)
As a matter of course, Vitberg was soon surrounded by a swarm of rascals, men who look on state employment merely as a lucky chance to line their own pockets. It is easy to understand that such men would undermine Vitberg and set traps for him ; yet he might have climbed out of these but for something else - had not envy in some quarters, and injured dignity in others, been added to general dishonesty.
There were three other members of the commission as well as Vitberg - the Archbishop Filaret, the Governor of Moscow, and Kushnikov, a Judge of the Supreme Court ; and all three resented from the first the presence of this 'whipper-snapper', who
C H I L DH O O D, Y O U T H A N D E X I L E
actually ventured to state his objections and insist o n his own opinions.
They helped others to entangle and defame him, and then they destroyed him without a qualm.
Two events contributed to this catastrophe, the fall of the Minister, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, and then the death of Alexander.
The Minister's fall dragged Vitberg down with it. He felt the full weight of that disaster : the Commission complained, the Archbishop was offended, the Governor was dissasitfied. His replies were called insolent - insolence was one of the main charges brought against him on his trial - and it was said that his subordinates stole - as if there was a single person in the public service in Russia who refrains from stealing ! It is possible, indeed, that his agents stole more than usual ; for he was quite inexperienced in the management of reformatories or the detection of highly placed thieves.
Alexander ordered Arakcheyev to investigate the affair. He himself was sorry for Vitberg and sent a message to say that he was convinced of the architect's honesty.
But Alexander died and Arakcheyev fell. Under Nicholas, Vitberg's affair at once assumed a more threatening aspect. It dragged on for ten years, and the absurdity of the proceedings is incredible. The Supreme Court dismissed charges taken as proved by the Criminal Court, and charged him with guilt of which he had been acquitted ; the committee of ministers found him guilty on all the charges ; and the Emperor Nicholas added to the original sentence banishment to Vyatka.
So Vitberg was banished, having been discharged from the public service 'for abusing the confidence of the Emperor Alexander and for squandering the revenues of the Crown'. A claim was brought against him for a million roubles - I think that was the sum ; all his property was seized and sold by auction, and a report was spread that he had transferred an immense sum of money to America.
I lived for two years in the same house with Vitberg and kept up constant relations with him till I left Vyatka. He had not saved even enough for his daily bread, and his family lived in the direst poverty.
P R I S O N A N D E X I L E
249
6
In order to throw light on this trial and all similar trials in Russia, I shall add two trifling details.
Vitberg bought a forest for building material from a merchant named Lobanov, but, before the trees were felled, offered to take another forest instead which was nearer the river and belonged to the same owner. Lobanov agreed ; the trees were felled and the timber floated down the river. More timber was needed at a later date, and Vitberg bought the first forest over again. Hence arose the famous charge that he had paid twice over for the same timber. The unfortunate Lobanov was put in prison on this charge and died there.
7
Of the second affair I was myself an eye-witness.
Vitberg bought up land with a view to his cathedral. His idea was that the serfs, when transferred with the land he had bought, should bind themselves to supply a fixed number of workmen to be employed on the cathedral ; in this way they acquired complete freedom from all other burdens for themselves and their community. It is amusing to note that our judges, being also landowners, objected to this measure as a form of slavery !
One estate which Vitberg wished to buy belonged to my father.
It lay on the bank of the Moscow River ; stone had been found there, and Vitberg got leave from my father to make a geological inspection, in order to determine how much stone there was.
After obtaining leave, Vitberg had to go off to Petersburg.
Three months later my father learned that the quarrying operations were being carried out on a great scale, and that the peasants' cornfields were buried under blocks of stone. His protests were not listened to, and he went to law. There was a stubborn contest. The defendants tried at first to throw all the blame on Vitberg, but, unfortunately for them, it turned out that he had given no orders whatever, and that the Commission had done the whole thing during his absence.
The case was referred to the Supreine Court, which surprised everyone by coming to a fairly reasonable decision. The stone which had been quarried was to belong to the landowner, as
250
C H I L D H O O D, Y O U T H A N D E X I L E
compensation for the injury t o his fields ; the Crown funds spent on the work were to be repaid, to the amount of 1oo,ooo roubles, by those who had signed the contract for the work. The signatories were Prince Golitsyn, the Archbishop, and Kushnikov. Of course there was a great outcry, and the matter was referred to the Tsar.
The Tsar ordered that the payment should not be exacted, because - as he wrote with his own hand - 'the members of the Commission did not know what they were signing' I This is actually printed in the journals of the Supreme Court. Even if the Archbishop was bound by his cloth to display humility, what are we to think of the other two magnates who accepted the Tsar's generosity under such conditions ?
But where was the money to be found ? Crown property, we are told, can neither be burnt by fire nor drowned in water - it can only be stolen, we might add. Without hesitation a general of the Staff was sent in haste to Moscow to clear matters up.
He did so, restored order, and settled everything in the course of a few days. The stone was to be taken from the landowner, to defray the expenses of the quarry, though, if the landowner wished to keep the stone, he might do so on payment of 10o,ooo roubles. The landowner was not to receive special compensation,
· because the value of his property had been increased by the discovery of a new source of wealth (that is really a noble touch ! )
. but a certain law of Peter the Great's sanctioned the payment of so many kopecks an acre for the damage done to the peasants'
fields.
The real sufferer was my father. It is hardly necessary to add that this business of the stone quarry figured after all among the charges brought against Vitberg at his triaL
8
Vitberg had been living in exile at Vyatka for two years when the merchants of the town determined to build a new church.