The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1905. RUSSIA'S POSSIBILITIES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7713, 16 January 1905, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1905. RUSSIA'S POSSIBILITIES.

As far as may 3>e judged 'by the dark glimpses that the outside world is permitted to obtain, the popular demand for political reform in Russia- is becoming more and more general. Though such moments are no new thing in the history of that country, there is little doubt that the present agitation is better organised and treated with more deference by - the Government than any previous demand of the same Kind. This unusual latitude is probably due to a greater .dependence on the popular goodwill induced by the difficulties and disasters of the war. But in some degree it may also Ibc at'trii(uta>ble to thy fact that educationally and industrially Russia has within recent years made such great advances that the desires and opinions of its masses are 110 longer to Ire regarded as ignorant and negligible. By the outer world Russia is a country but little studied or understood, and the legends as well as the facts of its past are still commonly accepted' as fairly representative of its modern conditions. It is usual to assume that the whole mass of the seventy nationalities which compose the Russian Empire groan under the heavy yoke of a heartless despotism, and that its form of government is the embodiment of everything that, is bad. If, however, we may credit those who write with personal knowledge, this is far from being a true picture. For the person educated inj the traditions of British lHxsrty it is at iirst hand to believe that there can be anything good or even tolerable under a system of absolute monarchy. But to judge the 'Russian system fairly it is necessary as far as possible to 1 rid the mind of these preconceptions. Limitod monarchy and the franchise form an Englishman's ideal of sound government, but in many cases it may be argued that other systems arc preferable. That this may bo admitted even by the citizen of our own Empire is proved by the complacent view he takes of our own methods in India. He sees nothing but ■what is wholly justifiable in our administration of that huge dependency, and flouts the idea of representative government or freedom of the press for its three hundred million people. Looked at with the same wide toleranbe the Russian Empire may appear not wholly misgoverned. Paradoxical though it may appear, Russia is at once the most democratic and the most despot ica lly ruled country in Europe—socially' democratic and politic-ally the reverse. At the head of Church and State, with 1 theoretically absolute power, stands the Emperor. Ad- . vised by a Council of State of his own nomination, he appoints heads of departments and 1 'governors of provinces as well as the leading officers of his forces and the (highest ecclesiastics of his ehifi-'ch. Theoretically, King Edward Vlf, does little less, and the Kaiser of Germany does quite as much. But under the British Constitution we know that usage and the control of the purse have practically placed all power' in the hands of that section 01" the people who enjoy the suffrage. King Edward, except uijdpr the advice of his Ministers, does not veto bills. Kaiser Wiiheliu doesj and under the democratic constitution of the (*nited States President Roosevelt may 'do likewise. It is 'questionable whether the anticipatory veto of the Russian Emperor is materially a different power from these, but it is certain that it is exercised more frequently. The busis of. the ISribish const Hut on is that there should be no taxation without representation, but It [lean hardly be argued that while only about one-sixth of its people have a right to vote Ureal, Britain carries its constitutional theory into actual practice. In Russia, taxes are levied by departments • constituted by the Emperor 111 conI sulfation with a Council of State, and are mostly collected by local bodies. These local bodies are composed of members representative of the various classes, but under the ' reactionary ukases of 1880 these ■h'ere shorn of many of their traditional rights, and brought more directly under the control of the Department of the Interior. The basis of these popular assemblies is the "mil-." The mir is a conujiune composed of one or more villages, "whose bond is unity of self-govern-ment and of possession of land." The land of the. mir is held. in common, but is allocated tw individual families periodically. In the mir individuals form themselves into eo.operative gangs or "osmaks" which ; partition their duties at their own discretion, some members even going abroad to work, civile others remain at home to look afUt' their farm duties. Every peasant, mal.o and female, has a right to stand or vote for the communal assembly of the mir, or to become mayor (starostd) thereof. Several communes make a canton, anfl elect Zemslvos, or can•tonal assemblies in the proportion of one delegate for leu voters. The 'duties performed by the 'Zeinstvos are akin to those of our county councils and education boards, and go much" 'beyond these in many respects —as, l'or example, in providing machinery for common use, manure for farms, and in doing other auch cooperative work. The municipalities, or Zunias, popularly elected, have similar powers .In the cities. At one time the membership of these bodies was wholly unrestricted by any interference of the Central Government, but the reactionary laws of Alexander 111. considerably curtailed their freedom of election. At present the, communes, nobles, and

these members are chosen by the Central Government on the recommendation of the provincial Governor. In addition to this the clergy and nobility, who form loss Uhan two per cent, of the population, are permitted a 1 disproportionate share of representation. This curtailment of the powers l of the popular assemblies and extension of beaureaucratic control added a new grievance to I the complaints of the people, but, as we will show, have not (been with- ; out some compensations. The greatest fault in the Russian system of government is to be found in its judicial administration. While popular courts appointed by the communes may deal with petty offences and civil cases, all serious matters must either come before the State courts, :or be dealt with 'by "administrative process." Trial by jury, contrary to common opinion, is well established, but offences against the Government or charges made by the Government may be and mostly are dealt.-with secretly by the police branch Of the* Department of the Interior. This is whnt is known as "administrative process," and it is under this system that great wrongs may be perpetrated. It is chiefly at these wrongs or tin- possibility of them that the latest resolutions of the are directed. Wo read that the demands recently formulated includ? one for "the appointment of an especially elected body to make laws, regulate revenues and expenditures, and control the legality of the actions of the administration." When ,wc learn further that tlreso demands are backed by the influence of leading nobles and literary men we begin to perceive that the modifications of the law which brought the peasantry and nobility together in the zemstvos have produced an effect contrary 'to what had been expected. Instead of pulling against one another, the representatives of the aristocratic and peasant classes are learning to pull together, and if they continue to do so the days of despotism and beaureaucracy are surely numbered." Contrary to the experience of the English and many other Western nations, the Sclavonic Russians netor had a feudal system. The peasant never owed allegiance to a and never felt his loyalty due to any other than his mir and his monarch. The Emperor was practically the creation of the moujik, and up to the present time the latter has always regarded his "Little Father" as bis only bulwark against the encroachments of tho nobility. Democratic in the extreme in the principles of his communal life, the Russian peasant knows , neither warm friendship nor willing respect for an aristocracy. The form of government which has seemed easily tolerable by the Musco,tive wa» long ago trenchantly define:! as " despot i-mi tempered 'by assassination," but 'it was never from the peasantry that the. despot had anything to fear. Mutual friendship between ruler and peasant was the normal condition, and plots for the undoing of an Emperor were never hatched with popular knowledge or consent. It is a remarkable fact also that in this most absolutely ruled country of Europe the road to preferment has always been open to aJyiJity, no matter how humble its origin. Russian history abounds with examples of this. .JJtit the spread of education and the misgovenrinent of the bcaureaucracy have done much to 4l.roi.\Ce aspirations and cause discontent. The modified constitution of the zemstvos has brought noble and peasant into more intimate contact and "increased their mutual respect, and 'it is ominous'for autocracy that they arc learning to unite their forces for general reform. Whether ttys reform comes soon and completely or slowly and piecemeal matters little to the growth of the Russian people. The form of its government is a mere incident in its development—an incident which- for five hundred years has never stayed its territorial expansion. Any consideration of Russian history which overlooks this fact misses the most salient feature which that history presents. Notwithstanding the| Common taunt of ignorant writers, ninety per cent, of the Russian population within its home limits is as wholly European as ourselves. The nation which for centuries was devastated Ivy Tart-ar and I'oie and Swede, and torn by internal conflict, and yet rose superior to every disaster and in turn subjugated its conquerors has something within it organically gv«at, and beyond making or marring by any form of government. If there is anything in "manifest destiny," Russia must one day reach the full height of all that is possible to civilization. On the Fourth Page, Literature. American Mail News.