FOOTNOTES:[1]These figures apply to a period of six months after the dissolution of the first Duma.[2]Lowell, “Eve of the French Revolution,” page 11.[3]Adopted at Second Convention Peace Conference at The Hague, 1902, Section 11, article 25, “On Hostilities.”[4]In one district, for example, with a population of 100,000, taxes were levied to an aggregate amount of $150,000 a year, and in return the Russian government spent less than $10,000 a year on the entire district. The inhabitants protested against contributing $140,000 a year toward the maintenance of an army of oppression and a corrupt and decadent court.[5]On Tuesday, July 16, 1907, while driving through the Bebontoff Street in Alexandropol, with the wife of General Glieboff, at half past two o’clock in the morning, General Alikhanoff was blown to his death by a bomb.[6]See Appendix A for further testimony of this character.[7]One dessiatine is about 25/7acres.[8]A Cossack whip with a small piece of lead in a leather pocket at the end.[9]The Council of Empire was the upper house, composed of an equal number of elected and appointed members. The elected members were to represent the Zemstvos, the Holy Synod, the Universities, the Bourse, the nobility, and the landowners of Poland. Nominally, this Council of Empire, like the Duma, would be convoked and prorogued annually, and have equal powers. Every measure must have the sanction of both houses before it went to the Czar. As a matter of fact, the composition of the Council of Empire was so carefully made up that every liberal measure passed by the Duma was certain of veto in the upper chamber, and throughout the term of the first Duma the Council of Empire had practically nothing to do. Indeed it did not meet above four or five times.[10]At this time the Siberian and central Asia deputies had not yet reached St. Petersburg. These added nine to the Group of Toil, and the remainder went chiefly to the Constitutional Democrats, and to the Social Democrats, who, at the outset, were not directly represented in the Duma.[11]See Appendix B for the reply in full.[12]Theagent provocateuris a governmental spy who provokes uprisings and mutinies for political reasons, or precipitates them prematurely in order that the government may be prepared to cope with them—which would often be impossible if they came to a head according to the designs of the revolutionists.[13]The “Quarterly Review” for October contains a careful summary of governmental complicity in Russian massacres based upon the following reports and authorities. This article, though published anonymously, was written, and the reports compiled, by Mr. Bernard Pares of Liverpool, author of “Russia and Reform”; and Mr. Samuel Harper of the University of Chicago,—two of the most careful and painstaking students of Russia and Russian affairs outside of Russia to-day.1. Report of the senior factory inspector of the government of Kherson on the events of July 17-19, 1903, in Odessa (published in “Kusskoye Dyelo,” July, 1905). 2. Memorandum of the minister of finance to the Emperor on the same subject (unpublished). 3. Government reports (Revisionnye Otchety) of Senator Turau on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Kieff (unpublished). 4. Government report (Revisionnyi Otchet) of Senator Kuzminsky on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Odessa (unpublished). 5. Account of the events of October 18-20, 1905, in Odessa, dictated by Prof. Stschepkin (unpublished). 6. Law report of the proceedings in connection with the trial of the governor of Minsk, General Kurloff (including the report of the crown prosecutor of the law chamber of Vilna). 7. Diary of an Englishman in Kharkoff for the days of October 22-November 8, 1905 (unpublished). 8. Statements made to the writers on events in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratoff, Reval, and Moscow, and on the organization of the police department, and other subjects. 9. Government report by Actual Councilor of State Savich on the events of January 12 and 13 (25 and 26), 1906, in Gomel. 10. Report to the minister of the interior from the director of the special section of the police department, Councilor of State Makaroff. 11. Speech of Prince Urusoff in the imperial Duma on June 8 (21), 1906. 12. “Appeals” of the “Union of Russian Men,” of the “Moscow Gazette,” and of others. 13. Circulars and telegrams of various officials. 14. Government report of M. Frisch, member of the council of ministers, on the events of June 1-4 (14-17), 1906, in Bielostok. 15. Report on the same by the commissioners of the imperial Duma. 16. Debates on the same in the imperial Duma (official verbatim report). 17. “Une page de la Contre-revolution Russe.” By E. Semenoff. Paris: Stock, 1906. Authorized translation, with introduction by L. Wolf. London: Murray, 1906.[14]Further facts on governmental complicity in massacres will be found in Chapter XXI on Odessa and the Black Hundred organization.[15]See Appendixes C and D for official confirmation of governmental complicity in massacres.[16]For further evidence of this character see Chapter VIII.[17]See Chapter XXI, where the story of these exceptional laws is set forth in more detail.[18]Gourko, under Stolypin.[19]The so-called “underground” system is a secret organization of men and women with connections in each settlement and town, and with European Russia. The transactions are made entirely by word of mouth, no note or detail ever being trusted to paper. A confidential chain is generally working through every village and hamlet in the country. The exiles of any given settlement know who are the trustworthy ones of their village, and in the village nearest to theirs in each direction. Similar knowledge existing in each place eventually extends a connection from the most remote parts to the heart of the empire, and messages, information, money, food, and clothing can be forwarded in safety over distances of thousands of miles.[20]“Siberia and the Exile System,” Vol. 1, page 90.[21]For a summary of statistics concerning the cost of living, wages, etc., of Russian workmen, see Appendix E.[22]The Karaites are a lost tribe of Jews who did not hear of the Talmud for more than 400 years after it was given to the world, and consequently they have never accepted it.[23]See the “Quarterly Review,” October, 1906, for authorities on this and other similar instances.[24]The aspirations of the Russian people were formulated by the first Duma, which convened in 1906. The Duma drew up its answer to the Crown Speech and passed it in less than five sittings. On the fifth of May the document was read for the third time before the Duma and was passed “unanimously” by the whole assembly, as the Official Reports of the Duma sittings show. While seven members of the Extreme Right did not vote for it, they did not dare to refuse to vote, but merely walked from the hall, pretending they did not know what was being passed.The second Duma now in session is ruled by the same two parties that dominated the first Duma. The party of the Left, representing the working-men and peasants, 192 men (there were only 116 in the first Duma) and the Constitutional Democrats, 116 men (there were 152 in the first Duma) representing the rising middle classes of the cities. The second Duma was not called to formulate another reply to the Crown Speech, because there was no Crown Speech, so that the document drawn up and unanimously accepted by the first Duma, remained binding for the second Duma also.As one who took part in the preparation of the original document I take pleasure in testifying to the accuracy of this English version.—Alexis Aladin,Leader of Group of Toil in the First Duma and Accredited Representative of the Group of Toil in the second Duma.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]These figures apply to a period of six months after the dissolution of the first Duma.
[1]These figures apply to a period of six months after the dissolution of the first Duma.
[2]Lowell, “Eve of the French Revolution,” page 11.
[2]Lowell, “Eve of the French Revolution,” page 11.
[3]Adopted at Second Convention Peace Conference at The Hague, 1902, Section 11, article 25, “On Hostilities.”
[3]Adopted at Second Convention Peace Conference at The Hague, 1902, Section 11, article 25, “On Hostilities.”
[4]In one district, for example, with a population of 100,000, taxes were levied to an aggregate amount of $150,000 a year, and in return the Russian government spent less than $10,000 a year on the entire district. The inhabitants protested against contributing $140,000 a year toward the maintenance of an army of oppression and a corrupt and decadent court.
[4]In one district, for example, with a population of 100,000, taxes were levied to an aggregate amount of $150,000 a year, and in return the Russian government spent less than $10,000 a year on the entire district. The inhabitants protested against contributing $140,000 a year toward the maintenance of an army of oppression and a corrupt and decadent court.
[5]On Tuesday, July 16, 1907, while driving through the Bebontoff Street in Alexandropol, with the wife of General Glieboff, at half past two o’clock in the morning, General Alikhanoff was blown to his death by a bomb.
[5]On Tuesday, July 16, 1907, while driving through the Bebontoff Street in Alexandropol, with the wife of General Glieboff, at half past two o’clock in the morning, General Alikhanoff was blown to his death by a bomb.
[6]See Appendix A for further testimony of this character.
[6]See Appendix A for further testimony of this character.
[7]One dessiatine is about 25/7acres.
[7]One dessiatine is about 25/7acres.
[8]A Cossack whip with a small piece of lead in a leather pocket at the end.
[8]A Cossack whip with a small piece of lead in a leather pocket at the end.
[9]The Council of Empire was the upper house, composed of an equal number of elected and appointed members. The elected members were to represent the Zemstvos, the Holy Synod, the Universities, the Bourse, the nobility, and the landowners of Poland. Nominally, this Council of Empire, like the Duma, would be convoked and prorogued annually, and have equal powers. Every measure must have the sanction of both houses before it went to the Czar. As a matter of fact, the composition of the Council of Empire was so carefully made up that every liberal measure passed by the Duma was certain of veto in the upper chamber, and throughout the term of the first Duma the Council of Empire had practically nothing to do. Indeed it did not meet above four or five times.
[9]The Council of Empire was the upper house, composed of an equal number of elected and appointed members. The elected members were to represent the Zemstvos, the Holy Synod, the Universities, the Bourse, the nobility, and the landowners of Poland. Nominally, this Council of Empire, like the Duma, would be convoked and prorogued annually, and have equal powers. Every measure must have the sanction of both houses before it went to the Czar. As a matter of fact, the composition of the Council of Empire was so carefully made up that every liberal measure passed by the Duma was certain of veto in the upper chamber, and throughout the term of the first Duma the Council of Empire had practically nothing to do. Indeed it did not meet above four or five times.
[10]At this time the Siberian and central Asia deputies had not yet reached St. Petersburg. These added nine to the Group of Toil, and the remainder went chiefly to the Constitutional Democrats, and to the Social Democrats, who, at the outset, were not directly represented in the Duma.
[10]At this time the Siberian and central Asia deputies had not yet reached St. Petersburg. These added nine to the Group of Toil, and the remainder went chiefly to the Constitutional Democrats, and to the Social Democrats, who, at the outset, were not directly represented in the Duma.
[11]See Appendix B for the reply in full.
[11]See Appendix B for the reply in full.
[12]Theagent provocateuris a governmental spy who provokes uprisings and mutinies for political reasons, or precipitates them prematurely in order that the government may be prepared to cope with them—which would often be impossible if they came to a head according to the designs of the revolutionists.
[12]Theagent provocateuris a governmental spy who provokes uprisings and mutinies for political reasons, or precipitates them prematurely in order that the government may be prepared to cope with them—which would often be impossible if they came to a head according to the designs of the revolutionists.
[13]The “Quarterly Review” for October contains a careful summary of governmental complicity in Russian massacres based upon the following reports and authorities. This article, though published anonymously, was written, and the reports compiled, by Mr. Bernard Pares of Liverpool, author of “Russia and Reform”; and Mr. Samuel Harper of the University of Chicago,—two of the most careful and painstaking students of Russia and Russian affairs outside of Russia to-day.1. Report of the senior factory inspector of the government of Kherson on the events of July 17-19, 1903, in Odessa (published in “Kusskoye Dyelo,” July, 1905). 2. Memorandum of the minister of finance to the Emperor on the same subject (unpublished). 3. Government reports (Revisionnye Otchety) of Senator Turau on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Kieff (unpublished). 4. Government report (Revisionnyi Otchet) of Senator Kuzminsky on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Odessa (unpublished). 5. Account of the events of October 18-20, 1905, in Odessa, dictated by Prof. Stschepkin (unpublished). 6. Law report of the proceedings in connection with the trial of the governor of Minsk, General Kurloff (including the report of the crown prosecutor of the law chamber of Vilna). 7. Diary of an Englishman in Kharkoff for the days of October 22-November 8, 1905 (unpublished). 8. Statements made to the writers on events in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratoff, Reval, and Moscow, and on the organization of the police department, and other subjects. 9. Government report by Actual Councilor of State Savich on the events of January 12 and 13 (25 and 26), 1906, in Gomel. 10. Report to the minister of the interior from the director of the special section of the police department, Councilor of State Makaroff. 11. Speech of Prince Urusoff in the imperial Duma on June 8 (21), 1906. 12. “Appeals” of the “Union of Russian Men,” of the “Moscow Gazette,” and of others. 13. Circulars and telegrams of various officials. 14. Government report of M. Frisch, member of the council of ministers, on the events of June 1-4 (14-17), 1906, in Bielostok. 15. Report on the same by the commissioners of the imperial Duma. 16. Debates on the same in the imperial Duma (official verbatim report). 17. “Une page de la Contre-revolution Russe.” By E. Semenoff. Paris: Stock, 1906. Authorized translation, with introduction by L. Wolf. London: Murray, 1906.
[13]The “Quarterly Review” for October contains a careful summary of governmental complicity in Russian massacres based upon the following reports and authorities. This article, though published anonymously, was written, and the reports compiled, by Mr. Bernard Pares of Liverpool, author of “Russia and Reform”; and Mr. Samuel Harper of the University of Chicago,—two of the most careful and painstaking students of Russia and Russian affairs outside of Russia to-day.
1. Report of the senior factory inspector of the government of Kherson on the events of July 17-19, 1903, in Odessa (published in “Kusskoye Dyelo,” July, 1905). 2. Memorandum of the minister of finance to the Emperor on the same subject (unpublished). 3. Government reports (Revisionnye Otchety) of Senator Turau on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Kieff (unpublished). 4. Government report (Revisionnyi Otchet) of Senator Kuzminsky on the events of October 18-20 (October 30-November 2), 1905, in Odessa (unpublished). 5. Account of the events of October 18-20, 1905, in Odessa, dictated by Prof. Stschepkin (unpublished). 6. Law report of the proceedings in connection with the trial of the governor of Minsk, General Kurloff (including the report of the crown prosecutor of the law chamber of Vilna). 7. Diary of an Englishman in Kharkoff for the days of October 22-November 8, 1905 (unpublished). 8. Statements made to the writers on events in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratoff, Reval, and Moscow, and on the organization of the police department, and other subjects. 9. Government report by Actual Councilor of State Savich on the events of January 12 and 13 (25 and 26), 1906, in Gomel. 10. Report to the minister of the interior from the director of the special section of the police department, Councilor of State Makaroff. 11. Speech of Prince Urusoff in the imperial Duma on June 8 (21), 1906. 12. “Appeals” of the “Union of Russian Men,” of the “Moscow Gazette,” and of others. 13. Circulars and telegrams of various officials. 14. Government report of M. Frisch, member of the council of ministers, on the events of June 1-4 (14-17), 1906, in Bielostok. 15. Report on the same by the commissioners of the imperial Duma. 16. Debates on the same in the imperial Duma (official verbatim report). 17. “Une page de la Contre-revolution Russe.” By E. Semenoff. Paris: Stock, 1906. Authorized translation, with introduction by L. Wolf. London: Murray, 1906.
[14]Further facts on governmental complicity in massacres will be found in Chapter XXI on Odessa and the Black Hundred organization.
[14]Further facts on governmental complicity in massacres will be found in Chapter XXI on Odessa and the Black Hundred organization.
[15]See Appendixes C and D for official confirmation of governmental complicity in massacres.
[15]See Appendixes C and D for official confirmation of governmental complicity in massacres.
[16]For further evidence of this character see Chapter VIII.
[16]For further evidence of this character see Chapter VIII.
[17]See Chapter XXI, where the story of these exceptional laws is set forth in more detail.
[17]See Chapter XXI, where the story of these exceptional laws is set forth in more detail.
[18]Gourko, under Stolypin.
[18]Gourko, under Stolypin.
[19]The so-called “underground” system is a secret organization of men and women with connections in each settlement and town, and with European Russia. The transactions are made entirely by word of mouth, no note or detail ever being trusted to paper. A confidential chain is generally working through every village and hamlet in the country. The exiles of any given settlement know who are the trustworthy ones of their village, and in the village nearest to theirs in each direction. Similar knowledge existing in each place eventually extends a connection from the most remote parts to the heart of the empire, and messages, information, money, food, and clothing can be forwarded in safety over distances of thousands of miles.
[19]The so-called “underground” system is a secret organization of men and women with connections in each settlement and town, and with European Russia. The transactions are made entirely by word of mouth, no note or detail ever being trusted to paper. A confidential chain is generally working through every village and hamlet in the country. The exiles of any given settlement know who are the trustworthy ones of their village, and in the village nearest to theirs in each direction. Similar knowledge existing in each place eventually extends a connection from the most remote parts to the heart of the empire, and messages, information, money, food, and clothing can be forwarded in safety over distances of thousands of miles.
[20]“Siberia and the Exile System,” Vol. 1, page 90.
[20]“Siberia and the Exile System,” Vol. 1, page 90.
[21]For a summary of statistics concerning the cost of living, wages, etc., of Russian workmen, see Appendix E.
[21]For a summary of statistics concerning the cost of living, wages, etc., of Russian workmen, see Appendix E.
[22]The Karaites are a lost tribe of Jews who did not hear of the Talmud for more than 400 years after it was given to the world, and consequently they have never accepted it.
[22]The Karaites are a lost tribe of Jews who did not hear of the Talmud for more than 400 years after it was given to the world, and consequently they have never accepted it.
[23]See the “Quarterly Review,” October, 1906, for authorities on this and other similar instances.
[23]See the “Quarterly Review,” October, 1906, for authorities on this and other similar instances.
[24]The aspirations of the Russian people were formulated by the first Duma, which convened in 1906. The Duma drew up its answer to the Crown Speech and passed it in less than five sittings. On the fifth of May the document was read for the third time before the Duma and was passed “unanimously” by the whole assembly, as the Official Reports of the Duma sittings show. While seven members of the Extreme Right did not vote for it, they did not dare to refuse to vote, but merely walked from the hall, pretending they did not know what was being passed.The second Duma now in session is ruled by the same two parties that dominated the first Duma. The party of the Left, representing the working-men and peasants, 192 men (there were only 116 in the first Duma) and the Constitutional Democrats, 116 men (there were 152 in the first Duma) representing the rising middle classes of the cities. The second Duma was not called to formulate another reply to the Crown Speech, because there was no Crown Speech, so that the document drawn up and unanimously accepted by the first Duma, remained binding for the second Duma also.As one who took part in the preparation of the original document I take pleasure in testifying to the accuracy of this English version.—Alexis Aladin,Leader of Group of Toil in the First Duma and Accredited Representative of the Group of Toil in the second Duma.
[24]The aspirations of the Russian people were formulated by the first Duma, which convened in 1906. The Duma drew up its answer to the Crown Speech and passed it in less than five sittings. On the fifth of May the document was read for the third time before the Duma and was passed “unanimously” by the whole assembly, as the Official Reports of the Duma sittings show. While seven members of the Extreme Right did not vote for it, they did not dare to refuse to vote, but merely walked from the hall, pretending they did not know what was being passed.
The second Duma now in session is ruled by the same two parties that dominated the first Duma. The party of the Left, representing the working-men and peasants, 192 men (there were only 116 in the first Duma) and the Constitutional Democrats, 116 men (there were 152 in the first Duma) representing the rising middle classes of the cities. The second Duma was not called to formulate another reply to the Crown Speech, because there was no Crown Speech, so that the document drawn up and unanimously accepted by the first Duma, remained binding for the second Duma also.
As one who took part in the preparation of the original document I take pleasure in testifying to the accuracy of this English version.—Alexis Aladin,Leader of Group of Toil in the First Duma and Accredited Representative of the Group of Toil in the second Duma.