THE DUMA.
There is at least one man in Russia who has reason to feel that
his political judgment has been vindicated and his predictions
verified by the assembling of the duma. It is Count Ignatieff,
who, at the age of twenty-eight, framed the Pekin treaty and who,
as minister of the interior (the highest cabinet position at that
time), in 1881 formulated a plan for a national assembly. His scheme
was to have three thousand representatives elected by the people,
these representatives, gathered from all parts of the empire, to
meet at Moscow and confer with the emperor in person in regard to
legislative measures. In order to avoid the objections raised to so
large an assembly, he proposed to divide the body into groups of
one hundred each, these groups to meet separately. He secured the
approval of the emperor, but the other members of the cabinet were
so strenuous in their opposition that the emperor decided not to
attempt the reform and Count Ignatieff resigned from the ministry.
He warned his associates that a failure to recognize the demands
of the people for representation in the government would simply
delay the change and that it was better to yield before the demands
became more radical, but the members of the bureaucracy, deaf to the
appeals of the people and blind to their own interests, resisted,
and as a result a duma is now in session at St. Petersburg, the
bureaucracy finds itself an object of contempt and loathing, and the
present emperor, like his predecessor, has to bear the sins of his
advisers.
I called upon Count Ignatieff and found him still vigorous in spite
of his grey hairs and advancing years. I was interested in him
not only because he is friendly toward our country and speaks our
language fluently, but more especially because he was a pioneer in
a great movement and foresaw what many of the nobility even now
fail to recognize, viz., that there is no place where arbitrary
power can justify its existence. The tide of progress has swept past
the Count, and he is now classed among the conservatives, but he
deserves to be remembered because he had the courage to speak out
when it required bravery to propose the taking of a step in the
direction of popular government.
[Illustration: COUNT IGNATIEFF.]
The duma is the result of the labors of hundreds, yes, thousands
of Russian reformers, a few conspicuous, but the most of them
unknown to fame, who for more than seventy-five years have been
insisting upon constitutional government. It is one of the most
remarkable bodies of men ever convened in a national capital, and I
have been abundantly repaid for coming here. The duma must be seen
to be appreciated; even more, to understand it one must not only
see the members, but must know something of the struggle through
which they have passed. I am satisfied that the czar himself is
more liberal than his advisers and that, left to himself, he would
long ago have made concessions which would have brought the throne
and the subjects nearer together, but he has yielded so slowly
and given so grudgingly that the people have become very much
estranged. To illustrate this I need only cite the facts, first
as to the election. St. Petersburg and Moscow are the political
centers where the officials and the nobility have the strongest
representation, and yet in the elections the constitutional
democrats won an overwhelming victory in both these cities. In St.
Petersburg the ticket which represented the emperor received only
two thousand votes out of a total vote of sixty thousand, and in
his home precinct, where three hundred voters were sent to the
polls in court carriages, his ticket received only eighty votes!
Could anything more clearly prove the frail hold of the government
upon the people? And it must be remembered that they do not have
universal suffrage in the cities, but a property qualification which
excludes the poorest of the people, the very ones who have most
reason to desire popular government.
The second proof of the feeling against the government is to be
found in the unanimity with which the duma opposes the position
taken by the government's minister. While the members of the duma
are divided among themselves on many questions, they act as one man
in their opposition to the government's policy, insofar as that
policy has been outlined. In fact, the tension has been so great
that I was afraid the body might be dissolved by imperial order
before we could reach St. Petersburg.
[Illustration: THE PALACE WHERE THE RUSSIAN DUMA MEETS.]
The sessions of the duma are held in a palace built by Catherine
the Great for one of her favorites, General Potemkin. It is a
commodious building and has been remodeled to meet present needs.
The largest room, extending the entire width of the building, was
once the ballroom and some notable entertainments have been given
in it--entertainments calling for a lavish expenditure and attended
only by the nobility; now the room serves as a lobby, and peasant
representatives, wearing the usual blouse and top boots, stride
through it as they go to and from the sessions. In another part of
the building there are ample dining rooms where the members of the
duma and the press may secure meals at very moderate rates. The
assembly hall is large enough to accommodate the four hundred and
fifty members, but is badly lighted. The windows are all back of the
speaker's platform, so that the members sit with their faces towards
the light. It would be much better if the light came from above, but
it is really surprising that the accommodations are as satisfactory
as they are, considering the short time the workmen had to make the
necessary changes.
Back of the president is a life-sized painting of the czar in
uniform; on the left is a box occupied by the ministers when
present, and beyond the ministers is a still larger enclosure
occupied by the representatives of the foreign press. To the right
of the president are seats for members of the council of empire who
may be in attendance, and beyond them the enclosure occupied by
representatives of the Russian press. Just in front and a little
below the president's desk is the rostrum from which the members of
the duma address the assembly, and just below this rostrum is the
reporters' table where the stenographers take down the proceedings.
Besides the rooms already mentioned there are committee rooms,
cloak rooms, rooms for the home press and for the foreign press,
etc., etc. In a word, the duma building looks very much like an
American legislative hall or a European parliament building--a
likeness still further emphasized by the presence of men and women
clerks, doorkeepers, pages and spectators. One thing only was out
of harmony with a legislative body, and that was a company of
soldiers stationed in a wing of the building as if in anticipation
of possible trouble. We were present at two sessions of the duma and
found them intensely interesting. The morning session is at present
given up to speeches on the land question, more than a third of
the members having expressed a desire to be heard on this subject.
The speeches are usually short and often read from manuscript.
Hand-clapping is allowed, and there was always applause at the close
of the speeches. Occasionally the president announced that some
speaker on the list surrendered his time and this statement also
brought forth applause, the discussion of the subject having by this
time become tiresome.
By the courtesy of our ambassador, Mr. Meyer, we were admitted to
the diplomatic gallery, from which we could survey the entire body.
There is probably no assembly like it on either hemisphere. It is
made up of all classes and represents every shade of opinion. There
are members of the nobility who have cast in their lot with the
people, lawyers who have temporarily left their practice to devote
themselves to the larger interests of the public, professors fresh
from the universities, business men from the cities, laboring men
from the factories, and there are, most numerous still, peasants
from the farms. Some of the members are near the end of life and
command attention by their years as well as by their words, and
there is a sprinkling of young men who have become the spokesmen of
their communities, but the majority are middle-aged men who have
years of experience behind them, and are yet strong for the battle.
In garb there is also great variety, the black frock coat, the
business suit, the belted blouse, and the clerical robe are all to
be seen. The smooth face seems to be at a discount in Russia; one
would suppose, so plentiful are whiskers, that the barbers were on a
strike. There are many heavy heads of hair, too, sometimes the locks
falling to the shoulders, sometimes cut square about the ears.
[Illustration: PROFESSOR SERGE MURMETZEFF.]
The lobby is a better place than the gallery to study features;
sitting on one of the visitors' seats in this commodious hall we
watched the members passing to and fro and were introduced to a
number of them by the American newspaper men who are reporting the
proceedings for the press of our country. There are also a number
of Americans here studying the Russian situation as a preparation
for university work at home, a son of the late Dr. Harper of Chicago
being one of these. I shall send with this article a number of
photographs of the more prominent members, but I regret that I
cannot bring before my readers some of the faces that we observed
in the lobby, faces which seemed to present an epitome of Russian
history--strong, firm, unyielding faces which plainly tell of the
stern resolve that lies behind the peasant movement. They may
protest, like Mark Antony, that they have neither "wit nor words
nor worth, action, nor utterance nor the power of speech to stir
men's blood," but they can "put a tongue in every wound" of their
countrymen that will almost "move the stones to rise and mutiny."
[Illustration: EDITOR PAUL I. MILIUKOFF.]
This is the first duma, and it has not proceeded far enough to
fully develop the permanent leaders, but, if I may use the simile,
as the basket of pebbles is shaken by debate, the large ones are
gradually rising to the top. The president of the duma is Prof.
Serge Murmetseff, of Moscow, whose learning and judicial temperament
combined to make him the choice of the several parties, no one of
which can claim a majority. The constitutional democrats have the
largest membership and are the best organized. They also have the
advantage of occupying the middle ground between the radicals and
the conservatives. Having about one hundred and fifty members on
their rolls and some thirty more acting with them, they can count
upon enough votes from the more conservative elements to defeat the
extreme radicals, and they can rely upon enough radical votes to
carry out their program. The floor leader of this party is Vladimir
D. Nabokoff, of St. Petersburg, a member of a prominent family and
himself until recently an instructor in the national law school.
He is about thirty-eight years of age, intelligent and alert, and
has the confidence of his party. The orator of the constitutional
democrats is Theodore I. Rodicheff, a scholarly looking man of
fifty. He is polished in manner and persuasive in speech. One of
the most influential of the constitutional democrats is Mr. Maxim
Winawer, a Jewish lawyer of the capital. He is sometimes described
as the "brains" of the party and is credited with drafting the
duma's reply to the address from the throne. He is one of the ablest
civil lawyers in the empire and his election from St. Petersburg,
where there are but three thousand Jewish voters, out of a total
vote of sixty thousand, and his elevation to the vice-presidency of
the national organization of his party, would seem to answer the
charge that there is widespread hostility to the Jews among the
people.
Nabokoff, Rodicheff and Winawer are members of the duma and are,
therefore, prominently before the public at this time, but in
popularity they have a rival in the person of Paul I. Miliukoff,
editor of the "Retch." (The government would probably put a "W"
before the "R" and give the word its English meaning, but in Russian
the word Retch means speech.) Mr. Miliukoff, it will be remembered,
was one of the candidates of his party in St. Petersburg, but the
government compelled the substitution of another name because he
was awaiting trial for an alleged violation of the press laws. He
was acquitted soon afterward and is one of the moving spirits in
the present parliamentary struggle. He speaks excellent English and
has lectured in the United States. No one need despair of reform in
Russia while such a man as Miliukoff devotes his great ability to
journalism.
Next to the constitutional democrats, the members of the "group of
toil" form the largest party. There are about a hundred of these,
and Alexis G. Aladin is their leader. He is even younger than
Nabokoff, but has already shown himself to be a man of force and
originality.
Count Heyden is the leader of the conservative element, if there
is a conservative element in the duma. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to describe him as the spokesman for the least radical
group, for all the members of the duma are reformers, differing only
as to the extent of the changes and the speed with which they shall
be made. He was once considered radical, but he has not moved as
rapidly as public sentiment. Count Heyden bears quite a resemblance
to Uncle Sam as he is pictured in the newspapers. I have spoken
somewhat at length of the leaders in order to show that while the
grievances of the peasants and laborers are at the bottom of the
movement, all classes are enlisted in the effort to establish
constitutional government.
The afternoon sessions are generally lively, for it is at this
time that the ministers make their reports, offer their measures
and answer the questions propounded by the members. The session
which we attended was no exception to the rule. The house was full,
the galleries crowded and the newspapers fully represented. There
were more than forty Russian writers in their corner and not less
than fifty of the foreign press in theirs. When the representative
of the war department, replying to a question concerning some
recent military executions, declared that the minister of war was
powerless to overrule the generals, there were shouts of "Murderer!"
"Assassin!" "Dog!" and other equally uncomplimentary epithets.
[Illustration: SOME MEMBERS OF RUSSIAN DUMA.]
One of the demands made by the duma is for the abolition of the
death penalty. This might seem a very radical measure to us, but
the conditions are quite different in Russia. Here there is no
assurance of an impartial trial, and torture is resorted to to
force an admission of guilt. Only recently three persons were found
to be innocent after they had been tortured and put to death. The
members of the duma feel that the only security to the people is
in the entire abolition of the death penalty, for while those who
are falsely accused still live, there is a chance to rescue them.
In this respect exile, hateful as it is, has its advantages; I met
a member of the duma who was returned from exile by the government
upon the demand of the duma. In the torturing of prisoners for the
purpose of extorting a confession Russia is even behind China, bad
as China is, for in the latter nation it has been abolished, except
where one is charged with murder, and is only permitted then after
the guilt of the accused has been established by other evidence.
[Illustration: MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN DUMA.]
There are a number of important measures which are very little
discussed in the duma because they are certain to receive the
approval of the government; one of these provides for universal
education. The program of the duma also includes legislation
guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, protection
for the Jews and local self-government for the Polish portion of
Russia. As the women have taken an active part in the agitation for
constitutional reform, all of the parties are committed to woman's
suffrage.
Just now the land question is paramount. About one-third of the
entire acreage of land in the empire is in the hands of the czar,
the government and the nobility, and the peasants demand that it
shall be turned over to them. At this time they are willing to have
compensation made to the owners, but the more they think about it
and the more vehement their demand becomes, the less they are likely
to consider compensation. There is no doubt that there are enough
cases of injustice and contemptuous indifference to their needs
to arouse resentment among the peasants, if we take human nature
as we find it. They tell of instances where whole villages have
been compelled to pay toll, generation after generation, for the
privilege of crossing some nobleman's land to reach the land farmed
in common by the people of the village. Powerless to condemn land
for roads, as it can be done in other countries, they have grown
more embittered year by year until some of them feel that patience
has ceased to be a virtue. It is now intimated that the government
will offer a partial distribution of land as a compromise.
[Illustration: MAXIM WINAWER.]
The opponents of expropriation seek shelter behind the excuse that
the peasants attack the principle of private ownership. While it
is true that there are socialists in the duma who prefer communal
holdings to private ownership, the object of the peasants is not to
dispossess small holders, but simply to give the peasants access
to the large estates. The situation resembles, in some respects,
the situation in Ireland, except that in Russia the land is to
be turned over to the communities. I made some inquiry regarding
the question of joint ownership and learned from one of the best
informed men in Russia that there is a growing sentiment in favor
of individual ownership. Ownership in common does not give to each
individual that stimulus to improve his land, which is the important
element in individual ownership. In riding through a country one can
distinguish with considerable accuracy between the farms cultivated
by their owners and those cultivated by tenants, because the
tenants, as a rule, are unwilling to make permanent improvements.
One Russian economist estimates the income from the owned lands
of Russia at thirty per cent above the income of the same area of
communal lands. He attributes it to the ability of the land owners
to supply themselves with proper tools and to furnish or borrow
at low rates the money needed for cultivation, but it is possible
that this difference may be in part due to the fact that ownership
makes the incentive to labor greater, and offers a richer reward to
superior effort.[10]
[10] The Czar has just issued a decree which according to the press
dispatches, permits the communal holdings to be converted into
individual holdings.
[Illustration: GROUP OF RUSSIAN DUMA WITH MR. BRYAN IN CENTER]
There is an upper house, or council of empire as it is called, which
shares the legislative power with the duma, but it does not receive
much attention because its composition is such that it cannot
reflect public sentiment, and cannot oppose the will of the people
except at the risk of its existence. Half of the members of this
council are appointed by the emperor and the other half elected by
different interests. The nobility elect some, the universities some
and the zemstows some.
The duma does not recognize the council of empire as a co-ordinate
branch of the government and will not be slow to express itself in
favor of a radical change in the method of selecting the members of
this upper house, or even its abolition, if it stands in the way of
measures which have a large majority in the duma.
What will be the outcome in Russia? A Russian would hardly venture
a prediction, and for an outsider, prophecy is even more hazardous.
The situation could scarcely be more complicated. Generations of
misrule have brought an accumulation of questions, all pressing
for solution. The duma wants a great many things done and wants
them done at once, while the government, if it remains under the
influences of the bureaucracy, will give as little as possible. So
far, the government has been unfortunate in that it has delayed
making concessions until still greater concessions were demanded.
The program of the present ministry has been so completely
repudiated that the emperor may find it easier to appoint a new
ministry than to humiliate the present one by compelling it to
propose what it has heretofore refused. If a new ministry is formed
and the duma is consulted about its personnel, Ivan Petrunkevich
will probably be the premier. He is a member of the duma and the
head of the parliamentary organization of the constitutional
democrats. He has already proposed a constitution to Nicholas II.
If the duma is disregarded and a ministry formed from the emperor's
present advisers, it will at least be more liberal than the one now
in office.
[Illustration: IVAN PETRUNKEVICH.]
The duma is a permanent institution; it could not be abolished by
imperial decree without endangering the crown itself, and it cannot
be dissolved or prorogued with safety.[11] The government must,
therefore, treat with the duma and agree with such compromises as
may be necessary to maintain peace between the executive and the
people. The officials, too, are learning from the duma something
about the science of government. When there was no one to speak
for the people, the czar could claim to voice their sentiments. He
can claim this no longer. When the people were denied a hearing,
the officials could deny that the people desired reforms, but the
officials cannot put their unsupported opinions against a unanimous
duma. The elections have shown how insignificant a support the
government has among its subjects, and these figures contain a
warning, which even the bureaucracy cannot entirely disregard. Does
the government rely upon the army? The soldiers are drawn from the
people and serve for three years, a half million raw recruits being
enlisted each year. Is it possible that they can be different
in sentiment from their fathers and brothers? In three years the
Russian army will be made up of men in hearty accord with those who
speak through the duma. Without an army to rely upon, what answer
can the bureaucracy make to the legislature?
[11] Soon after this letter was written the duma was dissolved, with
a promise of another election, and as this book goes to press a
second campaign is in progress.
The czar has already suffered much at the hands of his advisers;
he is no longer the idol he was, and reverence for the Church has
abated somewhat, as reverence for him, its temporal head, has
decreased. What can he do? There is but one course open to him.
He asked the people what they wanted and they have told him. As
he cannot doubt that they have told him the truth, he must either
accept their answer or confess that he does not intend to consider
their wishes. If he would appoint a new ministry, propose a measure
guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press, recommend
an agricultural bank to protect the peasants from the small money
lenders, recall the exiles, release political prisoners and invite
the leaders of the duma to confer with the ministry in regard to the
land question, he would be restored to the affection of his subjects
and have no reason to fear bomb-throwers or hostile criticism. He
would find a hundred and thirty millions of loyal subjects a much
stronger bodyguard than a few hired soldiers. His position is a
difficult one because his environment is unfriendly to the masses,
but having burned the bridges behind him, he must go forward.
Russia is not decaying. She has extent of territory, abundant
natural resources and an immense population. To be sure, a majority
of her people were serfs until a generation ago, but there is
no race distinction between the nobility and the peasant, and
with education the extremes of society are being drawn closer
together. That Russia has a great future is not open to doubt.
What experiences she may pass through before she emerges a free,
self-governing and prosperous nation no one is wise enough to
foresee, but the people who have sacrificed as much for liberty
as have the Russian patriots have in them the material of which
mighty nations are made. The duma is ready to do its part; will the
government rise to the occasion? Time alone can tell.
NOTE--Since this article was written the Duma has been
dissolved, and a second Duma is now in session.