Article
citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Main legal
recommendations for the road network and its maintenance in the Tsarist
Russian Empire following the initial wars of Nicholas I. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2018, 100, 165-180.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2018.100.14.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
MAIN
LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ROAD NETWORK AND ITS MAINTENANCE IN THE TSARIST
RUSSIAN EMPIRE FOLLOWING THE INITIAL WARS OF NICHOLAS I
Summary. The aim of this article
is to present the main proposals of two Tsarist Russia transportation laws,
introduced in the spring of 1833 and at the turn of 1834. Both laws were
prepared by Count Dmitry Bludov, then Minister of the Interior, and finally accepted
by Tsar Nicholas I himself. Their main goal was to properly develop the Russian
transportation network, but not too rapidly and without consuming a
considerable amount of State Treasury funds.
Keywords: Russian transportation
laws; tsarist transport administration; Russian road network; corvée in
Tsarist Russia; 19th century.
1. INTRODUCTION
On 20 November/2
December 1809, a new organization responsible for transportation issues was
established under the name of the Main Board for Roads of Communication and
Public Edifices[2].
In response, Tsar Alexander I emphasized the magnificent role of all sorts of
communication in terms of developing and increasing national
“wealth” and “fame”[3].
Unfortunately, due to a few turbulent years and many other obstacles, it proved
relatively hard to achieve this ambitious goal to rapidly grow the
transportation network within the state’s borders. Nevertheless, the
highest authorities still planned and insisted on further endeavours in this
field of the national economy, as reflected, for example, in Alexander’s
“tsar’s notes” regarding roads, which were finally approved
in 1817, or the order of Tsar Nicholas I of 2/14 March 1826.
The Turkish and Polish
wars of the late 1820s and the beginning of the 1830s clearly demonstrated, for
both military and economic reasons, the pressing need of real and steady state
engagement in the somewhat neglected process of creating a tsarist
transportation network. Related to this phenomenon, in 1832, a special
permanent committee was established “for the provision of roads in the
State”, while St Petersburg’s State Council issued a formal
opinion, which partly related to the problem of road surveillance and repairs[4].
Furthermore, in connection with formal opinion, St Petersburg’s State Council
basically re-evaluated the field of road and transport legislation in Tsarist
Russia in 1833. At that time, the then Minister of the Interior the Russian
Empire, Count Dmitry Bludov, finally presented his proposals for regulations
regarding the formal means of performing road duties. These were then initially
approved by Tsar Nicholas I himself on 24 March/5 April 1833[5]
as the so-called “Basic rules of building and maintaining roads in the
(Russian) state”[6].
The task of taking some
preliminary steps in improving the Russian transportation network was not
competed at this stage until new additional laws were released. As it turned
out, after 1833, the then Minister of the Interior of the Russian Empire, Count
Bludov[7],
had presented new proposals for regulations regarding the means of performing
road duties, which were approved on 5 April (referring to the Gregorian
calendar) by Tsar Nicholas I. A new statement by the Council of State
“on the measures of realization of roads duties” was approved
formally by Tsar Nicholas I on 29 December 1833/10 January 1834. It is worth
mentioning that the Council of State - operating jointly on this occasion
within the framework of its two departments (legal and economic) and thereafter
working on the new law in the administrative body of the General Assembly -
found the new provisions at stake to be extremely effective and useful, thus
enabling their formal announcement. According
to Russian legislators, the main reason for issuing such a positive
deliberation was their awareness of the existence of an obvious necessity to
set “permanent” rules for the execution of transportation duties,
which Count Bludov, as the Minister of the Interior, consequently proposed in a
transparent manner and “with reasonable prudence”. Nonetheless, the
supreme state councillors sought to improve the newly presented laws by adding
supplements. In the opinion of the Council of State, it was inevitable, as well as special supplements, to add
explanatory notes to the new act prepared by Count Bludov, partly due to
keeping up with the spirit and core sense, as well as wording, of the already
introduced regulations in the field of Russian roads[8].
Finally, on 25 January/6
February 1834, the First Department of the Governing Senate released a specific
order, which was strictly combined with an official announcement by the Council
of State “on the measures of realization of roads duties”[9].
In turn, mostly after
the experiences of the Turkish and especially the Polish Wars, while Russian
authorities under Tsar Nicholas I wholly acknowledged (at least formally) the
unique necessity for a proper transportation network in the country, two
extraordinary bills were released, of equal importance. The first dealt with
the “Basic rules of building and maintaining roads in the (Russian)
state”, while the other related to “the measures of realization of
roads duties”. These are described in the following two parts of this
article.
2. “THE ESSENTIAL REGULATIONS
FOR BUILDING AND MAINTAINING ROADS IN THE (RUSSIAN) STATE” OF 24 MARCH/6
APRIL 1833
Formally accepted by the
tsar on 24 March/5 April1833, these so-called “Basic rules of building
and maintaining roads in the (Russian) state”, coincided with several
important factors, among which the most significant solutions concerned the
very division of roads in the Russian Empire into five different classes. This
division included the following types of routes: a) main roads; b) great roads;
c) ordinary roads, that is, postal roads between individual governorates; d)
district (“poviat”) roads, including typical postal and commercial
routes; e) rural and field roads.
For the main routes, the
Law of 5 April 1833 recognized: a) the route leading from St Petersburg to
Moscow, which at the time of the announcement of the bill was “almost
already completed”; b) the route from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod, which -
as it was written in February 1834 - “[was] already outlined”; c)
the road from Moscow via Gzack (Gżack) to Smolensk; d) the route from St
Petersburg to Riga; e) the road from St Petersburg via Dyneburg (Latvian:
Davgavils; Polish: Dzwińsk ) to Kaunas (then Kowno), whose communication
track was, in 1834, described as “already under preliminary stage of
construction”; f) the road leading from Moscow via Smolensk and Mogilev
on the Dnieper (Polish: Mohylew) to Brest-Litovsk (Polish: Brześć
Litewski). All these roads were to be built and maintained with the support of
the State Treasury, i.e., from public funds. This meant, in practice, that
everything in this regard was to be paid by St Petersburg’s Main Board
for Roads of Communication and Public Edifices, while transferring, for this
purpose, a state tax collection amounting to 25 kopecks “for one soul
[individual taxpayer]” per year.
Fig. 1.
The actual structure of main roads built in the Tsarist Russian Empire under
the rule of Alexander I (until 1825)[10]
As
mentioned above, the second most important category of Russian routes concerned
“the great roads”. According to the Act of April 1833, they
included: a) the Belarussian route, leading from St Petersburg via Kiev to
Odessa on the shores of Black Sea; b) the road going from Riga via Šiauliai (then
Szawle) in Samogitia to Tauragė (then Taurogi),
at the border with East Prussia; c) the route leading from the Taurogien route
via Vilnius (then Wilno) and Grodno to Białystok, at that time, the
capital of a special non-governorate separate administrative district, near
Tsarist Russia’s formal border with Congress Poland; d) the road leading
from Kiev via Zytomyr (then Żytomierz) and Dubno to Radivilov (then
Radziwiłłów), near the border with Austrian Galicia (i.e.,
with the Austrian part of the partitioned Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth); e)
the road from Kiev via Chernihiv (Polish: Czernihów Siewierski), Kursk,
Orel and Tula to Moscow; f) the route from Moscow to Jaroslav; g) the road from
Moscow via Tula, Oriel, Nizyn (Polish: Nieżyn, on the territory of the
former Seversk Principalities), Kiev, Zytomyr (then Żytomierz) and Dubno
to - as previously mentioned - Radivilov (then Radziwiłłów; h)
the communication track leading from Kursk, Kharkiv, Poltava and
Kremieńczuk (Polish: Krzemieńczuk) on the banks of the Dnieper River
to Odessa (it is worth mentioning that the legislators assumed, in 1833, that
if reasonable circumstances occurred, a new branch of this track would be
stretched out towards the Don River and the Caucasus Mountains; i) the route
from Moscow to Ryazan; k) the track from Moscow to Kaluga; 1) the road from
Riga via Polotsk (Polish: Połock), Vitebsk (Polish: Witebsk), Smolensk and
Gżack to Moscow (here the option of directing this route with a straighter
line was also taken into consideration, namely, the section via Sebezh (Polish:
Siebież), Vielikie Luki (Polish: Wielkie Łuki), Rielyj and Gżack
towards Moscow.
At
the same time, in Article 4 of the formal Transportation Legislative Act of 5
April 1833, its authors stipulated the possibility of increasing the number of
Russian Empire’s most vital and important tracks, recognized as so-called
“big routes”. Similarly, the possibility was raised of an eventual
change in the future of the general directions of newly built communication
routes “according to [timely] requirements”. In the future, both
Count Bludov and, after signing the new law, Tsar Nicholas I himself saw the
need or opportunity to build two such new routes, namely: a) the track leading
from Mogilev (Polish: Mohylew) along the Dnieper River, via Zytomyr
(then Żytomierz), Berdyczev (then
Berdyczów) and Tulchyn (then Tulczyn) to Odessa and, “if
necessary”, a route leading from Balta via Dubossary (Romanian: Dubăsari), to Skulany in Bessarabia, right up to the
border of Moldova[11].
Fig
2. Main Roads built in Tsarist Russia in the time of Nicholas I (1825-1855)[12]
As for the construction
of roads, Article 5 of the Act of April 1833 ordered the construction of roads
of the chaussée type
(i.e., in theory, paved roads) on all large tracks, which, however, were supposed
“not to be very wide” and provided with only a “light”
slope profile. The general rule was that the overall cost of construction of
these communication routes should be “inexpensive”, which in
principle - and overwhelmingly contrary to general idea of formally building
“chaussée
roads” - forced the creation in some cases of earth-type communication
routes (i.e., the construction of roads not of a paved type – namely, of
the macadam system - but only made of “ground”). On same parts of
these roads, it was necessary to construct - if only suitable conditions could
be found - bridges made of bricks or even perhaps special types of bridges,
made almost entirely of cast iron elements. At the same time, it was stipulated
that, in those areas where the construction of planned roads could be
associated with particular difficulties, it would be unnecessary to require
builders to construct large embankments, which would normally serve as a solid
basis for running communication routes. On the other hand, in the steppe areas,
where building materials were generally hard to obtain or simply missing, Count
Bludov recommended in 1833: a) to leave already existing roads “in the
natural state”; b) not to plant among communication tracks any
(significant number of) trees and other “adornments”, or
“embellishments”. However, in difficult areas where it would
presumably be impossible for typical travellers to determine their proper
orientation during a winter blizzard, it seemed to be necessary to put up some
road signs for directions or other orientation points; thus, dispersal at some
distance from each clump of trees or even tree beds was ordered or the
“sowing” (original description) of bushes. In the indigenous steppe
areas, it was suggested to use for this purpose special sticks
“hammered” into the ground or to heap mounds of earth or stone.
The Law of 5 April 1833
clearly stated that “great roads should be made at the cost of land
obligations/taxations”. The principles of burdening as well as charging
the local administration and population with building the main communication
routes of the Russian Empire were as follows. First of all, all highways had to
be built under the general guidance of the governors of the governorates at
stake and, similarly, under the main decision-making supervision of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Quite surprisingly, it was stressed that these works
were to be performed “unhurriedly” (sic). The very pace of
transportation system building was dependent on the availability of state
budget funds earmarked for road construction and extremely SO on the
availability of a sufficient number of appropriately educated high-tech road
and engineering personnel[13].
One could see here a form of direct reference to those individuals who had been
formally educated at the St Petersburg Institute of Communication Roads (mostly
road engineers) and were officially responsible for performing the duties of
governorate road engineering staff [14].
Secondly, the Act of
April 1833 introduced a strongly common-sense rule, generally ordering maintenance and support for the current
course of roads, while delimiting and building a new type transportation track
network. The pre-eminent condition for pursuing such a procedure, however,
involved some obvious economic and strategic considerations, i.e., the lack of
the need for an overly important increase in the distances between individual
significant towns on a given route. Generally, it was nonetheless recommended
that, when choosing a route for newly built communication traction, one had to
meet the pressing necessity to try to “straighten out all the major
shortcomings and drawbacks of present roads”. The legislators (namely,
Count Bludov and finally Tsar Nicholas himself) also admitted that, previously,
it happened too relatively often in the Russian Empire that, while delimiting
communication routes - due to the appearance, in the course of a specific
track, “not too important obstacles”, which would be relatively
easy to overcome - the directions of such communication routes were many times
deviated significantly, thus extending the travel distances themselves. Under
these circumstances, lawmakers did not fail in the spring of 1833 to emphasize,
with full strength, that, in the construction of new types of paved communication
routes, it was now absolutely unavoidable to follow this simple rule where
roads would serve primarily to ensure, as straight as possible, communication
lines between cities and other important locations from the perspective of
trading opportunities.
Thirdly, it was clearly
indicated how to build the roadsides of some tracks of a chaussée type. Now,
“while constructing chaussée
highways on the tracks of [previously made] ground roads”, it was
necessary to leave - but only in the event that the arrangement of natural
conditions and the width of the existing natural route allowed for such a
solution - the remaining part of the former width of the route as a roadside,
mostly for the purpose of allowing cattle (and swine) to be driven there. This
“remnant” had to be kept only on one side of the former earth
track. In addition, when the roadway was being constructed completely from
scratch and ran along the traction line, which was not used for any
transportation before, its width - and thus its off-road system - was to be
constructed “according to the law”, whatever that meant.
Fourthly, the
legislators ordered, during the early spring of 1833, to commence roadworks,
first of all, in places and locations where any repair work would prove to be
particularly difficult. This was mainly said about road dykes and embankments
where a significant length of the road track on which they were located was
covered with wood (wooden beams), eventually where there were sloping
embankments on the sides of the road, or where road builders had to deal with
“[sharp or abrupt] descending [of the truck] from the mountains”
etc. According to the recommendations of the new law, such parts of the road
system had to be “treated slowly”. Moreover, the rule in force also
described a situation where the repair or replacement of these fragments at the
eventual wooden road surface level, where the track was still in relatively
good condition, would presumably take place only at the end of works undertaken
on a given section of a communication line (but obviously only if there was
such a real need and even when the relevant repair materials were at hand).
Fifthly, it was also
recommended to “unhurriedly” build any stone and cast-iron road
bridges (sic). What was, to some extent, truly amazing, but apparently
economically reasonable at least in the eyes of tsarist legislators, the better
solution was to organize such bridge constructions, whose building process
would not be followed by spending any considerable financial expenses (in the
original, that would have been “cheap” or rather “low
cost”). Hence, it was clear that the bridges should have been as
“narrow” as possible on the Muscovite roads. The priority was
rather to build a proper water drainage system, i.e., a system of water
drainage from the road surface level, predominantly made of stones[15].
It was particularly required to respect the authorities’
recommendation to proceed with the construction of new highways only and
exclusively in accordance with the previously developed detailed plans. Such
schemes had to be drawn up separately for each route. In order to finally and
formally approve such a plan as valid, it had to undergo a multistage
procedure. As to the contents of the supposed road’s main assumptions and
plans, they mainly had to enjoy mutual understanding and acknowledgement from
such important state institutions as the Ministries of the Interior and the
Treasury and the Main Board for Roads of Communication and Public Edifices.
Finally, it was only after initial approval of a concrete road project by St
Petersburg’s Committee of Ministers that the chiefs of the Ministry of
the Interior and the state-owned St Petersburg-based transport authority were
entitled to address the case to the so-called “Permanent Committee”,
which was to meet concerning any specific case about any emerging need.
In the meantime (starting with the announcement of the Act of April
1833), it was the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior to communicate
with the relevant governors/heads of governorates about where construction of
“great roads” was planned, so as to solve the matter of their
location, which was chosen in terms of what was most required and suitable.
Another issue verified in the process of direct relations between the Ministry
of the Interior and the Main Board for Roads of Communication and Public
Edifices was the process of seeking some basic information about the
availability of construction materials provided for specific delivery, as well
as how to get them to the indicated places, along with being acquainted with
other “necessary messages” on the subject. In addition, the new
road law unquestionably dictated that, during preliminary works on the
arrangement of detailed road plans, it was essential to consider the diverse
data collected by “engineers of [the corps] of communication
roads”, especially those sent out to several regions of the Russian
Empire on the specific order of Tsar Nicholas I. Apart from the Smolensk
Governorate, these were indigenously Old Muscovite areas, i.e., governorates of
Jaroslav, Tula and Ryazan.
While setting out construction plans for each individual road traction,
it was critical (in accordance Article 8c of the indicated law) to: a) specify
the method of financing the entire undertaking; b) divide the entire length of
the road into separate parts; and c) determine the scope and manner of
management of the “road departments” in each governorate. When
preparing the construction plans for “great roads”, everyone
engaged in them was forced to follow the technical standards and rules already
defined in the General Road Guide,
which had been previously issued specifically for this purpose by the Main
Board for Roads of Communications and Public Edifices of the Russian Empire, as
well as approved by Tsar Nicholas I. In order to gain suitable insight into the
exact rules of conduct in the construction of roads of the chaussée type in Russia in economic terms, the Ministry of the Interior was
additionally obliged by the Law of April 1833 to issue a special instruction in
this regard. Finally, the substantial strengthening of the entire main
construction transport network project in the Russian Empire during the early
1830s was Count Bludov’s (and subsequently Tsar Nicholas I’s) order
to realize the “cheaper and faster completion of roads”. On the
basis of this order, a special procedure was launched for the
“supply” of an additional workforce, whose duties would focus on
the proper implementation of this project. Namely, it was even demanded that
the tsar himself (obviously not directly, but with the personal support of the
Minister of War) be asked for permission to use the army for the further
construction of the transportation network, especially “where it would be
available to act like this”[16].
As for the repair of the
“great roads”, such corrective actions could be carried out under
the supervision of local governors, as well as under the general oversight of
the headquarters of St Petersburg’s Ministry of the Interior. Obtaining
funds necessary to achieve this objective took place via participation in tax
collection, i.e., in the process of “ordinary land taxation”. The
particular repair tasks themselves could have been carried out in several ways:
a) by conducting a formal bidding process and thus choosing a private
entrepreneur to undertake the task of completing a given project; b) in
“an economical way”, using, for track repairs, local peasant
workers who were successively used by administrative authorities for some
smaller endeavours of road maintenance or even occasionally made to participate
larger-scale repair works in the field of road engineering. In the first case,
where it was decided to conduct a sort of public auction/tender, it was a rule
that the administrative agents should provide all the needed materials to the
destined work location, even before the bidding itself, and - if possible - to
preserve and persist with the planned original work schedule, but only as much
as “it turned out to be convenient”.
Supervision over the
construction and maintenance, in good shape and condition, on specific sections
of these “great roads” was assigned to special officers, appointed
almost solely for this purpose. These supervisors, as well as “permanent
road workers”, were usually accommodated “in nature”, which
usually meant providing them with private quarters, mostly in particular
villages, but sometimes, out of necessity, in towns and cities. This and no
other solution was adopted “to avoid huge costs for the construction,
maintenance, lighting [candles] and heating [timber] of deliberate road station
agents’ houses”. In those locations where, due to the relatively
large distance from a given transport network, under the supervision of
specific officials, to the closest but still remote site of private accommodation,
it might have occurred that there was a pressing need to secure some permanent
housing for communication staff. In response, the Russian authorities decided
in April 1833 that “there should have been established separate, but
modest housing for workers”. Astonishingly enough, in Tsarist Russia at
the time, it was decided not to build any specific houses for road station
agents.
Despite that obvious
setback in providing suitable accommodation for transportation workers, the
situation was not as critical as it might have seemed at first glance. Namely,
due to the anticipated wide and rapid development of the Russian transport
network, as well as in relation to other crucial factors, the new law
considered the possibility of building many new postal stations or houses.
These decisions were to be undertaken for the purpose of solving this practical
problem, which emerged when, given the new regulations for the direction and
course of chaussée
roads, it would have been necessary to “turn aside” from where,
until the spring of 1833), post stations were firmly located. While facing such
necessities, it was decided to issue new ordinances for the construction of
subsequent postal edifices. Some strict rules were introduced here. Firstly,
that only in the case of a higher special need (precisely, while setting the
course of road roads), transport authorities could allow themselves to omit the
already existing and “more significant and thoroughly constructed postal
houses”. Secondly, new postal houses were now ordered to be built in such
a way that the transport service officials and workers could reside there, for
at least some time, if not permanently. Regarding members of (higher ranks of)
the road administration, the new law even indicated the possibility of
providing them with some kind of permanent accommodation under the roof of
newly built postal houses. Thus, it was anticipated that these premises could,
at least in some aspect, connect the transport and postal services of the
Russian Empire with one another. What is of significant interest regarding the
possible charging of travellers (and goods) passing along newly built chaussée roads was the fact
that lawgivers only stated, during the spring of 1833, that “this subject
will be considered later by the Ministry of the Treasury”[17].
For the main sources of
financing the construction of a new transport network in the Russian Empire
during the 1830s, the April Act recognized: a) donations; b) remnants of
“intended land taxation”, i.e., still not included in State
Treasury amounts, remaining from previously paid taxes; c) increasing the
standard general level of land tax with a part intended solely for road
construction; d) collection involving diverse credit institutions (without
specifying the sorts and exact locations) of loans/credits, which would be
secured according to the amount of state land taxes. This last activity in
terms of borrowing from credit institutions would only be undertaken “for
the purpose of assisting with the faster completion of chaussée roads”[18].
Depicting, in every
particular way, the phenomenon of building Russia’s main transportation
system, the new transportation law spoke very little about standard
governorate, district, or rural roads. Thus, the processes and procedures of
construction and maintenance, as well as supervision over the so-called
ordinary provincial tracts, remained mostly unchanged (compared with the
pre-1830s solutions) under the current rules. Even so, some exceptions to this
overwhelming rule were introduced. First of all, some parts of these roads,
especially those considered as “places very difficult in [terms of]
maintenance and [often] requiring costly repairs”, were now mandated to
be remodelled as much as possible in the form of newly introduced “proper
highways”, instead of persistently continuing with any repairs to those
existing ground roads, especially in the case of sensitive and vulnerable
sections or smaller parts. It was somehow natural that such an elevation of
technical standards for ordinary provincial roads, which were hither difficult
to cross and maintain, could most often take place no sooner than after the
completion of the basic network of local “large roads” (of course,
in those governorates where no major roads were originally planned, even
sooner). Secondly, within the framework of ordinary provincial roads,
especially in the areas of their passage through cities and bigger towns and
their localities, it was ordered to build bridges made of stone or solid iron.
Such bridges were to be built “without spending unnecessary
expenses” and only for the purpose of eliminating the usage of water
crossings/raft transportation across rivers. Thirdly, during every stage of the
construction processes of local roads with a provincial status, it was generally
appropriate to adapt to the technical rules provided for the construction of
“large roads”.
District roads, both
postal and commercial, remained under the supervision (in the original:
“under the knowledge”) of the governorate (land) police, which still
had to supervise these types of tracks that remained completely unchanged since
previous standards, terms and conditions had been introduced. Legislative
bodies additionally suggested that St Petersburg’s Ministry of the
Interior ought to give the Permanent Committee dealing with the road
engineering the opportunity to explore eventual projects for “the
improvement of the rules now existing in respect of the maintenance of
provincial and district roads”.
Finally, maintaining
“rural roads” and “field roads” still remained, by law,
in the scope of the duties of local landlords or proprietors of these lands
through which they passed. In the area owned by state farms, these obligations
rested directly on the shoulders of the local rural population and applied
“only when necessary”[19].
3. ANNOUNCMENT BY ST
PETERSBURG’S COUNCIL OF STATE “ON THE MEASURES OF REALIZATION
OF ROAD DUTIES”, APPROVED FORMALLY BY TSAR NICHOLAS I ON 9 DECEMBER
1833/10 JANUARY 1834
As stated above, the
next step in reforming the Russian transportation network was the acceptance by
Tsar Nicholas I, on 29 December 1833/10 January 1834, the opinion of St
Petersburg’s Council of State “on the measures of realization of
roads duties”, which once again had been prudently described by Count Bludov,
as Minister of the Interior. The Russian Governing Senate decided to publish a
new law on 25 January/6 February 1834[20],
which made recommendations in some respect to reintroduce former laws, but
mostly introduce new legal solutions.
According to the
Transportation Law of January 1834 (according to the Gregorian calendar), the
implementation of new regulations was recommended especially for provincial
road commissions/departments and district road commissions/departments.
According to provisions of this new law, these administrative and transport
bodies had to consist only of a few members. In the case of the provincial road
commissions, their membership comprised: a) a civil governor as president; b) a
provincial governor; c) a provincial vice governor (deputy governor); d) the
administrative official managing the Cantor of the Imperial Family; e) a
province surveyor. With regard to the district road commissions, their
membership consisted of: a) the marshal of the district as president; b)
eventually, in those areas where the district marshal did not officially
function, a district judge also as president; c) “horodnicy”
(Latin: “aedilis”, a person responsible for provisioning cities and
towns etc); d) a land “ispravnik” (the district’s highest
authority); e) a district surveyor[21].
The
release of the Transportation Act of January 1834 regarding the maintenance
procedures of existing state roads in the Russian Empire dealt with many
important problems. First of all, it was clearly visible, in the new regulations,
that legislators assumed the possibility of improving roads as part of the
process of generally maintaining transport traction in a good or adequate shape
and condition. Such possibilities existed when, at the request of private
landlords (here referred to as “citizens”), or at the initiative of
people managing local state land properties, significant improvements were to
be made to the road network, especially in places where, due to the poor basis
of the tracks, frequent and significant damage to transport might have
happened. In such cases, St Petersburg’s Council of State allowed for the
conversion - using, for that purpose, “private” money or resources
of “applicants” - the existing ground routes for roads of the
chaussée type, namely, paved roads. These “applicants” were
also allowed to put up a “corrupted” stretch of road with packs of
tied branches and all sorts of timber, i.e., poles, logs etc. The only
conditions were: a) to submit a relevant request directly to St
Petersburg’s Minister of the Interior, b) “to prepare” the
road in accordance with the provisions as contained in the instructions
released for road construction. In addition to this, it was necessary to
perform such works under the supervision and control of district surveys and
other officials, who were “aware of this thing”. As a rule, the
latter were destined to participate in construction and repair works for
Russian roads in the 1830s as long as “[proper] civil engineers could be
educated”[22].
In
turn, the governor of the province/governorate was personally responsible for
submitting, to the Ministry of the Interior, the petition to approve the costs
of repairing a “broken” provincial or district road, which
apparently had to be prepared in accordance with the existing regulations
(i.e., in full compliance with a list of drawings, included in the special
atlas and official road building manual) by the local district/province
surveyor. Such a situation could have only occurred when, at the request of
local authorities/citizens, it was considered necessary to repair some longer
road sections (possibly when a rather costly repair procedure was also, in
specific cases, enforced for some other reasons), following the procedures
described above, and with the usage of funds derived from the general budget of
the governorate, eventually with the predominant addition of land taxes
obtained from private citizens of a given district.
The most important part
of the order of Tsar Nicholas I of 10 January 1834 to encourage making
significant shortcuts in track lines (or detours) while building new
“ready [to use] roads”. Maintaining old solutions was only
acceptable when it turned out that the so-called straightening of curvy roads
(shortening the roads along a possible straight line) was associated with
spending substantial amounts of money. Additionally, the possible reduction in
transportation corvée (“working obligation in nature”) now
transpired, especially when lawgivers decided not to expect its validity in the
repair of larger dams, bridges or dykes. These constructions were now regarded
as objects whose maintenance required appropriate technical skills,
considerable qualified construction effort and large financial outlays, which
in practice meant that the local unskilled peasant population was not capable
of undertaking these sorts of works. The annual repairs and possible
construction of these road structures were now to be financed/carried out as a
result of general land revenues from the area of a given governorate. This was
implemented mostly in order to obtain better: a) effectiveness; b) working time
scheduling on an annual basis. The other reason was possibly to avoid the
emergence of any negative solutions that might have hampered the construction
and repair work process itself.
Financial cost estimates
for the construction and repair of bridges, dams and dykes were to be prepared
and calculated by the main architects of the specific governorate, obviously
with compulsory usage of ready-to-use technical support materials, such as formal
sets of construction laws, and a set of ready-made architecture plans. Having
being prepared, these estimates were presented for approval by St
Petersburg’s Minister of the Interior. We can also add here that bridges
maintained on provincial roads had to be at least nine arshins wide (circa 6.4
m), although, on district and commercial roads, their width could be
significantly reduced, depending on the type of road and on the scale of the
traffic on it.
The overall province
budget sums, designed for necessary spending on the construction (in the
original: “for the draw”) of dykes, bridges and roads, could only
be formally used after agreement between the Minister of the Treasury and the
Minister of the Interior of the Russian Empire had been reached on this matter.
It was only then that these sums were placed - along with other province
expenditures - in the general local land taxation accounts
(“obligations”). Every year, repair and construction work on roads,
dikes and bridges, in line with the Act of January 1834, shifted to the field
of activities of private entrepreneurs, who were entitled to freely participate
in public tenders, held on these occasions in the respective governorate tax
chambers. These tenders were carried out “according to the rules and
prescribed laws”.
The
“road duty” (which meant the form of transportation corvée)
basically referred solely to keeping tracks in good condition (in the original:
“in decent condition”). In this sense, such “transportation
duty” was most of all combined with any activities undertaken on roads,
which had been already built, i.e., the processes of repair and maintenance
that had to be carried out in accordance with all the existing and
simultaneously practised principles. As for repairing and maintaining roads by
usage of corvée duties, these had to be mostly performed by local
peasants, led by “aware [of their responsibilities] and zealous
officials”. Obviously, the implementation of the corvée was a
compulsory, non-paid burden, and only the provision of necessary building
materials was to be met. The entire road network in the area of a
given province, altogether with smaller bridges and less important dykes
(available for building and repairing by peasants who were unprepared for this
type of work), were described in detail by district surveyors. Nonetheless, the
obligation to build and maintain them was divided into separate
“transportation departments”, i.e., consisting mainly of local
residents and formal road service authorities, and distributed among residents
belonging to a specific area at all social levels, on whom the corvée
duty was placed to perform this obligation.
This distribution of
such participation in transportation structure building, maintenance and repair
had to be properly and quantitatively balanced, depending on the conditions
predominant in a particular location. The legislators preferred that every
inhabitant of a particular town, locality or village “enlisted for this
purpose” should have done their share of the transportation duty in
person, rather than by paying a hired hand
to do this on their behalf. Similarly, the overwhelming current assumption was
that those particular sections of the transport network that passed through
specific villages, localities or towns were to be built and repaired only and
exclusively by persons residing in the indicated area. In cases when there was
a shortage of people capable of undertaking corvée works on the spot,
the residents of neighbouring towns were also obliged to actively participate and
help in the general implementation of compulsory road activities.
Considering the data
given above, it became clear that the new law specified the necessity to limit
the tasks of these road commissions, which until now had, in the scope of their
duties, to maintain some of the more important dykes and bridges. From that
time on, these transportation departments had to focus exclusively on the
construction and maintenance of road traction itself. Thus it was now quite
necessary to designate, for each transportation Department, the length of a
communication route, which was calculated in relation to the available labour
force.
In addition, referring
to the functioning of these road commissions/departments, three other important
recommendations were now introduced. The first of
them stated that small rural private estates, whose whole area or territory was
inhabited by 10 to 30 people (in the original: “souls”), were
recorded in the local road commission/department archives as belonging to the
larger estates or even villages. The second new legal recommendation indicated
that properties inhabited by communities of up to 10 people, instead of being
formally included in transportation authorities’ files on any remote
villages (as would have been the case from a strictly administrative division
point of view), had to be assigned to the nearest located road commission. The
only exception was the possibility of satisfying the request of the local
estate owner himself, who might have wanted to assign his property to a more
distant locality. Finally, the last innovation in this respect forced higher
administrative authorities to effectively prevent the creation of one specific
road commission/department, consisting only of inhabitants in the area, where
only small towns and villages would be located. The introduction of such a
solution was explained by the pressing need to avoid, in the future, any
problems with the proper implementation of corvée service.
Besides, officially approved membership to a single road commission/department
could sometimes be a highly problematic matter, especially since the new
legislation allowed for the possibility of changing the allocation of local
residents to a given transport and administration unit. This could have been
done only for reasons of an independent nature and, “despite all the
[preventive] measures taken”, when, in some places, it was simply
impossible to designate each village to a road commission/department that was
relatively near to its location. In such circumstances, the Act of 10 January
1834 allowed local landowners to rely solely on their own opinion or rather
common sense, and to officially suggest that the road commission, to whose
responsibility their proprieties were originally assigned, would rather stretch
its powers over other estates “more adjacent to the road”. Such a
change could take place only on the condition that contractual consent was
expressed by the peasant residents of the village, whose transport jurisdiction
authority was to be changed. In the area of villages formally
owned by the state (namely: “[State] Treasury villages”), it was
adequate to obtain a positive resolution from the whole membership of a rural
cluster for this purpose; additionally, this provision had to be formally
certified by its management and approved by the local tax chamber. On the other
hand, in private villages, one could administratively transfer such a rural
community from one road commission/department to another, only after obtaining
permission from its proprietor, or private estate authorities responsible for
managing the territory at stake. Regardless of whether the contract was signed
for a state or private village, its content had to include a clear and
unconditional statement about the acquisition of total and undisputed
responsibility for maintaining local roads and bridges along routes, as well as
water crossings, in good and decent conditions. This responsibility related to
“residents of the entire village or estate”.
The distribution of the territorial scope and duties incumbent on
individual road commissions, quite naturally, could
not be constant. It was inevitable, however, that, after primary establishment
of the “aggregate amount of road obligation”, not only would the
actual technical conditions of local roads change, but the “number of
[peasant] souls” remaining under the jurisdiction of individual road
departments might also substantially alter. Hence, in order to maintain a
possibly constant balance in the amount of corvée duties imposed, the obligation to calculate a new
distribution for all of the Russian Empire‘s road commissions at each
periodic census was now introduced. Moreover, the Law of January 1834 now
required a general review by the state of all these road
commissions/departments every 10 years. That demand mainly derived from the
necessity for periodic review by the high tsarist authorities and existing data
required to introduce a new scale of corvée obligation, to be imposed on individual road commissions
over time.
In this respect, the unexpected
appearance of extraordinary or exceptional events, such as resettling a
significant number of peasant “souls” from one geographical area to
another - sometimes remote - place in Russia, and even the dislocation of whole
villages, were taken into consideration. In such cases, it was expected that
adequate road commissions should immediately take all the necessary steps
leading to the introduction of a new scale of corvée duty. This was to
be achieved on the basis of the fair and equitable distribution among existing
road departments of these forced labour duties, which were originally assigned
to already dislocated villages (or even entire vast areas inhabited by the
rural population, which was subject the procedure of resettlement or
displacement). Such a substantial change had to be accepted, on each occasion,
by St Petersburg’s Minister of the Interior (in 1834, this was still
Count Bludov)[23].
Essential corvée works, the aim of which would be to repair roads,
had naturally to take place at a time free from (other) field activities,
namely, in autumn, after harvesting cereals and, in spring, “after sowing
the vegetables, but before haymaking”. Simultaneously, the legislators
allowed any other additional transportation duties to be performed during any
other period convenient for the local community. However, when extraordinary
incidents happened, which led to the urgent need for corrective roadworks to
take place, local authorities were allowed - whether of a state administrative
or private nature based on land ownership - to direct workers to carry out such
corvée duties jobs, even during the time of traditional field activities
such as harvesting. When any similarly extraordinary situation or accident
occurred, it was requested to directly notify St Petersburg’s Ministry of
the Interior.
It should be noted that
the very use of local manpower in preparing (verst) road signs was excluded, in
January 1834, from the requirement of carrying out general construction and
repair works in Tsarist Russia’s transportation system. Such an official
negative position was explained by the simple fact that “the construction
of road signs, on the one hand, requires indispensable uniformity; on the other
it would be too difficult for peasants to fulfil such a task”. Having
relied on this assumption, and in order to avoid inaccuracies in the
implementation of roadside landmark signs, as well as the desire to prevent
possible fraud resulting from the possibility of any uncontrolled money
collection for this purpose, the Act of January 1834 obliged land
provincial/governorate offices to prepare such roadside (verst) signs. This was
quite similar to the situation regarding the construction of larger dykes and
bridges, a task that had already been imposed on these provincial authorities.
Provincial and district
road commissions were finally forced to undertake the extremely important
administrative duty of constantly obtaining detailed and accurate data on the
current “location” of all routes or ridges, dykes and water crossings
within their jurisdiction. Updating this sensitive and crucial information had
naturally to include a specification of this infrastructure’s proprietary
nature, that is, which of the above-mentioned constituents of the local
transport network were maintained by usage of state revenue resources (more
precisely, covered by taxpayers), and which were maintained by performing
“duty in nature”[24].
4. CONCLUSIONS
The introduction, in
1833 and at the turn of 1834, new transportation laws for the Russian Empire,
originally developed by Count Bludov and finally approved by Tsar Nicholas I,
was undoubtedly caused by growing awareness among ruling circles - especially
after the Turkish and the Polish Wars - of the importance of the existence of a
properly established state transport network, both for military purposes and
for improving the social and economic state of the country. Despite the
unquestionable importance of the matter at stake, while the task was undertaken
with an appropriately formal assumption, only half measures were finally used
to implement it. This is amply evidenced by repeated passages in the new
legislation recommending that roadworks had to be “slowly” and
“unhurriedly” conducted, as well as - most importantly - with the
least financial outlay. In view of the above, the question should be asked
about the planned and actual efficiency of the programme to expand the Russian
transport network.
References
1.
Central
Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw. Rada
Administracyjna Królestwa Polskiego: 1832. [In Polish: The Administrative Council of the Kingdom
of Poland: 1832.] Signature 24.
2.
Polnoje Sobranje Zakonov Rossijskoj
Imperii s 1649 goda. 1830,
Vol. 30. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Vtorogo Otdelenja Sovstvennoj Jego
Imperatorskago Velicestva Kancelarii. [In Russian: Full Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire Since 1649. 1830, Vol.
30, St Petersburg: Printing House of Second Division of His Imperial
Majesty’s Chancery.]
3.
Polnoje Sobranje Zakonov Rossijskoj
Imperii, Sobranje Vtoroje.
1834, Vol. 8. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Vtorogo Otdelenja Sovstvennoj Jego
Imperatorskago Velicestva Kancelarii. [In Russian: Full Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire. 1834, Vol. 8. St
Petersburg: Printing House of Second Division of His Imperial Majesty’s
Chancery.]
4.
Tygodnik
Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego. [[In Polish: Petersburg Weekly: Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland.] 18
February 1834, 10. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.
5.
Tygodnik
Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly: Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. St
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.] 21 February 1834, 11.
6.
Varadinov N. 1862. Istoria Ministerstva Vnutriennich Del. Cast 3. Kniga 1. St
Petersburg. V ipografii Ministsrstva Vnutriennych del. [In Russian: History of the Ministry of the Interior.
St Petersburg: Printing House of Ministry of the Interior.]
Received 02.04.2018; accepted in revised form 30.08.2018
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License