File No. 10901/44–45.
[Inclosure.]
Memorandum.
Russian Embassy,
Washington, October 11,
1908.
Further replying to your excellency’s note of October 7 in reference
to the extradition of Jan Janov Pouren, I desire to say in reply to
your inquiry as to
[Page 516]
whether
the Russian Government desires to controvert the affidavits there
referred to, that the embassy does not feel called upon to furnish
any proof in addition to that already adduced before the
commissioner, even if the very meager time at its disposition
permitted it.
The embassy considers that the Russian Government has complied in all
respects with the provisions of the treaty and the statutes of the
United States relating to extradition. The case after having been
for eight months before the commissioner has been decided by him in
favor of my Government’s contention, and is now before your
excellency. The embassy assumes that your review of the decision of
the commissioner will be based upon the evidence submitted in the
proceeding before him, and that such review can not be affected by
any “ex parte” statements of the prisoners or others now for the
first time submitted. This assumption is based not only upon the
universally accepted principles of law, but also upon the precedents
and the international comity which prevails in such matters.
Your excellency’s attention is also directed to the fact that the
actual hearings before the commissioner continued during a period
extending from January 9 to June 17, 1908, and that the matter was
held under advisement and only finally determined by the
commissioner on the 14th day of August, 1908. During this time the
prisoner was represented by several experienced counsel, one of whom
at least is an eminent member of the bar as well as a member of
Congress of the United States. The prisoner and his several counsel
were present at the proceedings and every opportunity offered him to
testify and to produce witnesses. In fact, several witnesses were
produced before the commissioner who claimed to have participated in
the alleged disturbances in the Riga district, and much testimony
was furnished on behalf of the prisoner in regard to the nature of
such disturbances. The affidavits now produced contain alleged facts
the existence of which the prisoner and counsel must have been aware
of during the time the case was before the commissioner, and the
nonproduction of such proof during that time throws a strong doubt
upon the probable truth of the statements themselves and the
creditability of the persons making them. Your excellency can not
but agree with me that this evidence ought to have been produced, if
at all, by the prisoner and his counsel during the proceedings
before the commissioner, and that it would be contrary to all equity
that the interests of the Russian Government should now suffer
because of the adverse party having neglected to take such a course
at the right time.
Again, in answer to your courteous invitation to make any suggestions
regarding these affidavits, the embassy desires to state that it is
unable to understand how such acts as the stealing of articles of
clothing, watches, and other personal property from defenseless
peasants and women, the beating of women, and the burning of the
farmhouses and inhabitable dwellings can be construed as political
rather than as common law crimes. Yet the commissioner has found
such acts of burglary and arson to have been committed by the
prisoner and they are now, in part at least, admitted by him.
Furthermore, as your excellency well knows, the prisoner has the
right to seek a review of the commissioner’s decision in the courts
of the United States should your excellency determine to sustain
such decision.
Aside therefore from the impossibility of obtaining proof in
contradiction before the 13th instant—date previous to which, as is
stated in your excellency’s letter of October 7, action should be
taken—the embassy considers that the Imperial Government has fully
complied in all respects with the treaty and the statutes of the
United States in this matter and is not called upon to furnish any
testimony in addition to that already furnished and forming the
basis of the commissioner’s decision, and therefore requests that
the warrant of extradition be issued in the usual course.
