Article citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Navigability of the Vistula and other rivers as revealed in projects of Polish administrative authorities during the early 1860s. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2016, 92, 111-121. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: 10.20858/sjsutst.2016.92.11.
NAVIGABILITY OF THE VISTULA AND OTHER RIVERS AS REVEALED IN PROJECTS OF POLISH ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES DURING THE EARLY 1860S
Summary. The aim of this article is to describe the proposals from administrators during the mid-19th century to improve the regulation of, and the rafting status on, the Vistula and other main watercourses in the Kingdom of Poland. The deliberation process is also shown, especially in order to reveal the genuine attitude of the Tsarist-controlled Polish authorities towards these requests.
Keywords: regulation of rivers; Kingdom of Poland; 19th century
Probably the last moment in the history of partitioned Poland occurred when local Poles, faced with the power of the Russian invaders, tried to exert effective influence on diverse matters concerning the regulation of their rivers, especially the Vistula, at the time of the reopening of the Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland in the early 1860s. This event, among other activities, allowed Warsaw’s administrators to focus their profound efforts on water transport issues in the country. This article aims to examine the administrative requests and proposals regarding river regulations and rafting, which were submitted by members of the Polish administration and considered within the structures of the Third State Council. The content has been solely based on archive material kept in the Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw.
2. REQUEST BY ACTUAL STATE COUNCILLOR MICHAŁ LEWIŃSKI FOR FURTHER REGULATION OF THE VISTULA RIVER, SUBMITTED IN 1861
The problem of navigability of the Vistula River was subject to previous endeavours of several separate state committees, which were established specifically for the analysis of the general state of its current, as well as in relation to the field of interest of other formal and permanent bodies of state administration. By the end of the 1850s, however, it clearly occurred that the majority of such efforts had not brought about any of the anticipated results. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that, just after an initial reactivation of Polish quasi-independent administrative authorities (including the so-called Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland), while analysing the general state of national transport, members of the Department of Tax Administration of the State Council turned their attention to the very poor state (from their point of view) of Polish water transport. It was, therefore, noted in the official minutes of meeting of above-mentioned Department of Tax Administration that the overall state of river navigability was completely unacceptable, including the current of the main Polish water artery, the Vistula River. During fruitful conversations, the Department of Tax Administration suggested a variety of measures aimed at improving the navigability of Polish rivers, despite not eliminating the substantial cause of the consistently observed and sustained poor condition of Polish watercourses. According to members of the Department of Tax Administration, the poor condition of the local water transportation system was due to the insufficient level of funding earmarked in the Polish state budget.
On the other hand, in 1861, there appeared, among Polish higher administration staff members, to be a certain mood of a slightly optimistic nature with regard to the expected course of future works in this field. As such, it was clearly stated in Department of Tax Administration proceedings that “one should hope for a competent authority to address its postulates corresponding to the conclusive validity of the object itself to which the state budget will deliver the most appropriate opportunity”. Thus, as early as 1861, the simple necessity of carrying out a detailed analysis of the development of any future works, which focused on the process of detailed improvements in the navigability of the Vistula River (and other rivers in the Kingdom of Poland), was predicted.
This anticipation proved to be fully
correct. Indeed, by early autumn of 1862, the new project in this regard was
signed by Lewiński. Recognizing the importance of
proper care for all modes of transport, the author of this paper has expressed
his conviction regarding the priority role of watercourses - mainly of the
Vistula River, but also other currents
- in terms of the development of the transport network in the Kingdom of Poland. The main reason for the adoption by the author of such a position relates to the fact that the main Polish export products were “raw” or “unprocessed” materials, which, as a general rule, should not have been carried using relatively expensive land transport; instead, it would have been much better to have transported them by water, as it was the cheapest form of public transportation. Here, Lewiński not only referred to the previously expressed statements of the Department of Administration and Finance of the Third State Council (which not only revealed that general budgetary spending on state communications in the Kingdom of Poland proved, at the time, to be of lesser value than any tax income in this regard), but also suggested the necessity of the state treasury to spend the exact “amount of any funds required” on transport. This last remark, however, was not originally supported formally by any statement/request by the Department of Tax Administration of the Third State Council, given that, for some legal reasons, it was unmanageable in relation to the budget of the Kingdom of Poland for 1863. Rather, the view was that it would not have been possible to have implemented it any sooner than in the budget plan for the 1864 fiscal year. Furthermore, the lack of any long-term budgetary funds for the purpose of “cleaning” and regulation of the Vistula River and other navigable water currents, according to Lewiński, would have eventually resulted in the possibility of simultaneous failure with regard to developing some kind of stable state budget based on the full balance of all the incomes and expenditures. In the opinion of this particular state councillor, this might have resulted from the acknowledgment of the fact that the alleged increased traffic in transit would automatically mean larger national fiscal revenues.
Based on these legal observations in the fiscal field, Lewiński added that, in 1861, Warsaw’s administrative authorities expressed their desire to include a series of public works in the “public interest” into the state budget, including projects concerning the Polish water transport system. However, even if this idea had been met with some kind of positive reception from the Russian Tsar Alexander II, “this did not come into effect, and could not come, since the lack of binding [i.e., balancing] of the budget was a main objection to it”. To solve this problem, Lewiński proposed abandoning the situation in which the budgetary reserve would not be used correctly, while it could easily be directed for use solely for the pro-development of the Kingdom of Poland, i.e., “to increase the prosperity of that country and the well-being of its inhabitants”. Finally, then, Lewiński suggested using the fiscal reserve of the Kingdom of Poland, to the exact amount of RUB 300,000, while targeting spending on important communication purposes. In his opinion, after the assigning of this amount of money from the general resources of the state treasury, one could use it for six consecutive years in order to clean up the stream of the main river in the Kingdom of Poland, remove local dangerous reefs and achieve an overall “settlement” regarding the Vistula River. By excluding the general budget reserve of the Kingdom of Poland regarding the needed for the above-described purposes, Lewiński understood that it was necessary to facilitate the “segregation of entire funds totalling RUB 18,000 from the general reserves” and include them in the state budget under a specific “obligatory” name. This amount of money was, moreover, to be secured by a guarantee concerning the unconditional recognition of the interdiction of spending it for any other purpose. In turn, with the emergence in the 1860s of some shortfalls in the Polish state budget, which served as a pretext for his actions, Lewiński tried to convince Warsaw’s authorities to use some of the state’s financial reserve to develop water transport usage. This money had to be used for the purposes of “cleansing” and improving navigability of some of the main watercourses in the Kingdom of Poland, with particular emphasis on improving the conditions of travelling on the Vistula River.
Lewiński’s prescription did not go unnoticed. Between 11 and 23 October 1862, a demand was sent to the Department of Tax Administration by Lewiński to annually allocate 300,000 silver roubles to clean and regulate the Vistula River was sent to the Secretary of State at the Third State Council, Stanisław Zieliński, on the strict order of “the Great Prince [Romanov, i.e., Tsarist] Governor” and the President of Warsaw’s State Council. Furthermore, this petition was supposed to be presented at a later date (i.e., after primary deliberation) for final consideration by the General Assembly of the State Council.
Shortly after submitting Lewiński’s elaboration to the Department of Tax Administration of the Third State Council, this legislative body met on the 15 and 27 October 1862. According to the minutes drawn up during this meeting, the following persons were present: Chairman of the Department, i.e., State Councillor Adam Bagniewski, State Councillor Dembiński, Permanent Member of the State Council Węgleński, Gruszecki, Legal Secretary of State Konstanty Mountain and Vice Representative of the Second Class Dangel. The participants generally agreed on several researched matters, with most of them recognizing the role of transport in the development of domestic and foreign trade, as well as confirming “that products of our country are such that they mainly require [usage of] river communication”. This resulted in the direct confirmation of a decidedly negative impact regarding the unresolved transport status of the Vistula and other rivers in the Kingdom of Poland in respect of delivering goods and items by water. In conclusion, the Department of Revenue almost wholly agreed with the postulates of Lewiński by confirming the urgent and constant priority in making Vistula and other rivers navigable to support the proper development of the economy of the Kingdom of Poland. Thus, all members of the Department of Tax Administration supported the application to allow RUB 3,000 from the reserve funds in the Polish budget for this purpose. To everyone’s surprise, the Department of Revenue did not respond by indicating the precise rules of secretion and usage of these funds. The administrative authorities also refused to accept the full extent of the postulation made by Lewiński regarding the six-year period of financial support for Polish water communications (i.e., from 1863 to 1869). Apparently, they did not want to take any responsibility for decisions concerning the navigation status of the rivers as well as flood control, which would possibly have a long-term nature.
The whole matter, however, was very carefully examined by the then Head of the Board of Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom of Poland, Major General Stanisław Kierbedź. Between 16 and 30 October 1862, in an official letter, numbered 4,172 (and while returning to the main headquarters of the State Council, as stated in the formal meeting minutes of the Department of Tax Administration), he sent his own basic statement to the Secretary of State at the State Council. Here he clarified his opinion regarding the request for “the appointment of funds of three hundred thousand silver roubles required for regulation of river navigation in the Kingdom”.
Referring to the absence of fixing the Department of Revenue within precise legal frames, as well as determining time frames and rules for the allocation of funds required for proceeding with the process of regulating rivers in the Kingdom of Poland, Kierbedź argued, from an official standpoint, that the fund recently allocated in the Kingdom for the regulation of rivers was at least clearly insufficient, and that the proposed period of six years of constant work on regulating the Vistula River seemed to be appropriate in order to bring this watercourse to the point at which navigation on it would be publicly available and properly conducted. Such a plain opinion was justified by the Chief Executive of Land and Water Communications Administration in relation to the observation of local natural conditions. In Kierbedź’ belief, it was the “very nature” of the Vistula River that prompted any effective regulatory work regarding this watercourse to be gradual as well as without any significant interruption. Any action of an accelerated nature, therefore, would not provide the intended results. Indeed, as evidenced by the activity of Austrian authorities, which (on becoming acquainted with the problem based on long-term experience) rather decided to undertake regulations on their part regarding the border banks of the Vistula River over a prolonged period of 20 years. Incidentally, this was the subject of ongoing bilateral Polish-Austrian negotiations.
Deliberating about the very core of activities to improve the navigable conditions of Polish rivers, Kierbedź specified that he was also referring to the specific control system and the so-called “additional resources” to be introduced, in turn highlighting the absence of accurate data, which were essential for clarifying what should equal the exact amounts of money to be allocated for the effective regulation of the Vistula River. On the other hand, when assessing the scope of work done so far, and the very “nature” of the Vistula River, the official head of the Polish transport authorities expressed his belief that the amount of RUB 300,000 per year would be fully sufficient to initiate the proposed works along the main river of the Kingdom of Poland. Moreover, it seemed to Kierbiedź that part of the entire sum could be spent on improvements to other significant waterways of the country; i.e., he was particularly referring to the regulation of the full length of the Bug River. These other works were equally, at least in Kierbedź’ opinion, required in Poland, especially given “the importance of communications”. On concluding his military post, Kierbedź stated on 30 October 1862 that the appointment of funds for regulating currents, not only on the Vistula River, but on the other rivers of the Kingdom of Poland, was absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the period of six years, which was pointed out to be fully sufficient to bring the Vistula River to full regulation, “was not consistent with the nature of this river”. As such, it should be significantly extended. Meanwhile, the amount of funds established for the regulation process of the rivers in the Kingdom of Poland should be recognized and accepted as sufficient in the first years of implementing the entire process of regulating watercourses.
From this detailed description of the entire administrative legislative path of the original request made by Michał Lewandowski, which led to the petition to undertake new works on navigability and cleansing/regulating Polish watercourses, it can be seen that it was finally supported in an official way by the Department of Tax and Administration of the Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland. Furthermore, Kierbedź, the Head of the Board of Land and Water Communications, located in Warsaw, effectively postulated the considerable prolongation of its scope.
Fig. 1. Example of the specification of Polish and Russian measures used during the building of river embankments and dams
3. PETITION OF STATE COUNCILLOR DOMINIK DZIEWIANOWSKI TO INCREASE FUNDS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE VISTULA RIVER RAFTING, SUBMITTED IN 1864
Once again, the issue of rafting on the Vistula River focused the attention of the Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland at the end of 1864. Namely, on 1 and 13 November 1864, the State Secretary of the Third State Council referred the letter no. 5389, which was addressed to the new Head of the Board of Land and Water Communications, Major General Ernest Szuberski, in which he described the substrate and the preliminary procedure connected with Dominik Dziewianowski’s project. As officially stated in his request, Dziewianowski proposed to finance multiple plantings along the Vistula riverside using “credit taken from the budget of revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year of 1865”. In addition, referring to the signal from the Department of Tax Administration regarding the necessity to obtain a detailed explanation on the part of the Board of Land and Water Communications, Stanislaw Zieliński asked at the same time for a referral to an administrative meeting of at least one representative of Warsaw’s Department of Transport Services.
On 2 and 14 November of that year, Dziewianowski formally presented, at the meeting of the General Assembly of Third State Council, “the request for increasing funds required for ensuring rafting on the Vistula River”. According to Dziewianowski, at a time when he wrote his dissertation, the Vistula River was “totally neglected and ran wild”. Still, the applicant regarded the watercourse as a major trade route in Poland. Dziewianowski recognized the opportunity to improve general rafting on Vistula’s current, not only by further conducting not very useful works to improve and strengthen river banks (which, otherwise, absorbed millions of roubles), but rather by systematic and persistent “securing” by “planting” the very banks of Vistula. The latter solution was thus seen as bringing some visible positive effects, which consumed a relatively small amount of state funds. Among the positive effects of this regulatory approach to the banks of the Vistula, Dziewianowski referred to the absence of the application of sand in the riverbed, which typically occurred in relation to the following:
· each magnification of the water level
· steady definition of the fixed edge bank of the river
· the possibility of growing up in almost every village in the coastal area, which contained a large amount of plants destined for planting on the shore
· raising banks of the river, which would lead to a narrowing and deepening of the Vistula riverbed
· the fact that with the completion of the plan for building/constructing the Vistula embankments, approximately 925,200 hectares of land (with a value of approximately RUB 3 million) could be recovered for agricultural usage.
Taking into account all of above arguments, Dziewianowski particularly proposed to use part of the RUB 50,000 loan, incurred for the purpose of improving the general conditions of rafting on the Vistula River, to paying for implanting banks along this river. The proposed sum was equal to RUB 7,500. The second conclusion boiled down to the usage of the somehow unexpected extra amount of roubles, which came out of penalty taxes, that was to occur in the previously planned state budget of 1865, namely, for them to be collected in respect of an additional fund destined for spending on the same purpose, i.e., for “planting” banks of the Vistula River.
On 4 and 16 November of 1864, in other words, the only two days after the meeting of the Third State Council in this matter, Secretary of State Stanislaw Zieliński posted a positive resolution concerning the application from Dziewianowski to increase the amounts allocated for the improvement of rafting on the Vistula River. Zieliński sent his note directly to the Department of Revenue, asking its members to carry out a further in-depth analysis of the issues presented. The idea was that Department of Tax Administration had to submit its finally accepted conclusions for formal consideration and decision by the General Assembly of the State Council, doing so as part of the general assessment in the yearly report of the Board of Land and Water Communications in Warsaw for 1863.
As a result, the required meeting of the Department of Revenue took place on the 17 and 29 November 1864, where the main purpose of the agenda was to give a more detailed position on the issue of legal and economical clarifications regarding Dziewianowski’s formal application to improve conditions for rafting on the Vistula River. Those participating in this meeting were State Councillor Łaszczyński, as Chairman, State Councillors Borzecki and Paprocki, Representatives Leśkiewicz, Vidal and Rogoziński, and Vice Representatives Gruszewski and Helpert.
Consequently, at its 29 November 1864 meeting, the Department of Revenues analysed the request from Dziewianowski, not only with the participation of the applicant himself, but also in the presence of a member of the Board of Land and Water Communications, namely, Lieutenant Colonel Wasilewski. An employee of the State Transport Services, Wasilewski was sent to this meeting by his superior, Ernest Szuberski, in order to give the necessary explanations of a technical nature.
During the joint work on the related project, Dziewianowski raised a number of further arguments in support of his idea. Dziewianowski further emphasized the importance of using water transport for the carriage of certain goods, especially timber and cereals, thus explaining his interest in improving rafting on the Vistula River. He also pointed to the once-known kind of universal knowledge about the need for protective plantings along the banks of rivers, as well as explained the frequent absence in applying this solution over time. According to Dziewianowski, given the relatively significant construction costs of embankments and dams (which were a major concern, especially in relation to the relatively low transport budgets in the Kingdom of Poland of the 1840s and 1850s), successive and gradual proceeding with watercourse plantings would solve the obvious problem of financial shortages, while ensuring proper protection and regulation along the banks of river currents. Additionally, Dziewianowski focused on an estimated budget needed to realize his application, as a kind of necessary financial minimum that was required to carry out the whole action of planting banks along the Vistula River. Moreover, Dziewianowski explained the very idea of submitting his basic proposal in terms of two core objectives: firstly, the need for a reminder of the inherent necessity for the final submission for approval, as originally developed a few years before 1864 regarding the draft law on coastal plantings, and, secondly, the necessity to implement the already approved Polish-Austrian Treaty on regulatory works regarding the section of the Vistula River’s banks between Cracow and Sandomierz.
At a joint meeting on 29 November 1864, acting
on the behalf of the Board of Land and Water Communications, Lieutenant Colonel
Wasilewski presented the firm position of his
institution in this matter. The Vistula River would not be able to lead to an
actual full regulation of the main watercourse in the Kingdom of Poland. Wasilewski explained that any complete “settlement” of that
river would only be possible through systematic work carried out over the
entire length of its current. Referring to the plantings themselves, a
representative of the Board of Communications merely advised that this planting
would only be useful in conjunction with many other regulatory endeavours.
In this extent, the said representative meant dams, without which anticipated
plantings would become quickly subject to washing by the river current and,
thus, completely destroyed. Besides, according to some calculations by
transport authorities, the cost of planting square bushes or small willows in
the mid-1860s stood at approximately RUB 0.25. As
such, it appeared that, for the proposed amount of RUB 7,500, one could cover
approximately 3,000 square fathoms of the Vistula River annually with planting.
As the Lieutenant Colonel reported, this amount could be increased to
approximately 500,000 square fathoms of plantings per year, provided one could
get actual support and help from the private owners of coastal areas. However,
one member of Warsaw’s Board of Communications assumed that, due to the evident
inability to build the expected number of dams, spending to the extent of
RUB 7,500 for the purpose of planting banks along watercourses would not at all
be meaningful or necessary. In addition, Wasilewski
confirmed that the transport authorities, which he represented, had just
commenced a rapid process of preparing themselves to start regulatory works
defined by the terms of a special convention, which the Government of the
Kingdom of Poland had signed with the Austrian Empire. Such actions were to be
enforced by a specific “urgency of things”. As of the autumn of 1864, the Board
of Land and Water Communications not only had organized the required
cooperation funds, but also “demanded presentation
[by the government] of all the successive projects”.
In his turn and in specific reaction to Dziewianowski’s request, Łaszczyńsk, as the Chairman of the Department of Revenues of the Third State Council, submitted on 29 November 1864 to the meeting of members of his faculty important information concerning the previous draft project regarding regulation of the Vistula River. The described proposal was dated as of 1857 and was made by Major General Jan Kanty Józef Smolikowski, who was then the Chief Executive in the 13th District of Communications (of the Russian Empire). This project was originally calculated to last 25 years, while its costs were equal to the overall amount of approximately RUB 14 million. As a result of the submission of such a proposal, the then Tsarist Governor of the Kingdom of Poland, Prince Mikhail Gorchakov, decided to appoint a special committee (initially working under his own supervision), whose purpose was “to devise the most practical and the most cost-effective way of regulating and cleansing the watercourses of the Vistula and Bug Rivers”. It was clearly a duty of the newly appointed Gorchakov research team to develop two separate regulation/drainage projects: one for the Vistula River itself and another for the Bug River. During its proceedings, the committee also ordered preparation of some accurate situational plans, including the levelling of the Vistula, and made some arrangements concerning funds provided at the time for the general improvement of navigation along the Vistula. Another action taken by the Gorchakov river commission was to examine several draft projects intended to make the Vistula banks more secure, as well as improve its coastal embankments. Another result of the endeavours by this research group was to develop new projects concerning the protection of river banks via widespread planting of osiers, mapping out trails of waterways, especially for towing, and describing the rules in force for the River Police. As Łaszczyński further explained, the fruitful works of the Gorchakov committee were interrupted by unexpected “disorders” of the early 1860s, particularly the January Uprising of 1863, and ultimately the decision of the Administrative Council of 1864, where discussions were finally terminated.
After careful consideration and review of these important circumstances, the Department of Tax Administration of the Third State Council came to the conclusion that the best way to implement the demands and requests from Dziewianowski would be to fully analyse and then implement at least a few projects regarding draft laws, as previously proposed by the Gorchakov river commission, which was abolished in 1864. After all, it was a common thought among members of the Department of Revenue that, in order to commence the large-scale planting of river banks, it was necessary introduce some entirely new laws on such issues as the way of performing such plantings and the rights and obligations of private individuals who claim possession of riverside lands.
Similarly, another Dziewianowski project touched on the problem regarding the condition for granting an autonomous amount of RUB 7,500 for the purpose of planting river banks with osiers and willows, which was rated negatively (on the grounds of unsuitability and undesirability). This happened with members of the Department of Tax Administration, who based their approach in this case on the opinion of Lieutenant Colonel Wasilewski. This negative attitude was justified here by the supposed existence of the theoretical capability of spending for this very aim with a suitable sum of money, which came straight from the Board of Land and Water Communications, as opposed to the state budget. Finally, in assessing the overall petition of Dominik Dziewianowski, the Department of Tax Administration decided on 29 November 1864 to submit, for final consideration by the General Assembly of the Third State Council, its proposition of general rejection of the requests and suggestions of this particular state councillor. Instead, it was instead suggested to finally return to the draft laws that were issued already by the Gorchakov committee, as established in 1857 and closed in 1864. To this extent, Polish state authorities responsible (among others) for the development of watercourses in the Kingdom of Poland instead decided to withdraw to already abandoned and blocked ideas, as represented by a recently resolved committee, rather than to follow new solutions proposed by one of his less important and influential members.
Taking place in the early 1860s, the above-described of singular Polish administration staff members could not alter, in the opinion of the author of this article, the generally poor shape of the Polish water transport system. In the context of a rapidly changing political situation, characterized by a very lively attitude, the activities of individual reformists had to be either postponed in time or confronted with regard to rather critical suggestions relating to Warsaw’s central civil administration and the local Board of Land and Water Communications. Even if the improved regulation of rivers, as well as the security of rafting, could be estimated as a sort of common, mutual and genuine interest of both petitioners and authorities, this concept evidently did not match with reality.
1. Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Second State Council of the Kingdom of Poland: 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838. Signatures: 103, 104, 105.
2. Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland: 1862, 1863, 1864. Signature: 256.
3. Rutkowski Marek. 2001. II Rada Stanu Królestwa Polskiego 1833-1841. Struktura i działalność. Studium Uzależnienia Prawno-państwowego. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Zarządzania. [In Polish: Second State Council of the Kingdom of Poland 1833-1841. Study of Legal and Administrative State Dependency. Bialystok: Publishing House of the University of Finance and Management].
4. Rutkowski Marek. 2004. Zmiany strukturalne w Królestwie Polskim wczesnej epoki paskiewiczowskiej. Studium efektywności administracyjnej, społecznej i gospodarczej zniewolonego państwa. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Zarządzania. [In Polish: Structural Changes in the Kingdom of Poland in the Early Paskievic Era. Study of the Administrative, Economic and Sociological Effectiveness of a Subdued Country. Bialystok: Publishing House of the University of Finance and Management].
5. Rutkowski Marek. 2015. Zarządzanie logistyką w Królestwie Polskim. Zabezpieczenie przeciwpowodziowe, mosty i opłaty wodne. Białystok: Agencja Wydawnicza Ekopress. [In Polish: Logistics Management in the Kingdom of Poland. Flood Protection and Bridges, Water Charges and Fees. Bialystok: Ekopress Publishing Agency].
Received 21.02.2016; accepted in revised form 20.07.2016
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 Faculty of Management, Bialystok University of Technology, Ojca Tarasiuka 2 Street, 16-001 Kleosin, Poland. E-mail: email@example.com.
 The previous State Council of Poland was active during the 1830s and early 1840s. For detailed information about the proceedings of this administrative structure, see Rutkowski (2001).
 The matter of navigability and rafting on the Vistula and other rivers in the Kingdom of Poland was also described in detail in archived materials of the previous State Council; see Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Second State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838). Signatures 103: 97-101; 104: 193-195; 349-357; 105:33-34, 161-164.
 For an extensive elaboration concerning watercourse transportation problems in the Kingdom of Poland during the so-called inter-uprising period, see Rutkowski (2004, ch. VIII: 356-365; 2015, ch. I: 15- 52).
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 31-32.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 66-68.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 69.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 65.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 70-71.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 72-75.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 184.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864).Signature 256: 112-113.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256:111.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 162.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 163.
 Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Third State Council of the Kingdom of Poland (1862, 1863, 1864). Signature 256: 163-165.