Kharkoff, Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tamboff, Voronezh and Saratoff.

The agrarian problem as it confronted the first Duma and the agrarian programs of the different parties are subjects too vast to be discussed in this connection. The governmental agrarian legislation, promulgated after the first Duma was dispersed, though very interesting, would carry us too far if discussed in detail. What must here be stated is this, that none of this legislation was passed in the interest of the peasant class. It became perfectly clear that practically all parties of the first Duma were in favor of the expropriation of the crown lands without compensation. The Tsar, knowing that the people of Russia might sooner or later confiscate the estates of the Imperial family, the title to which is exceedingly doubtful, issued in the absence of the Duma an ukase, ordering the sale of the crown lands to the so-called Peasant Bank. This ukase not only contradicts the spirit and the letter of the constitution, but does not even conform with its technical details, not having been countersigned by the responsible minister.1

It is well known throughout Russia that the "Peasant Bank" does not operate in the interests of the peasantry, but that its chief purpose is artificially to increase the value of the land of the nobility.

As a result, for instance, in the province of Kharkoff the peasant had to pay 102 rubles for a dessiatine of land bought through the Peasant Bank and but 83 rubles if bought through another agency; in Kursk 135 rubles through the Bank, 96 otherwise; in Bessarabia 142 rubles through the Bank, 62 otherwise; in Saratoff 65 rubles through the Bank, 49 rubles otherwise; in Kieff 172 rubles through the Bank, 129 rubles otherwise, etc.,

etc.2 During the last two years the price of land has dropped very considerably, due to the war, the agrarian movement and the revolution in general. But such considerations do not weigh with the Peasant Bank, especially when it deals with men on the top. Here are valuations placed by the Bank on estates in 1904 and 1906 respectively:

1 Pravitelstvenni Vestnik for August 14, 1906, and October 28, 1906. Stshit, N. 11, p. 6.

Such examples can be quoted ad infinitum, but they can only prove what everybody already knows, that the land of the "White Tsar" is the land of the blackest graft.

A great deal of attention and a great deal of criticism has been attracted to the unconstitutional and not countersigned law of November 9, 1906. It authorizes every member of the village community to declare, if he so chooses, his allotment as his private property. This law practically dissolves the village community or "mir." This is really a progressive step. But it is clear that on the part of the government it was but a very clever move to create class antagonism among the peasantry, and so divert them from their antagonism to the landlord class. It is obvious that only the few well-to-do peasants will hasten to become private landowners, and that they will earn the ill-will of the unfortunate pauper peasants. It is the old governmental wisdom-"divide et impera."

What the future has in store for Russia no one can tell. But it seems clear that there is no hope for genuine improvement in the peasants' situation so long as the government is not responsible to the people.

Columbia University.

VLADIMIR G. SIMKHOVITCH.

1 Tovarishch, N. 143, of January 1, 1907.

THE RECENT REFORMS IN THE CONSULAR

SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.

CONTENTS.

Recent reforms largely due to relative rise in importance of commercial features of consular duties, p. 40; why business interests reinforced ranks of earlier reformers, p. 40; indirect value of consuls in helping exploit foreign markets, p. 42; careful selection of consuls by European governments, p. 43; why practical business methods have not hitherto been introduced into our consular service, p. 44; previous attempts at reform, p. 45; Boston Chamber of Commerce and National Board of Trade become interested, p. 47; the Adams Bill, p. 47; the Chambers of Commerce Bill, p. 48; new movement started by New York Board of Trade and Transportation, p. 48; the National Consular Reform Convention, p. 48; the Lodge Bill passed April 5, 1906, p. 50; executive order of June 27, p. 52; rules governing examinations for entering the service, p. 53; scope of examinations, p. 54; results of first examination, p. 54; summary showing inducements for young men to enter the service under present situation, p. 54.

THE

HE recent reforms in the consular service of the United States are the result of no entirely new movement. For upwards of thirteen years the public mind has been directed to this question. The whole matter has been discussed freely by writers in the leading newspapers and magazines; by government officials, many of whom have had experience in the foreign service; by officers of the Department of State who have superintended the consular corps; by successive congressional committees; by the National Civil Service Reform League; and by most of the leading merchants' associations, Chambers of Commerce or Boards of Trade throughout the country. Moreover, the fundamental principles which, it was believed, should form the basis for consular reorganization, have repeatedly been embodied in bills introduced into the House or Senate by leading exponents of the reform interests.

The causes for such general dissatisfaction are too well known to require elaboration here. Moreover, the specific evils of the service will appear later when the details of the recent reform movement are considered. Its culmination in the Act of April 5,

1906, may be traced largely to the relative rise in importance of the commercial features of consular duties. The helpful influence of a carefully selected and trained body of consular officials in the expansion of foreign commerce has only comparatively recently come to be appreciated. Gradually, however, the possibilities here involved have drawn the attention of the commercial and industrial associations to the subject of consular reorganization on the basis of practical business methods.

The reason why the business interests of the country should now reinforce the ranks of the earlier reformers is suggested by the United States Civil Service Commission as follows:1

"Our consular service has attained to-day an importance, far beyond that which it had in any previous period of our history. So long as our exports were confined to a few agricultural products, and we sold our manufactured goods mostly at home, the foreign consul was a man of comparatively little importance. But we have entered upon a new phase of our national career. We have become the foremost productive nation in the world. All other countries, even those of Europe, are full of undeveloped possibilities, and enormous industrial changes are going on furnishing opportunities for the indefinite extension of our comThis is the time for America to seize the opportunities and to use its special genius for organization and invention in extending its industrial preeminence. A great deal has been done already with very imperfect governmental machinery and more highly developed individual initiative. .. To maintain and increase our industrial prominence, we ought to have by far the best consular service in the world. We should have the quickest and most reliable information as to our opportunities, as well as business representatives who are able to improve them. This can only be done by a consular service which is uniformly instructed and alert.”

Although, as will appear later, the above extract underestimates the function of the consul otherwise than as an envoy of trade, it strikes the keynote of the recent reform movement. The consular service is to-day rapidly becoming a well-recognized factor in commercial expansion. Half a century ago, owing to the comparatively slight economic development of the country, the situ1 Nineteenth Annual Report for year ended June 30, 1902, p. 26.

ation was entirely different. The commercial function of the consular official had scarcely been conceived. This was because the encouragement of domestic trade was considered of the first importance. Foreign commerce was then too inconsiderable to receive serious attention. Fifty years ago the population of the United States was less than 31 millions. The total foreign trade was valued at $591,651,733, of which the imports and exports respectively were $310,432,310 and $281,219,423.1 Since that time the population has increased almost threefold. The foreign trade has expanded until, for the calendar year 1906, it passed for the first time the $3,000,000,000 mark, the imports amounting to $1,321,064,694 and the exports to $1,772,759,803.2 Of the latter, about 43% were manufactured goods, as against 30% in 1896 and 22% in 1886.3 This rapid increase in the share which manufactures form of the total exports indicates that, in the near future, they will represent more than half the value of the export trade.

The numerous and far-reaching changes in the economic organization of our national life, which are but partially illustrated in the above figures, have brought the United States into new economic relations with the rest of the world. In this connection the words of Secretary Root in his address before the TransMississippi commercial congress on November 20 last, are to the point. He said: "Since the first election of President McKinley the people of the United States have, for the first time, accumulated a surplus of capital beyond the requirements of internal development. That surplus is increasing with extraordinary rapidity. We have paid our debts to Europe and have become a creditor instead of a debtor nation. We have faced about. We have left the ranks of the borrowing nations and have entered the ranks of the investing nations. Our surplus energy is beginning to look beyond our own borders throughout the world, to find opportunity for the profitable use of our surplus capital; foreign markets for our manufactures; foreign mines to be developed; foreign bridges and railroads and public works to be built; for

1 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1905, p. 636.

9 Daily Consular and Trade Reports, No. 2781, Jan. 30, 1907.

3 Austin, O. P., in Annual Financial Review of the N. Y. Times, 1907, p. 24.