑上高头大马东游西逛，同护士小姐们吃喝玩乐。他们的委员会给自己搞到了房屋、汽车，他们的合伙人在"雅拉"饭店大吃大喝。（我们不习惯把一九一八年设想成这个样子，但革命法庭是这样证明的。） 然而，案情并不在这里：他们中间的任何人都没有因在东线的所作所为而受到审判，甚至一切都得到了谅解。但是真奇怪！他们的供应委员会刚一解散，所有他们四个人，还加上一个过去的西伯利亚流浪汉、科瑟列夫服刑事苦役时的伙伴纳扎连科，被邀请去组成全俄肃反委员会里的监督检查委员会！ 请看这是个什么样的委员会：它有权审查全俄肃反委员会所有其余机关的行动是否合法，有权在任何诉讼阶段上调阅任何案卷，撤销除全俄肃反委员会主席团外其余一切机关的决定！ ! ! （第五0七页）权力不算小吧2--它是全俄肃反委员会里仅次于主席团的第二掌权者！ --是捷尔任斯基-乌里茨基-彼得斯-拉齐斯-明仁斯基-雅戈达的后一排！ 然而这伙小兄弟的生活方式还是以前的一套，他们一点也没有显傲气、摆架子，照样跟那些与共产主义组织没有任何关系的马克西梅奇、廖尼卡、拉法伊尔斯基和马利马波尔斯基之流混在一起，在私人住宅里、在萨沃依饭店里大搞"豪华的排场……在那里打牌（一注就是上千卢布）喝酒、玩女人"。科瑟列夫还给自己置办了昂贵的陈设（价值七万卢布），而且不择手段地从全俄肃反委员会里偷走食堂的银匙、银碗（全俄肃反委员会里的这些东西是从哪儿来的？……），连普通的玻璃杯也拿。"瞧，他的注意力不是集中在思想方面，而是跑到这种地方去了……，他从革命运动中为自己取得的就是这种东西。"（那位高级契卡人员现在矢口否认曾经收受贿赂，瞪着眼睛撒了个谎，说他在……芝加哥银行里存着二十万卢布的遗产！……看来，他觉得这个情节和世界革命一样，都是可以想象为真事的！） 怎样正确利用自己这种可以随便逮捕和随便释放的超人的权利呢？显然，应当预先选好肚里有黄金鱼子的那种鱼，而在一九一八年网里正有不少这样的鱼（因为革命搞得太仓促，未能面面俱到，因此有多少宝石、项链、手锡、戒指、耳环被资产阶级太太们藏起来了）。然后再通过一个假冒名义的人出面同被捕者的亲属接触。 审讯过程中，这类人物也出场了。例如二十二岁的乌斯宾斯卡妮，她在彼得堡的中学毕了业，但没有能进入高等学校，这时建立了苏维埃政权。一九一八年春天，乌斯宾斯卡娅到全俄肃反委员会自荐充当情报人员。她外表合格，被录用了。 眼线工作（当时叫秘密工作）本身，克雷连科是这样解释的：对于自己来说，"我们在这方面并没有看到有什么不体面的地方，我们认为这是自己应尽的义务；……工作事实本身不会玷污他；既然一个人承认这种工作是革命利益的需要--他就应当去做。"（第五一二页）但是，乌斯宾斯卡颁并没有政治信条！--这就可怕了。她率直地回答："我答应的条件是，每破获一个案子给我一定的提成，"而且每次还要和革命法庭不愿提到和不让说出姓名来的那个人"对半分帐"。克雷连科用自己的话这样表达："乌斯宾斯卡灰不是全俄肃反委员会的编内人员，她是做计件工作的。"（第五0七页）不过，公诉人又以人之常情，对她的行为向我们做了如下的解释：她大手大脚花惯了，最高国民经济委员会发的可怜的五百卢布工资在她眼里算什么，因为一次敲诈（为撤除商店的铅封替一个商人出一把力）就能给她五千卢布，另一次从一个被捕者的妻子麦谢尔斯卡娅-格列弗斯手里得了一万七。顺便提一句，乌斯宾斯卡娅充当普通秘密人员的时间并不久，依靠契卡中大人物的帮助，她过了几个月已经成了共产党员和侦查员了。 然而我们怎么也弄不清案情的实质。大工厂主麦谢尔斯基因在与苏维埃政府（尤?拉林）的经济谈判中的不让步态度而被捕。契卡人员猜想他妻子手里有贵重物品和现金，便对她进行讹诈，亲自跑到她家里去，把她丈夫的处境一次比一次说得凶险，要求越来越高的赎金。万般无奈的麦谢尔斯卡娅-格列弗斯自己告发了讹诈（通过那个已经搞垮了几个受贿的侦查员并且看来是对整个无产阶级司法和非司法制度怀有阶级仇恨的雅库洛夫律师）。而革命法庭庭长也犯了一个阶级错误；他本来可以给捷尔任斯基同志通个气，按家庭方式处理一下就算了，可是他偏偏叫人给麦谢尔斯卡娅一些供她行贿用的编号的钞票，并且在她家的帷幕后面安排了一个女速记员。科瑟列夫的铁哥们，一个叫戈德留克的人，来谈赎金的价钱了（要六十万卢布！）。戈德留克提到科瑟列夫、索洛维约夫以及其他委员们的那些话，他讲的全俄肃委里谁拿几千谁拿几平的那些事，统统被速记下来了，戈德留克收下做了记号的预付款也被写进了记录，他把一张由监察委员会、利伯特和罗登贝格签发的进全俄肃委的通行证交给了麦谢尔斯卡娅（下一步的交易应在契卡里继续进行）。他一出门就被扣住了！一时心慌，全招了。（而麦谢尔斯卡娅趁这时候去了监委，她丈夫的案卷已经被调到那里去"宙核"了。） 但是，对不起！要知道这样揭发问题明明会给肃反委员会的圣洁外衣沾上污点！这个莫斯科革命法庭庭长精神正常吗？他干的是份内的事吗？ 我们冠冕堂皇的历史隐瞒了曾一度出现的一个机缘。原来，肃反委员会开始活动的第一年造成的印象，连当时还没有习惯这一套的无产阶级政党都觉得吃不消。总共才一年，全俄肃反委员会在自己光辉的道路上才迈出了第一步，就已经发生了克雷连科用晦涩的语言写出的那个"法院及其职能与肃反委员会的非司法职能之间的争论，这次争论在当时把党和工人划分成了两个阵营"。（第十四页）科瑟列夫一案之所以能够产生（而在此以前这类事情都没有出过问题），而且甚至闹成一件全国的大事，完全是这个原故。 必须挽救全俄肃反委员会！挽救全俄肃反委员会！索洛维约夫请求革命法庭允许他到塔干卡监狱去和关在那儿的（哎呀，不在卢宾卡）戈德留克--谈谈话。革命法庭拒绝了。那时索洛维约夫便不管什么革命法庭私自潜入了戈德留克的监室。说来也巧；戈德留克正好从此得了重病，一点不错。（克雷连科奉承说："未必能够说索洛维约夫怀有恶意。"）戈德留克感觉到死期已近，万分悔恨自己不该诬陷契卡，请求给他纸笔，写了一个书面的翻供声明：他对科瑟列夫和契卡其他委员的诬陷，一概不是事实！在帷幕后面速记下来的东西也不是事实！ 啊，多少题材呀！噢，莎士比亚在哪里呀？索洛维约夫穿墙而入，模糊的监室暗影，戈德留克用渐渐无力的手写翻供--而在戏院里、在电影院里，人家只用"仇恨的旋风"这类街头歌曲向我们描述革命年代。 克雷连科坚持问："是谁给他签发的通行证？"给麦谢尔斯卡娅的那些通行证也不是天上掉下来的呀？不，公诉人"并不想说索洛维约夫与这案子有牵连，因为……没有足够的材料，"但是他推测，索洛维约夫可能是被目前还逍遥法外的那些"偷吃了鸡嘴上还留着鸡毛"的公民派到塔于卡去的。