The Reformer
Page 44
19.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 2, April 29, 1908, cols. 2402–2406.
20.Ibid., 5th Sess., pt. 1, November 18, 1911, cols. 2150–51.
21.Ibid., 3rd Sess., pt. 4, April 28, 1910, cols. 204–5. See also V. Maklakov, “III Sessiia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy” [The third session of (the Third) State Duma], Russkaia Mysl [Russian thought] (February 1911), 114.
22.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 2, April 29, 1908, cols. 2395–97; ibid., 2nd Sess., pt. 4, February 13, 1909, cols. 1494–96; GDSO, Fourth Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, March 13, 1913, cols. 2113–14.
23.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, February 15, 1908, cols. 1962–63, 1966.
24.GDSO, Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, February 13, 1909, cols. 1486–87.
25.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 1, December 1, 1910, cols. 2365–66.
26.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 3, May 27, 1913, col. 114. See also ibid., Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, February 13, 1909, col. 1494.
27.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, February 15, 1908, col. 1969.
28.Ibid., 3rd Sess., pt. 4, April 28, 1910, col. 210.
29.Hugh Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia, 1855–1914 (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1952), 269–71; Bernard Pares, The Fall of the Russian Monarchy: A Study of the Evidence (New York, 1939), 143; Dominic Lieven, Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), 183.
30.See, e.g., GDSO, Fourth Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, March 8, 1913, cols. 2106–19.
31.Ascher, P. A. Stolypin, 334–35; A. Ia. Avrekh, P. A. Stolypin i Sudby Reform [P. A. Stolypin and the fate of reform] (Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literatury, 1991), 160.
32.Maklakov, La Chute, 19.
33.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 3, April 27, 1911, col. 2873.
34.Ibid., cols. 2874, 2878, 2880.
35.Ibid., cols. 2857–59. See also Ascher, P. A. Stolypin, 359–60.
36.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 3, April 27, 1911, cols. 2879–80. See chapter 5 for a discussion of Maklakov’s use of the argument after the revolution.
37.The reference to government agents generating revolution echoes a common Maklakov theme—that government activity, especially its use of agents provocateurs, was what kept the embers of revolutionary activity from dying out. See, for example, GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, February 15, 1908, col. 1967. The “precedent” referred to is presumably one of imperial inability to keep premiers and to keep working in harmony with them.
38.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 3, April 27, 1911, col. 2887.
39.Ascher, P. A. Stolypin, 360.
40.Since the exchange over the field courts martial, there had been a clash on November 16, 1907, over the government’s priorities as between repression and reform and Stolypin’s hint of possible future curtailments of judicial independence. See chapter 11; GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, November 16, 1907, cols. 307–12 (Stolypin); cols. 343–48 (Maklakov); cols. 348–54 (Stolypin).
41.Georgii Adamovich, Vasilii Alekseevich Maklakov: Politik, Iurist, Chelovek [Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov: Politician, jurist, human being] (Paris, 1959), 182n*.
CHAPTER 9: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
1.GDSO, Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, May 12, 1909, col. 1006 (explanation of Karaulov, reporter for the committee on Old Believers issues).
2.Ibid., cols. 1006–10. A related but less developed argument occurred on a bill allowing members of the Orthodox Church to leave the church freely, without creating conflicts between the church’s and the state’s view of their status. The amendment Maklakov supported—entitling a person exiting the faith to automatic government recognition of the exit—was included in the final bill, but, as with the Old Believer provision discussed below, the Duma failed to reach agreement with the State Council. See GDSO, Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, May 22, 1909, cols. 1780–86; Ben-Cion Pinchuk, The Octobrists in the Third Duma, 1907–1912 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974), 87–92; Geoffrey A. Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma, 1907–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 179; J. S. Curtiss, Church and State in Russia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 325–26.
3.GDSO, Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, May 12, 1909, cols. 1089–90, 1094.
4.Ibid., col. 1091.
5.Ibid., col. 1093.
6.Ibid., cols. 1404, 1606.
7.Ibid., cols. 1094–98.
8.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 1, October 20, 1910, cols. 131, 146–47; ibid., pt. 2, February 25, 1911, col. 2887 (Duma informed of reconciliation committee’s results). See also Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment, 179; Curtiss, Church and State in Russia, 322–26.
9.See Robert Geraci, “Pragmatism and Prejudice: Revisiting the Origin of the Pale of Settlement and Its Historiography,” unpublished manuscript, used with permission (reviewing the explanations offered over the centures and arguing that prior treatments have understated the role of pure anti-Semitism and crude stereotypes of Jewish behavior).
10.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 2, February 9, 1911, cols. 1548–49.
11.Ibid., col. 1547.
12.For broader arguments about reactions to exceptionally hard-working minorities, see Thomas Sowell, Migrations and Cultures: A World View (New York: Basic Books, 1996).
13.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 2, February 9, 1911, cols. 1550–51.
14.Ibid., cols. 1551–52.
15.Ibid., col. 1553.
16.Maklakov used the term gosudarstvennost, a term that defies an exact and simple translation into English.
17.On August 10, 1789, the Abbé Sieyès said in the French National assembly, at the close of a speech defending the dîme (a tax on harvests collected for the clergy), that the French should not do things that will make the rest of Europe say, “Ils veulent être libres et ils ne savent pas être justes!”; see http://vdaucourt.free.fr/Mothisto/Sieyes1/Sieyes1.htm.
18.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 2, February 9, 1911, cols. 1554–55.
19.Ibid., cols. 1602, 1607 (deadline vote), 1609–14. Alexander Orbach, “The Jewish People’s Group and Jewish Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1905–1914,” Modern Judaism 10, no. 1 (February 1990), 1, 8, incorrectly says the 208–138 vote embodied the idea of no time limit on the committee; in the end, of course, Duma inaction led to that result.
20.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 2, March 30, 1911, col. 1924.
21.Edmund Levin, A Child of Christian Blood: Murder and Conspiracy in Tsarist Russia: The Beilis Blood Libel (New York: Schocken Books, 2014), 12.
22.A. S. Tager, The Decay of Czarism: The Beilis Trial (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1935), 39–41.
23.Levin, A Child of Christian Blood, 230, 278.
24.See Charles A. Ruud and Sergei Stepanov, Fontanka 16: The Tsars’ Secret Police (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999), 265–69, 271; Tager, The Decay of Czarism, 176–78.
25.Levin, A Child of Christian Blood, 63n24; Jacob Langer, Corruption and Counterrevolution: The Rise and Fall of the Black Hundred (PhD thesis, Duke University, 2007), 138; Padenie tsarskogo rezhima, 3:378–79 (May 15, 1917, testimony of S. P. Beletskii, director of the police).
26.Delo Beilisa, Stenograficheskii otchet [The Beilis affair, Stenographic record] (Kiev: Pechatniia S. P. Iakovleva, 1913) 3:123–55.
27.Levin, A Child of Christian Blood, 205, 288.
28.Ibid., 284.
29.“Dela istorii” [A matter of history], in Novoe Russkoe Slovo [New Russian word] (August 11, 1957), 3.
30.Vasily Maklakov, “Spasitelnoe predosterezhenie: smysl dela Beilisa” [A Saving lesson: The meaning of the Beilis case], Russkaia Mysl [Russian thought], no. 11 (November 1913), 135–43.
31.Langer, Corruption and Counterrevolution, 91–96, 138.
32.Hans Rogger, “The Beilis Case,” Slavic Review 25, no. 4 (December 1966), 615, 626, 628.
33.Ibid., 620.
34.V. A. Maklakov, Iz Vospominanii (New York: Chekhov Publishing House [Izdatels
tvo imeni Chekhova], 1954), 258–60.
35.Levin, A Child of Christian Blood, 304.
36.See Oleg Budnitskii, “The Russian Ambassador in Paris on the Whites and the Jews,” Jews in Eastern Europe, no. 3(28) (1995), 55 (“it would be incorrect to conclude that Maklakov was a Judeophile”).
37.Spor o Rossii: V. A. Maklakov i V. V. Shulgin, Perepiska, 1919–1939 [Debate about Russia: V. A. Maklakov and V. V. Shulgin, correspondence, 1919–1939], ed. and introduction by Oleg Budnitskii (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2012), 370–71 (Maklakov letter of December 23, 1929).
38.Tyrkova-Williams Diary and Letters, 162.
39.GDSO, Third Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 2, February 9, 1911, cols. 1544–46; A. Ia. Avrekh, Stolypin i Tretia Duma [Stolypin and the Third Duma] (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), 42.
40.Michael F. Hamm, “Liberalism and the Jewish Question: The Progressive Bloc,” Russian Review 31, no. 2 (April 1972), 165–69.
41.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 4th Sess., February 11, 1916, cols. 1467–68.
42.Sezdy i konferentsii, 3:89–92 (June 7, 1915). See also O. Budnitskii, “V. A. Maklakov i evreiskoi vopros” [V. A. Maklakov and the Jewish question], Vestnik Evreiskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Jewish University] no. 1(19) (1999), 42–94 (arriving at substantially similar conclusions).
CHAPTER 10: NATIONAL MINORITIES
1.V. Maklakov, “III Sessiia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy” [The third session of (the Third) State Duma], Russkaia Mysl [Russian thought] (February 1911), 96–125.
2.Ibid., 119.
3.Ibid., 119–20.
4.V. A. Maklakov, “F. I. Rodichev i A. R. Lednitskii,” Novyi Zhurnal, no. 16 (1947), 246; V. A. Maklakov, Vlast i obshchestvennost na zakate staroi Rossii (Vospominaniia sovremenika) [State and society in the twilight of old Russia (Recollections of a contemporary)] (Paris: Izdanie zhurnala “Illustrirovanaia Rossiia,” 1936), 362–64.
5.Maklakov, “F. I. Rodichev i A. R. Lednitskii,” 247.
6.Abraham Ascher, P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 331–36.
7.Maklakov, “III Sessiia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy,” 123.
8.Ibid., 123–24.
9.GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 2, January 20, 1912, cols. 643–46.
10.Ibid., cols. 647–52.
11.Ibid., cols. 652–53.
12.Ibid., cols. 653–55.
13.Ibid., col. 656.
14.Ibid., col. 658; GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 4, col. 396.
15.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 4th Sess., pt. 1, February 11, 1916, col. 1465.
16.Joshua A. Sanborn, Imperial Apocalypse: The Great War and the Destruction of the Russian Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 58 n.147.
17.Vaclav Lednitskii, “Vokrug V. A. Maklakova (lichnye vospominaniia)” [Around V. A. Maklakov (personal reminiscences)], Novyi Zhurnal, no. 56 (March 1959), 222, 243–44. The author was the son of Alexander Lednitskii.
18.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 4, May 22, 1910, cols. 2128–30.
19.See Geoffrey A. Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma, 1907–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 106–11.
20.Ibid., 111–12.
21.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 4, May 22, 1910, cols. 2133–35, 2142, 2145.
22.Ibid., cols. 2136–38, 2144–46.
23.Ibid., cols. 2165–67 (A. A. Motovilov, nationalist); cols. 2201–2204 (V. V. Tenishev, Octobrist); cols. 2370–71 (Markov). See also Ma klakov’s treatment of the issue in “III Sessiia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy,” 120–22.
24.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 4, May 28, 1910, col. 2582; Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment, 112, 116.
25.Sezdy i konferentsii, 3:96, 107–9, 113; Bakhmetev-Maklakov Correspondence, 1:206 (Maklakov to Bakhmetev, May 6, 1920).
CHAPTER 11: JUDICIAL REFORM, CITIZEN REMEDIES
1.GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 4, May 2, 1912, cols. 326–27.
2.Ibid., 2nd Sess., pt. 4, February 13, 1909, col. 1493; 3rd Sess., pt. 1, November 13, 1909, col. 1877.
3.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 4, May 12, 1914, cols. 491, 495; Edmund Levin, A Child of Christian Blood: Murder and Conspiracy in Tsarist Russia: The Beilis Blood Libel (New York: Schocken Books, 2014), 184–85.
4.GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 4, May 2, 1912, col. 319. No part of the Senate was a legislature; its first and cassation departments were judicial bodies (and are discussed later in this chapter).
5.Padenie tsarskogo rezhima, 2:364, 365–66. An 1885 statute empowered the minister of justice to demand explanations of a judge for his actions and to issue instructions relating to future or even completed cases. William G. Wagner, “Tsarist Legal Policies at the End of the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Inconsistencies,” Slavonic and East European Review 54, no. 3 (July 1976), 371, 375. While the statute uses language broadly authorizing issuance of instructions, the occasions triggering the authority are an undue accumulation of cases, slowness, a halt in the court’s activity, or deviation from legal order. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov [Complete collection of laws], 3rd series, law of May 20, 1885, no. 2959. As the first three occasions clearly relate to the mechanics of the judicial process rather than to its substance, I think even the last phrase should be understood as equally limited. The statute seems not to have been seized upon to justify ministerial efforts to control judicial outcomes.
6.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 1, November 16, 1907, col. 308.
7.Ibid., col. 347.
8.Ibid., cols. 345–46. See also Maklakov’s assault on Stolypin’s hint at express curtailment of judicial tenure at GDSO, Third Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 2, February 13, 1909, cols. 1485, 1493.
9.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 1st Sess., pt. 3, May 27, 1913, col. 120.
10.Ibid., 2nd Sess., pt. 2, February 18, 1914, col. 813.
11.Ibid., col. 824.
12.Dumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time, vol. 5, Jefferson the President: The Second Term, 1805–1809 (1974), 305–6. See also William Rehnquist, “Jefferson and His Contemporaries,” Journal of Law and Politics 9 (1993), 595, 605.
13.Padenie tsarskogo rezhima, 2:342 (April 24, 1917, testimony of Shcheglovitov).
14.GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 4, May 2, 1912, col. 331.
15.GDSO, Fourth Duma, 2nd Sess., pt. 2, February 18, 1914, cols. 830–32.
16.Ibid., col. 831. Note that the judges of the first department did not have tenure. Natasha Assa, “How Arbitrary Was Tsarist Administrative Justice? The Case of the Zemstvos Petitions to the Imperial Ruling Senate, 1866–1916,” Law and History Review 24 (Spring 2006), 1, 38.
17.GDSO, Third Duma, 5th Sess., pt. 4, May 2, 1912, col. 316.
18.Dominic Lieven, Russia’s Rulers under the Old Regime (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), 211.
19.Jane Burbank, Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905–1917 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004), 54, 121; Vasilii Maklakov, “Local Justice in Russia,” Russian Review 2, no. 4 (1913), 126–47; Catherine Frierson, “Rural Justice in Public Opinion: The Volost’ Court Debate, 1861–1912,” Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 4 (October 1986), 526, 529. Frierson, ibid., 527–28, points out that the model for the township court was a system devised in the late 1830s for state serfs, for whom the “lord” was the tsar, who was obviously not going to manage justice on his estates directly.
20.See Thomas S. Pearson, “Russian Law and Rural Justice: Activity and Problems of the Russian Justices of the Peace, 1865–1889,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (1984), 67–70.
21.Ibid., 71.
22.See Gareth Popkins, “Code versus Custom? Norms and Tactics in Peasant Volost Court Appeals, 1889–1917,” Russian Review 59, no. 3 (July 2000), 408–24; Gareth Popkins, “Peasant Experiences of the Late Tsarist State: District Congresses of Land Captains, Provincial Boards and the Legal Appeals Process, 1891–1917,” Slavonic and East European Review 78, no. 1 (January 2000), 90–114; Maklakov,
“Local Justice in Russia,” 130; Frierson, “Rural Justice in Public Opinion,” 529.
23.Burbank, Russian Peasants Go to Court, 166–73.
24.Frierson, “Rural Justice in Public Opinion,” 539.
25.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., Prilozheniia, Item No. 457, 770–96.
26.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 1, November 2, 1909, col. 1210; ibid., 1st Sess., Prilozheniia, Item No. 457, 777–78 (Art. 23).
27.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 3, March 27, 1910, cols. 2083–84.
28.Ibid., 1st Sess., Prilozheniia, Item No. 457, 777–78. The Duma debated proposals for longer terms for judges, but rejected them in a voice vote. GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 2, cols. 286–308, January 25, 1910. Maklakov did not participate.
29.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 3, March 27, 1910, col. 2086.
30.Ibid., cols. 2077–83.
31.Ibid., cols. 2136–42.
32.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., Prilozheniia, Item No. 457, p. 767 (Art. 17).
33.Ibid., 3rd Sess., pt. 1, December 7, 1909, cols. 3113–20.
34.GDSO, Third Duma, 1st Sess., Prilozheniia, Item No. 457, p. 717.
35.See also Daly’s finding that the regime embarked in 1905 on deliberate enhancement of “leadership” in the provincial courts of appeal, doubtless measured by its own criteria. Jonathan W. Daly, “On the Significance of Emergency Legislation in Late Imperial Russia,” Slavic Review 54, no. 3 (1995), 624.
36.GDSO, Third Duma, 3rd Sess., pt. 3, March 27, 1910, cols. 2067–68.
37.Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov, 3rd ser., no. 37328, Prilozhenie I (published in part 2 of volume 32 of the Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov at 212–20 (accessible at http://www.nlr.ru/e-res/law_r/search.php?part=1969®im=3), §§ 5–8, 29–40, 91–93. See also Maklakov, “Local Justice in Russia,” 141–43; Geoffrey A. Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma, 1907–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 175–77.
38.Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov, 3rd ser., no. 37328, 663; Maklakov, “Local Justice in Russia,” 142.
39.Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov, 3rd ser., no. 37328, 667; Maklakov, “Local Justice in Russia,” 142–43.
40.Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov, 3rd ser., no. 37328, 680, 683; Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov, 3rd ser., no. 37328, Prilozhenie I, § 54; Maklakov, “Local Justice in Russia,” 142.