Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:28:36.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Arbitrary Was Tsarist Administrative Justice? The Case of the Zemstvos Petitions to the Imperial Ruling Senate, 1866–1916

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2010

Natasha Assa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the key principles of the modern legal state (Rechtsstaat) is the right of all citizens to seek judicial protection against unlawful acts of government officials. It stems from the fundamental principle of the rule of law that asserts that all citizens, including state officials, are equal before the law and have the right to a fair trial. Within this legal framework a distinct field of law, “administrative justice,” governs public litigation against state officials. Its domain of jurisdiction reflects complex philosophical and legal distinctions between the public and private spheres in the modern state. As legal scholars and philosophers continuously redefine the boundary between the public and private spheres, the prerogatives of government officials over the rights of private citizens continue to evolve. The key questions in the debate are as follows. Should the state guarantee an undisputed precedence of citizens’ rights over administration or should it protect its officials from widespread litigation and therefore grant them a certain degree of immunity? Should ordinary courts and laws decide disputes between government officials and private individuals, or should the state provide separate norms, judges, and procedures for administrative litigation? Should punishment for misuse of administrative power be equal to that of the breach of civil or criminal laws? Who and to what extent should be made liable for any damages incurred through misuse of administrative power?

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 1 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The classic account of the British doctrine of the rule of law is Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (London, New York: Macmillan, St. Martin's Press, 1959)Google Scholar.

2. Basic sources for these distinctions are Habermas, Jurgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Oakeshott, Michael, On Human Conduct (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Hayek, Frederick A., The Constitution of Liberty (London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976)Google Scholar.

3. Montesquieu observed these principles in the workings of the British government and brought his ideas to pre-revolutionary France.

4. For an overview of the history and theory of the doctrine of separation of powers in Europe, see Vile, M. J. C., Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

5. For the discussion of the British doctrine of ultra vires, see Hood, Phillip O. and Jackson, Paul, Constitutional and Administrative Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1987), 662Google Scholar.

6. A brief outline of the principles of the French Droit Administratiff in English can be found in P. M. Gaudemet, “Droit Administratiff in France,” in Dicey, , Introduction, 475–93Google Scholar.

7. For the adoption of the principles of administrative justice in the late nineteenth century by the British judicial system, see Jacob, Joseph, The Republican Crown: Lawyers and the Makings of the State in Twentieth-Century Britain (Aldershot; Brookfield: Dartmouth, 1996)Google Scholar; for British practices of administrative justice in the late twentieth century, see Griffith, John, The Politics of the Judiciary (London: Fontana Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

8. See, for example, the role of British courts in regulating government business practices in Harris, Ron, Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship and Business Organization, 1720–1844 (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Most of the juridical literature in this period consists of analyses of the European concepts and practices of administrative justice with implied significance for Russian politics and government:Ivanovskii, V. V., Uchebnik nauki politseiskogo prava (Moscow, 1891)Google Scholar; Kuplevasskii, N., Administrativnaia Iustitsiia vo Frantsii (Khar'kov, 1879)Google Scholar; Tarasov, N. I., Kratkii ocherk nauki administrativnogo prava (Iaroslavl’, 1888)Google Scholar; Deriuzhinskii, V. F., “Administrativnye sudy v gosudarstvakh Zapadnoi Evropy,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Iustitsii (hereafter ZhMIu) 6 (1906): 85–122Google Scholar; Gussakovskii, A., “Administrativnaia Iustitsiia,” ZhMIu 10 (1906): 69–123Google Scholar; Pavlienko, N. I., “Sushchnost administrativnoi iustitsii i osnovnye cherty ee organizatsii v evropeiskikh gosudarstvakh,” Kievskie Universitetskie Izvestiia 12 (1898)Google Scholar; Tarasov, N. I., “Organizatsiia administrativnoi iustitsii,” Iuridicheskii Vestnik 9 (1887)Google Scholar.

10. For an overview of the Russian ideas of Rechtsstaat, see Oda, Hiroshi, “The Emergence of Pravovoe Gosudarstvo (Rechtsstaat) in Russia,” Review of Central and East European Law 3 (1999): 373–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor this reference I am grateful to Geoffrey Hosking of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies at the University of London; see also his account of the general optimism surrounding Russian Great Reforms in Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia and the Russians: A History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001): 287–89Google Scholar.

11. Lozina-Lozinskii, M. A., “Proverka diskretsionnykh rasporiazhenii administrativnymi sudami,” Pravo 3 (1901): 126–35Google Scholar, and Pravo 4 (1901): 176–88Google Scholar.

12. Lazarevkii, N. I., “Pravovoi kontrol’ nad diskretsionnymi rasporiazheniiami administratsii,” Pravo 12 (1901): 642–49Google Scholar; Lazarevkii, , “Administrativnoe usmotrenie,” Pravo 41 (1900): 1903–11Google Scholar, and Pravo 42 (1900): 1957–64Google Scholar.

13. See, for example,Korf, S. A., Administrativnaia iustitsiia v Rossii (St. Peterburg, 1911), vol. 1Google Scholar.

14. Raeff, Marc, Michael Speransky, Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839, 2d ed., (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gooding, John, “The Liberalism of Michael Speransky,” Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 3 (1986): 401–24Google Scholar.

15. Orlovsky, Daniel, The Limits of Reform: The Ministry of Internal Affairs in Imperial Russia, 1802–1881 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Hosking, Geoffrey, “Patronage and the Russian State,” Slavonic and East European Review 78, no. 2 (2000): 301–20Google Scholar; Afanas'ev, M. N., Klientelizm i rossiiskaia gosudarstvennost’ (Moscow, 1997)Google Scholar.

17. Brown, Peter B., “Neither Fish nor Fowl: Administrative Legality in Mid and Late Seventeenth-Century Russia,” Jahrbucher für Geschichte Osteuropas 50, no. 1 (2002): 1–21Google Scholar; Brown, Peter B., “Guarding the Gate-Keepers: Punishing Errant Rank-and-File Officials in Seventeenth-Century Russia,” Jahrbucher für Geschichte Osteuropas 50, no. 2 (2002): 224–45.Google ScholarBoth articles demonstrate that formal justice, juxtaposed against informal justice based on culturally determined unwritten norms, militated against sanctioning Russian officials for administrative violations.

18. Quoted from Davydova, Irina, “Bureaucracy on Trial: A Malaise in Official Life as Represented in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought,” in Bribery and Blat in Russia: Negotiating Reciprocity from the Early Modern Period to the 1990s, ed. Lovell, Stephen, Ledeneva, Alena, and Rogachevskii, Andrei (New York: Macmillan Press, St. Martin's Press, 2001), 94–112Google Scholar.

19. Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus, trans. Fischoff, Ephraim et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).Google ScholarWeber defined modern bureaucracy as a hierarchical structure based on rationalist and universal principles of law.

20. Berdiaev, Nikolai, Vekhi. Sbornik statei o russkoi intelligentsii (Moscow, Frankfurt am Main: Posev, 1909).Google Scholar

21. Most noticeably Wagner, William, Marriage, Property and Law in Late Imperial Russia (Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. See for example Solomon, Peter Jr “Courts and Their Reform in Russian History,” in Reforming Justice in Russia, 1864–1996: Power, Culture and the Limits of Legal Order, ed. Solomon, Peter Jr (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1997), 5–10Google Scholar; Burbank, Jane, “Legal Culture, Citizenship and Peasant Jurisprudence: Perspectives from the Early Twentieth Century,” in Reforming Justice in Russia, 82–106Google Scholar; Frierson, Cathy “Of Red Roosters, Revenge and the Search for Justice: Rural Arson in European Russia in the Late Imperial Era,” in Reforming Justice in Russia, 107–30Google Scholar.

23. For example, during the conservative backlash in the Fourth Duma, Russian jurist A. F. Meyendorff wrote in the journal Pravo that one of the dangers of the Senate's continuous exercise of its quasi-legislative power was that it could be used by the forces of reaction to circumvent and curtail the power of the Duma.Meyendorff, A. F., “Vopros o tolkovanii zakonov i kompetentsii departamentov Pravitel'stvuiushchego Senata prezhnego ustroistva,” Pravo 9 (1914): 644–55Google Scholar, and Pravo 12 (1914): 962–73Google Scholar.

24. Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–1990 (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990).Google Scholar

25. I have endeavored to trace the original copies of the zemstvos petitions to the Senate, but at this point it appears that the entire collection is missing from the depositories of the RGIA (Russian State Historical Archive). According to archivists, it may have perished in the Leningrad Blockade, 1941–1944, or earlier during the 1930s. Provincial archives might contain the texts of local petitions and even copies of the Senate verdicts, but it would take further research to collect a sizeable sample of those.

26. Rieber, Alfred J., ed., The Politics of Autocracy: Letters of Alexander II to Prince A. I. Bariatinskii, 1857–1864 (Paris: Mouton, 1966).Google Scholar

27. Emmons, Terence, The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Pearson, Thomas S., “Russian Law and Rural Justice: Activity and Problems of the Russian Justices of the Peace, 1865–1889,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 32, no. 1 (1984): 52–71Google Scholar; Ust'iantseva, N. F., “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v otsenke sovremennikov (po materialam gazety ‘Mirovoi Posrednik’),” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriia 8, Istoriia 1 (1984): 64–76Google Scholar.

28. Wcislo, Frank, “The Land Captain Reform of the 1889 and the Re-Assertion of the Unrestricted Autocratic Authority,” Russian History 15, nos. 2–4 (1988): 285–325Google Scholar; Pearson, Thomas S., “The Origins of Alexander III's Land Captains: A Re-Interpretation,” Slavic Review 40, no. 3 (1981): 384–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zakharova, Larisa G., Zemskaia kontrreforma 1890 goda (Moscow, 1968)Google Scholar.

29. For an overview of such quasi-judicial organs, see Korf, Administrativnaia iustitsiia, vol. 1; for the role of provincial governors in these committees, see Robbins, Richard, The Tsar's Viceroys: Provincial Governors in the Last Years of Empire (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

30. In recent years there has been a resurgence of scholarly interest in petitions practice from a variety of angles of Russian history. However, in most cases historians associate petitions with the lack of legality and rule of law in Russian political culture. For example, for a general appreciation of the tradition of supplication to the state, see Freeze, Gregory, Introduction, From Supplication to Revolution: A Documentary Social History of Imperial Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; for use of petitions in patronage politics in the seventeenth century, see Kivelson, Valery, Autocracy in the Provinces: The Muscovite Gentry and the Political Culture in the Seventeenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; for peasants’ use of petitions in the manipulation of the authorities in the eighteenth century, see Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling, “Legal Identity and the Possession of Serfs in Imperial Russia,” The Journal of Modern History 70, no. 3 (1998): 561–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for workers’ use of petitions in Soviet Russia, seeFitzpatrick, Sheila, “Supplicants and Citizens: Public Letter-Writing in Soviet Russia in the 1930s,” Slavic Review 55, no. 1 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Gribovskii, V. M., Vysshii sud i nadzor v Rossii v pervuiu polovinu tsarstvovanii Ekateriny Vtoroi (St. Petersburg, 1901)Google Scholar; Korkunov, M. N., Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo (St. Petersburg, 1909)Google Scholar; N. V. Murav'ev, Prokurorskii nadzor v ego ustroistve i deiatel'nosti (Moscow, 1889)Google Scholar; Petrovskii, S., O Senate v tsarstvovanie Petra Velikogo (Moscow, 1875)Google Scholar.

32. LeDonne, John, “Ruling Families in the Russian Political Order, 1689–1825,” Cahiers du Monde Russe et Sovietique 28, nos. 3–4 (1987): 233–322Google Scholar; for an account of the elaborate rituals designed to project the absolute power of the tsars, see Wortman, Richard, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vols. 1–2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995–2000)Google Scholar.

33. The two-hundredth anniversary of the Senate warranted a magisterial four-volume history byBerendts, E. N. et al., eds, Istoriia Pravitel'stvuiushchego Senata, vols. 1–4 (St. Petersburg, 1911)Google Scholar.

34. LeDonne, John, Absolutism and the Ruling Class: The Formation of the Russian Political Order, 1700–1825 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 69–74.Google Scholar

35. “Ustanovlenie Pravitel'stvuiushchego Senata,” Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1892).Google Scholar

36. Shcheglov, V. G., Gosudarstvennyi Sovet v Tsarstvovanie Aleksandra Pervogo, (Iaroslavl’, 1892)Google Scholar; Wortman, Richard, The Development of Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Emphasis added.Gradovskii, A. D., Nachala russkogo gosudarstvennogo prava (St. Petersburg, 1876) 2:328Google Scholar; for an analysis of Gradovski's political views, see Dilger, Bernhard, “Die Politischen Anschauungen A. D. Gradovskj's,” Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 15 (1970): 145–306Google Scholar.

38. Lincoln, W. Bruce, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia's Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825–1861 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

39. For an overview of the 1864 Judicial Reform, see Lincoln, W. Bruce, The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990), 105–17Google Scholar; Vilenskii, B. V., Sudebnaia reforma i kontr-reforma v Rossii (Saratov, 1969)Google Scholar; Dzhanshiev, G. A, Osnovy sudebnoi reformy (Moscow, 1891)Google Scholar; Davydov, N. V. and Polianskii, N. N., Sudebnaia Reforma, vols. 1–2 (Moscow, 1915)Google Scholar; Koni, A. F., Otsy i deti sudebnoi reformy (Moscow, 1914)Google Scholar.

40. Wagner, Marriage, Property and Law.

41. Wagner, William G., “Tsarist Legal Policies at the End of the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Inconsistencies,” Slavonic and East European Review 54, no. 3 (1976): 371–94.Google Scholar

42. Nabokov, V., “Raboty po sostavleniiu sudebnykh ustavov: obshchaia kharakteristika sudebnoi reformy,” in Sudebnye Ustavy 20 Noiabria 1864 goda za piat'desiat let', ed. Davydov, N. V. and Polianskii, N. N. (Petrograd, 1914).Google Scholar

43. Article 9, Ustanovlenie Pravitel'stvuishchego Senata (hereafter UPS), inMordukhai-Boltovskii, I. D., ed., Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (St. Petersburg, 1892), vol. 1Google Scholar.

44. Article 99 and 105, UPS.

45. Article 118, UPS. The case against Alexander Ul'ianov, Lenin's brother, executed for conspiracy in the tsar's assassination, was tried in this manner.

46. Article 120–133, UPS.

47. On the cameralist principles of the tsarist state, see Raeff, Marc, The Well-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change Through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Yaney, George, The Systematization of Russian Government: Social Evolution in the Domestic Administration of Imperial Russia, 1711–1905 (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Baberowski, Jörg, Autokratie und Justiz (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996)Google Scholar.

48. Lieven, Dominic, Russia's Rulers Under the Old Regime (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Pintner, Walter and Rowney, Don Karl, eds., The Russian Officialdom: Bureaucratization of the Russian Society from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. This data is derived from the following official and unofficial sources:Spisok grazhdanskim chinam pervykh trekh classov, St. Petersburg (esp. 1881, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1908, 1914)Google Scholar; Murzanov, N. A., Pravitel'stvuishchii Senat 1711–1911. Spisok Senatorov, St.Petersburg, 1911Google Scholar; Semenov, P., Biograficheskie ocherki Senatorov, Moscow, 1886Google Scholar; Levenson, M. L., Pravitel'stvuiushchii Senat: kratkii istoricheskii ocherk biografii Senatorov, St. Petersburg, 1912Google Scholar; Al'manakh sovremennykh russkikh gosudarsrvennykh deiatelei, St. Petersburg, 1897Google Scholar.

50. Assa, N. V., “Authority, Society and Justice in Late Imperial Russia: The Case of the Zemstvos Petitions to the Senate, 1864–1914” (Ph.D. diss., School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, 2001), 68.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., 69.

52. Ibid., 70. Emphasis added.

53. For memoirs of their educational establishments, see Kizevetter, A., “Iz vospominanii vos'midesiatnika,” Golos Minuvshego 3 (1926): 123–52Google Scholar; V. O. Kliuchevskii, “Moskovskii Universitet v pis'makh i zapiskakh,” reprinted inMoskovskii Universitet v vospominaniakh sovremennikov, 1755–1917 (Moscow, 1989)Google Scholar; Kovalevskii, M. M., “Moskovskii Universitet v kontse 70–kh—nachale 80kh godov proshlogo veka. Lichnye vospominaniia,” in Moskovskii Universitet v vospominaniiakh, 275–93Google Scholar; Syuzorn, G., Ko dniu LXXV iubileia Imperatorskogo Uchilishcha Pravovedenia 1835–1910. Istoricheskii Ocherk (St. Petersburg, 1910)Google Scholar; Pamiatnaia knishka Imperatorskogo Aleksandrovskogo Litseia (St. Petersburg, 1899)Google Scholar.

54. Assa, , “Authority,” 68, 83.Google Scholar

55. Wagner, William, “The Civil Cassation Department of the Senate as an Instrument of Progressive Reform in Post-Emancipation Russia: The Case of Property and Inheritance Law,” Slavic Review 42, no. 1 (1983): 36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. For an overview of the principles of the Great Reforms, see Lincoln, The Great Reforms;Starr, S. Frederick, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830–1870 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; for preparation of zemstvo reform specifically, see Garmiza, V. V., Podgotovka zemskoi reformy (Moscow, 1957)Google Scholar; for the discussion of public (obshchestvennaia) and state (gosudarstvennaia) theories of zemstvo self-government, see Gronskii, P. P., “Teorii samoupravleniia v russkoi nauke,” in Iubileinyi zemskii sbornik, ed. Veselovskii, B. B. and Frenkel’, Z. G. (St. Petersburg, 1914), 76–85Google Scholar; Korkunov, N. M., Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo (St. Petersburg, 1909), 2:488–501, 533–37Google Scholar; for the problems of zemstvo self-government, see The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in Local Self-Government, ed. Emmons, Terence and Vucinich, Wayne (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Timberlake, Charles E., “The Zemstvo and the Development of a Russian Middle Class,” in Between Tsar and People: The Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, ed. Clowes, Edith, Kassow, Samuel, and West, James (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 164–82Google Scholar; Pearson, Thomas, Russian Officialdom in Crisis: Autocracy and Local Self-Government, 1861–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Zemskoe Polozhenie (St. Petersburg, 1864).Google Scholar

58. For general problems of Russian civil society, see Rieber, Alfred, “The Sedimentary Society,” in Between Tsar and People, 343–66Google Scholar; for the zemstvos’ contribution to the development of Russian civil society, see Porter, Thomas Earl, The Zemstvo and the Emergence of Civil Society in Late Imperial Russia, 1864–1917 (San Francisco: Mellon Research University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

59. Fallows, Thomas, “The Zemstvo and the Bureaucracy, 1890–1914,” in Emmons, and Vucinich, , Zemstvo in Russia, 177–243.Google Scholar

60. Article 10,Vremennye pravila o zemskikh povinnostiakh (St. Petersburg, 1864).Google ScholarFor more details on the enactment of the law, see “Trudy Komissii vysochaishe utverzhdennoi dlia peresmotra sistemy podatei i sborov,” Zemskie povinnosti (St. Petersburg, 1866), vol. 4Google Scholar.

61. Vasil'chikov, Prince A., O samoupravlenii (St. Petersburg, 1872), 2:411–16.Google Scholar

62. This article does not pertain to the problems of disproportionate taxation of peasant and gentry land as this was dealt with by the Second (Peasant) Department of the Senate and would have required a different type of study.

63. For zemstvo reaction to this measure, see Ol'khin, S. A., Svod suzhdenii i postanovlenii zemskikh sobranii o zemskikh povinnostiakh (St. Petersburg, 1868)Google Scholar.

64. This was particularly obvious in the zemstvos taxation of cottage industries (kustar) where textile giants with millions of rubles of turnover dispersed their production of yarns, leaving zemstvos with practically no real estate to tax. Thus in 1904 the Saratov zemstvo complained that a local textile firm with a half-million rubles’ turnover operated via the network of kustars and, except for a dilapidated warehouse, had no property for the zemstvo to tax. See the editorial“Vnutrennee Obozrenie,” Vestnik Evropy 4 (1888): 786Google Scholar; Karavaev, V. F., “Istoricheskii ocherk razvitiia zemskikh biudzhetov,” in Iubileinyi zemskii sbornikGoogle Scholar.

65. For convenience sake, I am borrowing the British term ultra vires even though it had never been used by the senate itself. For the definition, see above, 4.

66. Ruling #8057, 18 July 1898,Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod ukazov Pravitelstvuiushchego Senata po zemskim delam s 1866 po 1910 g.g. (St. Petersburg, 1912), 1:238Google Scholar.

67. Ukaz of the Ruling Senate #10715, 15 October 1896, ibid., 233–34.

68. Ukaz of the Ruling Senate #6881, 19 August 1899, ibid., 248–49.

69. Zemstvo i gornaia promyshlennost' (Khar'kov, 1908), 29Google Scholar; Arandarenko, G., “Zemskii nalog i rudonosnye zemli,” Promyshlennost’ i torgovlia 19 (1908): 331–33Google Scholar.

70. Plandovskii, Vl., “Vopros o zemskom oblozhenii zemel’ s mineral'nymi bogatstvami,” Vestnik finansov, promyshlennosti i torgovli 2 (1909): 42.Google Scholar

71. Avdakov, , “O nalogakh platimykh gornymi promyslami,” in Trudy s'ezda 19–go gornopromyshlennikov, 322–25Google Scholar; Ditmar, Fon, “O zemskom oblozhenii gornopromyshlennykh predpriiatii iuga Rossii,” in Trudy 29–go s'ezda, vol. 1, report no. 15, 38–45Google Scholar.

72. Ruling #7530 from 23 July 1899,Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod, 1:243–46Google Scholar.

73. Editorial,“Vnutrennee Obozrenie,” Vestnik Evropy 4 (1888): 798Google Scholar.

74. Karyshev, N. A., Zemskie khodataistva 1867–1882 (St. Petersburg, 1882), 146–48.Google Scholar

75. Particularly the work of the commission chaired by Minister of Finance Bunge; see Veselovskii, B. B., Istoriia zemstva za sorok let (St. Petersburg, 1914), 2:194Google Scholar.

76. For the full text of the Instruktsia, see Lozina-Lozinskii, M. A., ed., Novaia instruktsiia ob otsenke nedvizhimykh imushchestv podlezhashchikh oblozheniiu zemskim sborom. Pravila raskhodovaniia kazennykh posobii na proizvodstvo zemskimi uchrezhdeniiami otsenochnykh rabot (St. Petersburg, 1905)Google Scholar.

77. For the review of zemstvo valuation surveys, see Annenskii, N., Bibliograficheskii obzor statisticheskoi i otsenochnoi literatury so vremeni uchrezhdeniia zemstv, Vypusk I, za 1864–1903 god (St. Petersburg, 1904)Google Scholar; Annenskii, , Prodolzhenie za 1909–1911 god (St. Petersburg, 1912)Google Scholar.

78. Emphasis added.Verkhovskii, , Sbornik reshenii Pravitel'stvuiushchego Senata po delam zemstva (St. Petersburg, 1889), 154Google Scholar.

79. For a depiction of dismal working conditions among zemstvo statisticians, see Bleklov, S., Za faktami i tsiframi. Zapiski zemskogo statistika (Moscow, 1894)Google Scholar.

80. Veselovskii, , Istoriia zemstva, 1:78.Google Scholar

81. Senate Ukaz of 8 February 1868, Senate Ukaz, of 6 September 1874,Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod, 1:222–23Google Scholar.

82. Editorial“Vnutrennee Obozrenie,” Vestnik Evropy (1888) 4:794Google Scholar; Obozrenie deiatel'nosti zemskikikh uchrezhdenii Novgorodskoi gubernii, Novgorod, 1883Google Scholar; Sistematicheskii svod postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii poltavskogo gubernskogo zemstva za pervye shest’ trekhletii, Poltava, 1885Google Scholar, Annenskii, , Bibliograficheskii, 272Google Scholar.

83. Emphasis added.Verkhovskii, , Sbornik, 71Google Scholar; Petrov, , “Zemskii proizvol,” 14Google Scholar.

84. Ukaz #7283 of 3 March 1915,Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod, 12:189–93Google Scholar.

85. Emphasis added. Sbornik Permskogo gubernskogo zemstva, 1885, no 21.

86. Ruling #3092 from 16 March 1896, Kuznetsov, Sistematicheskii svod, 1:218–20.

87. Veselovskii, , Istoriia zemstva, 1:79.Google Scholar

88. Ukaz #5242 from 28 May 1901;Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod, 2:116–17Google Scholar.

89. Ruling #12244, 26 November 1904, ibid., 3:149–50.

90. Ruling #2981, 7 March 1908, ibid., 5:94–95.

91. Ruling #10715, 15 October 1896, ibid., 1:233–34.

92. Ruling #7897, 18 June 1908, ibid., 5:92–93.

93. Ruling #4838, 19 May 1907, ibid., 95–96.

94. M. A. Sirinov, Zemskie nalogi. Ocherki po khoziaistvu mestnykh samoupravlenii v Rossii (Iur'ev, 1915), 319.

95. Zak, , “Tekushchie voprosy zemskogo samoupravleniia,” Vestnik Tavricheskogo zemstva 1–2 (1905): 6–7.Google Scholar

96. Ruling #4635, 8 June 1905, Kuznetsov, Sistematicheskii svod, 4:67–68.

97. Ruling #12637, 4 December 1903, ibid., 3:151–54.

98. Trebilcock, Clive, The Industrialisation of the Continental Powers, 1780–1914 (London: Longman, 1981).Google Scholar

99. For an analysis of the zemstvos statisticians struggle with authorities, see Darrow, David W., “The Politics of Numbers: Zemstvo Land Assessment and the Conceptualization of Russia's Rural Economy,” Russian Review, no. 59. 1 (January 2000): 52–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarThe author shows that fundamentally different conceptions of rural economy set zemstvo statisticians and St. Petersburg bureaucrats on a collision course. While zemstvos believed that the nature of the landowner should be defined (i.e., a peasant subsistence agriculture as opposed to the gentry's profit-motivated agriculture) and included in the land valuation procedure, the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Finance denied any meaningful distinctions between the two modes of production and its effect on taxable value of land.

100. Ruling from 2 September 1898,Kuznetsov, , Sistematicheskii svod, 1:253Google Scholar.

101. Ukaz #9714, 2 October 1904, ibid., 3:175–76.

102. Ruling #6632, 13 August 1903, ibid., 170.

103. Ruling #8825, 24 September 1904, ibid., 171.

104. Ukaz #7483, ibid., 1:254.

105. McCaffray, Susan, The Politics of Industrialization in Tsarist Russia: The Association of Southern Coal and Steel Producers, 1874–1914 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; for the relations between mining industrialists and local zemstvos, see also the memoirs of a Russian engineer,Fenin, A. I., Coal and Politics in Late Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

106. For example, in the early 1880s Loris-Melikov appointed four Senators to inspect nine important provinces. They prepared memoranda containing critical views on local police and discussed the need to improve local government at the volost level, increase peasants' representation in the zemstvos, and improve cooperation between governors and zemstvos by creating collegiate bodies including representatives of the zemstvos. The memoranda also proposed extension of the franchise in the cities. These findings and recommendations were presented before Senator Kakhanov's commission and are discussed in detail in Pearson, Russian Officialdom in Crisis. The complete list of senatorial inspections in the provinces can be found in Berendts et al., Istoriia Pravitel'stvuiuschego Senata, vol. 5.

107. Frieden, Nancy, Russian Physicians in an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856–1905 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Hutchinson, John, Politics and Public Health in Revolutionary Russia, 1890–1918 (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

108. Assa, , “Authority,” 133–61.Google Scholar

109. The Medical Statute became a part of the 1857 edition of the Digest of Laws; see Ustavy o narodnom prodovol'stvii, obschestvennom prizrenii i vrachevanii, Svod Zakonov, vol. 13 (St. Petersburg, 1857)Google Scholar.

110. Frieden, , Russian Physicians, 265–73Google Scholar; Lindenmeyr, Adele, Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society and the State in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996)Google Scholar: http://www.h-net.org/review/hrev-a0a4i0–aa.

111. The durability of the old practices can be demonstrated by the fact that The Medical Statute of 1892 repeated almost word for word many of the legal impositions of earlier decrees. Vrachebnyi ustav (1892) lists all the previous laws on which this edition was based. See Svod Zakonov, vol. 13.

112. Karyshev, N., Zemskie khodataistva, 1865–1885 g.g. (Moscow, 1900), 22Google Scholar; Frieden, , Russian Physicians, 89Google Scholar.

113. Physicians often provided and used the cloak of scientific objectivity to increase their participation in government. See, for example,Becker, Elisa M., “Judicial Reform and the Role of Medical Expertise in Late Imperial Russian Courts,” Law and History Review 17 (1999): 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114. In 1871, out of the total 3,732 patients 1,243 were from the town of Voronezh.

115. Ukaz #37087, 23 November 1873, Kuznetsov, Sistematicheskii Svod, 1:595–601.

116. Veselovskii, Istoriia zemstva, 1:278.

117. Ibid., 276.

118. Ibid., 275.

119. Ruling #1903, 26 February 1900, Kuznetsov, Sistematicheskii Svod, 1:591–93.

120. Osoboe Soveshchanie dlia peresmotra uchrezhdeniia Senata i vyrabotki zakonopolozhenii o mestnykh administrativnykh sudakh, 1905–1906, RGIA, Fond 1243, delo 1.