Article
citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Civic transport duty as
service performed for the tsarist army stationed in the Kingdom of Poland in
the light of the Transportation Act of May 4, 1858. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2019, 103, 119-142.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2019.103.10.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
CIVIC
TRANSPORT DUTY AS SERVICE PERFORMED FOR THE TSARIST ARMY STATIONED IN THE
KINGDOM OF POLAND IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF MAY 4, 1858
Summary. This text focused on the
implementation of the provisions concerning civil transport services rendered
for the sake of the Russian occupational (Active) Army stationed in the Kingdom
of Poland by the Administrative Council of the Kingdom of Poland, there. The
above-mentioned Transportation Act of May 4, 1858, generally refers though to
the old solutions, mostly in force since 1831, or even from the time of the
pre-revolutionary era. Writing down and introducing once again some of these
provisions was, as it might seem, a part of the process of regulating within
the frames of law, this aspect of relations between the invading Russian
military power and the Polish subdued society.
Keywords: civic transport duty,
tsarist army, Kingdom of Poland, 19th century
1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
TRANSPORT DUTY AT THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION IN THE CONQUERED KINGDOM OF POLAND
BY THE OCCUPYING RUSSIAN (ACTIVE) ARMY AFTER SEPTEMBER OF 1831
The issue of transporting
people and goods belonging to the operating tsarist military units,
particularly the (Active) Army in the Kingdom of Poland, in the inter-uprising
period of 1831 - 1862 was an extremely complicated phenomenon that was burdened
with a number of legal conditions, especially significant after the beginning
of the overt occupation of the country in September of 1831. Already on October
6, 1831 (actually the day after the final crossing of the Polish borders to
Prussia by 20,000-strong General Rybiński’s Corps, consisting of the
main remaining Polish troops), the Russian-dependent Warsaw’s Government
Commission of Internal Affairs and Police issued a rescript No. 9598, in which
the ministry applied to the Provisional Government of the Kingdom for the
introduction and establishment of some (new) provisions, concerning
“civic transport duty to be undertaken by citizens for the sake of the
Russian army”.
In the meantime, its two
members, General Rautenstrauch and General Kossecki notified the Provisional
Government about the initial decision of the Russians (Active) Army, the
highest authorities in this regard. Interestingly, these two Polish soldiers,
as “participating in conferences with the Chief of Staff of the
Army”, announced that the Muscovite side decided to maintain in the
Kingdom of Poland, the provisions concerning military logistics, that was
issued on May 24, 1823, on the order of the Russian Grand Duke Constantine who
constantly resided in Warsaw at that time.
Consequently, the Provisional
Government was ordered during its seventh session of November 11, 1831, to
provide the Government Commission of Internal Affairs and Police with
information that it was absolutely necessary to fully comply with these
solutions, stating that any further divagations about the establishment of new
laws referring to transport services delivery for the Russian Army should be
considered pointless[2].
The above conduct of affairs,
of course, did not prevent any further release of the series of orders and
regulations to the army (especially issued by Russian Field Marshal Ivan
Paskievich), which clarified and modified the original logistic military laws.
The first of such modifications took place on November 12, 1831, when the new
tsar’s governor, Paskievich issued his earliest order to the (Active)
Army in this regard, by No. 561, which however, officially called for
compliance with the regulations of 1823[3].
Generally, the commencement of the process of the formal
use of delivery by the civilian army transportation carts and wagons was
available in the period after the fall of the November Uprising, in the
military staging areas, established on the main routes of the Kingdom. The
tsarist army used, as a rule, the whole fleet of private cart vehicles in full
accordance with the “open road transport lists”. The relevant
demand was immediately transferred to the municipalities, and means of
transportation were delivered “with intermediation” of the civil
authority.
This formal duty was at the beginning of the Paskevich
period, carried out by municipalities which in accordance with a predetermined
order were needed and after obtaining orders directly from the concerned
military authority, provided well organised carts and wagons “in
nature” to the staging areas, established as it was mentioned above,
close to the most vital roads of the Kingdom. As before the Uprising of 1831,
the fee for civic transportation was determined by the order of the Russian
Field Marshal Ivan Paskievich in the amount of 1 Polish zloty and 15 groshes
(that is, one and a half of zloty) for a verst/mile, paid for a
two-horse-drawn cart or wagon. Funds for
this purpose were originally transferred by the Army's Commissariat, but the
original source of this money came from the Polish State Treasury, that is,
from collecting local taxes[4].
Since 1834
(about three years after the final defeat of the Polish army), there
continuously appeared numerous marches and assemblies of Russian troops in the
Kingdom of Poland, prompting a
strong need for accurate and constant supervision by the civil authorities,
performing civic transportation obligations. Hence, in its report of 1834, the
Governmental Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Affairs
stated with satisfaction (after due inspection) that “throughout the
country” the carts and wagons for the army were delivered regularly, and
“with high accuracy”[5].
Also in 1835, the performance of a large-scale process of
fulfilling the transportation requirements was provided in response to an even
larger demand for the tsarist army, which was then almost constantly on the
march. Most importantly, from the point of view of the occupying power, at that
time, no irregularities were found in the “attitude” of the
residents of the Kingdom towards complementing these duties[6]. This was in spite of the fact that during this year,
the famous Russian-Prussian military parade and drills took place near the then
Russo-Prussian border city of Kalisz[7], where it was necessary to provide significantly huge quantities
of military transports.
Existing in the second half of the thirties of the 19th
century (for example, in 1838) during the diverse marches and dislocations of
military units and commands in Poland, “there were submitted by many
local citizens, private transportation vehicles, [being] at the disposal of the
competent [military] authorities". Despite being the obvious military
source of demand, the burden of civic transport service for the army was
constantly exercised only on the basis of response to exact orders submitted by
the government to the local administrative staff[8].
The implementation of these formal transportation
obligations was at 1838, associated mainly with the dislocation of the 4th
Infantry Corps of the Russian Army in the territory of the Kingdom of Poland.
This particular corps held various marches during the twelve months of the
year, “either making a replacement to the military garrison stationed in
Warsaw or assembling for the camp” near the Polish capital. It was only
from this camp that individual parts of the 4th Infantry Corps were subjected
to further dislocation to chosen places of permanent abode in the Kingdom.
Another reason for the extraordinary frequent marches of the tsarist army
stationed in the Vienna Congress,
Poland, in 1838 is tied to the imposition on the mentioned 4th Corps of the
(Active) Army’s duty to convoy fresh recruits, being led from the Vienna
Congress, Poland, to the main territory of Nicholas I’s Empire[9].
Finally, it should be noticed here, that apparently in
the period following, particularly in the span of the forties and fifties of
the19th century, until 1858, there appeared a considerate number of changes in
the formal frames of the performance of civic transport services done to the
Russian Army (which was partly inspired by disturbances in the European policy,
especially after 1848). However, it can be said that besides the necessity of
fulfilling the huge requirement of the Russian (Active) Army, almost constantly
being on the move in Poland with diverse exercises and drills, the obligation
of transporting recruits seems to be one of the main transportation burdens in
the entire inter-uprising interval that was carried out in conquered Poland for
the needs of the Russian occupation military staff.
2. TRANSPORT ACT CONCERNING CIVILIAN SERVICES
FOR THE RUSSIAN ARMY STATIONED IN THE KINGDOM OF POLAND, FROM MAY 4, 1858
After the changes caused by Russia's defeat at the
Crimean War, among many “facilitations” introduced with the consent
in accordance with the intentions of the new Muscovite tsar - Alexander II, the
development of detailed regulations regarding the implementation of
transportation duty carried out in the Kingdom of Poland (in particular:
providing private transport for the Russian army stationed in the occupied
Vienna Congress Kingdom) found its turn. The aim was to introduce into the
Kingdom such duty of the transport service on which lies its (new) solutions in
legal forms, authorising the supply of carts and wagons for the army on principles
similar to those applicable in the Russian Empire itself. The idea was as
though these solutions would have “possibly been reconciled with the
[geographic] location of the country, with local customs and local
relations“. As it was primarily said, the main task of the lawmakers was
now to clarify the weight of the load, which should be carried by the private
carts and wagons for delivery to the army[10]. It seems it was a difficult task, whereas in the
Russian Empire mostly and basically only one-horse carts were used, with the
permissible load weight of up to 15 pounds (that is, 246 kg). In the Kingdom at
the same, time there were one, two, three and even four-horse wagons in
permanent usage, which of course implied an increased in the weight of the burden
they should carry[11].
The
Government Commission finally elaborated the relevant regulations for Internal
and Spiritual Affairs, which remained at that time under the authority of the
Chief Executive President of a pure Russian nationality, Secretary-Counselor
Muchanov. During the development of a new draft of the law, the Chief of Staff
stationed in the Kingdom of Poland’s First (Active) Army submitted
numerous applications.
In
the final version of the new draft of the law, the forms of “recalculation”
methods and rules of transporting goods and items by the Russian army,
stationed in the Empire itself as in the Kingdom of Poland, were specified.
Precisely, the 16. Article of the new law act in its appendix No. 2 deliberated
this issue in details, indicating that two-horse vehicles operating in the
Kingdom should take cargo intended for four-horse units operating in the
Russian Empire (even these ones were rarely used in Russia). At the same time,
three one-horse wagons from the Kingdom were considered to be equivalent to two
one-horse carts from the Imperial territory. Due to these theoretical
calculations, a rather complicated logistic problem was solved (but that
happened only as late as in 1858, 27 years after the fall of the November
Uprising). From then on, it became legally regulated that a Russian military
unit arriving in the Kingdom of Poland from the Russian Empire, for example,
with the burden taken there on four one-horse wagons, had the right to demand,
while entering the territory of Kingdom, the “substitution” (which
means delivery of civic transport means), composed of three two-horse carts or
six one-horse wagons, etc.[12].
In
the pre-final stage of the legislative process, the new law was outlined,
arranged and prepared by the Government Commission of Internal and Spiritual
Affairs and the Chief of the General Staff of (Active) Army. Having discussed
all the details among themselves, the lawgivers formally presented the new law
for acceptance to the forum of the most important civic administrative
authority of the Kingdom, the Administrative Council. Discussion on the subject
(according to the minutes) took place on April 22 / May 4, 1858, when following
the general line of the supposition of the military representatives of Tsar
Alexander II, the same day, the Administrative Board decided to fully confirm
the new civic-military transport provisions.
The
new law was officially entitled: “The provisions on the supply for the
army of carts of citizens in the Kingdom of Poland”. Secondly, it was
clearly stated on May 4, 1858, that the new law, as formally binding on both
military and civilian, would become the regulations in force, starting from
June 19 / July 1, 1858. Point three of the regulation mentioned that all
provisions introduced in the past in the field, concerning the supply of
private vehicles for the Russian troops stationed in the Kingdom of Poland have
lost validity; this was supposed to happen exactly on the date of effect of the
new legal solutions. Finally, the Administrative Council ordered the posting of
the new regulation in the Official Law Digest of the Kingdom, for which the
Government Commission of Internal and Spiritual Affairs was responsible.
In accordance with the general
criteria used as the basis for military transport regulations in the Kingdom of
Poland, its application in relation to the civilian population was based on the
general principle of carts and wagons being delivered by residents of both
cities and municipalities. However, in the Capital City of Warsaw, contracts
for military transport services was signed with accepted entrepreneurs (who
would act as a sort of substitute for the inhabitants) who undertook the
implementation of this task by concluding an appropriate contract with the
city’s magistrate. Such agreements had to be approved by the Government
Commission for Internal and Spiritual Affairs. Another important principle
worth mentioning here was the recognition of the obligation, which considers
the transportation service duty as binding in the field of movement of military
people as well as goods/items, generally belonging to the tsarist army.
Article 2 of the Act of May 4,
1858, stated that the carts and wagons had to be supplied by the public
“for transporting from one place to another, military loads and
requisites. This is possibly due to the implementation of the military personal
movement process, as well as due to the movement of any other persons
possessing, under the provisions of the Law on Transportation, the right to
demand delivery of [private] transport to them”. With a clear assumption
of providing mostly two-horse carts and wagons for the transporting of
items/persons, the legislators pointed out the awareness that in some
territorial regions (parts) of the Kingdom, it was a common and vivid rule to
use only single-horse vehicles for carrying loads, which in turn meant the use
of only such harnesses in those areas, that were adapted to be used by one
horse only.
In connection with the above,
Article 3 of the new law act allowed the use of one-horse wagons to carry goods
belonging to the Russian army, stationed in the Kingdom. The principle of
“counting” two one-horse carts for the replacement of one two-horse
wagon was applied here, this refers to both the calculation of the size and weight
of the transported load, and to the calculation of fees for using such
transportation vehicles. On the other hand, in the case of transporting
military and other persons entitled to use this private service, it was
possible to deliver one-horse or two-horse carts or wagons, this depended on:
a) “requirement”; b) circumstances; c) and local customs. Such a
solution (that is, allowing the use of only a one or two-horse vehicle instead
of other means of transportation) was not in force in a number of special
incidents or occasions, involving staff-officers and ober-officers. It was also
not allowed to make such a replacement in a considerable number of situations
related to the implementation of the military census, or the transport of
recruits. Finally, in the content of “general entries or
situations”, there was also a reservation about the possibility of
extraordinary demand of: a) three-horse vehicles; b) four-horse carts and
wagons; c) transport carried out by oxen; d) and only horses themselves[13].
The
second chapter of the Civil-Military Transportation Act specified the type of
military units and sort of persons that possessed the privilege to take
advantage of the use of the obligatory delivered vehicles in the Kingdom of
Poland. Foremost among these, are included such privileges: a) regiments and
battalions of sappers and customs riflemen; b) batteries and parks of tsar's
artillery; and finally and most spoken about c) “other army units”.
According to Article 6 of the Act of May 4, 1858, it was necessary to deliver
and provide all of these (being in March) units, fully satisfactory and
abundant number of horses and vehicles. This had to be provided in exactly the
same quantity as it was displayed in the individual orders issued to the
(Active) Army, as well as in the other authorisations issued by the military
commander-in-chief, mostly in the form of road cards.
In
addition, authorised officers with the responsiblity of drawing of plans and
making similar reconnaissances, or any scientific activities (like scientific
research for instance) of a strictly military nature were also granted the use
of these deliveries by the civilian populace vehicles. This concerns “all
military delegates [sent] in the service's interests”. The condition, however,
to obtain the possibility of using the carts and wagons was in all these cases
dependent not only on the issuing of the road cards to all previously described
individuals in accordance with the applicable regulations, but also on strict
accessibility to the special fund, allocated to cover the renting of a vehicle
for them. Such content of Article 7 of the Act of May 1858 was based on the
instruction of the order issued previously by Marshal Paskievich to the
(Active) Army on October 31 / November 12, 1831, no. 561, and especially in
Articles 2 and 3. On the other hand, staff-officers sent for business purposes
(except for situations referring to the work of conscripts commissions and for
running recruits), received four-horse carts and wagons at their disposal. Additionally,
each of the ober-officers and all members of the staff holding equivalent
positions in the Military Board received the right to use two-horse wagons. In
the event, that several ober-officers journeyed to the same location, then one
two-horse vehicle was allocated to two of them each, regardless of whether they
are accompanied by servants or not[14].
The transport of military
patients is extremely important from the point of view of the idea of proper
solving of logistic problems, therefore, was planned in a very precise way. In
this relation, it was then described in detail in the new provisions, first,
the appropriate procedures for travelling through the territory of the Kingdom
of Poland of: a) military units at the moment of passing the Russian-Polish
border, not encountered among the current full time composition of the Active
Army military powers stationed there, and without their own medical
“props”; b) individual army “commands”, marching
through successive stages.
In these two cases, the new
law precisely indicated the number and size of carts and wagons to be delivered
for the purpose of transporting military patients, calculated in relation to
the numerical status of entire units. Consequently: a) for single-unit commands
composed of up to 25 soldiers, one single-horse cart was to be provided; b) for
commands with a personal composition closing between 25 and 50 people, one
two-horse vehicle was reserved for the transport of patients. In this way, the
principle of enlarging the “sanitary transportation fleet” of a
given marching/riding horse military unit in relation to a one-horse wagon for
every (next) 25 people, or a two-horse vehicle for each of the next 50
soldiers, was adopted.
The principle of the maximum
limitation on the use of means of transportation for the sick “ordinary
soldier” patients was introduced. As a result, in the unit composition of
up to 50 people, with no more than one or two ordinary soldiers (privates in
particular) in sick condition, then it was ordered to add to such a
marching/riding column only with one single-horse wagon “for use”.
For three or four patients, it was necessary to secure one two-horse cart in
such a department, while for five and six non-disposable military persons, the
legislation provided a single-horse cart and a two-horse wagon for their
transportation; successively, for seven and eight patients it was necessary to
provide a double two-horse wagons, etc. As a result, the principle practice of
having the carriage of one or two patients on a one-horse cart as well as three
or four patients on a cart drawn by two horses was developed.
Furthermore,
non-standard incidents were not forgotten, that is, concerning transporting
military patients through those areas of the Kingdom of Poland where the practice
of using “only two-horse carts” was overwhelmingly practised.
Hence, in areas of the country where such common practice was in general
acceptance, instead of carts drawn by one horse, it was formally possible to
add the sanitary services of the tsar's army for just two-horse wagons, thus
replacing the original arrangement and purpose of the single-horse vehicles.
However, when in effect it turned out that in accordance with the provisions of
the Military Transport Act, it was possible to deliver only carts with two
horses, then the payment made by the authorities for providing transport
equated the regular sum paid for providing the one horse-drawn vehicle.
Alternatingly,
in these areas of the Kingdom, where only one-horse wagons were traditionally
used, they could be supplied for the medical purposes of the Russian army
instead of two-horse vehicles. It was clear that two wagons with one horse were
formally "the equivalent of a two-horse transportation vehicle”. All
these solutions, posted in the content of Article 9 of the Act of May 1858,
seemed to bear direct reference to the provisions already contained in the
Order No. 196, addressed to the (Active) Army on October 12/24, 1837, as well
as in Articles 1732, 1733 and 1734, published in the Book III, Part IV of the Military Declaration Digest of 1838[15].
A separate and extremely
important issue was the matter of transporting officials in active
participation in the military census taking place successively in the Kingdom
of Poland, as well as in the process of recruitment of Polish citizens to the
tsarist army. To secure their proper transport, all members of the Census
Delegations and Recruiters' Offices (Recruitment Offices), as well as the
clerks/writers assisting them, had to be provided with carts and wagons
delivered by the local inhabitants of the country. Similar rights were also
assigned to officers of the Russian (Active) Army affiliated to the Census
Delegations and Recruitment Offices, who were themselves obliged to travel
“to the appropriate places to settle recruitment activities”. Similarly, the same privilege was
granted to the officers of the (Active) Army that were instructed to perform a
military census, and as such “translocated” from one area to
another.
While performing these duties,
the following classes of military staff and clerks or officials were supported
in the form of delivery of diverse types of transport motion as: a) for
staff-officers - three-horse wagons; b) for ober-officers - two-horse wagons;
c) for civil servants of the sixth administrative rank - four-horse wagons; d)
for civil servants of the seventh and eighth administrative ranks - three-horse
wagons; e) civil servants of the ninth and tenth classes - two-horse wagons; f)
for officials of lower classes of administrative classification, sent alone to
perform their duties - two-horse wagons; g) and finally, for officers and
administrative aides sent in groups
(usually in a number of two individuals) -a two-horse wagon. Such a solution, contained in Article
12 of the analysed Civil-Military Transportation Act, corresponded to the
previous entries written in: a) the tsarist order (ukaz) of 1850, referring to
diets and travel costs, b) in the Instruction for the Chiefs of the Recruiters
Units of October 21 / November 2, 1853; c) and in particular in Article 20
thereof Regulation[16].
The
law of May 4, 1858, in its Article 11 confirmed that sick “military
census members” (persons selected in obligatory recruitment to join the
ranks of the tsarist army) are to be transported from individual district
(poviat) towns of their origin to the actual places of enrolment of already
chosen recruits with the support of civic transportation measures. In these
cases, they had to be transported (but only in case of being ill) on a one or two-horse
carts and wagons, whose obligation had to be performed on principles identical
to those described in – aforementioned Article 9 of the new provisions.
In addition, it was necessary to provide transport for one or two officials,
running and directing the unit/group of the newly recruited military census
members. These officials, possessing specific allowances, were apparently
obliged to pay instantly from their subsidies for the fare of vehicles they
took. Such solutions were a sort of direct reference to the decision of the
Administrative Council of March 23 / April 4, 1837, No. 3061[17].
According
to the new law, during the transport of recruits from the Kingdom of Poland to
the territory under the direct power of the Russian Empire, different vehicles
had to be delivered for different eligible categories of men. Therefore, for
the chiefs of successive recruit units/parties, the following were assigned: a)
those in the rank of non-commissioned officers – the-horse wagons; b) the
ober-officers - two-horse wagons. In the case of chiefs, the private transport
on carts or wagons was provided for them either to the final assembly point or
to the Kingdom’s border and back.
Also
for the physicians accompanying the recruitment units, different numbers of
transport horses were allocated, according to their military of civil
“ranks and grades”. So one can see that: a) the staff physicians,
in the rank of staff-officers, received the three-horse wagons; b) doctors with
lower administrative grades than a collegiate assessor were guaranteed to use
carts with two horses. Essentially, as in the case of the chiefs of the recruit
parties/units, transport privileges included physicians or doctors travelling
to the point, where some other authorities would take supervision over these
recruits, which traditionally happens at the border of the Kingdom, and
returning to the place of their permanent abode. Another category of people who
had the right of use of civic transport for the sake of their movement in
connection with the “delivery of new recruits” were the
non-commissioned officers, sent in front of the marching column to prepare the
suitable quarters in advance. They possessed the privilege to use a two-horse
cart for these purposes, but carrying them no further than the assembly point,
or to the exact border of the Kingdom.
The
general transport for sick recruits was organised on similar terms as those
described in Article 9 of this Act. Finally, in the case of transporting
soldiers weakened by sickness, being enrolled in the commands escorting
recruits, the same legal conditions were applied, granting them civil transport
to the assembly point, or to the Kingdom’s border, and on the way back to
the permanent residence of their regiment. This solution was adopted in 1858 following
Article 20 and 156 of the Instruction for the Chiefs of the Recruiters Units from October 21 / November 2, 1853[18].
Civil vehicles were also
supplied on similar terms as those specified in Article 9 of this Act for
several other categories of people. They mainly include: a) soldiers
experiencing disabilities, b) other seriously ill lower-rank military, who were
just released from the army and were “handed over” to the civil
authorities. Besides military cripples and seriously ill soldiers, a strongly
confirmed possibility to use a civic transport was also granted to the wives of
a deceased military (alone or with children), who were travelling to places of
their original settlement, or residence. Such support could be granted
“through the mediation of civil authorities”. The same privileges
included the “constantly vacant soldiers” who could not continue on
their way to their chosen place of permanent residence by marching on their own
feet, mostly on the grounds of weakness.
All these categories of people
were assigned transport, though, only at the beginning of the process of
transferring them from the “state of form of military readiness and
obedience” under the supervision and care of the civil administrative
power, they were simultaneously given and provided with “formal calls for
civic transportation”, signed by the local (gubernia) war chiefs or by
the (military) city commanders, and eventually by the governors of the military
staging areas. Another possibility was the firm recognition by the civilian
branch of the Kingdom’s administration, under which the given former
military people were shifted the indispensable need to provide them with some
transportation means. These solutions were adopted in 1854, respecting the
decision of the Administrative Council from December 18/30, 1842, No. 31 595[19].
It sometimes happens, that
wives and children of recruits or soldiers of the tsarist army coming from the
territory of the Kingdom of Poland, might be willing to follow their
“husbands and fathers being relocated from the Kingdom to the
Empire”. In such a case, Article 14 of the Act of May 4, 1856, granted
them the free delivery of a cart or wagon at each staging area. Such
entitlement meant granting: a) a single one-horse cart for one, two or three
wives of soldiers or recruits; b) an identical form of transport for three
travelling children of soldiers, or recruits. This solution resulted from the
provisions of the order (ukaz) of Field Marshal Paskievich, addressed to the
(Active) Army of March 24 / April 5, 1835, No. 465, and the decision of the
Administrative Council of March 31 / April 12, 1842, No. 24 050[20].
Besides the
army staff itself, members of some other quasi-military services were also
entitled to use civic transportation. Following this idea, the gendarmes
(members of the transport police) would escort to the provincial cities,
people: a) accused of arbitrary/illegal crossing of the border and b) hand over
to the Russians at special exchange border points by the other two partitioning
countries (Prussia and Austria). Similarly, civic carts and wagons were used to
transport in military convoy “criminals, charged with political
activities”. For this type of escorting, not only the gendarme were
employed, but also the Don and the Ukrainian Cossacks, or military cripples,
still in charge. The return journey of these gendarmes, Cossacks, etc, was also
secured by providing them with civic one-horse vehicles.
The
regulations from May 1858 defined the exact permissible weight of the items
carried for the army on the civic carts and wagons. Primarily, it was noticed
that during the passage of the military from one place to another, the number
of vehicles intended for transporting “ammunition” (the last
wording was the exact phrase used in the Russian version of the text, while in
Polish, the phrase of unsuitable or rather unknown today phrase
”cejchhauz” was invoked) should be adjusted to the weight of these
items transported. In order to meet these requirements, it was assumed that a
single two-horse wagon should be laden with a load not exceeding 20 pounds
(327.6 kg). Nonetheless, in those parts of the Kingdom, where it was customary
to use vehicles drawn only in one horse, each cart could be filled with load
not exceeding the amount of 10 pounds (164 kg) [21].
In addition, it was also assumed that in the case when the weight of cargo to
be transported varies between 164 kg and 328 kg, it was necessary to provide a
single two-horse wagon for its relocation. On the other hand, where a load with
weight varying between 328 kg (20 pounds) and 492 kg (30 pounds) was to be
transported, it was required to provide a two-horse platform and single
one-horse wagon in order to properly transport this product.
Having
calculated and indicated the permissible limit ranges of loads carried on
individual private carts and wagons, it was explicitly expressed that among the
various materials and objects transported by the military, civilian vehicles
should carry only those items, which the authorities include in the category of
goods whose transport in civic service was guaranteed by the existing
legislation. Hence, before leaving from their permanent locations, it was
customary for the “departing regiments” of the (Active) Army, to
undergo the whole procedure of weighing these items or goods. It was, however,
permissible to leave this sort of activity to the least partial responsibility
of the representatives of the local civil authority.
After
such a weigh-in, representatives of the civil administration of the Kingdom
would issue a written certificate for the regiment or other military units,
containing information on the “weight of the load of items
carried”. Subsequently, the commander of the regiment or unit should have
presented to his superiors a certificate of weight of the transported goods,
that he had previously received from the civil administration representatives.
The next step in the procedure was to supply him with a “road
card”, based on which the local regiment of the army commander could
request the delivery of the suitable number of citizen's vehicles.
Article 19 of the law of May
4, 1858, described conditions (according to the author of this text, -
mentioned here, most probably meant the relative frequency of trespassing the
existing provisions, including at least that merit) for transporting materials
necessary to sew military uniforms, as well as “ammunition items”.
Apparently, it was a general rule here that one could demand vehicles suitable
“for carrying various [State] Treasury effects referring to uniforms of
soldiers” and “ammunition stuff” (it is worth mentioning that
this last type of commodity does not appear in same passage of the Polish text)
to the place of steady or permanent accommodation of the military unit. But in
order for civic vehicles to be granted such privileges, there were some strict
conditions attached and it was possible only when: a) the regiment, eventually
some other unit of the tsarist army, having received materials from the
Commissariat of the Army, was for one reason or another unable to complete the
delivery of full dress uniforms for soldiers; b) problems occurred while
completing some activities related to the preparation of these
“ammunition materials” on the spot. In both cases, the
“external delivery” supported by civic means of transportation
might have taken place not later than three months from the date of the
problem. Nonetheless, it was strongly pointed out that in the event that after
the said three-month period from the date of their receipt from the Army
Commissariat, these goods were still unprocessed, then their further transport
should not be carried out on civilian grounds, but rather be carried out at the
expense of the individual military commanders responsible. In these circumstances,
it is suitable to admit that in a case when any possible delay in the preparation
of soldiers' uniforms or required “ammunition materials” was caused
by events “deserving justification”, then the appropriate military
authorities should call on their immediate superiors in order to obtain
authorisation request for the delivery of civic transportation of these goods.
Such a solution was in line with order No. 15, issued by the (Active) Army
commander-in-chief in 1856. The load of the “sewing” and
“ammunition” materials to be transported was, moreover, set in
exactly the same way as for all other military “utensils”[22].
In reference to the problem of
the road cards, legislators decided
in May 1858 to express the strict rule demanding that the civic vehicles be
formally made available exclusively only to the members of the Russian army who
would be able to provide such a “referral for use of a civic
transport”. Despite these clearly spoken conditions, the solution at
stake was not to be performed arbitrarily and at all time. Firstly, the
commanders of the gendarmerie had the right to request for private
transportation delivery without presenting any road cards, which, however, did
not release them from the need to pay the appropriate monetary rate for the
trip. The local civil authorities were obliged to issue receipts for
transportation fees obtained in this manner. The above was based on the
decision of Ivan Paskevich, acting as a tsarist governor of the Kingdom of
Poland, which was published on June 24 / July 6, 1843, under No. 3 208[23].
Likewise, officers and members
of other military staff involved in carrying out conscripts, and transporting
recruits did not have to show their road cards. As it was stated in point b) of
Article 20 of the law act discussed here, the lack of the need to show road
cars (this time it was written in the original: “destination card”) resulted
this time from the possibility of presenting by them, some other
“ordinances of the appropriate authority”, that would be shown for
inspection instead of a road card.
One way or another, there was
the substantial need to write in such an ordinance, the information concerning
the exact authority claim for the delivery of the private vehicles, required
for the execution of the military-administrative process of relocation of items
and people[24].
Of
course, road cards were made according to a uniform official sample. These
cards, signed by the Main Army Commissariat were officially issued “on
the orders of the Serene Lord, Tsar of All Russia, King of Poland, etc”.
Formally, the person responsible for issuing the road cards was apparently the
current duty officer (in the rank of a general) of a tsarist army. If the
general on duty either did not want to or could not sign all the road cards
personally (which was rather reasonable to expect as doing so consumes much of
his time), he could just simply send blank forms of these cards to individual
staffs of corps and divisions, deployed in the Kingdom of Poland, as well as to
the commanders of fortresses and cities, and finally to the governors of
provincial governorates (interestingly enough, in this census the
“military district/poviat army chiefs” were omitted). Whereupon
this last solution was introduced, then was the issuing of the military road
cards “ continued as the need arose and in strict compliance with the
regulations”. It was a direct reference to the already mentioned command
of Field Marshal Paskievich to the (Active) Army of October 31 / November 12,
1831, No. 561 made in full compliance and accuracy to its Article 10. The
chiefs of diverse departments of particular types of troops in various military
boards, receiving these blank forms of the road cards were automatically
obliged to submit to the Main Army Commissariat a full summary of the current
use of these blanks. This solution would then be adopted in reference to the
order issued to the (Active) Army on June 16/28 1856, in its Article 13.
In
the content of the typical/standard road card, it was possible to read that it
was issued to the bearer by the proper authorities, valid from a particular
point of departure to the specific town / geographical point of arrival. It was
further affirmed that the card was issued “in accordance with the
regulations approved by the Commander-in-Chief [of the Active Army]”. All
of this resulted to the obvious conclusion that “it was recommended to
deliver [to the bearer of a given road card] at each staging area, marked in
the attached route scheme, a certain number of vehicles. It was not allowed to
deviate from the course of its designated route. The
road card stipulated at the same time the kind of civil transportation vehicles
to be delivered (usually these were one or two-horse carts and wagons, as only
these types of vehicles were originally mentioned in the standard form of the typical
card), and the fee for which each of these means of transportation were charged
for[25].
Fig. 1. Part of road card, describing the staging areas of the journey, according to
the Act of May 4, 1858[26]
Having
received a road card, as well as the exact sum of money required to cover the
anticipated payment for the hiring of the citizens’ vehicles, and finally
after completing part of the journey, a member of the military staff had to
make sure that the civil servant's receipt for collecting the money provided at
each staging area was exactly suitable for the number of versts/miles travelled
(and the number of carts or wagons delivered, with the number of horses used to
drive them). And above all, while in possession of the road card, the Russian
military had to check whether the amount of money accepted was in line with the
sum recorded in the appropriate “heading” of such a road card.
Another
duty of a given “beneficiary of civic transport” to the military
was the need to “showing back” a road card to “the same
authority that had previously signed it for him”, which had to be done no
later than two weeks after arriving at his final destination. In the event of
failure to meet these requirements by the person to whom the road card had been
issued, a complete sum of the money previously paid for renting a vehicle was
to be deducted from the salary of such a negligent military. Another threat was
to draw such a military man to “strict responsibility” for failing
to comply with the current legal regulations[27].
Generally, Article 24 of the
Act of May 4, 1858, recalled the conditions to be met so that road cards issued
for the purpose of transporting military people/items would correspond to all
formal requirements. The following conditions are shown below: a) the need to
enter the name of the regiment, battalion or unit in the proper
“heading” of the road card; b) the necessity of writing down the
name of the person for whom the card was signed; c) the need to write down the
exact person who would eventually use the card; d) to determine the departure
and arrival locations of the interested person. If the road card has been
issued for the whole military unit, then it was necessary to specify the exact
number of civic vehicles to be used: a) for carrying weapons and ammunition
etc; b) for sick soldiers; c) in relation to all other persons and items
intended for transportation from one place to another. Furthermore, there is
the need to enter in the road card: a) the number of versts/miles to be
travelled; b) the exact route of the journey; c) individual staging stations;
d) the total amount of currency to be paid for all civic vehicles used.
As it also resulted from, the
next Article 25 of the Military and Transport Act of May 1858, any civil
servants providing for the army, on the basis of presenting to him a road card,
civic transport vehicles (regardless of whether it was: the commune head,
president or mayor of the city, or any other official) - was strongly obliged
to "clearly" enter in the appropriate heading of this card, the exact
amount of money received for this service done. That official had to provide
the relevant information confirmed by his signature and application of the seal
to the exact page of the road card[28].
Additionally, it specified how
the chiefs of specific tsarist army divisions deployed in the territory of the
Kingdom of Poland must behave in the matter of issuing road cards for the
transporting of items and people by civic carts and wagons. This time
concerning these heads of army units and regiments, that were not consisting
the official parts of the military corps of (Active) Army. Indeed, it was
pointed out that, after having received from being under their command,
specific regiments, battalions and companies certificates of their readiness
for departure, confirming altogether the actual weight of the transported
“military effects”, these chiefs would issue road cards, permitting
hiring of private vehicles “ in the number corresponding to the overall
weight of carried goods”. This wording was explicitly applied to Article
12 of the command of Field Marshal Paskievich given to the (Active) Army on
October 31 / November 12, 1831, No. 561[29].
And finally, it seems
extremely important that there was included in the new law, the exact order for
the military authorities issuing the road cards to proceed with utmost accurate
compliance with the existing rules. None of the transport law was to be
violated by these formal activities. In relation to petitions that would not
meet these criteria, it was absolutely necessary to refuse to issue road cards[30].
Analysing the technical aspect
of payroll conditions for the supply of civic vehicles for the purpose of army
movement, the Act of May 4, 1858 stated in its Article 27, that the vehicles
delivered for the transport of military materials should be of capacity, where:
a) two-horse cart or wagon could carry the load of 20 pounds (almost 328 kg);
b) single-horse carts or wagons could transport the load of 10 pounds (about
164 kg). On the other hand, four-horse vehicles should be capable of taking up
to 40 pounds (656 kg) of the weight of various military goods, while a fee
equivalent to two fares for two-horse carts or wagons was paid for them. It was
a generally accepted rule that one could get only ½ of the number of
four-horse vehicles “in relation to the number of two-horse carts or
wagons”.
The Civil-Military Transport
Act set clear fees for the use of civic vehicles. The gratification for the
hiring of single one-horse vehicle, delivered either for the purpose of
transporting of military items, or for the sake of carriage of persons, was set
at the level of 4 silver kopecks for one mile/verst. The remuneration for
single two-horse drawn carts or wagon used for journeys undertaken in order to
develop topographical plans (as well as in cases when it was impossible to
strictly specify “time consumed by the ride itself”), was
established in accordance with the following principles: a) in the case where
the vehicle was in motion within time of up to 7 hours, then one had to pay15
silver kopecks for each hour of use of such transport; b) in the case where
these carts or wagons were hired for more than seven hours, 1 ruble and 12
½ silver kopecks was to be paid for the whole day. Such a solution
referred to the decision of the Administrative Council of June 15/27, 1854,
specifying the fee for the civic vehicles delivered “to supply the
[constant stream of motion, practised in] the stations on postal routes”[31].
In case of persons who have
legitimate right to demand civil transport, for private one-horse vehicles
provided for the carriage of military loads (carried out in the circumstances
described in Article 3 of the law of May 4, 1858), a fee equal to ½ of
the amount of money charged normally for two-horse drawn carts and wagons was
established. It meant the necessity of paying for each one-horse vehicle, the
charge of 2 silver kopecks for each mile/verst. For using three horse
carriages, it was worth paying 6 kopecks for each mile/verst of the voyage.
The tsarist army could demand,
in selected situations and most of all during winter, horse-drawn sledges,
instead of ordinary horse-drawn carts and wagons. In such cases, the fee for
the horse used to pull the sledge had to be paid “as for the typical
vehicle”, that is, it was paid for using one “sleigh horse”
as for an ordinary single-carriage wagon, which is 2 silver kopecks for one
mile/verst. Alternatively, for the two horses running the sleigh, it was
decided to pay as for a typical two-horse vehicle, that is, 4 silver kopeks for
one mile/verst. For three “pulling sleigh” horses, a payment
identical to the one expense established for one “ordinary” double
wagon and one single wagon was made. Finally, for four horses running a sleigh,
it was necessary to pay as for two “double-wagons”. Furthermore, in
exceptional situations, for example, where there was evident lack or shortage
of horses in a given area, it was envisaged to use oxen in their place. The
invading tsarist troops stationed in the Kingdom of Poland usually harnessed a
pair of oxen to carts in such situations, replacing the horses.
Regarding the very process of
payment of fees for civic vehicles, Article 35 of the Act of May 4, 1858,
demanded that the charge for their delivery of the needs of the tsarist army (possibly
also used as transport necessary in other matters related to the functioning of
the Active Army) generally had to be handed over to the carter after the usage
of the horse-drawn cart or wagon (possibly pulled by oxen)[32].
The military authorities issuing
road cards to Russian officers or to other members of the tsarist military
staff were obliged to deliver to the interested persons, an appropriate amount
of money, derived from a general military fund. Subsequently, the official
donor had to ask for the refunding of such a sum from the Main Army
Commissariat. In the case of delegating officers remaining under the management
of the General Quartermaster of the (Active) Army,
the latter donated the money for the voyage “in a way of
promotion”, using his own special fund. Return of money amounts set for
this purpose had to be done immediately after the submission of bills to the
proper military authorities.
For hiring civic
transportation: a) provided for military Russian staff of lower ranks, b)
delivered for sentenced detainees kept in staging areas under the military
custody; c) provided for soldiers escorting these detainees, the fee was
normally not immediately paid and in cash. Instead, the chiefs of staging areas
had to write down appropriate formal receipts. At the “intermediate
stations” (that is, where there were no staging area chiefs functioning),
the same receipts were issued by the chiefs of convoys, transporting the
above-mentioned military/detainees.
Fig. 2. Receipt for hiring civic transportation,
information concerning issuing, according to the Act of May 4, 1858[33]
Such (as shown above in figure
2) receipts, as well as the “liquidations” submitted by the local
civil authorities, are allocated to
cover the costs of private services done for the sake of transportation of the
Russian (Active) Army, had to be honoured by the local “military
chiefs” (these were commanders of all sort of occupying tsarist army,
stationed on the territory of one gubernia). These gubernial military chiefs
were obliged to send monthly paid receipts to the Main Commission of the
(Active) Army, which was resident in the military stronghold in
Brześć Litewski (Brest), outside the Vienna Congress Kingdom of
Poland. At the same time, they had to pay special attention to the
dating of the receipts sent to the Brześć Litewski receipts. If the
receipts at stake were not sent to the Main Commission of the (Active) Army
within a year from the date of the actual use of their basis of civil
transport, then the payment of the debt by the State Treasury could no longer
take place. This was done under Article 301 placed in the Book III, Part IV of
the Military Declaration Digest[34].
In reference to the above, the
chapter eight of the Civil-Military Transport Act of May 4, 1858, included
detailed information on “funds, from which the fee for the private carts
and wagons were to be paid”. It was found that in most cases, the hiring
expenses for the transportation were to be paid “from the relevant funds,
allocated annually by the State Treasury”. It meant in reality that they
were coming from the budget of the Kingdom of Poland. The appropriate financial
instructions were to be implemented “on the basis of detailed orders of
higher authorities”.
The amounts allocated from
these funds could be distributed only while maintaining the general rules of
accounting and cash accounting in force at that time in the Kingdom of Poland.
Another permanent rule was the necessity to fully comply in this respect with
all legal solutions adopted by the Governmental Committee of Internal and
Spiritual Affairs and in particular with the provisions defining the rules for
granting and determining the number of civic vehicles supplied. In selected
cases as before, the costs of renting transport for military purposes had to be
covered in the first stage by the Main Commissariat of the (Active) Army[35].
Stationed in the stronghold of
Brześć Litewski, the Main Commission of the (Active) Army is
obligated to submit to the above-mentioned provisions laid upon a number of
organisational units of the tsarist army, which had to send at the end of each
month comprehensive bills of expenditure spent for civic transport. Attached to
these bills prepared according to a detailed formula (model No. 3), were
specific road cards. This solution concerned: a) General Quartermaster; b) Main
Commissariat of the Army; c) staffs of corps; d) division staffs; e) staffs of
brigades; f) commanders of fortresses; g) city commanders; h) war governors
stationed in each governorate, i) regimental commanders.
Fig. 3. Receipt for hiring civic
transportation, information concerning expenditures, according to the Act of
May 4, 1858[36]
.
Financial settlements (also
called “liquidations”) of diverse transport funds and hiring of
vehicles bills should contain exact amounts of expenses, covering the whole
period of one month, while “not including” road cards, or other
spending coming from the period of other months. Article 44 of the Act of May
4, 1858 made it clear that every Russian military crossing the border of the
Kingdom of Poland, provided only with a road card authorising him to go one way
to the border point, was solely obliged to return such road card (covering the
last road phase he had travelled in the territory of the Kingdom) “to the
authority from which he had received it”. In the absence of strict
adherence to this provision, he had to, under strict responsibility, return
this road card within two weeks from the moment of arrival at the post, where
(his) regiment was stationed outside the Kingdom of Poland[37]. Finally, it was indisputable
concerning the tsarist authorities that those financial settlements
(“liquidations”) that were not supported by receipts for the use of
civil carts and wagons, as well as bills that were not referenced in specific
road card records, are not generally considered legal and valid, that is, payable.
The
last link in the entire “financial settlement process” of civic
transport duties provided in the Kingdom of Poland for the sake of the Russian
army was their “thorough checking” by the Brześć Main Commission
of the (Active) Army. As previously stated,
although this stronghold and locality were outside the borders of the Vienna
Congress Kingdom of Poland, it was where after receiving the receipts for the
rental of the civic vehicles, the fiscal documentation was finally checked. In
the event that the legality of the evidence was found justified, the relevant
amounts were “separated” and granted as “formal and
irrevocable” funds intended to cover these demands.
In
order to streamline the whole process, and make it subject to the closest
possible control process, the chosen Russian general, Commissary of the
(Active) Army, was to present to the Commander-in-Chief of the whole of the
tsarist military, a kind of detailed financial settlement. Such a list
included: a) the type of military formation applying for quotas for civic
transportation; b) specific amounts of money that have been requested for this
purpose; c) information “in what amount the expenditure for this kind of
activities was found to be fully legal after a due check of receipts”.
The
penultimate chapter of the Civil-Military Transport Act of May 1858 was focused
on penalties for non-compliance with applicable laws. Therefore, Article 47
(the first one in this respect) described the consequences related to the
issuance of road cards and imposed on disposable persons. It was plainly stated
that a military official who had the authority to hand over such travel
documents, and nonetheless was issuing such a card in a manner inconsistent
with the applicable regulations, as a consequence of his unlawful conduct had
to pay a penalty in the exact amount of money that would be in this case
required for formal hiring of a civilian vehicle. In such cases, the amounts
due for the civic transportation were calculated according to postal rates. The
appropriate amount of money was deducted from the wage of the person guilty of
exceeding the provisions, and it was redirected to the fund “to which the
expenditure on the hire of the cart or wagon was due”. These penalties
were imposed when: a) a road card was issued to a person (military), who did
not actually possess the right to use civic transportation; b) in the case of
writing a bigger number of carriages than was prescribed by the regulations in
the road card.
The
financial penalty was also applied to all military personnel who themselves
choose to take up carts or wagons in numbers in excess of the transport service
previously described in the road card. It was also obvious that every
“private person” who illegally took or even falsified the road
card, or who arbitrarily (that is, without the consent and order of the
military authorities) used civil transport: a) was obliged to pay a penalty
equal to the sum normally worth the entire journey; b) was held liable.
The
Act of May 4, 1858, stressed the need for Russian military officers to properly
deal with Polish civilian officials, who were actually delivering to the
disposal of representatives of the tsarist army civil vehicles. According to the
(new) provisions, every military man should behave “politely and
decently”, while applying for/demanding private transportation. The same
attitude must be applied to the relations between the military staff and owners
of carts or wagons, transporting either them or military items. When proven on
the basis of a verbal (written) testimony presented in front of the local civil
authorities, “disorder and violent evasion” were observed and
confirmed, it threatened with severe consequences for those involved in this
“crime” in the Russian military.
The
Article 51 of the transportation law was extremely important, according to it
the regiments of the tsarist army, as well as other military units and all
persons have the right to demand the delivery of civil transport. However, it
does not have the direct binding powers to be independent and simply
“force” on its own, transportation services from local residents.
Thus, the supply of civil transport services could only theoretically take
place with the direct participation of local civilian authorities.
In
order to provide for the local state administration the sufficient time to
prepare the road cards, and most of all to keep the right order in delivering
the vehicles (and especially directing them to the designated location), the
Russian regiments or other military units should have sent their quartermasters
to the representatives of the competent authorities in at least 24 hours in
advance. So in this way of preemptive secondment of military quartermasters to the
seats of local administration enabled quick and efficient conduct of the action
of providing through the local civil authorities, private vehicles for the
tsarist army. It should be
remembered that not all private carts and wagons could be “used”
farther than the nearest staging area. Another important indication was that
civil transport could not be stopped in its march for more than one hour.
In order to fully control all
these restrictions and regulations, a special ledger (pierced and sewn with
thread and sealed at its end) was ordered to be kept at each staging area,
where the number of civic vehicle lifts provided there was recorded. Such a
book was kept in accordance with a special pattern, attached as an Annex
numbered 4 to the text of the bill.
Fig. 4. Page from a
ledger for
writing down civic vehicle lifts, kept at staging areas with information about the
actual process of hiring, according to the Act of May 4, 1858[38]
The last (tenth) part of the
law described here, implemented on the basis of the decision of the
Administrative Council of May 4, 1858, concerned the issue of payment of dues
for providing tsarist armies with private transportation by residents of the
Kingdom. Hence, firstly, it was pointed out that in order to satisfy the citizens
of the Kingdom with a proper (in the original: accurate) collection of fares
for the delivered carts and wagons and perhaps even sledges, local
administrative authorities (that is, presidents, mayors of cities and towns,
and commune administrators) were obliged to maintain a special inspection book
for this purpose. Keeping of this ledger was to be based on the legal basis
created by the decision of the Government Commission for Internal and Spiritual
Affairs of October 3/15, 1845, issued under No. 39 972/20 424 (the sample of
one typical page of this book was attached in this regard to the new law of
1858 as a special Annex, marked with No. 5).
Fig. 5. Page from a
ledger for
writing down civic vehicle lifts, kept at staging areas with information about
expenditures,
according to the Act of May 4, 1858[39]
After the revamping of such a
control ledger by the local chief of the district/poviat, all entries in the
book’s boxes (series of relevant contents) “should have been filled
in with a clear and understandable text”. The relevant writings were to
refer to: a) indication of a military man, paying dues for the use of the civic
transport; b) a detailed description of the funds allocated to the use of such
carts or wagon (including: its formal name; the person for whom it was granted;
the exact amount of money allocated for this specific purpose). The bookkeeper
of the control ledger had to personally ensure that the receipts from the
collection of transport money were signed by the interested persons only. In
case the person driving the private vehicle was illiterate, it was required
that: a) in the cities, the signs (crosses) put up by such an individual were
confirmed by a witness, who could write by himself; b) in the villages,
“in the absence of literate person, the payment had to be executed in the
presence of the village mayors”[40].
When
the tsarist army suddenly and without any previous announcements was about to
pass or was actually passing through towns or villages of the Kingdom of
Poland, of whose march local chiefs of administration did not have any advance
information, interested local presidents and mayors had to immediately notify
the local poviat/district headman about such an event. This information should
be accompanied by a detailed description and calculation of the amount of the
fund left in the area by the various military headquarters to pay for civic
transportation. In reality, the money received was usually “promptly used
to satisfy the residents who delivered the vehicles”[41].
–In
another sense, a form of supervision of the whole process of hiring by the
Russian military Polish civic transport was the introduction of a warrant,
informing that while revising district coffers, poviat chief’s deputies
would also revise ledgers, containing subscriptions for the civic transport. In
addition, they had to obtain the opinions of the local residents, regarding
possible complaints “in the matter of supply of carts and wagons for the
army”. In the case of real problems, the residents’ applications to
investigate complaints were sent back by the deputies of chiefs of district
administration directly to their superiors, for further consideration. In
general (as it was provided in Article 57 of the law act at stake), it was the
duty of the district chiefs of administration to carry out periodic inspections
every six months on the “citizen-transport books”. In the event of
the occurrence of "inaccuracies in control”, or detection of
possible abuse by local authorities, the district chiefs could serve some formal
reminders to persons responsible for any faults and irregularities. The other
option was to initiate criminal proceedings so that persons involved might be
“brought to justice in adequate relation to the level of their
guilt”[42].
3. CONCLUSION
The
maintenance in 1831 in the Kingdom of Poland and subsequent modifications in
the inter-uprising period of provisions concerning civil transport of persons
and goods belonging to the Russian occupation army finally led to the formal
issuance of a new law by the Administrative Council in 1858. The Civil-Military
Transport Act of May 4, 1858, however, contrary to expectations, in principle
(except for a few exceptions) was rather a sort of compilation of already
introduced (sometimes quite long ago) current civil laws and mainly military
regulations. It seems that it could not be otherwise in the conditions of a
quasi-independence. Thus, clarifying and harmonising the existing provisions
and giving them a kind of “Polish administrative dimension”, while
in reality the new law was only a component of a wider process, which become
noticeable after the end of the Crimean War, and was in truth an attempt to
display (ostensibly, and apparently for show mostly) the human face of Moscow's
invading and partitioning power. The most striking manifestation of the dummy
character of changes made would be the steady maintenance of a strange and
unreasonable practice of settling transport quotas, generated from the budget
of the Kingdom of Poland, by a commission, whose headquarters were not located
in the Kingdom itself, but in the "Polish taken away lands",
particularly in the territory directly subdued to Russia, which before the
partition was a part of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
References
1.
Archiwum
Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie, Druga
Rada Stanu Królestwa Polskiego: 1834, 1835. Signature: 103, 104, 105. [In
Polish: Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw, The Second State Council of Kingdom of
Poland].
2.
Archiwum
Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie, Rada
Administracyjna Królestwa Polskiego:1831. Signature: 20. [In Polish:
Central Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw, The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland].
3.
”Dziennik Urzędowy
Województwa Mazowieckiego”, January 2, 1832, No 15. Warszawa: Komisja Rządowa
Województwa Mazowieckiego. [In Polish: Official Journal of Mazovian Voivodeship. Warsaw: Commission of
Mazovian Voivodeship].
4.
”Dziennik Urzędowy
Województwa Mazowieckiego”, April 2, 1832, No 29. Appendix Warszawa: Komisja
Rządowa Województwa Mazowieckiego. [In Polish: Official Journal of Mazovian Voivodeship.
Warsaw: Commission of Mazovian Voivodeship].
5.
”Gazeta Rządowa
Królestwa Polskiego”, June 13/25, 1858. No 137. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In
Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom
of Poland, Warsaw: J. Jaworski].
6.
”Gazeta
Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego”, June 14/26, 1858.
No 138. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom of Poland, Warsaw:
J. Jaworski].
7.
”Gazeta
Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego”, June 16/28, 1858.
No 139. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom of Poland, Warsaw:
J. Jaworski].
8.
”Gazeta
Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego”, June 18/30, 1858.
No 140. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom of Poland, Warsaw:
J. Jaworski].
9.
”Gazeta
Rządowa Królestwa Polskiego”, June 19 / July 1,
1858. No 141. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom of Poland, Warsaw:
J. Jaworski].
10. ”Gazeta Rządowa
Królestwa Polskiego”, June 21/ July 3, 1858. No 143. Warszawa: J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government Gazette of the Kingom of Poland,
Warsaw: J. Jaworski].
11. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
August 16/28, 1835, No. 63. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In
Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
12. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
August 20 / September 1, 1835, No. 64. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.
[In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
13. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
August 23 / September 4, 1835, No. 65. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.
[In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
14. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
August 27 / September 8, 1835, No. 66. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski.
[In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
15. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
August 30 / September 11, 1835, No. 67. Sankt Petersburg: J.E.
Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of
Poland. Saint Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
16. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 3/15, 1835, No. 68. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In
Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
17. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 6/18, 1835, No. 69. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In
Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
18. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 10/22, 1835, No. 70. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In
Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
19. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 13/25, 1835, No. 71. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In
Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
20. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”, September
17/29, 1835, No. 72. Sankt Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish:
Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint Petersburg:
J.E. Przecławski].
21. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 20 / October 2, 1835, No. 73. Sankt Petersburg: J.E.
Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of
Poland. Saint Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
22. ”Tygodnik Petersburski. Gazeta
Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
September 24 / October 6, 1835, No. 74. Sankt Petersburg: J.E.
Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official Gazette of Kingdom of
Poland. Saint Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
23.
”Tygodnik
Petersburski. Gazeta Urzędowa Królestwa Polskiego”,
October 1/ 13, 1835, No. 76. Sankt
Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski. [In Polish: Petersburg Weekly. Official
Gazette of Kingdom of Poland. Saint Petersburg: J.E. Przecławski].
Received 11.01.2019; accepted in revised form 30.04.2019
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License