3. M., 11,988, —?) P. S. Z. No. 19,781. Sometimes Empress Catherine II, wishing to wean regional rulers from extortion, sent them huge purses as gifts, which were presented to them publicly. The dominance of the bureaucracy in the administration of the 18th century, prone to abuses, made it necessary to subordinate it to the control of the central government: there was a need for such a mechanism in administration that would closely connect local authorities with the central government, subordinating them to continuous monitoring and constant reporting. This mechanism was established by the Statute on Provinces of November 7, 1775 — it was only a formal side that reflected the fundamental principles of our administration: administrative centralization and government guardianship. This is how a complex ladder of administrative instances appeared, along which matters of local interest move from bottom to top, receiving their final resolution in the central instances and thus generating through their movement a complex clerical procedure; the predominance of the bureaucratic principle, paralyzing the community; the incomplete separation of justice from administration, which determines the secret and written legal proceedings. From the point of view of the needs of our modern society, this system seems unsatisfactory, but at one time it was not only the only possible system of administration, but also a remarkable step forward. We mean the greater independence of the judiciary from the influence of the administration than what existed before 1775, we mean the broader place given to the zemstvo interest. True, the judiciary is not yet completely freed from the influence of the administration, but the consistent development of the principle of 1775, 'the Sovereign's Viceroy is not a judge, but the guardian of the Imperial Majesty of the issued law,' should lead to complete independence of the judicial power from the government, always expressed in the irremovability of the magistracy. True, the zemstvo interest is still divided into estate interests, but the gradual smoothing out of estate differences should lead to a solidary local interest. Starting from these principles introduced by the reform of 1775, the future of our regional administration seems bright to us. And here we are involuntarily reminded of the remarkable Articles 112 and 135 of Volume IX of the Code of Laws (Sv. Z.), the latest edition — granting the nobility the right to make representations 'about their needs and benefits, about the cessation of local abuses, about the elimination of inconveniences in local administration, even occurring as a result of any general resolution' — elements of the droit de pétition [right of petition]. Flowing from the conditions of contemporary social life, the system of regional administration, established by the Statute on Provinces, found support in the then administrative theories, and in the then administrative practice of most of the continental states of Western Europe, which continued to serve as models for us. Very few publicists of the 18th century understood all the life-giving power of administrative self-government, all the beneficial influence of private initiative. On the contrary, most of them were adherents of the opposite system, and in the name of progress they proclaimed the principles of administrative centralization and guardianship. We are not talking about the German cameralists, who built their systems of state improvement on the principles of Kuratel der Staatsgewalt [guardianship of the state power] — we mean the most liberal people of the time: the French encyclopedists, followers of the Physiocratic teachings of Quesnay. Proclaiming les droits de l'humanité [the rights of humanity], the French encyclopedists at the same time were ardent adherents of the strictest administrative guardianship: the creative power of the individual manifested itself in their theories only at the moment of creating the state through an agreement (contrat social [social contract]); in the created state, however, it disappeared: the administration worked for it — the Suprême administration — Proclaiming their ordre naturel [natural order], demanding laissez faire, laissez passer — Quesnay and his followers, as Tocqueville aptly characterizes them 1), were the most zealous centralizers. If only the state was based on the natural order, it should be omnipotent: the idea of opposing political forces, which Locke dreamed of in the 17th century, on the principles of which Montesquieu built his constitutional theory in the 18th century, seemed to Quesnay a disastrous chimera. 'Le système des contre-forces,' Quesnay says directly, 'dans un gouvernement est une idée funeste' [The system of counter-forces in a government is a fatal idea]. And as if developing the thought of his teacher, one of his followers adds: 'les spéculations sur le système des contre-poids sont chimériques... d'après lesquelles on a imaginé...' [speculations on the system of counterweights are chimerical... according to which one has imagined...]. 1) See L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution [The Old Regime and the Revolution], pp. 264–280. The doctrine, proclaimed by theory, defended by the best people of the time, was carried out in the administrative practice of the continental states of Western Europe. In the 17th and 18th centuries, communal life is decaying almost everywhere, under the influence of increasing administrative centralization. We notice this phenomenon first of all in France, where the government principle paralyzes self-government. The example of France is followed by the majority of the states of Germany, where the ancient German Gemeinde [community] little by little loses its rights to manage local affairs during the 18th century, under the influence of a number of legislative measures: the Bavarian Mandat of 1748, the Württemberg Kommunal-Ordnung of 1758, the Baden communal charter of 1760, the Austrian regulations über die Einrichtung der Magistrate of 1783–1786, the Prussian Landrecht of 1794. Finally, with the Bavarian edict of 1818, the disintegration of the German community reaches its apogee: with this edict, the Bavarian community is organized according to the type of the French commune, which coincides with another moment in the history of the German community — with the moment of its revival. Parallel to the disintegration of the community, administrative centralization intensifies, and governments more and more adopt guardianship responsibilities. Thus, in the Baden Kammerordnung of 1766 it was decreed: 'the ministry of appanages is the natural guardian of our subjects: it is obliged, even against their will, to teach them how to manage their households; it must supervise arable farming, trying through the improvement of the economy to provide subjects with the means to pay their arrears.' The West Prussian rural charter of 1780 went even further, according to the meaning of which the village Schulzes [headmen] were supposed to 'encourage both elderly and young persons of both sexes to spin wool and flax, and not allow them, following the old habit, to go to bed immediately after supper, indulging in laziness.' This is how the most gifted reformers of the 18th century understood their mission: both the code of Frederick the Great and the famous Nakaz [Instruction] of Catherine are built on the same principles. This is how administrative centralization was established in continental Europe. At the same time, administrative self-government (Selfgovernment) was strengthening in England, embodied in its age-old county; from England, in a democratized form, it passed to North America — into the township of New England; from England it spreads to all corners of the world colonized by the Anglo-Saxon tribe. But the practical demands of modern society, and the highest degree of its self-awareness, have now given rise to other administrative theories, diametrically opposed to the administrative theories of the 18th century. The best, most well-intentioned publicists of our time are champions of administrative self-government: hence their sympathy for the English and North American administrative systems. We are not talking about English publicists — Spencer or Hill, but we mean continental publicists: Vivien with his administrative studies, Dupont-White with his 'par le pays' more and more recede into the background; publicists of a different direction — Tocqueville, Gneist — enjoy the sympathies of the well-intentioned majority. 1) See Brater's article 'Gemeinde' in one of the last livraisons (XXX) of Deutsches Staats-Wörterbuch, Bluntschli und Brater. New social needs gave rise to new administrative theories — under the influence of the same needs in most of the states of Western Europe, there is a tendency to replace mechanical-bureaucratic centralization, as German publicists say, with organic decentralization of administration, restoring the community. This restoration of the community (Wiederbelebung der Gemeinde-Körper) constitutes a characteristic feature of our era. It began in Prussia: the famous Städte-Ordnung of November 18, 1808, conceived by Baron Stein simultaneously with the emancipation of the serfs, constitutes the starting point of all communal reforms of modern Germany. Modified, under the influence of the Junker party, by the municipal regulation of March 17, 1831, the Städte-Ordnung of Baron Stein served as a model for all communal charters in Germany. The example of Prussia was followed by: Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, etc. A new era for the organization of German communities began after 1848, when two new communal charters appeared: the communal charter of Austria of March 17, 1849, which transformed the entire system of its regional administration and communities, and the communal charter of Prussia of March 11, 1850, which replaced the Junker charter of 1831. In general, the current decade for Germany is replete with communal charters, annually issued, amended, and supplemented. An extensive literature on the issue of the community has been compiled; Pieper even publishes a journal on the communal issue; Ricci in 1847 writes his classic Del Municipio 1). In other states we also notice a similar movement: Pius IX on September 10, 1849, issues a motu proprio, in which he promises his people more liberal municipal laws; in France, in this classic country of centralization, Prince Napoleon delivered a famous speech in Limoges, with its unforgettable words: 'for us the most dangerous thing now is the absorption of personal forces by collective power, the replacement of the citizen by the government in all actions of public life, the weakening of any personal initiative, under the guardianship of exaggerated administrative centralization...' 1) This is described in detail in the above-mentioned article by Brater, as well as in the work of Béchard, De l'administration intérieure de la France, Vol. 1, pp. 19–50. But pointing to the restoration of the community as a characteristic feature of our era, one should not forget that administrative self-government for continental Europe is pia desideria [pious wishes]: the bureaucratic element continues its dominance in it. Contrasting communal autonomy, as the right to issue its own communal charters (Selbstgesetzgebung), with communal self-government (Selbstverwaltung), the right to put these charters into execution — Brater notes that in German communal charters of the 19th century more place is given to self-government than to autonomy, in which the spirit of one-sided centralization is still rooted 1). We are not adherents of any unconditional administrative theory, and indeed there can hardly be an unconditionally true administrative theory: its merits are determined by the practical demands of time and society. We understand that administrative centralization is supported and produced by the fragmentation of estates, the confusion of their mutual relations. But nevertheless, renouncing temporary and local circumstances, considering the system of administrative self-government in itself, we involuntarily recall the eloquent words of Mr. Kavelin: 'in the narrow circle of local public life, in this microcosm of the state, love for the fatherland and public spirit are fostered, public opinion is formed, characters are developed, and a beneficial habit of managing public affairs and interests is acquired. From this school, narrow in scope, but broad in meaning and influence, great statesmen, the honor, glory, and decoration of their country, then emerge into the service of the state, and sometimes onto the stage of world history. Where there is no local public life, there is no such school.' 1) We do not share the distinction made by Brater between communal autonomy (Selbstgesetzgebung) and communal self-government (Selbstverwaltung) — in our opinion, the English selfgovernment, translated by French publicists as l'administration du pays par le pays [the administration of the country by the country], contains both concepts: what kind of self-government can there be without autonomy?
Section I. General view of the development of regional administration in the 18th century
page 12/57