Article
citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Introduction to selected
improvements in the Transport Administration of the Russian Empire before
1840. Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport. 2018, 101, 167-183. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2018.101.16.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
INTRODUCTION TO
SELECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE
BEFORE 1840
Summary. The paper deals with an
introduction to and examination of selected issues relating to Tsarist
transportation administration structures, since their establishment in 1809,
practically their governance was ended by Count Carl von Toll at the beginning
of the 1840s. The main topics analysed here concern matters of the internal
division of the whole of the administrative transportation network and its
changes made by the main ministry, as well as some control and budgetary (or
rather accounting problems) associated with transportation laws.
Keywords: Tsarist transportation; Russian Empire;
administration structures; 19th century
1. OBJECTIVES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIAN TRANSPORT SERVIVES IN THE PERIOD UP TO THE 1840S
In an introductory manifesto to the
Law on the Board of Road and Water Communications of 20 November/2 December
1809, Tsar Alexander I of Russia announced that, since his very accession to
the throne, he solemnly intended to create a government agency that would
effectively deal with the matters of “land and water transport”.
Thus, the Tsar’s desire was to allow his subjects to develop their own
well-being and increase the national wealth of Russia. The monarch’s
striving to “increase the fame” of his empire also had a
significant impact on his decision.
Finally, having found the insufficient
state of the process of communications (including land and water) in Russia at
that time, the Tsar decided to establish once and for all one of the most
important concerns of the national administration, the transport agenda,
emphasizing the importance of transport to the proper development of
agriculture and industry, while taking into account the existing steady
increase in the scope of internal and external trade. Probably the most
important cause of the Muscovite monarch’s new endeavour - especially in
a period of growing political tension in Europe, with its background in slowly
evolving crisis and hostile actions between two of the largest continental
powers in Europe: Russia and France - the military aspect of the proper
development of the transport network was nevertheless met with silence[2].
In these circumstances it is worth
noting that, after receiving (in coordinated with the emperor) specific
instructions from the German-born Prince Peter Friedrich Georg
Golstein-Oldenburg[3],
Franz-Pavel Devolant (Sainte-de-Wollant) from Antwerp[4]
and the Spanish-born Agustín
José Pedro de Betancourt y Molina (Betankur)[5]
specifically prepared some new solutions as early as August of 1809[6].
As a consequence, on 20 November 1809, Alexander I was able to sign the above-mentioned
manifesto and - what was far more important - formally established the Board of
Water and Land Communication. In turn, the persons directly responsible for the
introduction of a completely new law on Russian transportation structures were
Tsar Alexander I himself and previously stated German, Dutch and Spaniard. One
can easily admit that the introduction of these legal regulations was to be
considered purely international in its origins.
One way or another, in the manifesto
of the Law of 2 December 1809, Tsar Alexander I officially delegated the
supervision of the further development of basic principles for the operation of
the agenda dealing with transport matters in Russia (i.e., a new act) to the
German prince, Golstein-Oldenburg. While accepting the already presented
general “frames” of the new law (which were considered by Alexander
I as “sufficient” to achieve the intended goal), the Muscovite
monarch, Alexander I, made Golstein-Oldenburg the Chief Director of the new
government agenda. The Tsar also ordering, at the earliest opportunity, new
regulations (along with related provisions and budgets) to be brought into
force. The opening of a scientific institute dealing with the training of
transport personnel in the country was additionally announced in 1809[7].
Fig. 1. Peter Friedrich Georg
Golstein-Oldenburg[8]
Regardless of the open explications
and hidden intentions of the highest authorities of Tsarist Russia, which
hovered in the background at the very beginning of the creation of St
Petersburg’s Board of Land and Water Communication, the question of
shaping its territorial-administrative structure would then gradually develop,
involving - of course - a number of significant changes over the course of the
following 30 years. Among the most important of these re-evaluations (except
the founding act itself) was the introduction of several bills, dating from
1836 to 1840, which not only significantly changed the principles and scope of
the functioning of the transport services themselves, but also strengthened
Russian state control over their diverse activities, especially of a financial
nature.
2. THE BASIC TERRITORIAL DIVISION OF 1809 OF
TSARIST REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRUCTURES AND ITS RE-EVALUATION IN 1836
2.1. The Law on the Board of Road and Water
Communications of 1809 and its original establishment of 10 Districts of
Communications in the Russian Empire
Importantly enough, the new law
introduced, in some of its commencing chapters, 10 Districts of Communication
of the Tsarist Empire[9].
These are presented in brief as follows. The First District of Communications
included three gubernias, i.e., those of St Petersburg, Novgorod and Tver. The
Second District of Communications stretched across area of the Governorate of
Oloneck and parts of the Gubernias of Yaroslavl, Tver, Novgorod and St
Petersburg. The Third District of Communications included the Governorates of
Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Ryazan, and Kaluga, as well as part of
the Gubernias of Tver, Tambov, Penza and Orel. In turn, the Fourth District of
Communications contained the Governorates of Voronezh and the Land of Don River
Cossacks, the Gubernia of Caucasus and Tauride “with the entire Caucasian
line”, and the Georgian Governorate. In addition, the Fourth District
included part of the Governorates of Tula, Kursk, Tambov, Saratov, Kharkiv and
Yekaterinoslav. In turn, the Fifth District of Communications covered by its
jurisdiction the Governorates of Chernihiv (Polish: Czernihów
Siewierski), Kiev, Poltava, Kherson and Podole, as well as parts of the
Gubernias of Smolensk, Mogilev on the Dnieper River (Polish: Mohylew), Orel and
Kursk, as well as Yekaterinoslav and Kharkiv.
The Sixth District of Communications
occupied the lands of the Governorates of Vilnius (then: Wilno), Minsk, and
Grodno, including some parts of the Kiev region. It should be admitted here
that, although the Article No. 456 of the 1809 Act, describing the exact
boundaries of this organizational unit of the Tsarist Transport Administration,
did not mention the recently acquired the Bialystok (Polish: Białystok)
District, on the basis of Treaties of Tilsit, as part of this District of
Communications, nevertheless, the confirmation of the above-mentioned case was
placed in the following article (No. 457) of the same law. Moreover, Article
No. 458 pointed to the Wilno (Vilnius) Route, passing through Grodno to
Bialystok, as one of the roads for which this district was solely responsible.
The Seventh District of
Communications included within its borders the Governorates of Vitebsk (Polish:
Witebsk), Kurland, Lifland (Livonia) and Estland (Estonia), as well as parts of
the Gubernias of Minsk and Vilnius (then: Wilno). The Eighth District of
Communications stretched across the “whole of Finland, including the
newly acquired country”. Next, the Ninth District of Communications
included the Governorates of Vologda and Arkhangelsk, as well as parts of the
Gubernias of Perm, Vyatka and Olonieck. Lastly, the 10th District of
Communications of the Russian Empire occupied the areas of the Governorates of
Tobolsk, Tomsk and Irkutsk, and part of the Perm Gubernia. The newly introduced
law did not mention anything about Russian Alaska at that time[10].
It was obvious that the Law of 20
November/2 December 1809 regulated the scope of works and the structure of
individual districts in a very detailed way, describing the above issues in its
Articles No. 205-594[11].
Equally important was information on the rights and obligations of people
undertaking the most important transportation decisions locally - namely, the
so-called District Chief Directors - as contained in Articles No. 65-85 of this
act[12].
It seems that the arrangement for
the borders of the Tsarist transportation districts, as proposed and introduced
in 1809, was meant to be strictly arbitrary, which was particularly noticeable
in the area of the completely artificially divided so-called Western
Territories (i.e., lands belonging formerly to the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth), while Alaska was completely omitted from this list. The reason
for such behaviour was likely to have been purely political/military reasons,
which, in turn, undermines the assumption about the mostly economical motives
behind the introduction of transportation services legislation in 1809.
2.2. Changes in the number and the territorial
scope of the Russian Districts of Communications, based on Tsar Nicholas’
law from 1836
In a very short time after the
implementation of the Law on the Building and Maintenance of Roads”
(April 1833), and formal opinions in this regard given by St Petersburg’s
Ruling Senate (February 1834), on 26 March/18 April 1836, the successor of
Alexander I, Tsar Nicholas I, referred to the same Ruling Senate the draft of
new legal regulations, radically changing (we omit here some previous minor
reappraisals) the territorial scope and the number of Districts of
Communications that were subordinate to his vast empire. This law was in line
with the decision developed in this respect by the Chief Director of the Board
of Roads of Communication and Public Buildings (the name of this institution
appeared in this form), an Estonian German by the name of Count Carl Wilhelm
von Toll. The monarch decided to pursue these transformations
“considering that it was suitable to transform some of the offices
subordinate to the Main Board of Roads of Communications and Public Buildings,
as well as specific gubernatorial establishments”.
The very purposes of these changes
were: a) to consolidate the “intricate” functioning of the branches
responsible for the craftsmanship, economics and administration of transport;
b) to reduce the procedures in writing, as well as the
sending and receiving of official notes and letters, in turn providing a
more regular and effective course of public administration in this matter; c)
to ensure the number of officials was sufficient to meet the real need, while
achieving a relative increase in their means of subsistence.
Thus, it seems that, during the
early spring months of 1836, Nicholas I was especially haunted by important and
far-sighted visions of the future development of transportation administration
(and, in particular, actual road construction processes) in his dominion. In
other words, first of all, it was about the possible consolidation of individual
branches of this specific type of state administration (corresponding in a way
to craftsmanship and the economy at a national level, and generally understood
as an administration in itself). Secondly, it corresponded to reducing the
scope of unnecessary bureaucracy, thus leading to a more resilient operation of
the road board system. Thirdly, the Tsar was minded to limit excessive
administrative growth and, subsequently, increased salary levels for other (not
dismissed) employees[13].
The last solution was rather typical of the rule of Nicholas I and practised in
many other branches of the Russian administration of the time.
When one turns to the territorial
changes, the most specific - in the opinion of the author of this article - was
the decision was made in relation to Finland. Namely, according to the Act of 7
April 1836, the Eighth District of Communications of the Russian Empire was
liquidated from among the nine main transportation local authorities existing
at the time. This was the territory of the Grand Duchy of Finland, which until
that year was wholly included in the general Russian transportation structure.
The official reason for this exclusion was the admittance of the relatively
“low importance of local waterways” (including some small artificial
channels). In reality, though, as one might reasonably expect, it was all about
the liberalization of formal relations between Moscow and Finland, a country
that proved loyal to Russia during the Polish War of 1831.
Fig. 2. Count Carl Wilhelm von Toll[14]
Finally, Tsar Nicholas I decided to
create only five out of the remaining eight Districts of Communications. The
new territorial and organizational solutions introduced in April of 1836 were
as follows: a) while the existing territory of the First District of
Communications was left intact as a whole, part of the Third District was
attached to it, i.e., mainly areas around the Volga on the section stretching
from Tver to Rybinsk, including so-called Rybinsk Bay; b) the Second District
of Communications now had to comprise the whole of the former Second and Ninth
Districts, meaning that it was significantly increased; c) in the Third
District of Communications, its former part was disconnected and transferred to
the jurisdiction of the First District (as mentioned above), while the rest
remained “within its present borders”, which in turn meant a
significant reduction in its territory; d) the Fourth District of
Communications now had to consist of its former areas, but excluding Georgia
from its territory, as well as the Caucasus Province and the areas on the
southern side of the Caucasus Mountains, which “in view of the routes of
communication were to be managed by local civil administration
authorities” . However, to this district was now added the whole of the
existing Fifth District of Communications and part of the Sixth District, which
included the area through which the so-called Royal Canal (built during the
rule of King Stanislas August Poniatowski) passed, along with all that flowed
into this canal, namely, the adjacent “rivers of Volhynia and the upper
part of the Western Bug River”. The new Fifth District of Communications
was created in 1836 from the former Seventh District and the remaining part of
the Sixth District, including the Neman River, the Oginski Canal, and the
Jasiolda and Western Bug Rivers (in the last case starting from the area around
the city of Brest-Litovsk, in Polish: Brześć Litewski)[15].
Thus, on 7 April 1836, highly
significant changes in the territorial range and number of the Districts of
Communications of the Russian Empire were made, where - as it would seem from
the official statements - the existing structure and future development of the
water network (rivers and artificial canals) had a major impact on the above
changes. This is, however, somewhat doubtful, especially in relation to the
practically effective cessation of works on some canals and rivers at the time,
such as in the case of the vital Windawa (Latvian: Ventspils) Canal. Such a
conclusion, moreover, coincides strangely with the simultaneous exclusion of
Finland, which was loyal to the Tsar, by the Muscovite system of the Districts
of Communication.
The implemented territorial
revisions had, of course, a profound impact on the structure of provincial and
district (in the formal language of Russian administration names: uiezd)
“Builders and Building Commissions”. At that time, they were assigned
to particular Districts of Communication in the way as presented below. Five
Building Commissions were assigned to the First District of Communications,
namely, those of Yaroslav, Kostroma, Novgorod, Pskov and Tver. Under the
jurisdiction of the Second District of Communications, Building Commissions
were set up in Arkhangelsk, Oleneck, Perm, Vyatka and Vologda. Thirteen
Building Commissions were assigned to the Third District of Communications,
which were as follows: Astrakhan, Kharkiv, Chernihiv (Polish: Czernihów
Siewierski), Kaluga, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Orenburg, Orel, Penza, Ryazan,
Saratov, Simbirsk, Tambov and Tula. There were another 12 Building Commissions
in the Fourth District of Communications, namely, those of Bessarabia, Cherson,
Yekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kursk, Tauride, Podole, Poltava, Vladimir, Volhynia and
Voronezh. Finally, further Building Commissions were assigned to the Fifth
District of Communications, with their location placed in Bialystok District,
Estland (Estonia), Grodno, Kurland, Liftland (Livonia), Minsk, Vitebsk (Polish:
Witebsk), Mogilev on Dnieper river (Polish: Mohylew), Smolensk and Vilnius
(then: Wilno).
Another event of great importance
was that the Act of 7 April 1836 created completely new administrative bodies
to manage individual Districts of Communication of the Russian Empire. As
matter of fact, for the purpose of “administering each of the newly
emerging districts”, the legislator called for establishing so-called
“separate regional governments”. Initially, they were to operate on
the basis of temporary budgets, formally attached as a specific additional part
to the analysed main formal legal resolution. These separate regional
governments, moreover, gained very wide powers for themselves, because they
were destined to control and manage “all specific orders and solutions on
the matter of building roads and hydraulic constructions”.
What was even more striking, as the
new law of April 1836 stated openly, was that, alongside the gradual
establishment and “strengthening”/“consolidation” of a
considerable number of these newly appointed transport district administrative
governments, the liquidation of some old administrative agencies - which had so
far served the development of the Russian communication network - would also
take place. Therefore, it was decided to finally and unconditionally
close completely: a) the nine chambers currently operating at the
headquarters of particular Districts of Communications for the sake of serving
the local directors there; b) nine of the Technical Departments that had been
previously working to support the Chief Directors of the individual Districts
of Communication; c) three Economic Committees, which existed in Moscow, Riga
and Wytegra. In addition, the St Petersburg Economic Committee, which was
active in the service of the general transport administration, was now renamed
as the Economic Committee of the Central Board of Roads of Communication and
Public Buildings.
The following cities and towns were
designated as the seats of the newly formed regional communication centres: a)
for the First District: Novgorod; b) for the Second District: Wytegra/Wytiegra
(a locality close to Onega Lake, situated on the Mariinsk or Wytegra Canal
System, currently named as the Volga-Baltic
Waterway[16]); c) for the Third
District: Moscow; d) for the Fourth District: Kiev; e) for the Fifth District:
Riga. These choices was not meant to be permanent, simply because the Article
No. 4 of the new law of April 1836 allowed the Main Board of Roads of
Communication and Public Buildings to freely relocate the seats of regional
transport governments, based on ministerial common sense, as well as on
“circumstances and current needs”. Furthermore, Count Carl von Toll
(and his eventual chief successors) gained the right to, at least, partially
change the boundaries of the Districts of Communications, which also entailed
the possibility to undertake some future change in the areas of the superior
jurisdiction of individual Building Commissions. Such alterations, however, had
to be brought by the actively managing Highest Authority of the Russian
Empire’s transport services to the attention of the St Petersburg Ruling
Senate, mainly for the purpose of making them publicly available in a terms of
official publications.
Having established, in April 1836,
new basic organizational regulations for Russian transport services, Tsar
Nicholas I ordered for them to be implemented gradually, carefully
and thoughtfully, i.e., in separate stages. According to the Russian
Tsar, the same applied to new financial proposals (budgets), prepared in April
of 1836, for individual Districts of Communications. The Chief Director of the
Board of Roads of Communication and Public Buildings was personally responsible
for deciding on the above-mentioned matters, who, at that particular time, was
the Estonian German aristocrat active in Russian public service, Count von
Toll.
The clue to the new solutions was
hidden in the statement that the provisions referring to general administrative
and structural issues were actually introduced only “on a test basis,
until the general and final establishment of the entire Board of Roads of
Communication and Public Buildings”. Thus, it was not surprising that the
new budget was also introduced in a provisory way, being treated “as a
temporary measure, pending the issue of general, financial schedules for all
branches and departments of [the] national management” of transport[17] .
3. CHANGES INT THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE AND THE BUDGET OF TRANSPORT SERVICES OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE NEW LAW OF THE DISTRICTS OF COMMUNICATIONS,
DATED 26 MARCH/7 APRIL 1836
There is no doubt that, among the
most important issues raised on account of the new legal solutions for the
Districts of Communications of the Russian Empire (included in the formal legal
act approved finally by Tsar Nicholas I on 26 March/7 April 1836) was the
establishment in each of these transportation districts, a so-called
“Central Power”, i.e., a “District Board” or “District
Authority”. This type of administrative power would act in the interests
of “managing all parts of the administration subject to the Board of
Roads of Communication and Public Buildings” in Russian gubernias or
governorates.
Each local District Board for
transport acted under the direction (in the original: “under the
presidency”) of the Chief/President of the given administrative body of
the District of Communications. In his absence, or in the case of extraordinary
circumstances, he was to be replaced by his Deputy or “Supporter”.
This “Supporter”, while being next in line, was still an ordinary
member of the board when the Chief was still actively performing his duties.
Besides these two individuals, there were three more parsons who were considered
as permanent members of the governing District Board: a) an officer of a higher
rank, elected from the members of the Corps of Roads of Communication,
responsible for craftsmanship-related matters; b) a civil servant, responsible
for economic tasks; c) a military or civilian officer, responsible for matters
of an administrative nature. Each of these persons, as a member of the District
Board, had a duty to directly and constantly watch “over a decent and
hurried course of business in the parts [of each district’s local
transportation administration] entrusted to him”.
Every official, copyist, conductor
or craftsman working in a given department was subjected - according to office
rules and circulars - only to the relevant members of the District Board. For
their own work, the managers of each three branches of the local transportation
administration responded personally.
Each of the three departments of the
District Board (i.e., of craftsmanship, economics and administration) dealt, of
course, with different tasks. Thus, the Department of Crafts of the District
Board of Communication was involved in: a) laying out, analysing and
implementing transport projects and cost estimates; b) conducting technical
accounting; c) supervising the progress of transport works; d) keeping work
diaries, ledgers and accounting books for (raw) materials; e) supervision and
management of working tools and maintaining them in good condition; f) keeping
lists of buildings (owned by transportation authorities); g) drawing “on the
subjects of all projects”.
The Economic Department was in turn
responsible for the following activities: a) distribution of state funds; b)
preparing and running of public auctions “for all undertakings and
deliveries in the district”; c) all forms of economic activity; d)
implementation of agreements concluded between the State Treasury and possible
suppliers, entrepreneurs and other persons signing relevant agreements; e)
calculation and control of amounts for individual projects undertaken within the
limits of the respective District of Communications; f) widely understood
“monetary accounting”, i.e., general financing; g) handling cases
for private owners’ remuneration for expropriation or temporary losses
related to the operation of transport services; h) handling disputes with
entrepreneurs and workers, but only before the referral of individual cases to
court for consideration; i) keeping correspondence regarding the appointment of
(army) soldiers for road-related works.
The Administrative Department of the
District Board was to deal with: a) the appointment, dismissal and appropriate
dislocation of transport officers, as well as working for soldiers attached to
the Board of Roads of Communication; b) rewarding them with bonuses and
punishing them with penalties; c) conducting investigative enquiries, in other
words, criminal and civil investigations; d) issuing all possible shipping
regulations; e) disposing of state and “prescribed” steersmen (the
latter were considered as individuals who were formally subject to the local
owner of a given territory/town, serving him with their craftsmanship); f)
providing illumination (candles) and fuel (wood) for transport
authorities’ own buildings; g) paying salaries and “table
money”, i.e., diets, altogether with providing provisions, forage and
ammunition.
The District Boards were obviously
obliged to act in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. Such a
rule had to be applied in the process of the consideration of absolutely all
matters by the so-called District Council, that is, a General Assembly of all
three departments of a particular District Board. Conducting individual
proceedings always had to take place “while maintaining the collegial
code of conduct”. The rank of each District Board for road administration
was equal to the administrative and legal position occupied by the Gubernia
Governments and the Judicial Chambers of Governorates.
One important issue was to determine
the scope of matters and duties carried out by the Council (that is, the
General Assembly) of the Regional Roads Authority. During the session of such a
General Assembly (the Council), the issues considered were related to: a) all
financial inflows and expenses of a specific District of Communications; b)
financial and “technical” settlements; c) conducting public tenders
and dealing with their possible (unexpected) consequences; d) preparing
“by economic measures” (namely, using its own administrative and
manpower resources) all the tools necessary to carry out transport fieldwork,
as well as providing the required (raw) materials, as well as building material
stocks.
The General Assembly also analysed:
e) disputable issues and court/legal cases; f) individual cases of employees of
the Board of Communications in terms of which investigations were conducted
(except for cases involving military personnel with non-commissioned ranks,
while their investigative matters were mandatorily transferred directly from
the Administrative Department of the District Board of Communications to its
General Director/Head of the District, who was only able to make a decision),
g) cases of specific significance, including criminal ones; and h) all other
matters recognized by the Head of the District as indispensable for
consideration by the General Assembly (Council)[18].
Regardless of whether the given task
was undertaken in the form of public tender contracts, “resulting from
bids conducted usually in the Council”, or in the framework of its own
work adopted by the District Board (literally “in the economic
manner”), the performance of works of a transportation nature and the
delivery of the necessary raw materials were only carried out in one of two
ways. The first was the confirmation of the whole transaction/task by the Head
of the District, provided that the total cost of the project did not exceed the
sum of 25,000 (silver) roubles. The second way was to wait for confirmation of
the actions taken by the St Petersburg Board of Roads of Communication and
Public Buildings, which was the case whenever the sum of the project exceeded
25,000 roubles[19].
Altogether, with the Act of 7 April
1836, Nicholas I approved a new budget for the above-described newly organized
Districts of Communications. This mostly resulted in the simple fact that, in
each District Board, its Director/Chief (in other words: the Head of the
District) had to remain at the rank of Major General. An annual “table
salary” (diet), valued at 3,000 roubles, was assigned to this position,
which was financed from the budget of the Corps of Engineers of the Roads of
Transportation. The Deputy (“Supporter” was the formal name
attached to this position) of the Head of the District was always a Colonel in
the Corps of Engineers of the Roads of Transportation, who received his annual
“table salary” from the same Corps of Engineers, equal to 2,000
roubles. Among the District of Communications’ strict authorities, one
could also count the adjutant of the Head of the District (a different person
to the “Supporter” or “Deputy”), who in principle was a
lower-ranked officer of the Corps of Engineers, but eventually came from
“a group of builders”. However, he always collected a salary issued
from the Corps of Engineers fund. It is worth noting that the main act of April
1836 did not refer to the basic wages of such an employee.
In turn, the members of the board -
the Chairmen of the individual departments constituted, of course, a group of
three people. They were: a): in the Department of Crafts - a senior officer of
the Corps of Engineers of the Roads of Communication, who also managed the
so-called “Bureau of Hand Drawing” and collected his salary from
the Corps of Engineers’ funds; b) in the Economic Department - a civil
servant (formally classified in the rank of clerical classes up to Class 5 or
in the rank of uniforms up to Class 6, but, in the classification of salary, up
to Category 3), who collected a yearly ordinary/basic salary of 5,000 roubles;
c) in the Administrative Department - a civil servant (classified in terms of
clerical rank, uniform and salary based on the same class as his predecessor),
who received the same regular salary of 5,000 roubles. Furthermore, two civil
servants, who were “destined to execute special orders”, were
counted among the authorities of the District Board of Communications. They
were assigned to the ninth grade of the clerical class, the eighth uniformed
category and the seventh category of emoluments. Their annual basic salary was
calculated at 1,500 roubles, while they additionally received a further 700
roubles per year to cover travel expenses. In contrast to the first group of
persons from the “strict government”, there was no mention of any
“table money” for the individuals enlisted as above.
The composition (of the lower-level
staff working) in three separate departments of the District Board was as
follows. In the Department of Crafts, there were employed: a) two officers of
the Corps of Engineers, who collected a salary from the funds of that corps; b)
the Secretary of the Department, who worked as a civil servant (counted in the
rank of clerical classes up to the ninth category, in the uniform
classification to the ninth grade, and in terms of salary up to the eighth
category) and normally collected an annual salary of 1,500 roubles; c) the
Secretary’s Assistant, who also worked as a civil servant (classified in
the rank of clerical classes up to the 12th category, in the uniform
classification as a person having the right to wear a nine-tier class coat, and
up to the ninth category in terms of salary), with a regular salary of 1,000
roubles a year; d) two conductors, who received their salary from the Corps of
Engineers; e) three cartoonists, who received their regular monthly wage from
the same corps; f) four copyists, chosen from the so-called “cantonists”
(i.e., graduates of lower-level military schools, usually
orphans) of the first class. The latter received their equipment
“according to military laws”. Once again, in all these cases, there
was no mention of any additional “table money”.
In the Economic Department, the
following persons were employed: a) the Secretary, who was responsible for
conducting public tenders and strict implementing any economic regulations in
force (calculated in the classification of clerical classes as belonging to the
ninth grade, in the classification of uniforms to the ninth grade, and in the
eighth category of salary), receiving 1,500 roubles per year; b) the Senior
Deputy of the Secretary (classified in the rank of clerical classes up to the
10th category, in the uniform classification up to the 10th grade, and in the
category of wages up to the ninth category), with a salary of 1,200 roubles a
year; c) the Younger Deputy of the Secretary (counted in the official clerical
classification up to the 12th category, in uniformed positions as a person
having the right to wear a tailcoat, and in the category of salary up to the
ninth category), with a remuneration of 1,000 roubles a year; d) the Accounting
Secretary (“included in the same classification as other secretaries”),
with an annual salary of 2,000 roubles; e) the Assistant Secretary for
Accounting Matters (counted among “those classes to which the previously
described Secretary had been appointed”), with a remuneration of 1,500
roubles a year; f) six first-class copyists, receiving a payment from the funds
of the Corps of Engineers of the Roads of Communication.
In the Administrative Department,
the following persons were employed: a) the Secretary (classified in the
clerical, uniform and salary ranking “equal to other secretaries”),
with an annual payment of 1,500 roubles; b) two Assistants of the Secretary of
the Department (situated in all three types of classifications “at the
same level as a Senior Deputy in the Economic Department”), with a remuneration
of 1,200 roubles a year; c) six first-class copyists, collecting their wages
from the funds of the Corps of Engineers.
Added to this composition were
“general posts”, such as: a) the Cashier of the District Board of
Communication, acting simultaneously as an Executor/Bailiff (included in the
rank of clerical classes up to the 10th category, in the uniform classification
up to the 12th grade, and, in terms of salary, belonging to the eighth
category), with an annual wage totalling 1,500 roubles; b) a “Journalist
or Registrar” (holding the 12th level of classification in official
clerical rankings, the 10th grade of uniform classification, and the ninth
level of financial classification), with an annual remuneration of 1,000
roubles; c) three Couriers remunerated from the funds of the Corps of
Engineers; d) four Watchmen, who received their wages from the same financial
source as in the case of Couriers. It is quite easy to observe that some of the
people employed in the District Boards of Communication were remunerated by the
State Treasury, while others were remunerated by funds belonging directly to
the Corps of Engineers of the Roads of Communication. Finally, Tsar Nicholas I
approved the Transport Administration budget, allocated to each District Board,
worth 5,000 roubles a year, with the purpose of “office” and
“drawing” expenditures.
Finally, it should be noted that, in
accordance with the realities occurring after the introduction of the act from
April 1836, the total of those employed by five (new) administrative units,
managing individual Districts of Transportation, amounted to 250 persons. The
complete budget of each of the local District Transport Administrations -
statistically, employing 50 people each - equated to 36,500 roubles to be spent
every 12 months. Thus, the total cost of maintaining the staff of all Russian
Regional Branches of the Main Board of Communications amounted to 182,500
roubles. Combined with the expenses for renting premises, as well as the
payment for “illumination”, this resulted in the sum of 196,500
roubles a year in the whole of Tsarist Russia[20].
It is more than hard to say whether
a cohort of 250 persons and a sum of less than 200,000 roubles to be spent each
year for all local district transportation authorities would prove to be sufficient
for such a vast empire, as Tsarist Russia was at that time. What was however
beyond any doubt is that the administrative structures of the new Districts of
Communications were seemingly well thought out.
4. CHANGES IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF
THE SAINT PETERSBURG BOARD OF ROADS OF COMMUNICATION - ITS DIVISION INTO TWO
SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS IN 1839/1840
Due to diverse difficulties in the
practical and reasonable operation of this branch of the main Russian
administration, in 1839, Count Carl Wilhelm von Toll approached Tsar Nicholas I
with his proposal to divide the Main Board of Roads of Communication and Public
Buildings into two separate departments. As a result, on 29 October/10 November
1839, the Tsar acceded to his request, signing a “personal order”
directed at the St Petersburg Ruling Senate on this matter. The order at stake
established the First and Second Departments of this specific ministry.
Nicholas also approved the temporary status of these two newly established
departments.
The second point (not: an article)
of this newly approved ruling by the Tsar ordered that the First Department
should now comprise four branches, managing all the works carried out on both
roads and watercourses, as well as in relation to public edifices.
The third point of the order
described in detail the composition of the Second Department. On the basis of
the new regulation in this department, the following administrative
organizations were to be found: a) the Chancellery, currently changing its
formal name into a sort of simple “branch” or
“division”; b) a new branch dealing with public buildings (which,
until 1833, were owned by the Ministry of the Interior); c) a branch focusing
its activities on traffic on state waterways; d) a branch dealing with billing
(bookkeeping), generally concerning the management of transportation routes and
public buildings. The Treasury and the Archive of the Main Board of Roads of
Communications were now also assigned to this Second Department.
Later on, these new legal solutions
(given in a form of a Tsar’s decree) were published on the basis of the
official order of the Ruling Senate of 16/28 November 1839. Completing these
proceedings and following another application by Count von Toll on 8 December
1839, the Tsar issued another decision addressed to the Ruling Senate, this
time appointing two directors for the freshly established departments. Thus,
Nicholas I appointed General Rokasovski of the Corps of Engineers as the
Director of the First Department. Duties of the Director of the Second
Department were imposed on State Counsellor Vladimirov.
Having received the Tsar’s
clarification on this matter, the Director of the Main Board of Communications,
for his part, tried to fulfil the remit he had been given as soon as possible,
which resulted in the fact that both departments rapidly commenced their actual
activities as early as 2/15 January 1840. Finally, on 17/29 January 1840, the
First Department of the Ruling Senate issued a decree, informing the public
about all the procedures aimed at establishing and commencing the work of these
two departments in the Main Board of Roads of Communication and Public
Buildings. The Ruling Senate also ordered the publication of this information
in the periodical Senatskije Vedomosti
and to hand it over to the Heroldia Office[21].
As obvious as it was, the
commencement in January of 1840 of the actual division of the Main Board of
Roads of Communication and Public Buildings was complementing the general
conception of improving the quality of administrative procedures in the
Transport Administration of Tsarist Russia.
5. INCREASE IN THE SPAN OF CONTROL OF THE BOARD
OF ROADS OF COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS BY THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL STATE:
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND NEW ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT RULES FROM 1840
Soon after the
administrative division began in January 1840, and encountering some (previous)
disorders in this area of his supervision duties, Count Carl von Toll brought to the Russian
Council of State, on 10/22 April 1840, a draft of new provisions regarding the
accounts of the Main Board of Roads of Communication, which was subordinate to
him. This was accompanied by the presentation of a draft budget for the Special
Commission (Audit Committee), to be appointed for the revision of all current
accounts of this board.
Around the same time, Count von Toll
asked Tsar Nicholas I to approve the implementation of the budget he had
presented to the Special Commission. This budget was to be in force by the
second half of 1840. According to the Director of the Tsarist Transport
Administration, the new main transportation authority budget law itself would
have entered into force on 1 January1841.
The whole matter was carefully
considered and examined by the Department of Economy of the State Council in St
Petersburg, and then discussed at the General Assembly of the same council. The
final outcome was positive, as - after consultation with the State Controller -
Russian legislators were not able to find anything to reject the acceptance of
new legal solutions. As a result, it was decided to accept both drafts
concerning the Audit Committee and the rules of accounting and, consequently,
to approach the Tsar himself for their final approval.
To much surprise, it was decided to
implement the bill for new accounting methods - based on precedents for similar
situations that took place in other main government offices, while referring to
opinions of the State Council expressed in 1830 - at the earliest opportunity,
, even without presenting it to the Tsar himself for his signature. This
opinion of the Ruling Senate, together with the budget of the Audit Committee,
was, in one way or another, later submitted to Tsar Nicholas I for approval.
Finally, on 20 June/3 July1840,
Nicholas I accepted the opinion of the Council of State regarding the Audit
Commission’s function to manage the accounts of the main transportation
authorities, as well as the rules for submitting such types of financial
reports by the Main Board of Public Roads of Communication and Public
Buildings. Next, Count von Toll informed St Petersburg’s Ruling Senate
about the new law, which also formally had a hearing on this matter, where the
minister presented his report. These laws (on the budget of the Audit Committee
and on the rules of keeping accounts related to the Main Board of Public Roads
of Communication and Public Buildings), pursuant to the order of the First
Department of the Ruling Senate of 9/22 July 1840, were sent for public
announcement[22]. The
new “budgetary law” - containing 100 articles - was subsequently
published on 8/20 August 1840[23].
Thus, the control of transportation
finances in Tsarist Russia - subject as always to the temptation of widespread
corruption - at least seemed to have been tightened considerably. This
achievement on the part of Count von Toll could be considered as one of biggest
formal steps forward in the allegedly proper development of Russian
transportation administrative structures.
6. CONCLUSIONS
It is fair to admit that almost all
the data presented here somehow point to significant progress in the
development of the Transport Administration of Tsarist Russia in the first half
of the 19th century (the information given in this article basically commenced
with a short description of this very establishment, by focusing on territorial
and organizational transformations, up to dealing with endeavours to improve
transportation administration control, mainly in the financial field). This
material allows us to present theses whereby, in principle, one could observe a
favourable and well-thought-out course of this process. This fully deserved
positive opinion, however, must be confronted with a few exceptions, some of
which are of considerable importance.
Firstly, and as simple as it was,
the Tsarist authorities were lacking an abundance of suitably qualified persons
engaged in their transportation processes. Thus, it should be remembered that -
which is extremely important and paradoxically indicative of the strongly
pro-development intentions of the highest members of Nicholas’
transportation administration on the matter of the communication network in
Russia - as late as 1834, legislators were desperately crying out for new staff
to join the road-building efforts. At that time, it was publicly announced that
there was a pressing need to admit into the ranks of employees of the Main
Board of Roads of Communication and Public Buildings (into the Corps of
Engineers of Roads) an unlimited number of lieutenants (with a salary of 690
roubles and 250 roubles of a diet yearly) and second lieutenants (with a salary
of 600 roubles per year), as well as warrant officers (with a salary of 510
roubles a year). The only restriction was obviously to complete academic
courses in “appropriate sciences”[24].
This quest for an unlimited increase
in the number of medium-level technical staff (lieutenants, second lieutenants
and warrant officers) of the Corps of Road Transport Engineers was apparently
not the only visible sign of a deep concern among the Tsarist authorities about
an increase in the numbers of acting staff in this part of Russian
administration. On 16/28 January 1837, the First Department of the Ruling
Senate issued a significant order, giving lower-ranking officers, belonging to
the Corps of Road Transport/Building Engineers, the extraordinary specific
right to employ their private servants at the expense of the State Treasury[25].
The above facts only confirmed the existence, in the mid-1830s (and therefore
almost 30 years after the initial creation of the Transport Administration in
Tsarist Russia), of the urgent need to supplement the personal composition of
the Russian communications services.
The other obstacle to the proper
undertaking of diverse activities by the Tsarist transportation authorities was
- on several occasions - mentioned in this text from the perspective of the
political nature of their decisions. These sometimes strongly shadowed economic
principles, as well as suggested simple common sense.
However, this does not diminish in
any way or under any circumstances the significant organizational effort put
into the creation and further development of such an important branch of the
national administrative structure as the Russian transport structure was.
References
1.
Genealogisches
Handbuch der baltischen Ritterschaften. 1930. Tail Estland, Band
1, Verlag fur Sippenforschung und Mappenfunde. Görlitz: G.U. Starte, [In
German: Genealogical Handbook of Baltic
Knighthoods. Tail Estonia, Department of Genealogical Research and Portfolio Findings. Görlitz: G.U. Starte.]
2.
Glasko B. 1905. “Olenburgskij prinz
Georgij Petrovic” Russkij
Biograficeskij Slovar 12. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Glavnogo Upravnienja
Udelov. [In Russian: “Duke of Oldenburg Georgy Petrovich”. Russian
Biographical Dictionary 12. St Petersburg: Printing House of the Main
Department of Frontiers.]
3. “Istoriya, dostoprimechatelnosti i muzei Vytegry i jejo okrestnostej”. [In Russian: “The History, Attractions and Museums of Vytegra and Its Surroundings.] Available at: https://anashina.com/istoriya-dostoprimechatelnosti-i-muzei-vytegry/.
4. Kratkii istoriceskii ocerk razvitsia i deiatelnosci Vedomstva Putej Sooscenia za sto let jego soscestvovabia (1798-1898 g.). 1898. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Vedomstva Putej Sooscenia. [In Russian: A Brief Historical Sketch of the Development and Activities of the Department of Roads of Communication During the 100 Years of Its Activity (1798-1898). St Petersburg: Printing House of Department of Roads of Communication.]
5. La Orotava Sostenible. “Don Augustin de Betancourt Y Molina”. Available at: https://hydro-orotava.com/2018/01/20/cv-de-don-agustin-de-betancourt/. [In Spanish: The Sustainable Orotava. “Don Augustin de Betancourt y Molina”.]
6.
Oldenburskij Georgii Petrovic.
“Socjalnaja set goroda Pushkin”. [In Russian: Duke of Oldenburg Georgy
Petrovich. “Social
Network of the City of Pushkin.] Available at: https://tsarselo.ru/photos/photo8323.html.
7.
Pavlov V.E. 2010. “Imperator
Aleksandr I i Institut Korpusa Inzynierov Putej Soobscenia”. Izviestia Peterburskogo Universiteta Putej
Soobscenja 4. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Peterburskogo Universiteta Putej
Soobscenja. [In Russian: “Emperor Alexander I and Institute of Corps of
Engineers of Roads of Communication”. Proceedings of Petersburg State Transport
University 4. St Petersburg: Printing House of Petersburg
State Transport University.]
8.
Polnoje
Sobranje Zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii s 1649 goda. 1830. Vol.
30, 1808-1809. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Vtorogo Otdelenja Sovstvennoj Jego
Imperatorskago Velicestva Kancelarii. [In Russian:
Full Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire
Since 1649. St Petersburg: Printing House of the Second Division of His
Imperial Majesty’s Chancery.]
9.
Polnoje sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii, Sobranije
Vtoroje. 1841. Vol. 15. Oddelenie
pervoje. Sankt Petersburg: Tipografia Vtorogo Otdelenja Sovstvennoj Jego
Imperatorskago Velicestva Kancelarii. [In Russian: Full Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire. Second Edition. St
Petersburg: Printing House of the Second Division of His Imperial
Majesty’s Chancery.]
10.
Rieber A.J. 2017. The
Imperial Russian Project. Autocratic Politics, Economic Development, and Social
Fragmentation. Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press.
11. Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 4 June 1834, No. 38. St Petersburg: J.E.
Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the
Kingdom of Poland.]
12.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 26 January 1835,
No. 1. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
13.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 20 May 1836, No.
35. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
14.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 20 May 1836, No.
35. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
15.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 7 March 1837, No.
15. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
16.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 28 February 1840,
No. 13. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
17.
Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa
Królestwa Polskiego. 18 September 1840,
No. 69. St Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland.]
Received 14.08.2018; accepted in revised form 19.11.2018
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License