Article citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Legal regulations concerning
transportation engineering staff in the Kingdom of Poland during the 1830s. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology.
Series Transport. 2017, 95, 185-196. ISSN: 0209-3324.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.95.17.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
LEGAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STAFF IN THE KINGDOM OF POLAND DURING THE 1830S
Summary. This article focuses on the problem
of changing job descriptions of Polish transportation engineers (including
general inspectors and voivodeship engineers, as well as newly introduced
county engineers) after the fall of the November Uprising. The text also
explains possible obstacles that uncoupled these transportation staff officials
from their basis duties.
Keywords:
transportation engineers; law; Kingdom of Poland
1. INTRODUCTION
Even before the outbreak of the
November Uprising, a number of official trials to slightly change Polish road
legislation was in force. On 1 December 1829, the Administrative Council sent a
request to the Legislative Department to draft legislation on river-floating
and navigability along the main river courses, as well as the building,
functioning and maintenance of public roads. However, on 13 May 1830, the same
Administrative Council learned from the Russian capital (St. Petersburg) of the
Emperor Nikolai I’s refusal to approve this new draft law. Instead, Polish
legislators were asked to prepare for the issuance of new deliberations on the
important subjects of navigable rivers and public roads[2].
On the other hand, at the beginning
of the Paskievich period, Tsar Nikolai I decided to include Polish
transportation administrative staff in the ranks of Russian public services.
The decision at stake was revealed on 6 March 1832[3].
Nevertheless, and surprisingly enough, the newly appointed Governmental
Committee on Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Matters, on 25 June
1832, presented its official note, in which it was stated that the Ministry of
Interior requested that the overall relations between this governmental body
and the local (Polish) General Directorate of Roads and Bridges would remain
unchanged. On the same day, Warsaw’s ministry strongly demanded the immediate
suspension of the unexpected transfer of their officials (mostly engineers) “to
the Land and Water Communications of the Russian Empire staff” (in appropriate
degrees), as well as asked for such a solution to be accepted at least until
the new organization of the Polish
General Directorate of Roads and Bridges was finally confirmed. Despite these
numerous formal contradictions expressed in Warsaw, during its next session on
29 June1832, the Administrative Council of the Kingdom of Poland formally
admitted and declared that Tsar Nikolai I had officially decided to transfer
all Polish road officials (namely, road engineers) to the Russian Corps of Land
and Water Communications (to the same extent as “before the revolution”)[4].
In reaction to the decision of the
Administrative Council, made on 27 July 1832, the Governmental Committee on Internal, Spiritual
and Public Enlightenment Matters presented, on 2 August 1832, its primary
proposal for a new internal organization of Warsaw’s General Directorate of
Roads and Bridges. This was subsequently reviewed by the Administrative Council
on the very next day, 3 August 1832[5].
Following the final decision of the
Administrative Council undertaken on 3 September 1832, as a result of which the
new reorganization of the engineering positions within Polish transport
services emerged, the Ministry of Interior issued a general law on the
organization of engineering staff in the Kingdom of Poland on 12 December 1832.
This new law referred, among other things, to engineers who were employed by
the transportation authority that bore the officially changed name of the
Directorate of Land and Water Communications[6].
2. GENERAL INSPECTORS/ENGENEERS OF LAND AND
WATER COMMUNICATIONS
By pointing out duties and powers of
general inspectors/engineers, the official document on “Civil Engineering
Organization of Land and Water Communications”, dated as of December 1832,
emphasized the necessity of preparing each and every transport plan, project
and analytical report by these most important engineers, as well as checking
every piece of relevant documentation before being presented to Warsaw’s
Directorate of Communications for
verification. As partners in the main transportation decision-making process,
they usually brought the above-described projects to the official meetings of
the Directorate of Communications. As members of the management of this
directorate, they were responsible for referring particular cases over which
they had supervision; namely: a) “maintenance” of paved (“beaten”) roads; and
b) works carried out on the rivers and canals. Another responsibility of these
general inspectors was “to build” a general system of paved roads, especially
those routes that were handed over to them for supervision and care. In
particular, general engineers performed all the tasks that were somehow related
to construction, inspection or simple control works ordered by the Directorate
of Land and Water Communications itself (Article 10).
The most important responsibilities
among general inspectors/engineers also included the need to perform, at least
twice a year (namely, during each spring and autumn), so-called seasonal “overall
itineration” of all engineering works in the area entrusted to their care in
each individual voivodeship area. Matters that were usually evaluated during
this checking period were: a) the progress of the work of the regional
voivodeship and county engineers, as well as road conductors; b) the
settlements and accounts made by these engineers; c) the “lists of corvée
works” usually involving the constant supervision of local road maintenance
officers; and d) the current state of roads and transport works. The obligation
of general inspectors also consisted of: a) analyses undertaken in situ (with
voivodeship engineers) of building plans for upcoming years; b) dealing with
any emergencies or unexpected circumstances (Article 11).
Another duty among general engineers
was to write down their eventual observations and opinions regarding any notes
in county engineers’ control books, with special attention to the state of the
roads and the implementation of “two-day-lasting” corvées. However, general
inspectors only described, in the control books of county engineers, corvée
matters in a form of future recommendations, as these issues were reserved for
collegial considerations made by the Directorate of Land and Water
Communications (Article 13).
Inspections of the location and
works of county engineers conducted during such general events also focused on
the eventual confirmation (or otherwise) of the regular submission of reports
or the “listings of needs and requirements”, which were sent to local provincial
administrative committees.
It is worth adding that, apart from
voivodeship roads, general engineers also controlled “the most significant
non-chaussé routes” and bridges, and as well as any works connected with the
proper functioning of river-floating. In addition, they checked whether
transportation investments were made in full accordance with contracts approved
with certain private entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, general inspectors verified data
submitted to them concerning the quality of materials used in diverse road
building and maintenance endeavours, as well as the scope of their delivery to
the relevant locations, or in relation to the compliance of works with rules in
force describing typical engineering services. When possible irregularities
were identified, general inspectors/engineers possessed the full ability “to
correct” or even “to suspend” the exact investment, doing so by notifying local
administrative and transport authorities and reporting “the damage itself” to
Warsaw’s Directorate of Communications, pointing out specific reasons that
informed their negative decision, obviously along with any future conclusions
(Article 12).
Even more important, these overall
itinerations and “detailed revisions” performed by general inspectors not only
took place at selected times of the year, but were also carried out following
each specific request by the main transportation director himself (Franciszek
Christiani) or the Directorate of Communications as a whole (Article 15).
Reports issued as a result of the
indicated itinerancy processes had to be submitted directly to Warsaw’s
governmental Directorate of Land and Water Communications for review and
possible comments. After submitting these official materials to the capital’s
highest-level transportation authorities, the Directorate was responsible for
their proper assessment, prior to their finally delivery to the state’s
Government Committee of Internal Affairs (Article 16).
It was also the responsibility of
general inspectors to develop comprehensive legislation for the regulation
concerning the clearing and deepening of river bottoms/beds along their whole
courses in the Kingdom of Poland and also for floating matters (Article 14).
Another power (which was rather theoretical in the Kingdom of Poland under the
Tsarist Field Marshal Ivan Paskeivich’s rule) attributed to general
inspectors/engineers was to report on the actual conditions of the works
related to the traffic and river-floating special police force (Article 13)[7].
3. VOIVODESHIP
ENGINEERS
The law issued by the Government
Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Matters on 12
December 1832 clearly identified responsibility for the entire engineering
service, along with its proper supervision and functioning in a given voivodeship,
as the basic task of the so-called voivodeship engineers. However, they not
only conducted their duties under the general (but not strict) authority and
supervision of the Directorate of Land and Water Communications, but were also
restricted by the direct management of provincial civil administrative
committees (as well as by local military powers, given that, in each Polish
voivodeship, after 1831, a Russian military governor was installed who
controlled each civilian administrative initiative with his decisive voice).
Therefore, voivodeship provincial engineers, executing their mandatory orders
as delegated to them by regional civil administrative commissions, had to
submit to the same institutions their reports on the exact implementation of
received suggestions. As such, in the field of civil engineering, they
constituted their responsibilities, duties and orders on the basis of “a
comprehensive manual” and regulations developed “in terms of pure engineering
art” by the Directorate of Land and Water Communications and approved by the
Ministry of Interior (Article 17).
Under all these circumstances, the
administrative structural status of these engineers could be finally regarded
as desk officers (reporters), “attached” to the civilian voivodeship committees.
This meant that, without hearing their opinion, Polish local administrations at
the provincial level were not able at all to submit any transportation
proposals to higher authorities (Article 18).
Voivodeship provincial engineers
controlled their counterparts at the county/district level, mostly for the sake
of: a) maintaining appropriate levels of performance b) and ensuring proper
usage, in accordance with the principles of engineering art, of any plans and
financial estimations or schedules (so-called “anschlägen”) of
local investments. They also presented studies at the level of each county for
approval by the voivodeship commissions. Another task of provincial engineers
was to prepare tenders for any transportation works, as well as for the supply
of construction materials related to them, and to control these processes by
themselves in a form of participating in these auctions themselves. Finally,
voivodeship engineers had to prepare handwritten notes on the course of each
dealing involving transportation matters. In addition, these classes of
engineers were forced to ensure compliance with all police regulations
regarding all land and water transport investments (Article 19).
It is also necessary to admit that
the lists of existing transport networks remained in each voivodeship under the
control of specific voivodeship engineers, as they were responsible for
creating an exact map of such connections (Article 20). However, the Law of 12
December 1832 strongly stressed their
overall inability to change the path of any routes of “major roads” without
obtaining ministerial approval for doing so (Article 22). Provincial
voivodeship engineers additionally issued current price lists (tariffs) for: a)
construction materials; and b) labour, on the basis of the greatest possible
accuracy, “so that one could rely on them [namely, tariffs] completely”
(Article 21).
The voivodeship engineers submitted
their “designs” or proposals and financial estimations/schedules for primary
evaluation to local provincial civil administrative committees; only from here
were these papers subsequently sent to the Directorate of Land and Water
Communications, based in Warsaw. Then, and only after attaching to them
certified ministerial opinions, were the highest transportation authorities
finally obliged to send the above-mentioned papers directly to the Government
Committee of Internal Affairs. After all the stages of procedure used in
carrying out any transport undertakings at the expense of the state treasury
were completed, every voivodeship engineer was strongly guided by the need for
prior approval of their plans and formal cost estimations by the Ministry of
Interior (Article 23).
Taking into account these
restrictions, it was surprising that it was also possible for voivodeship
engineers to undertake any formal transport works only after their primary
authorization from the provincial administrative commission. However, this
could only be possible following sudden and unpredictable disasters and
accidents, which, when caused by a cataclysm, heavily affected the transport
accessibility of the region. During any extraordinary need or danger, the
voivodeship engineer could always order the commencement of any necessary
“remedial works”, except that the local civil authority was forced by legal
regulations to report such abrupt undertakings to the Directorate of Land and
Water Communications, attaching to its announcement appropriate plans and
financial schedules. In such a case, Warsaw’s transport authorities informed
the Government Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment
Matters of previously undertaken, yet urgently desired, works, officially
asking for final ministerial approval (Article 24).
Another task awaiting voivodeship
engineers was to check the accounts of all transport works performed in the
areas covered by their jurisdiction. This concerned deeds of either the state’s
own administration or private entrepreneurs. The main engineers of each and
every Polish voivodeship carried out “partial computations” with private
investors, issuing, according to contractual agreements, attestations
authorizing, for instance, the receipt of sums of money due for refund for
confirmed performances of partially finished transportation works. These
(fragmentary) computations, as well as the final receipt and delivery of
papers, were adopted on a simple protocol basis, while checked by voivodeship
regional engineers, along with both county engineers and civil administration
commissars. In addition, the ministerial author of the law at stake (Count
Alexander Strogonov), in the 25th Article of his Act of 12 December 1832,
stated literally that, in the event of such a legal reservation being included
in the original contract, the protocols of the final reception of particularly
important transport investments had to be “accompanied” by a certificate issued
directly by the Directorate of Land and Water Communications (Article 25).
Voivodeship engineers were invited to submit official reports describing
their formal activities to the offices of regional civil administrative
committees at two possible intervals of time: a) quarterly; b) or once a year
(all of these reports were obviously to be written and composed in accordance
with the model developed by the Directorate of Communications and confirmed by
the Government Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment
Matters). The voivodeship civil
administrative commissions eventually sent them to Warsaw’s Transport
Administration Headquarters.
Besides, these voivodeship engineers maintained (in line with the
administrative path model proposed by the Directorate of Land and Water
Communications) accurate records of the expenditures and revenues produced,
along with transportation services staff, quarterly submissions of such
detailed lists to voivodeship provincial committees. On the other hand, the
material registers were delivered to local administrative authorities for
verification at each six-month stage in the reporting year (Article 26). The
deadline for submitting a typical annual (so-called “general”) report was 31
December of each year. The closing date for the submission of a detailed
report, based on the data included in such a yearly report, was, in turn, 1
February of the following year (Article 27).
It was
also unavoidable to recognize, as one of the main responsibilities of the
voivodeship engineers, the formal necessity of performing, at least three times
a year, the strict itinerancy of their entire dependent provincial territory,
which was to be done “for the sake of visiting and checking all the
[transportation] works” and in order to obtain the exact knowledge of actual
needs and requirements (or lack thereof) of the works designed and carried
under the control of local county engineers. When verifying the context of
books, booklets and “lists
of corvée
works”, the general rule was to check
the level of “conservation” of the whole of the voivodeship transport network
structure, especially in terms of looking for any possible savings to be
achieved in this field. A special task to be achieved during these itinerations
undertaken by provincial voivodeship engineers could be also referred to the
anticipated assessment of the state of main (paved) roads, and of the
construction material used to build them. Taking advantage of the possibilities
offered by travelling on these extended trips, voivodeship engineers also
checked the drainage works at the same time (Article 27).
Naturally,
any reports from these official voyages or rather itinerancy (with any possible
observations, remarks and conclusions) were submitted by voivodeship engineers
to the local administrative civil commissions of the same level, from where
they were later addressed to the Directorate of Land and Water Communications,
and subsequently to the
Government Committee of Internal Matters (Article 28). Finally, as it concerns submission to the provincial
voivodeship civil commissions of any specific transportation projects designed
for the following year (both in terms of the personal status of employed staff
and in terms of the budget itself), the voivodeship engineers were forced to
fulfil their obligation no later than 1 September of the previous year. The
provincial civil authorities had a further 12 days to assess the situation,
such that, no later than 13 September, they had to send their personal and
financial projects directly to Warsaw’s Directorate of Communications (Article
29)[8].
4. COUNTY/DISTRICT ENGINEERS
During the so-called Paskievich period, the basic responsibilities of
county/district engineers were stated in Article 3 of the “Civil Engineering
Service Organization”, dated 2 July/3 August 1832[9].
According to Article 30 of the Government Committee on Internal, Spiritual and
Public Enlightenment Matters’ Law of 12
December 1832, county engineers were required to be supervised and carry out
technical transportation works within the whole perimeter covered by their
territorial legal powers. Their opinion (generally perceived as given by
legitimate members of local county committees) was absolutely essential when
submitting any transportation requests by provincial county/district
authorities to be addressed to any “higher levels of administration”. These
duties were performed by county engineers under the general supervision of
Warsaw’s Directorate of Land and Water Communications and voivodeship
engineers, as well as under the direct control and authority of county
commissioners. As such, the above-mentioned county transportation servicemen
carried out their tasks in the field of civil engineering in full accordance
with the instructions, issued “in terms of art” by the Polish general
communication administration, while obviously also wholly fulfilling orders
issued by the local county/district commissioners. Strictly speaking, the basic
instance by which county engineers reported the results of their work always
primarily referred to county/district commissioners (Article 30).
The main tasks facing county engineers were identified as: a) “copying”
(in the sense of preparing in relation to the observation performed in situ)
and “drawing” plans; b) taking measurements and “levelling” in order to prepare
the transportation projects entrusted to them; and c) arranging financial
estimations or schedules (so-called “anschlägen”, a German term that was common
at this time in Polish administration) for these projects. In addition to the above,
it was county engineers’ most important responsibility to directly evaluate the
process of development of any state or private transport administration
proceedings in the county (Article 31). They personally created the financial
accounts for the “repairing” and
“maintenance” of roads, which were submitted each year to provincial
voivodeship committees during the month of September, and, via the Directorate
of Land and Water Communications channels, the Ministry of Interior in October.
One of the biggest responsibilities of county engineers was described in
terms of carrying out the successive control of quality of construction
materials used in the maintenance of roads. Primarily, they possessed, from the
side of entrepreneurs, the right to receive such stone/gravel/saber materials
required for the construction or maintenance of roads only after the whole
amount of material was transported on the spot etc. (Article 32).
Other typical tasks of county engineers included: a) the constant
supervision of the correct usage of construction and maintenance materials; b)
“measuring and checking” the work done; c) final acceptance of roadworks; and
d) preparing so-called temporary accounts, estimated by the entrepreneurs engaged
in the process of building or repairing the local transportation network. Some
other powers attributed to county engineers focused on issuing certain
certificates, which, under contractual agreements, were provided on the basis
of receiving “partial payments”. To be able to serve as legal proof allowing
for the payment of monies, such certificates had to be signed by county
commissioners, apparently only after their proper verification. However, the
final “pass-and-receive protocol”, which opened up the path to the final stage
of a typical fee instalment, was also signed by a voivodeship engineer and
confirmed by the administrative commission at the same level.
Another key task of county/district engineers was to undertake detailed
checks of the stocktaking a that were previously used for the verification of
the proper maintenance of paved roads. As such, this lead to the need to check,
during the “overall itineration”, whether such stocktaking was performed in full compliance with the paper
settlements. Every October, county engineers and administrative commissioners
at a similar level jointly carried out such a formal investigation, recording
their obtained results in the form of a formal protocol. Such lists were then
forwarded to county provincial civil committees and, via these institutions, to
Warsaw’s Directorate of Land and Water Communications, as well as the
Government Committee of Internal Affairs (Article 34).
The supervision process for the proper maintenance of road houses,
cellars, barriers etc., as well as the level of general compliance with police
regulations in the field of transport issues, was also counted among the
diverse responsibilities of typical county engineers (Article 35). It was
carried out along with the list of communication routes in the county/district
and the elaboration of their exact and detailed maps (Article 36). This
accountancy, led by county engineers, was conducted in such a way that the
necessary clarifications were provided at any time (Article 38). They also “strictly”
controlled “two-day lasting” corvée forced labour (using the term that was
popular among employees of the Directorate of Communications), that is, that
county engineers had a legal obligation to submit every March their personal
proposals regarding the prospective usage of corvée works in the following
year to the regional civil administrative committees, via county commissioners
(Article 39).
Trips around the whole road networks
of each county/district, as well as the supervision of river-floating process
in the area had to be performed by county engineers “as often as possible”. The
same applied to the idea of their writing down possible new regulations and
suggestions, or eventual orders in the pages of register books kept by road
conductors, eventually involving the control of any ledgers.
It is also worth noting that,
generally speaking (and especially during his working hours), a typical
county/district engineer could not complain whatsoever about conducting too
resident a lifestyle. This refers to the text of Article 40 of the Regulation
of the Government Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment
Matters dated 12 December 1832,
which instructed this class of engineers to act and perform their duties
“without constant and permanent staying in their formal place of residence…
[with the exception of] the time needed to organize accounting, preparation of
projects, formal financial estimating and other activities required”.
Additionally, it was understood that, while executing any technical and
transport works requiring considerable skills, each county engineer had to be
present in person on the very site (Article 40). Finally, the reports and detailed lists of their
activities were transferred (according to the standards developed by the
Directorate of Communications) by the regional commissioners and committees
usually once a month (Article 37)[10].
5. IMPROPER
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES BY VOIVODESHIP AND COUNTY ENGINEERS IN RESPECT OF THE NEW
LAW OF 1832
The introduction of a new law describing in detail the powers and duties
of Polish transportation engineers did not go as smoothly as one might have
expected. That said, the difficulty of the situation was oblivious to the
ministerial authorities of the Kingdom of Poland. Thus, on 24 March 1834, State Councillor
Mateusz Lubowidzki and Director of the Department of Industry and Commerce of
the Government Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment
Matters, addressed (on behalf of the
Ministry of Interior) all voivodeship administrative civil commissions his new
regulation (No. 9,715/31,904), in which he criticized the incorrect
implementation of the provisions of 3 August 1832 on the “organization of the
civil engineering service”, and the ministerial law of 12 December 1832,
defining the powers and tasks of employees at several levels of the transport
authorities. As Lubowidzki wrote in his official record: “from various sides
comes... the message that many of the county civil commissioners, as well as
some provincial committees, having insufficiently understood the spirit of the
above-mentioned regulations, [wrongly] employ engineers, imposing on them less
proper operations.” In practice, the general complaint concerned entrusting
engineers with such tasks as the formal delimitation and “calculation” of
different areas of land. In other words, local engineers were burdened at this
time with the kinds of duty that, before 1832, were only expected to be
undertaken by sworn land surveyors. These duties included: a) city area
measurements; b) geodetic survey diverse interventions undertaken by members,
especially in cases of non-conformities (controversies) between owners of
municipal lands and properties (or manors) of government “institutes”, on the
one hand, and private possessors, on the other. Meanwhile, some provincial
voivodeship and county civil commissioners, at the start of the post-uprising
period, to delegates such duties away from local transportation engineers to
administrative officers.
Against the backdrop of such widely unaccepted abuses, the Government
Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Matters officially explained its negative attitude
towards any further practising of observed phenomenon. Thus, as represented by
Mateusz Lubowidzki, the Ministry of Interior expressed its desire for a
permanent and effective separation of duties of transportation engineers and
civil administration staff. At the same time, Warsaw’s transportation authority
openly expressed its fear that any future (and unlawful) forced employment of
voivodeship and county/district engineers, as a result of imposing on them any
non-compliance with existing laws, could and should probably lead to their
increasing negligence, at least given that their statutory obligations were at
stake. To tolerate such a situation could lead, in the opinion of the Ministry
of Interior, to a further departure from the main idea whereby these engineers
were called upon to practise their responsibilities, while general failing to
meet their statutory tasks. In his statement of 24 March 1834, State Councillor
Mateusz Lubowidzki strictly pointed out that, in terms of enforcing the legal
reality whereby voivodeship and county engineers were burdened in terms of
exerting considerable time and energy in order to meet the most important
necessity of supervising and maintaining the acceptable condition of (paved)
roads, overloading them with minor or less significant activities should be
avoided. The Director of the Department of Industry and Commerce deeply
stressed that distracting the majority of county engineers from their main
official responsibilities and obligations could possibly result in their
inability to provide sufficient supervision and control in their spheres of authority
regarding the proper distribution of transportation funds and construction
materials.
As outlined in Lubiwidzki’s statement of March 1834, the Government
Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Matters also strongly felt obliged to draw the
attention of the voivodeship administrative committees throughout the country
to this issue, ordering each of these administrative agencies to present
detailed recommendations for the future restoration of engineering
transportation services “to their proper destination”. The Ministry of Interior
additionally forbid, in March 1834, any future usage of these engineers for any
undue actions, such as geodetic measurements.
The second problem that Mateusz Lubowidzki tried to solve in early spring
1834 was another episode of misconduct involving local civil administration
staff, as observed in their relations with transportation officials whereby
engineers were encumbered by administrative authorities at the provincial
voivodeship and county levels with official correspondence (which, in addition,
mostly had no specific relation to their education nor to their duties). Hence,
in the official statement of 24 March 1834, Lubowidzki called on provincial
voivodeship and district civil commissions to stop this clearly unlawful
procedure. While reminding them that the exact wording and meaning of Articles
18 and 30 of the “Civil Engineering Organization of Land and Water
Communications” actually forced and
encouraged them to consult local administration staff on any matters regarding
their “arts of engineering”, while the overall ministerial intention was to
provide the administrative structures with explanations from these highly
educated experts, Lubowidzki stressed, at the same time, that the above-mentioned
facts did not prove the necessity to direct any correspondence, which was not
directly related to “technical purposes”, to local transportation engineers[11].
6. FORBIDDING ANY DETACHMENT OF VIOVODESHIP AND COUNTY ENGINEERS FROM
THEIR BASIC ACTIVITIES AS OF 1835
On 15 January 1835,
Mateusz Lubowidzki, State Councillor and Director of the Department of
Industry and Commerce of the Ministry of Internal Matters, renewed for
the second time his remarks on the subject of the official ban on the
detachment by civil higher authorities of provincial voivodeship and county
engineers from their basic obligations. After realizing that these engineers
were still being directed by regional civil committees to undertake diverse
tasks not directly related to their technical skills and education, the leader
of the Department of Industry and
Commerce of the Government Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public
Enlightenment Matters harshly criticized such behaviour. Lubowidzki was
strictly pointing out that these reprehensible practices not only meant a
considerable loss of engineers’ time and their ability to deal with proper
technical issues, but also became the very source and cause of the “deviation
from the goal, which was introduced by the government itself, while establishing
public engineering services”. As these accusations were considered as a kind of
serious legal abuse, it should not have taken anybody by surprise that the
statement of 15 January 1835 instructed the regional voivodeship civil
committees: a) to immediately cease employing voivodeship engineers on any
projects not strictly related to their posts; b) to issue instructions to
county civil authorities, which would openly ban any possible detachment of
district engineers from their duties.
Meanwhile,
Mateusz Lubowidzki instituted, in January 1835, a categorical ban on any
further unnecessary occupation among county engineers of the “re-scribing of
any costs or estimation protocols, as well as other forms of formal apparatus [of clerk activities], often
without any real requirement or necessity to go so far”. On the basis of the singular example used as
a kind of explanation for issuing another section of his formal statement,
Lubowidzki described, in the winter of 1835, one of the completely unsuitable
“treatments” of county engineers by local civil authorities. He mentioned that
as many as seven copies of the cost estimation protocol were attached to the
one and only single report, sent to the Ministry of Interior by the Masovian
Voivodeship Commission. Apparently, these copies had to be written down by one
of the local county engineers. As the final ministerial sentence clearly
stated, since numerous copies of the cost estimation protocols were multiplied,
as a rule, among the responsibilities of officers and clerks of regional
voivodeship and county civil commissions, the order issued on 15 January 1835
strongly required the unconditional abandonment of these unlawful procedures,
compelling transportation engineers to repeatedly rewrite the costs of estimation
protocols[12].
7. CONCLUSION
During the 1830s, the
Kingdom of Poland issued some new laws concerning transportation engineers
working on different administration levels, which were obviously meant to
increase their abilities in terms of properly and steadily fulfilling their
multiple formal duties. As such, these new changes could be considered to have
represented a generally positive formal trend. The only problem was that their
implementation happened to be made much more difficult in practice than had
been previously anticipated by state lawmakers. Such an opinion could be drawn
while observing numerous trials that were established to widen the scope of
transportation engineers’ responsibilities.
References
1.
Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. The
Second State Council of the Kingdom of Poland: 1832. Signature: 105.
2.
Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. The
Administrative Council of the Kingdom of Poland: 1829, 1830, 1832. Signature: 17, 18, 24, 25.
3.
Okolski A. 1880. Wykład Prawa Administracyjnego Oraz Prawa
Administracyjnego Obowiązującego w Królestwie Polskiem. Warszawa: Redakcya
Biblioteki Umiejętności Prawnych. [In Polish: The Lecture of Administrative Law and Polish Administrative Law in
Force in the Kingdom of Poland. Warsaw: Editorial Office of the Library of
Legal Utilities].
4.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa Królestwa
Polskiego. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the
Kingdom of Poland]. 8 March 1832, No. 18. Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.
5.
Dziennik
Powszechny. [In English: Daily Journal.]
6 March 1832, No. 64. Warsaw: A. Dobek.
6.
Zbiór Przepisów Administracyjnych Królestwa Polskiego.
Wydział Komunikacji Lądowych i Wodnych. Organizacya i Atrybucye Zarządu
Komunikacji oraz Przepisy Ogólne Administracyjne i Techniczne. 1866. [In Polish: Digest
of Administrative Laws of the Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and Water
Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of Communications and
General, Administrative and Technical Regulations]. Vol. 1. Warsaw:
Orgelbrandt Printing House.
Received 17.03.2017; accepted in revised form 10.05.2017
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
[1] Faculty of Management, The
Bialystok University of Technology, Ojca Tarasiuka 2 Street, 16-001 Kleosin,
Poland. Email: marek.rutkowski@pb.edu.pl.
[2] Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland (1829, 1830, 1832). Signature 17: 617; 18: 228.
[3] Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego, 8 March 1832, No. 18:121; Tygodnik Powszechny, 6 March1832, No. 64: 263.
[4] Central Archives of Historical
Record in Warsaw. The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland (1829, 1830,
1832). Signature 24: 337-341.
[5] Central Archives of Historical
Record in Warsaw. The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland (1829, 1830,
1832). Signature 25: 7-10; Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. The
Second State Council of Kingdom of Poland (1832). Signature 105: 154-155.
[6] Digest
of Administrative Laws of Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and Water
Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of Communications and
General, Administrative and Technical Regulations. Warsaw: Orgelbrandt
Printing House, 1866, Vol. 1, 27: 13; A. Okolski. 1880. The Lecture of Administrative Law and Polish Administrative Law in
Force in the Kingdom of Poland. Warsaw: Editorial Office of Library of
Legal Utilities, 144.
[7] Digest
of the Administrative Laws of the Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and
Water Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of
Communications and General, Administrative and Technical Regulations.
Warsaw: Orgelbrandt Printing House, 1866, Vol. 1: 117-121.
[8] Digest
of Administrative Laws of Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and Water
Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of Communications and General,
Administrative and Technical Regulations. Warsaw: Orgelbrandt Printing
House, 1866, Vol. 1: 121-127.
[9] Central Archives of Historical
Record in Warsaw. The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland (1829, 1830,
1832). Signature 25: 7-10; Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. The
Second State Council of Kingdom of Poland (1832). Signature 105: 154-155.
[10] Digest
of Administrative Laws of Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and Water
Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of Communications and General,
Administrative and Technical Regulations. Warsaw: Orgelbrandt Printing
House, 1866, Vol. 1: 127-131.
[11] Digest of Administrative Laws of the Kingdom of Poland. Department of
Land and Water Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of
Communications and General, Administrative and Technical Regulations. Warsaw: Orgelbrandt Printing House,
1866, Vol. 1: 135-139.
[12] Digest
of Administrative Laws of the Kingdom of Poland. Department of Land and Water
Communications. Organization and Attributes of the Board of Communications and General,
Administrative and Technical Regulations. Warsaw: Orgelbrandt Printing
House, 1866, Vol. 1: 139-141.