The Rudowitz Extradition Case common with the second deposition of Christof, contained a larger percentage of suggestion than of truthful narrative. It was between twelve and one o'clock at night when the band passed Kugren's house, and although Kugren swears that he was able to recognize Rudowitz be cause of the bright moonlight, the weather records show that it was a cloudy night, and according to the al manac the moon was only about half full and twenty degrees high at the time of night the event happened of which the witness speaks. We have also the testimony of another of the state's witnesses, Vitol, who swears that "on account of the darkness of the night it was impossible to see very well." As nearly as we can judge, the evi dence connecting Rudowitz with the commission of the crimes is practically valueless. The parts which seem truth ful are vague and those which are definite have the earmarks of having been manu factured. Upon the strength of such evi dence no conservative man would sus picion his mother-in-law or whip his dog. The only convincing evidence against Rudowitz is his own admission that as a member of the revolutionary party he voted to have the Leshinskys put to death as spies. The question, then, upon which the case hinges is whether in prosecuting him for this offense, the Russian government would be prose cuting him for an ordinary crime or for a political offense. In answering this question, the character of the party of which he was a member and the motive which prompted the action are controling factors. A mere marauding band cannot successfully defend against prose cution for crime on the ground that their acts were political. Were this the case, the beginning of a revolutionary movement would be the signal for
149
anarchy. All manner of private wrongs, real and fancied, would be redressed and the actors would protect themselves under the cloak of political action, which would be made to cover more sins than the mantle of charity. But the Social Democrats, the party to which Rudowitz belonged, was not a party of mere marauders who were using a political character as a cloak for private crimes; it was made up of many of the best and brainiest patriots in Russia. The same is true of the subordinate divisions of the party at Mitau and Benen, whose councils passed sentence upon the Leshinskys. The character of the party being such as to raise a presumption in favor of a political as against a criminal motive and a public as against a private char acter of its acts, what is there in the present case which throws additional light on the intent with which the action was taken? The district in which Benen is located was a centre of the revolutionary movement and was raided, during the month preceding the one in which the revolutionary council took the action in question, by a "punitive expedition" despatched thither by the Russian government for the purpose of overawing the revolutionists. During this expedition the civil authorities were disregarded and the formalities of a trial in the civil courts not observed. Several of the revolutionary leaders were summarily executed and their houses burned. Benen was under martial law in January of 1906 and for some time after. This gave the government the right to resort to summary executions, and the same methods were resorted to by the revolutionists. Force was met by force. The Leshinskys were reported as having given information to the gov ernment authorities which resulted in the execution of some of the revolu
