its solid principles, its unchangeable conclusions, its living connection with life and with living questions of the moment. Does the work of Professor Bunge satisfy the accuracy, precision and clarity that his police law, as a scientific work, should require from him? Improvement is an applied part of political economy: deanery is part of state law.” This is the view on the subject that the author establishes and carries out in his police law. Therefore, police law, consisting of Improvement and Housekeeping, often consists of the provisions of political economy1, in particular from the principles of state law. What kind of nome and mixture is this, and why does the author call it police law, sticking to the last component, and not political economy, which makes up the first? And if improvement is an integral part of political economy, and deanery is a part of state law, then why separate these parts from the flowering sciences and not separate these parts according to their affiliation, placing one in the course of political economy, & the other in the course of state law? Moreover, now, since 1868, political economy has been taught in the Faculty of Law and students of this Faculty take a special course in political economy. Why should they listen to political economy in two separate courses? Nah, there’s something wrong here; but how, about this, the author of “Police Law” is completely silent, and he deprives his “kure” of certainty and accuracy and clarity, and therefore the interest that is desirable and occupied by science. The last word in science is not so important as its first word, based, significant, starting point or point of departure. Let's look at Mr. Bunge's essay on issues that must be presented to every lawyer student, and at the first word - law, at least police law. 1) Whose right is this? Who belongs to or who is the subject of police law? It is known that the subject of the law of a given country can be either an individual person, i.e. citizen, or whole society, e.g.
church, zemstvo, community, people, or finally the state, government, supreme power. Which of these possible three subjects acts as the governing policeman? Individual, or society, or government and state? One thing is clear here, that the subject, or as he is now called the bearer of police law, cannot be exclusively a citizen, a separate person who has mastered a special area of private or civil law. Of the remaining two subjects, the government and the state, as is almost universally recognized, exclusively concern the police and police law. But there are also writers who think that it should belong to society, the zemstvo, the people, and from the mass of rights they single out a special system of public law instead of police law - similar to church law. The author does not say directly about his views on the issue, but of course, he joins the majority, and, therefore, leaves it to the state to manage the affairs of improvement and decency. But is such a construction of law possible for his system? Here, his system includes the principles of political-economics, even with the exposition of economic teachings, but here the main generally accepted principle is freedom of industry and laissez-faire. Political economists teach us that the state and government must recognize our freedom in the field of industry, and should not rush into this area in the same way as in the affairs granted to the church, in its dogmas, in its teachings, in its laws. Will not science and art demand the same thing for themselves? And where will the police right remain with its power to dispose of improvements? This question about the subject of police law is further clarified by subsequent questions.
2) Kame subjects fall within the scope of police law, or what constitutes its object. In response to this question, again almost unanimously from ancient times to the last minute, even according to the “course of police law,” which we adhere to in this review, in that