Division III. 3(a). Subjects of the department of the…

In the absence of any theoretical view on administration, under the dominance of bureaucratic decentralization, in the Muscovite government of the 17th century there was no division of administration into departmental subjects. Before Peter the Great, we find an indiscriminate concentration of the most diverse affairs in one and the same department—and, moreover, both in the sphere of central administration and in the sphere of regional administration. One and the same prikaz managed the most diverse affairs: the Ambassadorial Prikaz managed, among other things, certain monasteries, the Petition Prikaz—certain tax collections, etc. ¹); in the hands of the voivodes were concentrated spiritual, foreign, military, discharge, estate, judicial, and governmental affairs. In the sphere of central administration, by the formation of collegiums, Peter the Great more successfully subdivided the administration, but this subdivision, on the one hand, was too fragmented, and on the other hand, in the collegiums, similar to the former prikazy, heterogeneous affairs were concentrated: for example, in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs—the affairs of Little Russia, postal affairs, etc. ²). It was finally subdivided in the year 75 [1775]: Thus, in the provincial chancellery, prior to the establishment of the provinces, there was the highest center of all parts of the regional administration. But at the same time, it should be noted that under Peter the Great, there existed judicial and financial bodies, and that during the 18th century some bodies occasionally appeared in the regional administration, drawing away certain affairs from the provincial chancellery. Bearing these circumstances in mind, let us turn our attention to: 1) judicial affairs, 2) police, and 3) financial affairs—since affairs of this kind always constitute the essential content of administration. Judicial affairs. We do not attach absolute significance to the division of administration into departmental subjects, admitting at the same time that this division is to some extent necessary for the rational organization of the administrative system. But the complete, unconditional separation of judicial power from governmental power constitutes an urgent need of society, a necessary feature of rational administration. Administration in the strict sense and justice pursue completely different goals: through administration, governmental goals are achieved; the task of justice is justice. Justice, says Franz, in his Physiologie der Staaten [Physiology of States], satisfies ¹) (On collegiums, see the work of Mr. Vitsyn, "A Brief Outline of Administration in Russia from Peter the Great to the Publication of the General Establishment of Ministries".) the needs of society more than those of the state ¹). The independence of justice from administration also requires the independence of judges, expressed in the irremovability of their office. This independence of justice, the irremovability of judges, is a great result of the political and social progress of the states of Western Europe. This principle is completely new: alien to both the classical state and the medieval patrimonial state. The ruler of a region in former times either engaged in the examination of a judicial case himself, or supervised the judicial institutions of his region. On the other hand, the judge sometimes engaged in administrative affairs. Thus, the administrator acted as a judge, the judge as an administrator—thus, justice and administration proper, different in their goals, were mixed and merged. Thus, our voivodes of the 17th century, along with all parts of the administration, also possessed all branches of justice—criminal, civil, and so-called voluntary justice (justice volontaire, freiwillige Gerichtsbarkeit). As organs of criminal justice, the voivodes judged state crimes, gubnaya (criminal) cases, and police offenses. Managing civil justice, the voivodes examined civil processes, having varying degrees of power in their resolution. Voluntary jurisdiction consisted in the fact that under the direct supervision of the voivode, ¹ We do not entirely agree with Franz. He says: "...the judicial profession in and of itself is directed not at the state, but rather at civil society, to which in particular all disputes over mine and thine exclusively belong. For whether Hans or Peter owns this or that field is completely irrelevant to the state; and so it is with all private law lawsuits. It is completely different with criminal jurisdiction..." (?)² (See: Vorstudien zu einer Physiologie der Staaten [Preliminary Studies for a Physiology of States] by Franz, 1857, p. 239). It seems to us that Franz went too far: justice is one of the highest functions of the state—which should not prevent it from being completely independent of the administration. In Western European states, the crown magistracy dominates, and not the elective one—which does not destroy the principle of the irremovability of judges. square clerks (podyachiye) wrote various civil acts, which were then presented for approval to the syezzhaya izba (administrative office). At the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great, the scope of the judicial power of regional rulers was even expanded: in relation to criminal affairs, the voivodes of Kazan, Astrakhan, Novgorod, and the Siberian cities received a higher degree of power; and with the abolition of the gubnoy elders, the voivodes began to manage all gubnaya affairs. But at the same time, the judicial power of the regional rulers was limited in relation to state crimes: those who declared the sovereign's word and deed, the voivodes, without investigating, had to present to the Preobrazhensky Prikaz. Even earlier, in 1699, the zemstvo burgomasters were ordered to manage the townspeople in all sorts of reprisal and petition affairs ¹). Despite these limitations on the judicial power of the regional rulers, at the initial appearance of the governors, judicial power was still in the hands of the voivodes, under the appeal of the governors. But Peter the Great did not cease to strive, having separated the judicial power from the administrative, to establish a special office for the administration of the court—the Landrichter. The administrative environment of that time was so alien to this separation that the Landrichter was also entrusted with governmental affairs: in 1707, Rimsky-Korsakov was made commandant over Koporye, and at the same time Landrichter of Ingermanland—he was entrusted to manage the cities with court, reprisal, and generally all kinds of administration ²). In 1713, the Landrichters, and together with them the Landrats, appeared in other provinces as well. The Landrichters were placed above the Landrats: in 1715, a salary was assigned—to the Landrichters 3,500 rubles in money and 150 chetverts of grain, and to the Landrats 190 rubles in money and 190 chetverts of grain *). The office of the Landrichter was predominantly judicial, that of the Landrats—administrative. But the former, engaging in the court, P. S. Z. No. 1674.—at the same time dispatched certain administrative affairs, and the Landrats, managing the shares of households subordinated to them and generally assisting the governors in the administration of the province—also conducted the court, which was appealed to the governor ¹). In 1718, it was proposed to reorganize the entire regional administration on the basis of the Swedish statute: it was proposed to make the Ober-Landrichter (the higher zemstvo judge) the chief judge of the province, under whom a Landsekretär (zemstvo clerk) was to serve; the Landrichters (zemstvo judges) were to be subordinated to the Ober-Landrichters, and under them Landschreibers (zemstvo podyachiye) were assigned ²). Having familiarized himself with the Swedish statute, Peter the Great did not cease to think about the separation of judicial power from governmental power: he thought to achieve this goal by the establishment of various courts. In the same year 1718, the Collegium of Justice was ordered to organize regional justice. In a report to the sovereign, it presented: "In Sweden there are various courts—the main ones, which are called Hofgericht: in that court, without exception, all affairs are dispatched that belong to justice.... all those courts are supervised by the king himself and 1 P. S."