Article citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Water canal system in projects, activities and reports of
Polish authorities in the 1830s-1860s. Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2017, 94,
211-228. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.94.19.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
WATER CANAL SYSTEM IN
PROJECTS, ACTIVITIES AND REPORTS OF POLISH AUTHORITIES IN THE 1830S-1860S
Summary. The
aim of this article is to present the endeavours undertaken in the 19th century
by diverse governing bodies to build or (rebuild) and eventually improve the
Polish water canal system. These activities concerned commissions from the
Second Council of State, the Administrative Council, the Third Council of State
and, inevitably, the Board of Land and Water Communications/Board of the 13th
District of Communications, among others. In addition, some of the general
state reports, especially those focusing on water transport issues, are
analysed in this article. All of the researched matters deal with the following
canals: Augustów, Windawa, Brudnów and Wisła-Narew.
Keywords:
water canal system, Kingdom of Poland, 19th century
1.
INTRODUCTION
The fall of the November Uprising of 1831
represented an obvious and direct threat to the very existence of the
relatively large number of Polish transport projects of the period, especially
the costly and politically sensitive water transport network. In the end, the
future of the Augustów Canal was, at least, secured. Meanwhile, only the reactivation
of the Third Council of State in the early 1860s resulted in the proper
reopening of the issue concerning the water transport network in the country
and its adjacent territories. This article will therefore examine the fate of
the Augustów Canal after 1831, with particular emphasis on the struggle for its
preservation shortly after the November Uprising, as well as works concerning
its preservation during the time of transport authorities’ control and official
requests from the Third Council of State for a possible new use for it.
Attention will be also focused on further possibilities of rebuilding the
Windawa Canal and digging the Wisła-Narew Canal and the so-called Brudnów Ditch
(Canal).
2. STRUGGLE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE AUGUSTÓW CANAL AFTER THE FALL OF
THE NOVEMBER UPRISING OF 1831
According to the estimated budgets
(“anschags”) for the original construction of the Augustów Canal, the overall
cost of completing this technical project was expected to be 1,152,238 roubles
and five kopecks. As early as the end of 1830, however, when it was obvious
that far more work was needed to complete the entire canal, the sum required for
its construction increased to at least 1,595,598 roubles and 57.5 kopecks[2].
After losing the November Uprising
at the end of December 1831, the Director of the Directorate of Roads and
Bridges of the subdued Kingdom of Poland, Franciszek Christiani, received a
command from the Chief of the Muscovite First Active Army, Field Marshal Ivan
Paskievich, ordering him to make an itinerary for constructing and preserving
works on the Augustów Canal. A further task for Christiani was to establish new
job positions for canal services. Accordingly, on 29 December 1831, Warsaw’s
Government Commission of Internal Affairs and Police stated a report on this
matter, which was then presented on 30 December the same year to the Interim
Government of the Kingdom of Poland. This authority, taking into account that
previously the Augustów Canal had been under the direct supervision of the
(now-defunct) Polish Government Commission of War, decided that, in the
immediate post-uprising period, its management was to be come under the civil
administration of the state (namely, the Government Commission of Internal
Affairs and Police), while reaching the conclusion that the Augustów Canal
itself could no longer be maintained, as originally envisaged, out of the
so-called “separate road funds”.
Against this backdrop, the Polish
Interim Government decided to turn, via its President, Theodor Engel, to Field
Marshal Ivan Paskievich, with questions that concerned the very provisions made
by the Governor as to the further “fate” of this canal. As it was assumed that
Paskevich would decide that management of the Augustów Canal would eventually
pass to Warsaw’s Directorate of Roads and Bridges (the government institution
that would have been responsible in any case for completing the overall construction
of the canal, or at least for providing the financial tools of its
subsistence), members of the Interim Government were especially interested in
what Paskievich had to say about the exact sources of adequate funding for this
canal. At the same time, it was understood that the general oversight of these
funds would be left in the hands of the official financial ministerial
controller of the Government Commission of Internal Affairs and Police, as the
parent body to the Directorate of Roads and Bridges. After the answers were not
provided in full in a timely manner, Governor Paskievich formally decided to
temporarily transfer the management of the Augustów Canal to the
above-mentioned Director of Directorate of Roads and Bridges, Franciszek Christiani[3].
Despite Paskievich’s preliminary
decisions on the Augustów Canal issue, on 27 January 1832, Count Aleksander
Strogonov, Director General of the Government Commission of Internal Affairs
and the Police repeated the overarching question about the financing of works
carried out in relation to this canal. Strogonov further mentioned that, “based
on the explanations given to him privately by Major General Maltzki, under
whose guidance… the Augustów Canal was carried out”, the total amount of costs
for the maintenance and repair of the canal were officially assessed, at this
time, as being 404,000 Polish zlotys, when in fact the actual expenditure would
have been much larger. Hence, the Director of the Commission of Internal
Affairs stated that, in his opinion, there was “even more need to draw the
government’s attention to the utmost necessity to determine the appropriate
funds for the Augustów Canal” in the overall budget for the Kingdom of Poland.
Strogonov noted that, otherwise, one would have to immediately stop any works
on the development and maintenance of this canal, which would entail the utter
destruction of “so costly an enterprise”, or would increase the need to
continue any works related to the canal at some point in the future, which
would occur even more costs than previously expected. In response, the
President of Interim Government, Theodor Engel pointed out that Governor
Paskievich had decided that “the sum needed for this purpose would be placed in
the budget… for the Kingdom”. As such, on 27 January 1832, the Interim
Government ordered the sum of 400,000 zlotys to be included in the 1832 Polish
state budget for further works to be carried out within the next 12 months in
relation to the Augustów Canal[4].
Thus, as we can see, Field Marshal Paskievich took an extremely long time in
deciding to continue such works.
Despite this already considerable
delay, the Polish authorities still had to wait for a final decision from
Paskievich on the most important issue on the possible further financing of the
canal. In this state of relative uncertainty, on 28 February 1832, the Interim
Government, acceding to the request from the Director of the Government
Commission of Internal Affairs and Police, decided to transfer the sum of 5,000
Polish zlotys, from its financial reserve for the general budget of 1832, for
the purpose of “most urgent works around… the channel, to start from the onset
of spring“[5].
On the other hand, on 2 March 1832, Alexander Strogonov (showing once again in
this case his unique determination and stubbornness) requested that Warsaw’s
Interim Government allocate additional funds for the Augustów Canal. As a
result, following a decision by this government, Warsaw’s Commission of Revenue
and Treasury received strict orders to transfer an additional sum of 1,428
Polish zlotys and one grosh for this purpose. Besides, the Interim Government
authorized the Ministry of Revenue and Treasury to create, from within the main
coffers of Augustów Province, the special loan worth 22,546 Polish zlotys and
20 groshes, which were intended for payment during the first four months of
1832 of officials and other workers employed at any of the workplaces along the
Augustów Canal.
Further decisions with regard to
this canal were taken at the end of March 1832 by the revived Administrative
Council of the Kingdom of Poland. Taking into account the inclusion of 400,000
Polish zlotys in the state budget of 1832 to be used on ongoing works related
to the canal, the Council (in addition to a previous decision of the Interim
Government, made on 28 February 1832, and in accordance with the rate
determined by the Government Commission of Revenue and Treasury, dated as of 24
March of the same year) decided that the sum of 5,000 Polish zlotys, which was
intended for temporary canal-related jobs, was to be definitively collected,
not from the so-called state budget reserve fund (as was originally agreed),
but from the fund “of appropriate character”. In this way, the Administrative
Council was able to reduce the fund, which had been originally agreed in the
winter of 1831/1832 for any activity on the Augustów Canal. What was much more
important was the simple fact that this formal decision by the new government
of the Kingdom finally confirmed its will in supporting the final resumption of
the Augustów Canal works, which had been “previously carried out with the
contribution of huge effort and spending a lot of money”[6].
Finally, again under the authority
of the Administrative Council, in 1834, the Bank of Poland took over the entire
process of supervising the implementation of further works on the Augustów
Canal[7].
Fig. 1. Aleksandr Grigorievic
Stroganov[8]
As for important proceedings
regarding the development of the canal during the 1830s, one should admit that
the Government Commission of Internal Affairs, Public Enlightenment Affairs and
Spiritual Matters indicated in its report for 1838 that, after the completion
of the last lock built on the Hańcza River “called Hardwood”, the Augustów
Canal was firstly expected to be completely open as an inland waterway the
following year. Again in 1839, the Ministry of Internal Affairs intended to
submit the so-called channel tariffs for approval by the Administrative
Council. Such fees, levied on ships passing through the canal, were to be used
to repay in the future the sums “borrowed” by the Bank of Poland for the
“completion of that channel”. Additionally, in 1838, Polish administrative
authorities completed the processing of claims submitted by local individuals,
demanding the payment of compensation for their lands occupied by the state for
the construction of the Augustów Canal[9].
In this way, in the period
stretching from December 1831 until the end of 1838, it was possible not only
to save the Augustów Canal from complete closure or partial degradation, for
its construction to almost reach the final stage. It is hard to overestimate
the role of Count Aleksander Strogonov, who was both a Russian General and a
Minister of the Kingdom of Poland at the same time, for his stubborn endeavours
in providing the funds needed for the canal’s further maintenance, especially
in early 1832.
3.
OFFICIAL REPORTS ON AUGUSTÓW CANAL AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE POLISH WATER
NETWORK TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF LAND AND WATER COMMUNICATIONS/BOARD
OF
THE 13TH DISTRICT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Despite bold announcements, the
practical process of rafting goods (mostly timber) and floating ships on the
Augustów Canal began not in 1839 but 1840. The final construction costs for
this enterprise, which formally finished in 1844, amounted at the time to a sum
exceeding two million roubles. To this large sum, one obviously needed to add
interest rates, which the State Treasury was obliged to pay back to the Bank of
Poland for the loan granted previously for the purpose of building the canal[10].
In 1844, the management of the
Augustów Canal (with a length of 98 versts) was transferred to the then Board
of Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom of Poland, which was
subsequently known as the Board of the 13th District of Communications from
December 1846. The most important actions undertaken by transport services
dealing with this canal were highlighted as part of periodic reports on the
national administration system, as well as presented in brief on pages of the
officially printed state press. As we discovered from the first report of this
era, issued in 1844, the year the functioning of the Augustów Canal came under
the supervision of the Polish transport authorities was far from successful,
mostly due to floods that took place in August and September of that year,
which generally prevented any repair works from being carried out on the canal
in the expected time frame. Thus, these management activities were postponed to
a later date in 1844, which resulted in the limited capacity of the channel, as
the movement and drifting of items could not be conducted throughout the entire
“navigable period”. Nevertheless, despite these obstacles, all the requiring
repairing works were completed in 1844, which, according to the official
estimated budgets (“anschlags”), amounted to the sum of 5,999 silver roubles
and 13 kopecks[11].
Table 1. Funds allocated for
conservation works on the Augustów Canal, 1845-1852[12]
|
Year |
Allocated funds |
|
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852 |
8,805 silver roubles
13,066 silver roubles
6,130 silver roubles
7,537 silver roubles
8,628 silver roubles 10,815
silver roubles
16,831 silver roubles
4,515 silver roubles |
In 1855, the full cost of ensuring
the proper functioning of the Augustów Canal was estimated at 12,474 silver
roubles. When repairing and proper maintenance of the canal was required in
1856, the Polish transport authorities decided to commission a programme of
repair works totalling 10,325 roubles and 63.5 kopeck. Salaries paid the same
year to canal servicemen were at the level of 4,515 roubles. In 1857, a
programme of works for the proper functioning and maintenance of the canal was
allocated 7,234 roubles and 1.5 kopeck; in following year, this sum needed was
4,568 roubles and 82.5 kopecks. The costs of paying wages to canal workers and
administration staff were at the level of 4,515 roubles in 1857 and the same in
1858.
Supervision over Augustów Canal
inevitably included the proper maintenance of the navigation along parts of the
Biebrza River. The sums spent on maintenance work in this respect were 252 roubles in 1857 and 2,902 roubles in
1858.
It is worth mentioning that, in
1859, the Augustów Canal was fully navigable over a distance of 98,179/500
verstes. To be more precise, the ability to navigate the canal in full lasted
from 3 or 15 April until 1 November, or five- to six-month period. During this
period, maintenance works on the canal were allocated 7,998 roubles and 57
kopecks, while the salary budget for employees of all kinds relating to the
administration of the canal stood at 4,515 roubles. The regulatory Biebrza
River proceedings, considered as part of the canal system, and their control
also entailed expenses of 349 roubles and 11 kopecks[13].
Taking into account the data from
official state reports, generally speaking, funds spent on the functioning of
the Augustów Canal in the period 1855-1859 have been calculated in the amounts
presented in the following table.
Table 2.
Overall funds allocated to the functioning of Augustów Canal transport network
(including maintenance and salary budgets), 1855-1859[14]
|
Year |
Cost of
maintenance, salaries and regulations |
|
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859 |
12,474 silver roubles 14,840 silver roubles & 63.5 kopecks 12,001 silver roubles (including regulatory
works on part of the Biebrza River) 11,985 silver roubles & 82.5 kopecks
(including regulatory works on part of the Biebrza River) 12,862 silver roubles & 57 kopecks
(including regulatory works on part of the Biebrza River) |
Here are two phenomena that are
conspicuous. First, it can be easily observed that, in of 1845, 1848, 1849 and
especially 1852, expenditure on the maintenance of the Augustów Canal was
greatly lowered. Second, one needs to admit that, despite control on the part
of the canal transport network consisting of the Biebrza River being maintained
by St. Petersburg’s Board of Management for Road Communications and Public
Edifices, Warsaw’s transport authorities made (at least in the period
1857-1859) some efforts to regulate
parts of this water flow. These actions, however, were generally limited and
carried out at low cost.
4.
REQUESTS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS ON MAKING AUGUSTÓW CANAL MORE ECONOMICALLY
EFFICIENT/(RE)CONSTRUCT AND IMPROVE OTHER CHANNELS
Following the reopening of the
Council of State of the Kingdom of Poland in 1861, requests for improvements to
the technical and administrative functioning of Augustów Canal, as well as
calls to improve the economic benefits of the canal, were received in autumn of
the following year. These proposals were accompanied by an increasing number of
suggestions concerning the construction or reconstruction of other canals, both
within the borders of Kingdom of Poland and located in territories adjacent to
it.
Commencing its research on these matters, the
Department of Tax Administration of the Third Council of State presented a
comprehensive set of accurate data. Moreover, members of the Department
presented in their report a shortened version of the genesis of the Augustów
Canal, writing that the very idea of building a canal was taken
as early as 1824, mostly in order to facilitate trading activities between
Warsaw and the tsarist ports on the Baltic Sea. As was emphasized, the main
goal was, of course, to bypass Prussian customs and undermine the dominant
position of Gdańsk (Danzig) traders, who were seen as incumbents to be held
accountable for restricting local Polish trade. It was then noted that,
originally, the canal was scheduled to join the Narew and Niemen Rivers (this
connection was to have started in the Niemnowo locality near the city of
Grodno, leading to Dembie Village, via the Augustów Canal, where the Biebrza
River would start to flow into Narew watercourse). Out of the Niemen River,
tsarist transport authorities intended to build the so-called Windawa Canal,
leading up to the Latvian Baltic coast, in the Port of Windawa (Ventpils).
Furthermore, referring to the idea of constructing other partially artificial
water transport networks, the Department of Tax Administration also stated that
another water channel was intended to connect Warsaw with the Narew River,
which was planned in the Upper Serock.
Members of the Department of Tax
Administration reminded readers in their short report that, while construction
works on a prospective canal linking the Vistula and Narew Rivers were never
undertaken at any stage, the Windawa Canal was at least partially built.
Nevertheless, this artificial watercourse appeared to be unsuitable for vessels
that typically sailed on the Augustów Canal “because of the smaller size of the
locks [there]”[15].
Fig 2. Windawa Canal at its critical
point between the Dubissa
and Wenta Rivers[16]
It was recalled that, under these
circumstances, the Presiding Director of Warsaw’s Government Commission of
Revenue and Treasury, Roman Furhmann, sent an official note to the Chief
Executive of Communications of the Russian Empire (who was, at the same time,
formally in charge of the construction of the Windawa Canal), Adjutant General
Count Karol Fedorowic Toll, asking him “whether the [Windawa] Canal would be
finished, and local of what size/capacity could go on there”. General Toll sent
his response to Furhmann on 4/16 September 1837 in a letter (no. 1,366), in
which he strictly stated that “the width of the channel is applied to the
abundance of water, which had to feed it, and [because of that] it would be
inappropriate to make it wider”. The Chief Executive of Communications of the
Russian Empire also described the then poor conditions of existing parts of the
Windawa Canal, which was ultimately never completed.
Having been reminded about this
short, but decisive, piece of information, members of the Department of Tax
Administration of the Third Council of State emphasized that the Augustów
Canal, originally designed as part of an inner water route linking the Vistula
River to the Baltic Sea, had finally become only an “insignificant internal
communication [tool]”, especially when part of the Biebrza River urgently
needed to be significantly deepened by the start of the 1860s.
The perceived negative impact of the
Augustów Canal on the economy of the Kingdom was strengthened by data
concerning possible profits generated by this canal. These financial results
(showing the true level of the Augustów Canal’s usefulness) were, according to
authors of the Third Council of State proposals of 1862, relatively modest.
Prior to the early 1860s, these profits had reached their highest level,
surprisingly, in 1841, when they amounted to the sum of 2,505 roubles and 31
kopecks[17].
Table 3. Profits generated from the
Augustów Canal
in 1841 and 1859-1861[18]
|
Year |
Sum in roubles & kopecks |
|
1841
1859
1860
1861 |
2,505 roubles & 31 kopecks 283 roubles & 70 kopecks 736 roubles & 75 kopecks 286 roubles & 75 kopecks |
Meanwhile, the maintenance costs of
the Augustów Canal in the draft version of the budget for 1863 included the
following sums – Table 4.
Table 4. Costs of maintenance of
Augustów Canal in 1863[19]
|
Purpose of funds |
Sum in roubles |
|
Canal servicemen/administration |
5,051
4,500 |
|
Total |
9,551 |
Given the existing facts, the
Department of Tax Administration of the Third Council of State acknowledged in
1862 the limited usage and contribution of the Augustów Canal to the national
economy of the Kingdom of Poland, as well as the “adverse results for the
Treasury” resulting from the prevailing need to constantly provide financial
support for its maintenance. It is not surprising, then, that the main cause of
this unfortunate state of affairs occurred in autumn 1862, when attention was
drawn to the incomplete construction of an artificial connection linking the
Vistula and Narew Rivers, via the Windawa Canal, with the Baltic Sea (as well
as the unfortunate construction of this canal’s sluices to standards that did
not completely comply with the demands for vessels floating on the waters of
the Kingdom of Poland).
Accordingly, in 1862, the Department of
Warsaw’s Council of State, in a formal Polish Government statement to Tsar
Alexander II, requested the issuance of an order calling for the Board of Road
Communications and Public Edifices of Russian Empire, together with the Board
of Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom of Poland, to “recognize [and
analyse] the object of the Windawa Canal”. Another Council of State’s
suggestion was to order the Polish Board of Land and Water Communications to
identify any possibilities of building a new canal between the Narew and Vistula
Rivers, as well as deepen the Biebrza River[20].
In their response, members of the Department of Tax Administration expressed,
seemingly, a common belief concerning the improper use of the main water
channel of the Kingdom, as well as demanding the (re)building of the missing
parts of the entire network of canals leading in a north-easterly direction,
including this channel located beyond the borders of the then Polish state.
In his (undated) response, as the
Head of Transport Authorities of the Kingdom, Major General Stanisław Kierbedź,
evaluated in detail all the requests from the Department of Tax Administration
of the Third Council of State dealing with improving the usefulness of the
Augustów Canal and calls for the further construction of other water channels[21].
First of all, Kierbedź referred to the idea of completing the
construction of the Windawa Canal, while reiterating that the failure to do so
had been already repeatedly indicated as the main reasons why only a small
income had been generated by the Augustów Canal itself. He even confirmed that
these financial benefits, in the early 1860s, had reduced even further, mostly
because of salt deliveries destined for state salt warehouses of the Kingdom
being supplied via local watercourses.
Ostensibly, at least, Kierbedź
supported this widespread view held by Polish Government officials, according
to whom it seemed likely that the possible (re)opening of the Windawa Canal
would provide “the opportunity for [Polish] sailing ships to proceed directly to
the Baltic Sea within the boundaries of the Empire”, thereby directly leading
to an expected increase in the number of cargo ships heading in this direction.
Such an idea, of course, suggested that ships sailing on the Augustów Canal
would travel via the Windawa Canal, before flowing directly into Baltic Sea
port at Windawa/Ventspils. The exact water route between the two channels would
lead out of the Niemnowo locality near Grodno, then onto Kowno (Kaunas) and the
Windawa Canal[22].
However, in Kierbedź’s mind, the
Windawa Canal, at the time of writing of his report, “was showing in its image
only a mere shadow of the former works, endeavours and achievements”. To
completely restore, or even to begin any water communication channel via this
route, one would need to start work virtually from scratch. The costs of such
an undertaking would, in the opinion of Stanisław Kierbedź, be extremely high.
The Chief Executive of Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom of Poland
also doubted the usefulness of navigating via this route, pointing to local
navigational difficulties, as the Windawa Canal, at the point in its main water
basin division, had an inadequate number of watercourses to power the (entire)
running of the channel.
In addition to the negative arguments
given above, Kierbedź stressed that ships coming from the Augustów Canal to the
Windawa Canal would have to flow along the Niemen River on its section from
Grodno to Kowno, where some reefs and water thresholds were visible. This had
to be regarded as another major obstacle in the course of canal communication,
whose removal would definitely require further significant financial outlay.
The Major General also acknowledged
that the situation put the emergence of new railways in the region at stake,
such that their construction could be hindered by any further digging of the
Windawa Canal, especially given that any navigation in this direction was far
less necessary than before. Quoting Stanisław Kierbedź, the St. Petersburg
Railway (with its branch line to Konigsberg/Królewiec), which crossed the
Niemen River close to the towns of Grodno and Kowno, would be, in a way,
“replacing water communication on the Niemen River”, while the newly designed
railway to Lipawa/Liepaja “is replacing the Windawa Canal”.
Summing up his arguments in this regard, Major
General Stanisław Kierbedź bluntly stressed that any restoration of the already
built parts of the Windawa Canal to improve operational conditions, as well as
the construction of new sections, would require significant spending by the
Treasury of the Russian Empire “without corresponding and adequate benefits”.
According to the Head of the Government Transport Authority of the Kingdom, any
possible contacts concerning the matter of (re)building the Windawa Canal with
the Board of Road Communications and Public Edifices of the Russian Empire were
completely useless and would not bring about any solutions “which would be
probably expected” by the Department of Tax Administration of the Third Council
of State.
From this perspective and with such
a presumption on the part of Kierbedź, the Augustów Canal was to remain only as
a useful local water-based thoroughfare. Its sound management could bring about
benefits of a new kind, provided there was “proper maintenance and usage of
every drop of water flowing in the canal”, which openly alluded to prior
initiatives of Warsaw’s Board of Land and Water Communications that had also
been supported and confirmed by the Administrative Council. Finally, as the
ultimate counterargument for the resumption of further construction of the
Windawa Canal, the Chief Executive of Transport Services in the Kingdom cited
the previous circumstances in which it was decided to build the Augustów Canal,
which were now fully outdated in a political and economic sense; in other
words, the construction was as a kind of economic response to the raising of
Prussian cereal and transportation fees in early 1820s. Nevertheless, General
Kierbedź did not fail to note the positive impact of the construction of the
Augustów Canal on subsequent lowering of Prussian duties and other charges, as
well as the general failure of the trade war waged by Berlin against the
Kingdom of Poland[23].
The Head of Warsaw’s Transport
Authorities referred, in turn, to the order from the Department of Tax
Administration of the Third Council of State to the Board of Land and Water
Communications to present proposals for deepening the Biebrza River, which was
necessary to the providing a water transport route leading to a basic part of
the Augustów Canal. Acknowledging the comments, Kierbedź described the Biebrza
River as being “a sort of extension of the Augustów Canal, which, up to its
estuary and the Narew River, was managed by two different state organisms”. On
the route stretching from the basic Augustów Canal to Goniądz, the Biebrza
waterway remained under the supervision of the authorities and budget resources
of the Kingdom; from Goniądz to the point where the Biebrza River flowed into
the Narew River near the locality of Wizna, this stretch of water was kept “for
the proper functioning of the watercourse” by the Treasury and officials of the
Russian Empire.
In opinion of the Major General,
appropriate and “easy” rafting on the first of these sections of the Biebrza
River was introduced between 1848 and 1852, after several fascine works had
been completed at a cost of 28,751 roubles. For the sake of proper maintenance
of existing fascine improvements, in 1852, Warsaw’s Board of 13th District of
Communications of the Russian Empire wrote to the Tsarist Governor of the
Kingdom, Field Marshal Ivan Paskievich, a proposal to include (from this moment
forth) in the annual budget of the transport authorities the sum of 1,515
silver roubles and 15 kopecks to be used for this very purpose. In response,
while Paskievich expressed his negative view on the matter, the Field Marshal
allowed the Administrative Council to allocate, by itself, suitable funds for
this sole purpose on an annual basis.
As such, in the period between 1853
and 1861, it was possible to obtain from the Polish Government at least
partially adequate funds for the basic maintenance of fascine works on the
Biebrza River, albeit only on the section from the Augustów Canal to the town
of Goniądz. In reality, during these nine years, the authorities succeeded in
formally allocating the sum of 7,241 silver roubles, which meant that they
acquired significantly less funds than originally expected. Finally, it
transpired that, between 1853 and 1861, even less was spent on repairs to this
section of the Biebrza River, that is, 6,394 silver roubles (statistically
counting 710 roubles and 44 kopecks per year), which was about half of what had
been originally expected. This money had been used entirely for the specified
purpose.
In the opinion given by General Kierbedź in
1862, during the 1860s, rafting continuously took place on the section of the
Biebrza River between the Augustów Canal and Goniądz, especially where there
was at least a depth of 6 ft in the Biebrza watercourse, which was accepted as
suitable for this type of shipping. The temporary lack of any repairs to the
“Polish” section of the Biebrza in 1862 was due to the fact that allocated
funds were needed to cover the salaries of local transport enforcement
officers, at a cost of as much as 216 silver roubles. On the other hand, many
of the other fascine works on the banks of the Biebrza River needed to be
repaired in 1863, mostly because there had been no proper protection for many
years, as costs to address this steadily increased on an annual basis by at
least 5,000 silver roubles.
Much to our surprise, Stanisław
Kierbedź pointed out the evident lack of any precise knowledge on the Board of
Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom of Poland on the matter of the
actual state of the Biebrza River’s current from the town of Goniądz to its
confluence with the Narew River, namely, in its “Russian” section. Such a
ridiculous situation was overtly dealt with by the Head of the Polish Transport
Authorities, who withdrew this section of the Biebrza River from the scope of
Polish responsibility, instead putting it under the strict supervision of the
Board of Road Communications and Public Edifices of the Russian Empire. General
Kierbedź could only note here that “in this section [of the Biebrza], raftsmen
do not complain about any difficulties with their rafting”. This statement was,
however, considered as an obvious admission of the absence of any real
knowledge of any fascine or deepening works possibly undertaken by the Russians
(or rather the Russian invading army) on the stretch of “their” part of the
Biebrza River.
Therefore, based on only partially
accurate data, the Head of the Polish Transport Authorities defended his views,
acknowledging that the Biebrza River did not requiring any serious deepening.
Eventually, Kierbedź chose to focus on maintenance works on the Biebrza
exclusively in relation to the previous repairs along various stretches of the
river, the cost of which would be permanently included in the budget of
Warsaw’s Communication Administration (this was an amount identical to that
proposed back in 1852, i.e., 1,515 silver roubles and 15 kopecks per year [24]).
In his response to several demands
made by the Department of Tax Administration of the Third Council of State, the
Chief Executive of Land and Water Communications of the Kingdom finally
acknowledged the Polish authorities’ proposal to return to the idea of
constructing a completely new canal between the Narew River (starting in the
Zegrze locality) and the capital, Warsaw. Recalling that this project was
originally suggested as far back as 1828, he mentioned that the reason why the
idea had resurfaced all of a sudden in 1857 was due to a new canal initiative
from Adolf Kurtz. This occurred at the same time as when government administrative
authorities became interested in a project to drain a vast expanse of mud lying
near Praga, which was planned to take place in the form of the deepening of the
so-called Brudnów Ditch (in the vicinity of Praga). After several substantive
conferences with transport officials, Kurtz promised to build, within the span
of three years and at his own expense, a wholly “equipped” and fully
functioning sluice channel, located between Praga and Zegrze. In return, Kurtz
formally obtained a government concession to using the watercourse for up to 40
years, along with the permission to have full use of the adjacent waters and
collect fees from people rafting or drifting their products through this
watercourse. General Kierbedź acknowledged that the future opportunities
offered by “this channel, which would link the Vistula River, could be at the
expense of the government”.
Fig 3. Biebrza River in the vicinity
of Goniądz/division line between Polish and Russian responsibility for this
river[25]
To sum up his position on the idea
of building the Brudnów Canal (Ditch), the Head of Polish Communications
emphasized the synchronicity of Kurtz’s and the Polish Government’s proposals,
as these directly alluded to, or even coincided with, the concept of draining
Praga’s mud fields, which was the project that mostly interested Warsaw’s
Government Commission of Revenue and Treasury. After checking the conditions
and possibilities of local ground levelling, the Commission of Revenue
expressed no objections to the concept presented by Kurtz. Consequently, when
Kierbedź submitted his response to the request from the Department of Tax
Administration of the Third Council of State for the construction of the
Zgierz-Warsaw Canal, Kurtz’s was still being deliberated on and examined in the
offices of the Board of Land and Water Communications, where it was the subject
of a detailed analysis. As such, Stanisław Kierbedź declined to take a literal
position in response to the issues described here[26].
Such a position, moreover, was in harmony with his previous conclusions, in
which Kierbedź not only found a lack of necessity to (re)build the Windawa
Canal, but also saw no need to extensively deepen the Biebrza River.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Derived from the material presented
in this article, it is possible to draw a few interesting conclusions. Firstly,
it seems obvious that, after the initial difficulties in obtaining proper
funding for the ongoing building of the Augustów Canal, which might have
threatened to end, or at least of partially degrade, the project, we can state
that Count Strogonov was someone who, among others, after the fall of the 1831
November Uprising, was strongly supportive of the further existence of this
canal. Secondly, as for the general view concerning the Augustów Canal in the
period of its maintenance by the Polish transport authorities, i.e., since
1844, we can observe that there were extremely low levels of expenditure
allocated for its repairs (especially in 1845, 1848, 1849 and 1852), as well as
the disturbing fact that they always greatly exceeded any profits coming from
its supervision. Thirdly, the activity of the Third Council of State of the
Kingdom of Poland, prior to the January Uprising period (i.e., before 1863),
was characterized by its lively reformist tendency, which could not fail to
grasp the issue of water canal transport management. These problems, indicated
by the Department of Tax Administration of the Council itself, has always been
analysed in respect of the participation of the Kingdom’s transport
authorities, whose postulates referred to further work on a) making the
Augustów Canal more economically efficient, and b) constructing and improving
other channels, including the Windawa Canal and the Wisła-Narew Canal. Finally,
we acknowledge the critical role played by Stanisław Kierbedź, especially in
declining the application for the (re)construction of this watercourse.
References
1.
Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. The Administrative
Council of the Kingdom of Poland. 1831, 1832. Signature: 20, 21, 22.
2.
Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. The Administrative
Council of the Kingdom of Poland. 1834, 1838. Signature: 60.
3.
Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. The Administrative
Council of the Kingdom of Poland. 1862, 1863. Signature: 256.
4.
Fetting Piotr Ivanovic. 2017. Available at: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1849081.
5.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 1/13 June 1849. No. 128. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
6.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 1/13 June 1850. No. 130. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
7.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 20 September/2 October 1850. No. 220. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
8.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland.] 28 March/9 April 1851. No. 80. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
9.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 16/28 May 1851. No. 118. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
10.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 6th/18th of February 1852. No. 37. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
11.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 4/16 February 1853. No. 35. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
12.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 25 September/7 October 1853. No. 223. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
13.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 7/19 September 1854. No. 205. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
14.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish:
Government Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland]. 13/25 January 1856. No. 9.
Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
15.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish:
Government Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland]. 23 September/5 October 1860. No.
217. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
16.
Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingdom
of Poland]. 7/19 September 1861. No. 208. Warsaw: J. Jaworski.
17.
Karte des Westchlisen Ruslands. M 18. Szawle. [In German: Map of Western Russia].
1892-1921. 2017. Available at: http://www.mapywig.org/m/German_maps/series/100K
_KdWR/ 400dpi/ KdwR_M18_ Szawle_400dpi.jpg.
18.
Mapa Kwatermistrzostwa. CP-43. Augustów. [In Polish: Quarterage Map]. 1850. 2017. Available
at:
http://www.mapywig.org/m/Polish_maps/series/126K_Mapa_KwatermistrzostwaCP-43_Kol_VI_Sek_IV_August%C3%B3w.jpg.
19.
Rutkowski
Marek. 2003. Zmiany Strukturalne w Królestwie Polskim Wczesnej Epoki
Paskiewiczowskiej. Studium Efektywności Administracyjnej, Społecznej i
Gospodarczej Zniewolonego Państwa.
Tom 1. [In Polish: Structural
Changes in the Kingdom of Poland of the Early Paskievic Era. Study of
Administrative, Economic and Sociological Effectiveness of a Subdued Country.
Vol. 1]. Białystok: Publishing House of University of Finances and Management
in Białystok. ISBN: 1732-6613.
20.
Russkaia Imperatorskaia Armia. 92-i Piechotnyj Piecerskij polk. [In Russian: Russian Imperial Army. 92nd Pechersk Infantry Regiment]. 2017.
Available at: http://regiment.ru/reg/II/B/92/1.htm.
21.
Sokolov
Piotr Fedorovic. 1826. Aleksandr Grigorievic Stroganov. 2017. Available
at: https:// pl.pinterest.com/pin/524950900292275893/.
Received 07.01.2017;
accepted in revised form 24.02.2017
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License