"Might can not dominate right in Russia," said M. Stolypin, Russian
Minister of the Interior and President of the Council of Ministers, in
the speech which he delivered in the Duma on May 18, 1908, when pressed
by the various parties to declare his policy with regard to Finland.
This noble sentiment has the familiar ring of Russian officialdom. It
may, perhaps, be worth while to consider it in the light of recent
history and present-day issues.
Alexander I., the first Russian sovereign of Finland, addressed a
Rescript to Count Steinheil on his appointment to the post of
Governor-General. Therein he wrote: "My object in Finland has been to
give the people a political existence so that they shall not regard
themselves as subject to Russia, but as attached to her by their own
obvious interests." It is not the place here to give an historical
account of subsequent events. It may, however, be briefly stated that
the political ideal expressed in the words quoted here was at times
forgotten, but was again revived, and, in such times, even resulted in
the extension of Finland's constitutional rights. Then, again, this
ideal was abandoned, and gave way to a totally different one, which
found its most acute expression in February, 1899, when the Czar, a
year after the issue of his invitations to the first Peace Conference
at The Hague, suppressed by an Imperial manifesto the constitutional
right of Finland. The arbitrary and corrupt Russian bureaucratic regime
little by little forced its way into the country, while Finlanders
watched with bitter resentment the suppression, one by one, of their
most cherished national institutions.
This manifesto was condemned in many European countries at the time,
and a protest against it was signed by over a thousand prominent
publicists and constitutional lawyers, who presented an international
address to the Czar begging him to restore the rights of the Grand
Duchy.
In 1905, however, it seemed at last that a new era was about to dawn.
The change was brought about by the domestic crisis through which
Russia herself was then passing. An Imperial manifesto promulgated in
October, containing the principles of a constitutional form of
government in Russia, was followed as an inevitable sequel by the
manifesto of November 4th, which practically restored to Finland its
full political rights. In 1906, a new Law of the Diet was enacted.
Instead of triennial sessions of the Estates, annual sessions of the
Diet were introduced, while an extension of the franchise to every
citizen over twenty-four years of age without distinction of sex gave
to women active electoral rights. Moreover, the door was opened to new
and far-reaching reforms, the fulfilment of which infused fresh life
into the democratic spirit of Finnish national institutions. While,
however, so much was done to improve the political, social, and
economic condition of the country, the promises which were then made
have not been fulfilled. The principal reason for this failure to
redeem their pledges lies in a change of attitude among Russian
officials and their interference in Finnish affairs. It is by
consideration of this change and of its effect upon Finland that we may
best judge how much truth there is in M. Stolypin's claim that in
Russia "might can not dominate right."
Ominous signs of a reversal of policy had appeared before, but the
first official expression to it was given in the speech of M. Stolypin
already referred to. In this speech he claimed for Russia as the
sovereign power the right of control over Finnish administration and
legislation whenever the interests of the empire were concerned. This
claim meant practically the restoration of the old Bobrikoff régime and
was based on the same ideas as those underlying the February manifesto
of 1899. M. Stolypin attempts to justify his attitude by arguing that
the constitutional relations between Russia and Finland are determined
only by Clause 4 of the Treaty of Peace between Russia and Sweden,
dated September 17,1809. This clause runs as follows:
"His Majesty the King of Sweden renounces irrevocably and forever, on
behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his successors to the Swedish
throne and realm, and in favor of his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and
his successors to the Russian throne and empire, all his rights and
titles of the governments enumerated hereafter which have been
conquered by the arms of his Imperial Majesty from the Swedish Army, to
wit: the Provinces of Kymmenegard, etc.
"These provinces, with all their inhabitants, towns, ports, forts,
villages, and islands, with their appurtenances, privileges, and
revenues, shall hereafter under full ownership and sovereignty belong
to the Russian Empire and be incorporated with the same."
After quoting this clause, M. Stolypin exclaimed, "This is the act, the
title, by which Russia possesses Finland, the one and only act which
determines the mutual relations between Russia and Finland."
Now this clause contains no reference whatever to the autonomy of the
Grand Duchy, and if it were the only act by which the mutual relations
of Russia and Finland were determined, then Finland would have no
constitution. The political autonomy of Finland, which has been
recognized for exactly one hundred years, would have been without legal
foundation. Even M. Stolypin admits that Finland enjoys autonomy.
"There must be no room for the suspicion," he said, "that Russia would
violate the rights of autonomy conferred on Finland by the monarch." On
what, then, does the claim to Finnish autonomy rest and how was it
conferred? Clause 6 of the Treaty of Peace contains the following
passage:
"His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, having already given the
most manifest proofs of the clemency and justice with which he has
resolved to govern the inhabitants of the provinces which he has
acquired, by generosity and by his own spontaneous act assuring to them
the free exercise of their religion, rights, property, and privileges,
his Swedish Majesty considers himself thereby released from performing
the otherwise sacred duty of making reservations in the above respects
in favor of his former subjects."
This entry in the Treaty of Peace refers to the settlement made at the
Borgo Diet a few months earlier, and it is under this settlement,
confirmed by deeds of a later date, that Finland claims her right to
autonomy. M. Stolypin recognizes the claim of Finland to autonomy, but
refuses to recognize the binding force of the acts of the Borgo Diet on
which alone it can legally be based. This claim gives Finland no voice
in her external relations. All international treaties, including
matters relating to the conduct of war (though laws on the liability of
Finnish citizens to military service fall under the competency of the
Finnish Diet), are matters common to Russia and Finland as one empire,
one international unit, and are dealt with by the proper Russian
authorities. This is admitted by all Finlanders. But M. Stolypin
extended Russian authority by making it paramount in all matters which
have a bearing on Russian or Imperial interests.
The attempt to curtail Finnish constitutional liberty has taken
different forms. Early in 1908 the Russian Council of Ministers, over
which M. Stolypin presides, drew up a "Journal," or Protocol, to which
the Czar on June 2d gave his sanction. The chief provisions of this
Protocol were briefly as follows: All legislative proposals and all
administrative matters "of general importance," before being brought to
the Sovereign for his sanction, or, as is the case with Bills to be
presented to the Diet, for his preliminary approval, as well as all
reports drawn up by Finnish authorities for the Czar's inspection, must
be communicated to the Russian Council of Ministers. The Council will
then decide "which matters concerning the Grand Duchy of Finland also
have a bearing on the interests of the empire, and, consequently, call
for a fuller examination on the part of the Ministries and Government
Boards." If the Council decide that a matter has a bearing on the
interests of the empire the Council prepare a report on it, and, should
the Council differ from the views taken up by the Finnish authorities,
the Finnish Secretary of State, who alone should be the constitutional
channel for bringing Finnish matters before the Sovereign's notice, can
do so only in the presence of the President of the Council of Ministers
or another Russian Minister. But in practise it has frequently happened
that the Council send in their report beforehand, and the Czar's
decision is practically taken when the Finnish Secretary is permitted
an audience.
This important measure was brought about by the exclusive
recommendation of Russian Ministers. Neither the Finnish Diet nor the
Senate nor the Secretary of State for Finland, who resides in St.
Petersburg, was consulted or had the slightest idea of what was going
on before the Protocol was published in Russia. It has never been
promulgated in Finland, and no Finnish authority has been officially
advised of it. The whole matter has been treated as a private affair
between the Czar and his Russian Ministers.
The excuse has been made that the Czar must be permitted to seek
counsel with whomsoever he chooses in regard to the government of
Finland. But this is not a question of privately consulting one man or
the other. The new measure amounts to an official recognition of the
Russian Council of Ministers as an organ of government exercising a
powerful control over Finnish legislation, administration, and finance.
The center of gravity of Finnish administration has, in fact, been
shifted from the Senate for Finland, composed of Finnish men, to the
Russian Council of Ministers.
The Finnish Senate protested to the Czar in three separate memoranda,
dated respectively June 19, 1908, December 22, 1908, and February
25,1909. The Finnish Diet adopted on October 13, 1908, a petition to
the Czar to reconsider the matter. On the occasion of the opening of
the Diet's next session the Speaker, in his reply to the Czar's
message, briefly referred to the anxiety prevailing in Finland, with
the result that the Diet was immediately punished by an order of
dissolution from the Czar. The Senate's memoranda, as well as the
Diet's petition, were rejected, the Czar acting on the exclusive
recommendation of the Russian Council of Ministers. They were not even
brought before him through the constitutional channels, the Finnish
Secretary of State having been refused a hearing. As a result all
members of the Department of Justice, or half the number of the
Senators, resigned.
In the same year another but less successful attack was made on the
Finnish Constitution. In the autumn of 1908 the Finnish Diet adopted a
new Landlord and Tenant Bill, but before it was brought up for the
Czar's sanction the Diet was dissolved in the manner just described.
The Bill being of a pressing nature, the Council of Ministers was at
last prevailed upon to report on it to the Czar. The latter then gave
his sanction to it, but, on the recommendation of the Council, added a
rider in the preamble. This was to the effect that, though the Bill,
having been adopted by a Diet which was dissolved before the expiration
of the three years' period for which it was elected, should not have
been presented for his consideration at all, the Czar would
nevertheless make an exception from the rule and sanction it, prompted
by his regard for the welfare of the poorer part of the population.
The Senate decided to postpone promulgation of this law in view of the
constitutional doctrine involved in the preamble. It was pointed out
that this doctrine was entirely foreign to Finnish law. The preamble
which, according to custom, should have contained nothing beyond the
formal sanction to the law in question, embodied an interpretation of
constitutional law. Such an interpretation could only legally be made
in the same manner as the enactment of a constitutional law, _i.e.,_
through the concurrent decision of the Sovereign and the Diet. The
Senate, therefore, petitioned the Czar to modify the preamble in such a
way as to remove from it what could be construed as an interpretation
of constitutional law.
In reply, the Czar reprimanded the Senate for delaying promulgation,
recommended it to do so immediately, but promised later on to take the
representations made by the Senate into his consideration. Five of the
Senators then voted against, while the Governor-General and five others
voted for promulgation of, the law. The minority then tendered their
resignations. The inconveniences resulting from this new constitutional
doctrine proved, however, of so serious a practical nature that the
Czar eventually, in July, 1909, issued a declaration that "the gracious
expressions in the preamble to the Landlord and Tenant Law concerning
the invalidity of the decisions of a dissolved Diet do not constitute
an interpretation of the constitutional law and shall not in the future
be binding in law."
A third and most important encroachment by the Russian Council of
Ministers on the autonomy of Finland was also carried out at the
instigation of M. Stolypin. The Finnish Constitution makes no
distinction between matters that may have, or may not have, a bearing
on the interests of Russia. At the same time Russian interests have
never been disregarded in Finnish legislation. It had been the
practise, when a legislative proposal was brought forward in Finland,
and a Russian interest might be affected by it, to communicate with the
Russian Minister whom the matter most closely concerned, in order that
he might make his observations. This practise was confirmed by law in
1891. In its memoranda of 1908 and 1909, on the interference of the
Russian Council of Ministers in Finnish affairs, the Senate suggested
that, in case the procedure under the ordinance of 1891 were not
satisfactory, a committee of Russian and Finnish members should be
appointed to discuss a _modus procedendi_ of such a nature that the
Constitution of Finland should not be violated. On the recommendation
of the Council of Ministers, the Czar rejected these suggestions, but
the Council of Ministers took the matter in hand and summoned a
"Special Conference," consisting of several Russian Ministers, other
high Russian functionaries, the Governor-General of Finland, who is
also a Russian, with M. Stolypin as President. Their business was to
draw up a program for a joint committee to be appointed "for the
drafting of proposals for regulations concerning the procedure of
issuing laws of general Imperial interest concerning Finland." This
conference accordingly drew up a program, approved by the Czar on April
10, 1909, in which it was resolved that the joint committee should
suggest a definition of the term "laws of general Imperial interest
concerning Finland." These laws, it was proposed, should be totally
withdrawn from the competency of the Finnish Diet and should be passed
by the legislative bodies of Russia, that is, the Council of State and
the Duma. The only safeguard for the interests of Finland suggested in
the program is that a representative for Finland should be admitted to
these two bodies when Finnish questions were discussed there.
It is impossible to say what laws concerning Finland will be defined as
being of "general interest." Having regard, however, to the wide
interpretation which Russian reactionaries are wont to put on the
expression, there is every reason to suppose that the Russian members
of the committee will insist on its extension so as to include every
important category of law.
The Finnish members through their spokesman, Archbishop Johansson,
declared that they proceeded to work on the committee on the assumption
that in case alterations in the law of Finland should be found
necessary, having regard to Imperial interests, such alterations should
be made through modifications in the constitutional laws of Finland.
The Finlanders are prepared to do their duty by the empire, but, the
Archbishop said: "Sacrifices have been demanded from us to which no
people can consent. The Finnish people can not forego their
Constitution, which is a gift of the Most High, and which, next to the
Gospel, is their most cherished possession."
M. Deutrich, who spoke on behalf of the Russian members, explained that
any law resulting from the labors of the committee would not be
submitted to the ratification of the Finnish Diet.
So M. Stolypin's way was now clear. The sanction of the people will not
be required. The Finlanders have practically no other help than that
given by a consciousness of the justice of their cause. They have no
appeal.
In November of 1909 the Finnish Diet was dissolved by a ukase of the
Czar. Since then the Russian Government has been passing decree after
decree for Finland, giving the constitutional authorities no voice even
of protest. So ends Finland.