At the time of the French Revolution the principle was adopted that there should be no state within a state, and, therefore, all associations of persons of the same trade were prohibited, and even temporary combinations of laborers might be punished by imprisonment and fine under Article 426 of the Penal Code. The French were very slow in modifying these restrictions, and though professional associations were tolerated under the Second Empire, it was not until 1884 that a general trade union law was passed permitting associations of persons engaged in the same trade without the authorization of the police, and giving them corporate rights on compliance with very simple terms. Under this law ordinary wage-receivers are now at liberty to form unions and to strike if they see fit. But the Penal Code in Article 126 prohibits combinations among the functionaries of the state to stop work in such a way as to hinder the performance of any service. Thus, while strictly professional associations have been permitted in the civil service, it has been held by the authorities that government employees could not form trade unions, the purpose of which might be to inaugurate strikes. Now, however, not only the letter carriers and other employees of the government have claimed the right of combination as one of the fundamental rights of man, but even the school teachers have joined in the movement. As a consequence, the government has introduced a bill, the purpose of which is, while clearly defining the rights of associations formed among public functionaries, to absolutely prohibit them from going on strike.

Monsieur Clemenceau, the Prime Minister, has clearly told the office-holders that in entering the service of the state they acquire certain privileges, such as fixity of tenure, regular promotion, gratuitous schooling for their children, reduced rates on the railroads, pensions, etc., and that these rights involve on their part certain obligations, among them such a loyalty to the service as will prevent them from wantonly crippling the government for their own private profit. He shows that they owe it equally to their profession, to republican ideals, and to the country to oppose the principles of the general federation of labor which tries to excite class hatred and breach of trust, and praises "sabotage." This latter method seems to be a French refinement

of the familiar ca'canny method of some of the English trade unions, and shows itself in any device by which a person charged with a duty or errand can surreptitiously neglect it. An example is found in the practice of the errand boys of pastry cooks, who, on delivering a fish garnished with crabs to a customer, put the crabs in their pockets and decline to deliver them, until they have received a fee. What gives the episode a peculiar and somewhat humorous aspect is that Monsieur Clemenceau, who, as minister, is trying to maintain discipline in the service, is forced to eat his own words by the agitators, who bombard him with the very speeches which he made but a few years ago as a radical journalist and Senator.

A more serious feature is the bearing which the whole movement has upon socialistic theory. According to the familiar formula of Marx, the whole wage system is but a clever device by which the owner of capital is able to filch from the worker a portion of his product to be turned into profits and interest. If this injustice is to be done away with, the private ownership and management of capital must be abolished, and the state become the sole employer of labor and the one captain of industry. If this should be brought to pass, then it is clear that the state could never tolerate any strike, since the one excuse for strikes would be done away with. Moreover, if the state were the sole employer, a strike against the state would bring about a general stoppage of production.

Yet the present strike movement is instigated precisely by the socialists themselves, who thus discredit the very employer and very method of employment for which they are in theory striving. This object lesson has a particular value at the present time, when playing with socialism seems to have become even in our country quite popular among certain well meaning people. Those who associate the term with altruism should not fail to realize what its spirit and temper are in the countries in which it appears as a full-fledged, aggressive, political party. There the "native hue" of revolution is not "sicklied o'er with the pale cast" either of thought or of benevolence, but socialists still celebrate the anniversary of the Paris Commune as something to be proud of.

THE AGRARIAN MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA.

CONTENTS.

I. Disregard of human life by the Russian Bureaucracy, p. 9; emancipation forced upon the serfs in 1861, p. 10. II. Causes of emancipation, p. 12; character of Russian serfdom, p. 14; operation of the Mir system, p. 16. III. Gradual impoverishment of the peasantry, p. 18; insurrections and their forcible suppression by Plehve, p. 23; Liberal Manifesto of 1904, p. 25; change in the Agrarian movement, 1905, p. 27; looting of estates, p. 29; the All Russian Peasants' Union, p. 32; increased cruelties on the part of the government, p. 33; abolition of communal property by the law of November 9, 1906, p. 38.

Ν NOT

I.

OT long ago I spent an evening with a friend, a collector of books and prints relating to the American revolution. As he was pointing out his bibliographical rarities, his collections bearing on the events in that memorable struggle for independence, what impressed me particularly was a large number of contemporary publications relating to the so-called Boston massacre. How rare or how valuable those books were, I do not know. What I do know is that the popular indignation aroused by the shooting of those five men was a rare and precious event in human history. The future of such a people was established and secured.

A nation with such historical traditions, a society with such a profound respect for human life is, naturally enough, laboring under great difficulties when it tries to understand and assimilate news brought to it from Russia. We reason in the light of our own personal or historical experience. And when the American public is confronted by an attitude so totally unlike its own, by events and situations which wholly contradict all their possible experience, it cannot look upon them as real. Its attitude is like that of children towards fairy tales. "It is true, but it happens only in a story."

Thousands of cases could be cited to prove that absolute disregard of human life is still characteristic of the whole Russian military and civil bureaucracy; a single one will suffice as an

illustration. Only this minute, while writing these lines, I receive a packet of Russian newspapers. On the front page of the paper first in order I notice the following paragraph :

"The characteristic feature of the autocratic bureaucracy is contempt for the human being if he is not a prince, a count, a high official, or a wealthy man. This contempt for the common people shows itself everywhere, in all the petty details of our régime. But perhaps nowhere did it take so disgusting a form as in the following case just published in the newspapers. The chief of the commissary, Lieutenant General Parchevski, has sent the following characteristic telegram to the commander of the 12th East Siberian Regiment of Fusiliers: "To avoid losses to the treasury, I authorize you to feed the regiment on the cattle suspected of having the pest.'

Such instances could be quoted ad infinitum, but it is not a catalogue of crimes and atrocities committed by the Russian government we are compiling. It is our object rather to consider the fundamental problems, the crucial points of Russia's agrarian movement. But these two considerations are vitally connected. The Russian agrarian movement could not be comprehended without an understanding of the government's contempt for human life; on the other hand, this very attitude of the government and the Russian bureaucracy toward human life is caused and conditioned by the outlawed and servile situation of the peasantry.

Serfdom was abolished in 1861. Let us consider for a moment this so-called abolition of serfdom. First of all, a word about the Russian nobility. The old feudal aristocracy was practically exterminated by the first Russian autocrat, Ivan the Terrible. The Russian landed nobility were men of service. From the middle of the 18th century they were under no obligation to serve the state. But tradition on the one hand and economic necessity on the other, forced almost all of the nobility into service. There was no primogeniture in Russia and the estates, as a rule, were not large. Land per se was practically worthless, an estate being valued according to the number of serfs attached to it. One, therefore, did not estimate the wealth of 1" Kurier," N. 8.

a man by the number of acres of which he was in possession, but by the number of "souls" he owned. It was against the traditions of the Russian nobility to occupy themselves with commercial enterprises, but such as did exist depended entirely upon serf labor.

The labor of the serfs was, therefore, the primary source of the nobleman's income. Government and nobility were practically identical. The Tsar was the first and the wealthiest nobleman. All officials from the highest to the lowest, with the exception of petty scribes, non-commissioned officers, etc., were noblemen. All the organs of state were, therefore, in the hands of the serf-owning class. But on February 19, 1861, we are told, the Russian government abolished serfdom, and bestowed upon the freed peasant land allotments. It looked like an extraordinary act of class-generosity, but there is one circumstance that disturbs this idyll.

The Russian peasantry refused the abolition offered them. "Freedom" had to be introduced with the help of the military. In the official "Short History of the Activity of the Department of Interior for the 25 years, 1855-1880," we read that in the first two years after the publication of the Abolition Act, from February 19, 1861, to February 19, 1863, the Department of Interior had to suppress more than 1100 agrarian riots. Only serious cases are registered here. As a matter of fact there was trouble on almost every estate.

The final arrangements between landlord and peasant could take place either by mutual agreement on the part of both contracting parties, or upon the one-sided demand of the landlord. The "mutual agreement" as a matter of fact, under existing circumstances, amounted to successful pressure brought to bear on the peasant by the landlord and the local administration. The one-sided demand of the landlord was the last resort against the desperate and extreme stubbornness of the peasant. Up to January 1, 1877, 61,784 abolition contracts between peasantcommunes and landlords were made, of which 21,598 (35%) were arranged by "mutual agreement," and 40,186 (65%) upon demand of the respective landlords.1

1 See Simkhovitch, Die Feldgeneinschaft in Russland, Jena 1898, p. 253.