The Liquor Problem 
 IN Russia 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/liquorprobleminr01john 
 
The LIQUOR 
 
 PROBLEM 
 IN RUSSIA 
 
 By 
 
 WILLIAM E. JOHNSON 
 
 Author of 
 
 *‘Tbe Federal Government and the 
 Liquor Traffic” 
 
 u 
 
 151237 
 
 1915 
 
 THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 WESTERVILLE, OHIO 
 
Copyright 1915 
 
 The American Issue Publishing Company 
 

 
 j-r 
 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 <o 
 
 volume is one result of studies that I began on 
 Russian social problems in 1913, when I visited that 
 m V# \ country with the intent of doing some muckraking 
 J in connection with the vodka monopoly. I did not 
 carry out my original purpose, for, wherever I 
 went, I felt a powerful undertow that indicated 
 better things to come. The greatest men in Russia had recog- 
 nized the national mistake and were thinking; and, when a Rus- 
 sian begins to think, something is apt to break. The greatest 
 newspapers of the country were publishing accounts of the fail- 
 ure of the monopoly enterprise. Its sponsors and promoters were 
 turning against it. The monopoly statistics were referred to as 
 the “drunken statistics.” It was in the air that great things were 
 to happen, but the crash came before the time dreamed of by the 
 most optimistic. The monopoly was overthrown by the exi- 
 gencies of war, but its days long since, like the days of serfdom 
 seventy-five years ago, had been numbered. The same causes 
 that precipitated the war and the death of the monopoly also 
 precipitated this volume. 
 
 A few words of explanation seem necessary. Because of the 
 peculiarities of the Russian alphabet and vocabulary sounds, 
 there is much variation in the spelling of Slavic words when 
 done into English by current writers. No system of uniform 
 rendering has been agreed upon by English translators, and a 
 great variety of English spelling is the result. For instance, take 
 the name of Doctor Grigoriev, the editor of the Petrograd tem- 
 perance monthly, Viestnik Tresvosti {Temperance Messenger or 
 Temperance Courier). The Russian rendering of his name is 
 AoKTopii rpHropbeei, It may be spelled into English as Grig- 
 orieff, Grigoriev, Grigorieu or Grigoriew. It may be found 
 translated into English in either of these ways. I have chosen 
 the spelling Grigoriev and have rendered all Russian names of 
 the same Slavic termination in the same way. Further, where 
 Russian words are rendered into English with two or more dif- 
 ferent spellings, each of which is equally authoritative, I have, 
 in the interest of simplified spelling, used the shorter. For 
 instance, I have spelled veche instead of vetche and Duma instead 
 of Douma. Conforming to the taste of Slavic scholars, I spell 
 Tsar instead of Czar. 
 
 151237 
 
As the outcome of the war, the name of the Russian capital, 
 St. Petersburg was changed to Petrograd. To avoid confusion, 
 this pariicular city is always referred to as Petrograd, throughout 
 the book, regardless of the date of reference. 
 
 The Russian dates throughout this volume, so far as they 
 can be identified, are “Old Style,” conforming to the Russian 
 calendar, which is thirteen days behind our own. In the case of 
 dates, other than those of Russia, the “New Style” is followed. 
 In other words, I adopt the same calendar dates used by the 
 country to which the item or event occurs. 
 
 This will account for some apparent discrepancies of dates 
 with those in current English literature. The Russians would be 
 glad to change their calendar to conform to that of the rest of 
 the world only that such a change would meet with powerful 
 opposition from those opposed to upsetting the numerous feast 
 days, saints’ days and other holidays. The Slav would not suffer 
 that to iiappen for any cause. 
 
 For translations and many helpful suggestions, I am indebted 
 to Leo Pasvolsky of the editorial staff of Russkoye Slovo, the 
 excellent Russian daily newspaper of New York City. By her 
 careful revisions of my manuscript. Dr. Sarah M. Sherrick, of 
 Otterbein College, has placed herself under obligations of the 
 reader. She has had a civilizing and restraining influence upon 
 my Arizona English. The drawings throughout are the work of 
 Russell S. Henderson. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Westerville, Ohio, March 25, 1915. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 THE ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 NICHOLAS II. Frontispiece. 
 
 MICHAEL DIMITROVICH TSCHELISHEV 
 GRAND DUKE CONSTANTINE 
 COUNT SERGIUS JULEVICH WITTE 
 NICHOLAS DE CRAMER 
 GRAND DUKE NICHOLAS NICOLAEVVICH 
 DR. MATTI HELENIUS-SEPPALA 
 MADAME ALI-TRYGG HELENIUS 
 ALEXANDER 11. 
 
 ALEXANDER HI. 
 
 THE PRINCE OE OLDENBURG 
 
 GRAND DUKE MICHAEL ALEXIS, THE TSAREVICH 
 M. KOKOVSTOV 
 CATHERINE 11. 
 
 ALEXIS MICHAELOVICH 
 PETER THE GREAT 
 
 GRAND DUKE SERGIUS AND HIS WIFE 
 
 A RUSSIAN TROIKA, A THREE-HORSE CONVEYANCE 
 
 NICHOLAS 11. AND HIS FAMILY 
 
 RUSSIAN TYPE PORTRAIT OF NICHOLAS 11. 
 
 CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, PETROGRAD 
 
 THE IZBA OR HOME OF A RUSSIAN PEASANT 
 
 A CORNER IN OLD RIGA 
 
 HOUSE OF THE “BLACK HEADS,” RIGA 
 
 ARC OF FOUNTAINS, PETERHOF 
 
 MILKMAIDS OF KIEV, THE “HOLY CITY” OF RUSSIA 
 
 INTERIOR OF A SIBERIAN (MINUSINSK TRIBE) HOME 
 
 WINE SKINS AND WINE SHOPS OF TIFLIS 
 
 THE IMPERIAL DUMA, PETROGRAD 
 
 NEVSKY PROSPECT, PETROGRAD 
 
 HISTORIC MEETING OF ALLIES’ FINANCIERS, PARIS 
 
 ST. ISAAC’S CATHEDRAL, PETROGRAD 
 

 JIICHAEL DIMITROVICH TSCHELISHEV 
 
 DRY LEADER OF THE IMPERIAL DUMA, 
 
 WHO PERSONALLY AND SUCCESSFULLY INTERCEDED 
 WITH THE TSAR TO DECREE THE PRO- 
 HIBITION OF VODKA 
 
 s 
 
 

 
 ■".i? • 
 
 
 A , 
 
 ri^ 
 

 GRAND DUKE CONSTANTINE 
 
 RULER OF THE PROHIBITION CITY OF PASVOLSK. 
 
 IT WAS TO HIM THAT THE TSAR 
 TELEGRAPHED HIS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 
 GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY PERMANENTLY 
 
 

 COUNT SERGIUS JULEVICH WITTE 
 
 WHO LAUNCHED THE RUSSIAN VODKA MONOPOLY 
 AS A FISCAL AND PHILANTHROPIC MEASURE. 
 
 IT HAVING FAILED IN ITS PURPOSE, HE AIDED IN 
 BRINGING IT TO AN END 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
NICHOLAS DE CRAMER 
 
 RUSSIAN NOBLEMAN, MEMBER IMPERIAL COUNCIL, 
 WHO. WITH COUNT WITTE, LED THE DEBATE 
 IN THAT BODY FOR EXCISE REFORM 
 
I 
 
EE 
 
 GRAND DUKE NICHOLAS NICOLAEVVTCII 
 
 commander of RUSSIAN TROOPS, 
 
 WHO ADVISED THE TSAR TO ABOLISH VODKA, 
 AND WHO EXPELLED VODKA, WINE AND BEER 
 FROM HIS MILITARY JURISDICTION 
 
'1 
 
DR. MATTI HELENIUS-SEPPALA 
 
 MEMBER OF THE FINNISH DIET AND RECOGNIZED 
 LEADER OF THE TEMPERANCE REFORM 
 IN SUOMI. A FAMILIAR FIGURE AT INTERNATIONAL 
 TEMPERANCE GATHERINGS 
 
:\IADAME ALI TRVGG IIELENIUS 
 
 LEADER OF WOMAN's CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION 
 OF FINLAND. FOR A DOZEN YEARS 
 SHE HAS LED THE FINNISH MATRONS IN THEIR WAR 
 ON ALCOHOLIC DRINKS 
 
A 
 
 
 
 
 ■i'- 
 
 ?? 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 ,.v 
 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 ■ ‘'W 
 
 9i 
 
ALEXANDER II. 
 
 IN ADDITION TO ABOLISHING SERFDOM 
 THROUGHOUT RUSSIA, HE ABOLISHED THE “FARMING 
 system” of LIQUOR LICENSING, 
 SUBSTITUTING A SYSTEM OF EXCISE TAXATION 
 
ALEXANDER III. 
 
 THE REAL FOUNDER OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN 
 ALCOHOL MONOPOLY. 
 
 IN 1885 HE INSTRUCTED HIS MINISTER OF FINANCE 
 TO DEVISE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSAL 
 

 THE PRINCE OF OLDENBURG 
 
 HEAD OF THE PETROCRAD “ y . M. C. A..” RUN IN 
 CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEK CHURCH, 
 
 AND ALSO HEAD OF THE PETROGRAD TEMPERANCE 
 (ORGANIZATIONS 
 
GRAND DUKE MICHAEL ALEXIS, THE TSAREVTCH 
 
 HETR TO THE RUSSIAN THRONE 
 AND PATRON OF THE TEMPERANCE ENTERPRISES 
 AT MOSCOW 
 
M. KOKOVSTOV 
 
 PREMIER OF RUSSIA, WHO SUCCEEDED M. STOI.YPIN, 
 AND WHO DEVELOPED THE FINANCIAL SIDE 
 OF THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT HE WAS DEPOSED AND 
 PETER BARK APPOINTED IN HIS PLACE 
 

 CATHERINE 11. 
 
 SHE INSTITUTED THE NOTORIOUS “FARMING SYSTEM’’ 
 OF LIQUOR LICENSING IN I767, 
 
 AND COMPLETED THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE SERFS, 
 ROBBING THEM OF THEIR REMAINING RIGHTS 
 
 
ALEXIS MICHAELOVICH 
 
 SECOND TSAR OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY, 
 
 THE FIRST RUSSIAN MONARCH TO ATTEMPT TO STAY 
 THE TIDE OF DRUNKENNESS BY MEANS OF 
 GOVERNMENT REGULATION ( 1645-76) 
 
 H 
 
 
 s 
 
rn U 
 
 I 
 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 
 \ 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 } 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 y 
 
 ^ PETER THE GREAT ^ 
 
 / FOUNDER OF PETROGRAD. AN EXCESSIVE DRINKER. / 
 HE IMPROVED THE CONDITION OF WOMEN AND ^ 
 
 y AND ESTABLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY IN / 
 
 V HIS ARMY FOR SWEARING V 
 
 I I 
 
GRAND DUKE SERGIUS AND HIS WIFE 
 
 HE FOUNDED THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT IN MOSCOW. 
 A TYRANT, HE WAS KILLED BY A NIHILIST BOMB. 
 HIS WIFE FOUNDED A CONVENT AND BE- 
 CAME ITS FIRST SISTER 
 

 
 
 
 .- • ■ ,, - I I 
 
 .' .. :■ .k\ h- 
 
 
 : • •: '5-'? 
 
 :* S-- 
 
CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 ONTRADICTORY as it may appear, 
 there exists in autocratic Russia a 
 greater degree of personal liberty 
 than in any other civilized nation on 
 the globe. What a man does, so long 
 as the interests of others or of the 
 government are not directly con- 
 cerned, is regarded as strictly his 
 own affair; how much a man drinks 
 is nobody’s business so long as he 
 commits no outrage against proper- 
 ty or life. The Russian never dreams 
 of criticizing a public official on ac- 
 count of the peccadillos of his pri- 
 vate life. Rectitude of private life 
 is not essential to social standing, 
 not that shortcomings of this sort 
 meet with popular approval, but be- 
 cause they are regarded as the affair only of those di- 
 rectly concerned. Censorship of the stage and press 
 exists, in theory, only for the protection of the gov- 
 ernment and the dynasty. Yet it must be conceded 
 that in a country where there is no writ of habeas 
 corpus and no constitutional guarantees against un- 
 reasonable search and seizure, grave abuses must oc- 
 cur. The theoretical protection of the government 
 frequently results in extreme cases of invasion of 
 what are considered private rights in a constitutional 
 government. But beyond this theoretical safeguard- 
 
 St. Peter's and *- < 
 St. Paul’s, ^ ^ 
 Petrograd 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ing of authority there lies complete liberty of thought 
 and action : there is no Anthony Comstock to inter- 
 fere. Catherine the Great is no less a popular heroine 
 because she lived the kind of a life that would have 
 rendered her odious had she dwelt in any English- 
 speaking nation. The Slav glories in the wonders 
 she wrought for the advancement of Russian civiliza- 
 tion and power. He discusses her private shortcom- 
 ings in the affectionate manner that an American 
 dilates upon the quaint yarns of Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 Americans will recall the visit made to this coun- 
 try some years ago by Maxim Gorky, a recognized 
 prophet of liberty, a writer and thinker, in the very 
 front rank of Russian life. He was in heyday world- 
 wide popularity and America prepared to receive him 
 with open arms. Social functions and lecture appoint- 
 ments were everywhere arranged. But, behold, it was 
 discovered that his female companion was not his 
 wife according to Anglo-Saxon canons. There was 
 forthwith a national scandal. The lecture appoint- 
 ments and social functions were not only canceled, 
 but Gorky had great difficulty in even finding a hotel 
 where he could stay over night. Being repeatedly re- 
 fused accommodations, he was driven to find lodg- 
 ings in private homes. Mortified and disappointed, 
 he recrossed the ocean, having failed to find in free 
 America the very personal freedom that he enjoyed 
 in his own despotic Russia. Gifted in mind and hu- 
 man sympathy as are few men in the world today, 
 Gorky could not understand ; he does not now under- 
 stand. 
 
 Russian books and newspapers freely discuss 
 those things that are not mentioned in the literature 
 of English-speaking countries. Whether a man is di- 
 vorced or has an unofficial family is a matter of su- 
 
 i8 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 preme indif¥erence to his associates. One of the 
 American consuls told me of a lady friend, an Ameri- 
 can, who came to Russia and visited the Tolstoi home 
 near Tula. She was walking over the estate with 
 Tolstoi and his family, male and female, when they 
 came to a pond. “I have not yet had my morning 
 swim; won’t you join us?” remarked Tolstoi as he be- 
 gan disrobing. The family followed suit. The lady 
 excused herself from participating in the swim, but 
 sat by while the nude philosopher and his family en- 
 joyed their innocent morning recreation. 
 
 Russia has produced more idealists than any other 
 people on earth. Her greatest writers, men who have 
 taken an immortal grip upon the great heart of the 
 world, men who have expressed the deepest thoughts 
 of the human soul, are men like Tolstoi, Gorky, Tour- 
 geniev and Dostoievsky. Lomonosov created and 
 tuned the instrument of the Russian language. Push- 
 kin used it to voice the Slavic consciousness and lay 
 bare the national heart. The chorus voiced by them 
 all was an appeal for “liberty.” 
 
 There is foundation for the claim that absolute 
 freedom of manners and thought, that unrestrained 
 personal liberty, flourishes better under a despotism 
 than under political democracy. Renan points out 
 that individual freedom of thought in Rome under 
 Nero compared favorably with that enjoyed under the 
 Athenian censorship in its prime. But the existence 
 of a broad personal liberty nowhere implies the ex- 
 istence of political liberty. In fact the reverse is more 
 apt to be true. A people inordinately tenacious of 
 their individual rights, a people repugnant to disci- 
 pline, who rebel at conceding anything to the common 
 good, are the people who, while retaining their per- 
 sonal liberty of thought and action, generally lose 
 
 19 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 their political rights. There can be no political lib- 
 erty without some discipline of the people by and 
 through themselves. The people of a given entity, 
 who insist upon their right to say violent things, to 
 throw their refuse into the street, to harbor a cross 
 dog, to build a fire-trap in populated sections, to 
 throw to the winds marriage laws, to clothe them- 
 selves indecently, to sell in the open markets adulter- 
 ated foods and poisonous drinks; such a people may 
 succeed in enjoying these personal prerogatives, but 
 they do it at the cost of their political liberties and 
 social well-being. 
 
 No fact is better known about Russia throughout 
 the world than the constant struggle of her people to 
 attain political liberty. This struggle is particularly 
 promoted by her middle classes and her “intellectuals,” 
 as well as by great segments of her higher and lower 
 orders. It has been an international wonder that 
 180,000,000 of people would, year after year and de- 
 cade after decade, submit to an autocracy, however 
 benevolent and however paternal it may be. The 
 phenomenon is generally attributed to the prevailing 
 ignorance of the people. This doubtless explains 
 much, but another cause, equally potent, is to be found 
 in the stubborn determination of the Slav to yield 
 not one jot or tittle of his personal rights for the com- 
 mon good. Like the wild horse of the Nevada plains, 
 that prefers to suffer the pangs of starvation and cold 
 rather than submit to the comforts of the restrained 
 corral, the Slav is unwilling to pay the inevitable price 
 which will secure to him the blessings of a democratic 
 form of government. The Russian proletariat, the 
 “intelligents,” and especially the militant reformers, 
 by their insistence upon immaterial things, by their 
 tenacious demand for complete liberty of thought and 
 
 20 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 manners, by their domineering conduct, inability to 
 sacrifice party spirit, and their jealousies to purely 
 class and local interests, by their utter inability to act 
 with sufficient discipline to ensure a necessary mini- 
 mum degree of co-operation, and by obstinately an- 
 tagonizing other theories that do not coincide with 
 their own in every particular, have managed to de- 
 feat their own ambitions and render impossible any 
 general concerted plan of deliverance. It is the lesson 
 of history that untrammeled individualism leads to 
 despotism. When the individuals cannot agree, the 
 despot assumes control and the result is an autocracy. 
 
 When the curtain rose upon the history of the 
 Slavic peoples about the middle of the ninth century, 
 there appeared a conglomeration of independent prin- 
 cipalities in the region south of Lake Ladoga and 
 about the upper waters of the Dnieper. This people 
 was the kernel out of which grew the Russian Empire 
 of today. These Slavic tribes were not Asiatics ex- 
 cept in the sense that all the Indo-Aryans of Europe 
 were Asiatics. History finds them first in the Car- 
 pathian mountains, along the banks of the Danube, 
 drifting to the north and east. The ancient towns of 
 Novgorod, Pskow, Kiev, Smolensk and Rostov were 
 their fortified centers for protection and trade. For 
 the most part, the government of these so-called prin- 
 cipalities was more or less that of a pure democracy. 
 The “prince” was merely a hired fighting man, who 
 looked after the defenses and got his instructions from 
 the people. These instructions and other rules were 
 made in a popular assembly, the veche, called to- 
 gether whenever necessary by the ringing of the great 
 bell. These hired fighting princes were mostly Var- 
 angers, adventurers from Scandinavia of the north. 
 Hence, these little governments became known as the 
 
 21 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 principalities of the Variagi, or Varangers. As the 
 Variag came from a land called “Rus,” the words 
 “Russia” and “Russland” came into existence. It is 
 a curious fact the Slavic tongue had no word to ex- 
 press the idea of king, prince or anyone set to rule 
 over them. For a name for these princes, recourse 
 was had to the Scandinavian tongue, and the term 
 “Koening” was corrupted into the Slavic knias. Later 
 the chief prince or grand duke came to be known as 
 the velikii knias. Even the word “tsar” is a Slavic cor- 
 ruption of the Latin caesar.* What more eloquent 
 testimony could there be to the inherent democratic 
 character of a people than that their very language 
 had no word to express the idea of a ruler, prince or 
 despot? 
 
 Surrounding the prince was a retinue of boyars, 
 made up of hired fighting adventurers and landed pro- 
 prietors, who were men of much political influence. 
 The boyars not only defended the people, but they held 
 the prince in check should he attempt oppression. The 
 prince, as the hired commander of the troops, was 
 compelled to take a solemn oath to obey the ancient 
 laws and usages, and if he failed in his trust he was 
 summarily deposed and expelled. The people had an 
 old proverb in rhyme : 
 
 Koli khud knias, 
 
 Tak V grias. 
 
 (If the prince is bad, into the mud with him). The 
 veche made laws for the behavior of the prince as well 
 as the people. Governing those stiff-necked burghers 
 and rebellious boyars was not an easy undertaking. 
 Once, in the principality of Galitch, the burghers seized 
 
 *Some authorities hold that Tsar is the Babylonian and 
 Ninevite final osor, ezzar, asar, etc., to royal names signifying 
 throne or authority. 
 
 22 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 their prince, killed his favorites, cheerfully burned his 
 mistress alive and compelled him to swear that in the 
 future he would live with his own wife.* 
 
 The political character of these petty independent 
 principalities varied with local conditions. When the 
 prince was strong and the people inactive, more or less 
 of despotism prevailed ; when the burghers were virile 
 and aggressive and the prince was weak, democracy of 
 the purest type prevailed. The people got what rights 
 they insisted upon and no more. 
 
 The prevailing custom of electing as their hired 
 princes fighting Variagi from Rus furnished tempta- 
 tion for adventurers from the Varanger country to 
 make forays upon these isolated entities in quest of 
 loot. Because the Slavs were split up into small po- 
 litical segments, it was considered expedient to pay 
 tribute to the bandits from the north rather than to 
 fight them, and thus the policy of paying tribute or 
 blackmail came into existence. The growing exac- 
 tions of the Variagi led to their undoing; for the Slavs 
 finally combined, refused to pay further tribute and 
 drove out the northern oppressors. After the princi- 
 palities had obtained their freedom from toll, they 
 quarreled among themselves. Each burgher wanted to 
 be let alone in the enjoyment of his individual rights, 
 but, without common and concerted agreement, they 
 were unable to enjoy these rights. Just as the power 
 of the hand lies in the organized fist rather than in 
 the individual fingers, so the strength of these burghers 
 lay in united action, but they failed at the critical 
 point. They were farmers and traders rather than 
 warriors, and, unsatisfactory as it was, they decided 
 that the hired rule of the Varangers was better than 
 
 ’"Wallace, Russia, Vol. II., p. 90. Ed. of 1878. 
 
 23 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 unrestrained chaos. In their extremity, they sent an 
 embassy or committee to the north to employ a prince 
 to keep order among themselves. In response to this 
 invitation, three brothers, Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, 
 Variagi, came, in the year 862.* Rurik took charge at 
 Novgorod (New Town), the brothers occupying 
 neighboring principalities. The brothers shortly died 
 and Rurik, who was strong and enterprising, annexed 
 their dominions. About the same time, Askold, an- 
 other Varanger, was installed as prince of Kiev, and 
 because Kiev was located in a more strategic point 
 and beset by enemies from the east and west, it was 
 more subject to attack, and the later permanent com- 
 binations of principalities had its origin there. It is, 
 therefore, a matter of historical dispute as to whether 
 Kiev or Novgorodf was the birthplace of the Russian 
 government. But Rurik, because he was succeeded by 
 a long line of reigning princes, and because he and 
 his successors dominated more and more the entire 
 section, is regarded as the founder of the first dynasty 
 of Russian rulers. The year 862, the year of the 
 coming of Rurik, is regarded as the birthday of the 
 Russian Empire. Indeed, in 1862, Russia celebrated 
 the thousandth anniversary of the birth of the govern- 
 ment, and it is peculiarly significant that it was at 
 Novgorod that the great historic monument, consist- 
 ing of a massive circular stone pedestal and an enor- 
 
 *Baring, The Russian People, p. 76; Wallace, Russia, Vol. 
 I., p. 276, Vol. II., p. 273; Morfill, History of Russia, p. 19; Ram- 
 baud, History of Russia, Vol. I., p. 65 ; Rurik is a half mythical 
 character, but this is the story given in all of the old Russian 
 histories. 
 
 fNovgorod should not be confused with the well-known 
 Nizhni-Novgorod (Lower Novgorod), the seat of the great 
 Russian fairs on the Volga. 
 
 24 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 mous globe, was erected in memory of the event. And 
 it seems most fitting that this monument stands in the 
 public square, on the very spot where, for six hundred 
 years, the burghers met, at the ringing of the great 
 bell, to enact laws for the prince and the people, to de- 
 clare war, to make peace, to levy taxes. Novgorod was 
 the longest existing pure democracy in the history of 
 the world. 
 
 Even Rurik, founder of the first dynasty, did not 
 enjoy great powers. He was and his successors were 
 subject to the power of the assembly of burghers, who 
 met at the sound of the great bell and who retained all 
 power in their own hands. The princes continued as 
 the hired commanders of troops and the presiding officers 
 of the judicial administration. The judges were elected 
 and deposed by the people as they saw fit. The fluctuat- 
 ing sentiment of the unruly people resulted in many 
 dismissals of judges and princes as well as frequent 
 resignations. It is of record that there were thirty 
 abdications of princes within the period of a single 
 century.* In seven years, Novgorod alone changed 
 princes five times. The great Jaroslav came back the 
 fourth time to the troublesome throne. Because the 
 descendants of Rurik were numerous, there were al- 
 ways plenty of eligible candidates available. The 
 people fought among themselves, the majority often 
 drowning leaders of the rebellious minority in the 
 Volkhof. One by one these principalities lost their 
 liberties, coming under the real control of the prince 
 or being absorbed in the jurisdiction of a greater 
 prince. Novgorod continued as an independent democ- 
 racy, holding on to her liberties, for the most part, for 
 six centuries. She grew and prospered. She became 
 
 *Wallace, Russia, Vol. L, p. 277. Ed. of 1878. 
 
 25 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 at one time a powerful state, extending her territories 
 to the Gulf of Finland and northward even to the 
 White Sea, and eastward to the Asiatic border. This 
 principality became a sort of a commercial outpost of 
 the Hanseatic League, and during the thirteenth and 
 fourteenth centuries, it proudly styled itself Gospodin 
 Veliki Novgorod (Lord Novgorod the Great). 
 
 Religious and civil liberty went hand in hand.* 
 Christianity had been introduced by Grand Prince 
 Vladimir of Kiev, a grandson of Rurik, in genuine 
 Russian fashion. Vladimir had marched his half-clad 
 soldiers down to the Crimea, where he swore a pagan 
 oath that if he captured the Christian town, he and his 
 whole people would embrace the faith of the Cross. 
 His mother. Princess Olga, had already been con- 
 verted and baptized. Vladimir captured the city, made 
 good his oath by baptism, and married immediately 
 the sister of the Emperor of Byzantium, on the very 
 spot now covered by the Church of the Holy Mother 
 of God at Chersonesus. The whole population of 
 Kiev were immediately baptized (987). Christianity 
 began to spread, and Vladimir took his place in his- 
 tory as Vladimir the Saint. It was Jaroslav, son of 
 Vladimir, who built at Novgorod the famous church, 
 St. Sophia, which was well supplied with wonder- 
 working images and bones. Novgorod was then in 
 the height of her glory and her Metropolitan acknowl- 
 edged no obedience to the Metropolitan of either 
 Kiev or Moscow. “Who can withstand God and Lord 
 Novgorod the Great?” said the people. The veche of 
 
 *While this statement is generally true, it is subject to ex- 
 ceptions. In the fourteenth century, the veche became so en- 
 thusiastic in promoting the national faith that they put to death 
 heretical strigoUki, forbade ancient superstitions and burned 
 sorcerers at the stake. 
 
 26 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 Novgorod elected their own archbishop and, if he 
 proved to be unsatisfactory, they dismissed him. The 
 church of Novgorod was essentially a national church. 
 The city was full of churches and monasteries. The 
 principality reached the height of its power under 
 the great Jaroslav and his son, the sainted Alexander 
 Nevsky. 
 
 But evil days fell upon the proud democracy. On 
 the west, the Lithuanian 
 princes, having united vari- 
 ous small principalities, be- 
 came strong and aggressive. 
 On the east, a new danger 
 arose in the invasion of the 
 Tartar hordes. True, the 
 Asiatic nomads never dev- 
 astated the city of Novgo- 
 rod. But for a time Nov- 
 gorod paid tribute. Kiev 
 and most of the Russian 
 cities of the day were de- 
 stroyed by the Mongol 
 torch. For two centuries, 
 (1238-1462) Tartar rule ex- 
 tended over practically all 
 of Russia. But the Tartar 
 Khans, essentially nomads 
 in their character, limited their government to that 
 of distant suzerains. A resident viceroy called the 
 bashak acted as a sort of local agent for the collection 
 of taxes. While the Russians thereby became vassals 
 of the Mongols, they did pretty much as they pleased 
 so long as they paid their taxes and acknowledged the 
 lordship of the Khan. Driven, at length, by the need 
 of common defense, the Russian principalities in the 
 
 27 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 east combined and were finally united under the 
 prince of Moscow, and, under this leadership, became 
 sufficiently powerful to throw off the Tartar yoke. 
 In this process, the veche, or the assembly of burgh- 
 ers, gradually lost its power, an authority at first mil- 
 itary, then civil, passing it on to the prince, who be- 
 came more and more autocratic in his prerogatives. 
 
 In this, there arose a new danger to the Republic 
 of Novgorod and the neighboring small democracies. 
 Moscow sought to extend her jurisdiction to the 
 principalities of the west, which were already being 
 encroached upon by the princes of Lithuania. Nov- 
 gorod, Pskow and the other principalities were thus 
 caught between two millstones, and it was apparent 
 that they must soon either become Lithuanian or Mus- 
 covite.* More and snore the responsibility of defend- 
 ing the principalities from foes on both sides fell to 
 the lot of the princes. The veche, yielding bit by bit 
 to the military needs of the day, gradually lost its 
 power. The blind autocracy of Moscow, which had 
 destroyed the Tartar oppression from the east, was 
 now turned upon the principalities of the west. Nov- 
 gorod, in the meantime, had fallen into internal dis- 
 cord. There was not sufficient cohesion in the democ- 
 racy to withstand the assault of organized autocracy, 
 and Novgorod was doomed. The autocracy of Mos- 
 cow, developed under • Dimitri Donskoi.f was con- 
 
 *The word “Muscovite” as now applied to the Russian peo- 
 ple is something of a misnomer. It was first applied when 
 Moscow became the center of power, was continued during the 
 centuries when Moscow was the capital and is still used to 
 designate the whole Russian people. 
 
 fThe coalition of Russian princes, formed by Dimitri Don- 
 skoi, won the great victorj' of liberation in 1380 over Khan 
 Mamai of the Golden Horde on the battlefield of Kulikovo. 
 
 28 
 
ROMANCE OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE 
 
 ■ 
 
 tinued under his successors. The complete suppres- 
 sion of the moribund states and the creation of the 
 autocracy was the work of Ivan III., better known as 
 Ivan the Great, his son Basil and his grandson Ivan 
 IV., known in history as Ivan the Terrible. Ivan III., 
 in 1470, brought Novgorod under Muscovite rule to 
 the extent of compelling the principality to pay tribute, 
 and the Republic was practically ended by further 
 aggressions eight years later. Subject to the prince of 
 Moscow, it had a partially independent existence until 
 the last vestige of liberty was crushed by the hideous 
 slaughter of Ivan the Terrible. In 1570 the blow fell. 
 Ivan the Terrible, fresh from bloody slaughter in 
 other sections, approached Novgorod, devastating the 
 towns and villages with fire and sword. Priests and 
 monks were tied to the stake and flogged daily; mer- 
 chants and officials were tortured with fire, and then 
 thrown into the river with their wives and children, 
 and, lest any should escape by swimming, boatloads 
 of soldiers dispatched those who were not killed by 
 the fall. It is not known how many were slaughtered 
 in the villages, but it is said that not less than 60,000 
 people were butchered in the town during the six 
 weeks’ orgy of blood and horror.* Thus fell the city 
 of Novgorod. There was closed in this wholesale 
 massacre the life of the longest existing Republic in 
 the history of the world. Novgorod had a democratic 
 life of about 600 years. The municipal Republic of 
 Pskow, an offshoot of Novgorod, soon collapsed, and 
 
 *Any one who cares to read further about the appalling 
 cruelties of Ivan the Terrible, and of his predecessors, is re- 
 ferred to Ralston’s Early Russian History, published in London 
 in 1874. In a fit of anger Ivan assassinated his own son, 
 Demetrius, thus leaving no competent heir to the throne, leaving 
 it open to competition. See also Celebrated Crimes of the 
 Russian Court, by Alexandre Dumas. 
 
 29 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 political liberty in Russia came to a somber end. Ivan 
 the Terrible, in his bloody campaign of twenty-four 
 years, destroyed the boyars and cemented the auto- 
 cratic power in Moscow as had never been done be- 
 fore.* Democracy was dead and here the story of 
 autocracy begins. 
 
 Three hundred and fifty years later, I stood with 
 bowed head in the cathedral of St. Peter and St. Paul, 
 Petrograd. Surrounding me were the tombs of every 
 Tsar of the Romanoff dynasty save one. The great 
 chimes in the tower were pealing out the Russian 
 national hymn, Kol Slavin, and the golden robed 
 priest intoned in mellow, rolling bass, “Gospodi pom- 
 iluy, Gospodi pomiluy.” “Gospodi pomiluy, Gospody 
 pomiluy,” echoed the beggar, knocking her forehead up- 
 on the cold, paved floor. The duke, the merchant, the 
 isvoschik, matrons, children, uniformed army officers, 
 student, thief and the harlot took up the refrain, “Gos- 
 podi pomiluy, Gospody pomiluy.” I wondered then and 
 there if the time was not approaching when the Rus- 
 sian people, under God, would come into their own. 
 Little did I then dream (1913) that, within two years, 
 the chief cause of Russian suffering, the chief ob- 
 stacle to real Russian liberty, would receive its death- 
 blow and receive it at the hands of the “Autocrat of 
 All the Russias.” The miracle is the more bewilder- 
 ing when we clearly realize that, in the face of the 
 most expensive and destructive war in which the 
 nation ever engaged, the Russian government has 
 thereby thrown to the four winds an annual revenue 
 amounting to nearly a thousand millions of roubles. 
 
 *In these savage forays, Ivan was accompanied by a special 
 court, the Oprichniki, which has no parallel in history except 
 that of the Turkish Janizaries of their worst period. 
 
 30 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 ■W" ITH some explanations and discounts, 
 the Russian government may be de- 
 scribed as an “absolute autocracy.” 
 Prior to the remodeling of the funda- 
 mental laws, which took place between 
 the Imperial manifesto of October 17, 
 1905, and the meeting of the first Duma 
 on April 27, 1906, the powers of the 
 Tsar were officially described as “auto- 
 cratic and unlimited.” The official 
 style is still “Emperor and autocrat of 
 all the Russias,” but the word “un- 
 limited” is omitted. The Almanack de 
 Gotha for 1910 describes the govern- 
 ment with the contradictory phrase “a 
 constitutional monarchy under an au- 
 tocratic Tsar.” Section 4 of the funda- 
 mental laws, confirmed April 23, 1906, 
 provides that “the supreme autocratic 
 power is vested in the Emperor of all the Russias.” 
 But this again is contradictory, for this same act 
 (Section 7) stipulates that the Monarch wields the 
 legislative power in conjunction with the Imperial 
 Council and the Duma. Section 86 of the act throws 
 light on the situation and explains this apparent con- 
 tradiction with what is essentially another contra- 
 diction. This section provides that “no new law may 
 be promulgated without the assent of the Imperial 
 Council and the Duma, or enforced without the sanc- 
 tion of the Monarch.” In other words, the Imperial 
 
 W 
 
 31 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Council and the Duma may pass laws to their com- 
 plete satisfaction, but they cannot be “enforced with- 
 out the sanction of the Monarch.” The fundamental 
 laws referred to above designated further limits of 
 the powers of the Monarch and outline affirmatively 
 many of his constitutional rights, but, in the last 
 analysis, everything is within the Imperial control, 
 either by the direct right of veto or through the pro- 
 vision that legislative acts cannot be “enforced with- 
 out the sanction of the Monarch.” 
 
 The imperial manifesto described (supra) decreed 
 that, in the future, no measure was to become a law 
 without the consent of the imperial Duma (Gosu- 
 darstvennaya Duma.) Under the law of February 
 20, 1907, Council of the Empire (Gosudarstvenniy 
 Sovyet) was associated with the Duma as a legisla- 
 tive upper house, thus creating a bi-cameral legisla- 
 tive body. Under the ukase of June 2, 1907, the fun- 
 damental laws were completely upset in a reorgani- 
 zation of the electorate, the ukase being a flat de- 
 fiance* of the original manifesto limiting the powers 
 of the Monarch. Under these conditions, there is 
 something of a twilight zone lying between the auto- 
 cratic powers of the Monarch and the supposed pow- 
 ers of the Duma and the Imperial Council. By a 
 succession of acts and incidents covering a sufficient 
 period, the real boundaries of the fundamental law 
 will eventually be established, no doubt, under the 
 process known in Anglo-American countries as stare 
 decisis. 
 
 In effect, the Russian system is not far removed 
 from the benevolent despotism set up in the Philip- 
 pine Islands by the United States after the close ol 
 
 *Premier Stolypin vigorously defended this ukase on the 
 ground that what the autocrat had granted, he could take away. 
 
 32 
 
A RUSSIAN TROIKA 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 the Spanish War. We set up a form of government 
 in which the Filipino had no voice and the source of 
 all power and authority lay in Washington, a city 
 12,000 miles away. Finally a sort of a legislature was 
 provided for, but which had no final authority, all 
 its acts being subject to veto by an alien power on 
 the other side of the globe, which power was admin- 
 istered by appointees responsible in no way to the 
 people whose affairs were being served. This is not 
 necessarily a criticism of the system, either in Russia 
 or in the Philippines. In each case circumstances 
 and conditions may provide justification. “It is a 
 condition and not a theory that confronts us,” is the 
 language of the late Grover Cleveland when circum- 
 stances arose that made difficult the application of 
 commendable abstract theories of equity. We justify 
 our course in the Philippines, in foisting upon those 
 people a government without their consent and 
 against their active opposition, on the ground that 
 these people are not prepared for self-government, 
 chiefly because they are illiterate. The autocratic gov- 
 ernment of Russia finds its principal justification for 
 conducting the same policy in the same argument, 
 that of illiteracy. 
 
 Those who, in theory at least, advocate the un- 
 limited suffrage, and who recognize that a free people 
 can only be free when educated, must stand aghast 
 at the problem presented by Russia in the way of 
 illiteracy. Of the entire empire, only 21 per cent of 
 the population is able to read and write. The per 
 cent varies widely, but the following is illuminating: 
 
 33 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 GOVERNMENT* 
 Baltic Provinces 
 
 Petrograd 
 
 Moscow 
 
 Warsaw 
 
 Poland 
 
 European Russia 
 
 Caucasus 
 
 Siberia 
 
 Central Asia . . . 
 Kovno 
 
 PER CENT 
 OF ILLITERACY 
 
 29-20 
 
 .... 47 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 69.5 
 
 .... 77.1 
 
 87.6 
 
 .... 87.7 
 
 947 
 
 58 
 
 Our fathers, who went through the reconstruction 
 following the Civil War with 4,000,000 ignorant freed- 
 men voters, can imagine the troubles that would con- 
 front Russia had she undertaken the same feat with ten 
 times that number of voters freshly freed from 
 slavery. Before abusing Russia too severely for her 
 form of government, while admitting its imperfec- 
 tions, it is well to consider the appalling character of 
 the problem which she faces. 
 
 Americans know the troubles that followed the 
 dumping of 4,000,000 slaves loose into citizenship at 
 once. About the same time that this was done, Rus- 
 sia turned loose 40,000,000 serfs. It is true that 
 America immediately conferred upon the freed slaves 
 unlimited suffrage. In later years we took back 
 through our “grandfather clauses” a large part of the 
 suffrage rights so conferred, and Russia, also, took 
 away a large part of the suffrage she conferred by 
 the round-about way of enlarging the veto powers of 
 the provincial governors and other imperial agents. 
 
 This argument, however, so far as Russia is con- 
 cerned, loses some of its force when the case of the 
 Grand Duchy of Finland is considered. In that duchy. 
 
 *Kennard; The Russian Year Book for 1914, p. 90. 
 
 34 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 the rate of illiteracy is perhaps lower than that of 
 any people on earth. Russia justifies her autocratic 
 administration there, in part, on the ground that if 
 Russia did not rule these people, they would not re- 
 main an independent political entity, but would fall 
 into the hands of some other power. A parallel of 
 that argument is found in our American claim that 
 if we did not rule the Filipino people against their 
 will, they would not long remain a political unit, but 
 would be taken over by Japan. 
 
 The common conception of an autocracy is that 
 of a monarch who sits on a throne and whose abso- 
 lute will, without considering anybody or any outside 
 influences, is supreme throughout his dominions. Such 
 a government does not exist in Russia and such a 
 government has never existed in its full completeness 
 since the foundation of the world. No single man 
 ever held such power or ever will. Any ruler must, 
 in a measure, meet the views of others, must concede, 
 must yield here and there to the ambitions and 
 wishes of others, must consider public opinion before 
 he remotely approaches such a theoretical power. 
 There is a wide gulf between an autocracy in theory 
 and an autocracy in fact. With an area of more than 
 one-seventh of the earth’s surface in land, with a 
 population of more than 180,000,000, nearly twice that 
 of the United States, with an illiteracy of 79 per cent, 
 with a bedlam of scores of radically divergent races 
 and speaking many different languages, with a mix- 
 ture of religions inherently hostile to each other, 
 Russia presents probably the greatest governmental 
 problem in the world today. 
 
 While in theory Russia is an autocracy, the Tsar 
 has a constant struggle before him to secure the 
 carrying out of his wishes, which must, in the very 
 
 35 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 nature of the case, filter down through a long chain 
 of officials or deputy autocrats until the people are 
 reached. 
 
 On the other hand, the peasant is constantly and 
 pathetically reaching upward and outward to receive 
 from above the blessings which they fondly believe 
 the “Little White Father” is struggling to communi- 
 cate to them through the wilderness of officialdom 
 which lies between. Getting the Imperial will down 
 to the people is too often like getting aid to the sink- 
 ing Titanic — so much of it fails to connect. 
 
 In America the situation is reversed. The source 
 of power is in the people and the people have a con- 
 stant struggle in getting their wishes expressed into 
 law. They must be communicated from below, 
 through a jungle of political intrigue, caucuses and 
 conventions — a wilderness where political wolves 
 abide and where sinister interests must be placated. 
 
 Under the Russian system,* the “Imperial Coun- 
 cil” corresponds very nearly to our United States 
 Senate, except as to the manner of its election. The 
 Duma corresponds to our House of Representatives. 
 Within certain limits, these two bodies hold the leg- 
 islative power. The Tsar is surrounded by his twelve 
 ministers or “cabinet,” and holds the absolute veto 
 power and sole executive power. The veto power is 
 not often exercised ; the Russian way is to fail to 
 “carry it out” or execute it. Each minister also has 
 large powers. All officials of each minister wear the 
 uniform or “colors” of his master. So if one sees a 
 
 *Those desiring more complete information of the Russian 
 political organization should consult Dr. Kennard’s latest Year 
 Book; Pares’ Russia and Reform; Wallace’s Russia; Geddie’s 
 Russian Empire; Stadling’s Through Siberia, and, of course, 
 Rambaud’s great work, The History of Russia. 
 
 36 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 uniformed official on the streets, he knows to what 
 branch of the Imperial service he belongs. 
 
 The Minister of the Interior, through 
 his agents, has certain powers of veto- 
 ing the acts of the local or district 
 Zemstvo. 
 
 The Tsar is the civil head of the 
 Greek Church. The Church has no ec- 
 clesiastical head, as all eclesiastical 
 questions were supposed to have been 
 settled by the first seven Ecumenical 
 Councils held in the early history of 
 the Christian Church. 
 
 The “Senate” {Pravitelstvuyushchi 
 Senat), established by Peter the Great, 
 formerly had the chief preparation of 
 legislative acts, but also has in its con- 
 trol certain administrative functions. It 
 now very nearly corresponds to our 
 United States Supreme Court, but still 
 retains many of its administrative 
 duties. This, in brief, is a skeleton of the Imperial 
 government which has its headquarters in Petrograd, 
 a city of 1,700,000 people, one-tenth of whom are in 
 uniform. 
 
 The Empire is divided into seventy-eight “gov- 
 ernments” (guberniya) , which very nearly correspond 
 to the American “states.” They will average some- 
 what larger than our own states. At the head of 
 each “government,” there is a governor appointed by 
 the Tsar on recommendation of the Minister of the 
 Interior. The governor is considered as a personal 
 representative of the Tsar and in fact is a sort of a 
 “deputy Tsar” in his functions and powers. 
 
 37 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Six of the larger cities, including Petrograd and 
 Moscow, constitute each a “government” of itself, at 
 the head of which is a “prefect,” whose powers are the 
 same as those of a governor. It is as if Chicago or 
 New York city constituted a state by itself. Another 
 complication lies in the fact that certain groups of 
 “governments” or “states” have above them a “gov- 
 ernor-general,” a dignitary who has charge of the gov- 
 ernors of his particular group of states. 
 
 For the assistance of the governor, a board of 
 administration is created, which, in turn, is split up 
 into departments very much like the departments of 
 an American state government. 
 
 No act of any legislative body within a given gov- 
 ernment is valid until it has been approved by the 
 governor. He might be called the “deputy autocrat" 
 of his particular government. Indeed, he has certain 
 legislative power, the right to promulgate certain 
 “compulsory regulations” which have the force ot 
 law, just as the Tsar may promulgate a “special 
 ukase” when the Duma is not in session. This power 
 of the Tsar to promulgate laws during the recess of 
 the Duma continues the essentials of autocracy. 
 Early in 1911, Premier Stolypin made use of this to 
 introduce Zemstvo administration in the Western 
 governments, a measure to which the Duma would 
 not agree and which situation resulted in a crisis. 
 
 In each government there is a “government 
 zemstvo assembly,” an elective legislative body which 
 corresponds to our state legislature. This legislative 
 body has powers somewhat corresponding to our leg- 
 islatures, but its every act is subject to the veto of the 
 governor. Its members are made up of elected rep- 
 resentatives of (a) the district zemstvo; (b) repre- 
 sentatives of the nobility; (c) of the government and 
 
 38 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 district councils ; (d) of the clergy and of the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. 
 
 The governor not only has the veto power over 
 the acts of the government assembly or zemstvo, but 
 he also exercises the veto power over the acts of all 
 legislative subdivisions within his government. It is 
 the same as if the governor of an American state had 
 the veto power over every act of a county board of 
 supervisors or board of county commissioners in his 
 state and even the veto power over every act of a 
 village council or town meeting within his state. This 
 power he exerts as needs be, sometimes in person and 
 sometimes through certain under officials or agents 
 which will be described later, and who, in turn, are in 
 effect deputies of the deputy autocrats. 
 
 Each government (or state) is subdivided into 
 "districts” (Uiesd), which in a way have their counter- 
 part in the American congressional district. It com- 
 prises more than the canton, which corresponds to 
 our American county. But, differing from the Ameri- 
 can system, the district has a zemstvo of its own and 
 a set of officers who exercise certain legislative and 
 administrative duties. 
 
 This district zemstvo is made up of members 
 elected by the nobility and by the local cantons. It 
 holds its sessions once a year, which are presided over 
 by the marshal of the district, who is elected by the 
 nobility. During the interim, the affairs of the dis- 
 trict are carried on by a committee. This zemstvo 
 has jurisdiction over certain matters of taxation, char- 
 itable institutions and so on. In fact, usually about 
 forty members are elected to the district zemstvo, but 
 the governor of the province selects from the list 
 about a dozen who actually serve. The selection is 
 usually made on the advice of the marshal. The no- 
 
 39 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 bility distinctly control the zemstvo of the districts. 
 The decisions and acts of the district zemstvo are 
 'subject to revision on appeal to the Senate. 
 
 The operations of the district zemstvo are sub- 
 ject, therefore, to two checks: First, the governor 
 controls the selection of its members, and (2) has the 
 veto power over the zemstvo. The acts are subject 
 to senatorial revision on appeal. 
 
 The district, in turn, is divided into cantons or 
 volosts, which in a way correspond to the counties of 
 American states. The volosts vary greatly in size. 
 Some of them have only two or three villages and 
 some as many as thirty. In each canton or volost 
 there is a zemstvo. Each village or tnir elects one rep- 
 resentative for every ten families, and the assembly 
 of these so selected constitute the cantonal zemstvo. 
 This canton is really the unit of Russian govern- 
 mental administration. The volost zemstvo elects an 
 elder or starosta, who represents the canton in all its 
 dealings with the government, the district and with 
 Petrograd. It elects judges, who preside over trials 
 and petty disputes arising between peasants. The 
 taxes are paid through the starosta who is responsible 
 for his canton. 
 
 The canton zemstvo is made up entirely of peas- 
 ants, elected by peasants exclusively, and deals only 
 with peasant affairs. It is controlled by the peasants 
 more completely even than the district zemstvo is 
 controlled by the nobility. All of its acts, however, 
 are subject to revision by the local agent of the gov- 
 ernor of the province, known as the “land captain.” 
 The land captain does not exercise the veto power 
 directly, but transmits “meritorious” cases to the 
 governor with his recommendation. Inasmuch as the 
 governor knows nothing about the matter and is too 
 
 40 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 busy to investigate, he usually follows the recom- 
 mendation of the land captain, who thus becomes the 
 local autocrat of the canton or volost. He is an ap- 
 pointee of the governor of the province. 
 
 In theory, the village or mir is an independent, 
 self-governing body. It resembles in some respects 
 an Indian Pueblo of the far Southwest. For the most 
 part, its lands are held in common like those of an 
 Indian tribe, though their use is apportioned by the 
 village assembly. In this assembly, which is not dig- 
 nified with the name of a zemstvo, each head of a 
 house has one vote. Each householder is a sort of 
 a stockholder in the communal corporation. The 
 village may elect new members, lease lands, disci- 
 pline its members and buy farm machinery in com- 
 mon and so on. Most of the American 
 farm machinery sold in Russia is sold to 
 these village organizations. The larger 
 village elects a village starosta, but in 
 the smaller ones the headman is merely 
 called “the elected one.” The so-called 
 “Tenth Man” of a mir assists as a sort of 
 a secretary, whose chief duty is to go 
 around and tap on the windows with a 
 long pole when the starosta or the “elect- 
 ed one” decides to call a meeting. Each 
 member of the mir is a part owner of 
 the common property of the village and 
 he also must share in the common re- 
 sponsibilities. The village taxes are paid in bulk to 
 the canton and an able-bodied man is regarded as a 
 source of revenue to help make up the tax budget. 
 Therefore, he cannot leave the mir of which he is a 
 member and separate himself therefrom without buy- 
 ing himself out. If he leaves the village and does not 
 
 41 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 buy himself out, he must send home his earnings or 
 a portion thereof to aid in bearing the common 
 burdens. 
 
 The town council or village assembly may buy 
 more land or sell that which it has, its dealings, how- 
 ever, being under the supervision of the land captain, 
 who, in turn, is responsible to the marshal of the dis- 
 trict as the agent of the governor. 
 
 Such, in brief, is the skeleton of the Russian ad- 
 ministrative system, but in this no account is taken 
 of the police system, which is another network under 
 the direction of the Minister of the Interior, and whose 
 functions in fact (but not in theory) are interwoven 
 with the administrative organization, though inde- 
 pendent thereof. The police system acts as an addi- 
 tional check upon the functions and activities of the 
 local, district, volost and provincial bodies. 
 
 The whole system has a theoretical basis of self- 
 government, the foundations for which were outlined 
 by Catherine II. and which was carried into execution 
 by Alexander II. But Alexander, at a critical mo- 
 ment, found his career cut short by being blown to 
 pieces by a Nihilist bomb. But, while the system has 
 a theoretical basis of self-government, it is also based 
 on the theory that all power and authority is filtered 
 down from above. In fact, this same paternal power 
 reserves to itself all sorts of checks, balances and veto 
 powers. The powers of the village, the canton, the 
 district and the governments are not distinctly sur- 
 veyed and set down by law. Generally speaking, any 
 of them are permitted to take most any kind of action 
 they see fit, but this action is not necessarily carried 
 out. It is not carried out and cannot be carried out 
 unless approved by the sources of authority above. 
 As an instance, many of these local zemstvo and gov- 
 
 42 
 
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 ernmental bodies voted prior to the war that there 
 should be no more liquor sold by the government mo- 
 nopoly in their midst, but resolutions of this sort were 
 not carried into effect because not validated by the 
 powers above. It was very much as if an American 
 village council should vote to close up the government 
 postoffice. They could vote again and again, but the 
 postoffice would continue to do business as before. 
 While this was true as to government vodka shops, it 
 was not strictly true as to private liquor selling. Under 
 the manifesto of February 19, 1861, large powers of 
 self-government were given to local legislative organ- 
 izations. In theory, they had the power to prohibit 
 liquor shops in the villages and cantons, and many did 
 so. But as long as there was close by a local govern- 
 ment vodka shop, which they could not close and 
 from which the local authorities could collect no reve- 
 nue, the villages naturally would license private shops 
 from which they could derive a revenue for the relief 
 of taxation. 
 
 It was and is the theory that the local authori- 
 ties and the individual could do anything not forbid- 
 den by law. This was a principle enunciated by 
 Catherine II., in 1766, when she called a Council of 
 Deputies from all over the Empire to discuss a new 
 code of laws. The instructions from Catherine con- 
 tained these words, “The nation is not made for the 
 sovereign, but the sovereign for the nation ; for citi- 
 zens’ equality consists in only having to obey the law. 
 Liberty is the right of doing anything that is not for- 
 bidden by law. It is better to spare ten criminals than 
 to ruin one innocent man.” The people took more 
 seriously than did Catherine some of her high-sound- 
 ing phrases, which she gleaned largely from the writ- 
 ings of Montesquieu, Voltaire and Beccara. 
 
 43 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 HE Russian is always religious and al- 
 ways charitable. Yet there is no appar- 
 ent connection between the two. Re- 
 ligion has nothing to do with Russian 
 conduct. On the streets, the thief, the 
 priest, the official, the business man, the 
 laboring man and the prostitute are 
 equally careful to make the sign of the 
 cross whenever they pass a shrine, a 
 church, a graveyard or when they meet 
 a funeral procession. Religion is a part 
 of patriotism and, as Maurice Baring so 
 well sets forth,* “religion in Russia, 
 whether believed or not, will always 
 remain a part of patriotism; and so 
 long as there is a Russian nation, 
 there will be a Russian religion at the core of it.” 
 
 There are probably more freakish religious sects 
 in Russia than in any other country in the world, 
 and the unlucky Russian government is entitled to 
 more sympathy than it gets in its efforts to deal with 
 them. The frightful Skpotsi would carry out literally 
 the exhortation, “if thine eye offend thee, pluck it 
 out,” and on the police devolved formerly the thank- 
 less task of preventing them from doing it. The 
 Dietoubiytsi (slayers of children) felt it their duty to 
 send the souls of new-born babies straight to heaven 
 
 *The Russian People, p. 358. See also Saloviev; History of 
 Russia, p. 157. Sir Charles Eliot also expresses the same view. 
 
 45 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 before they become corrupted with sin. Another sect, 
 the Dushilschiki (the suffocators) believed that their 
 parents and friends should be preserved from a nat- 
 ural death, hence they suffocated them. The Fili- 
 povtsi taught the doctrine of suicide. The Molchal- 
 niki would never speak. The famous Dukhobortsi re- 
 fused to accept any marriage law, practiced free love, 
 and refused to register births and deaths because the 
 Lord knew all about it. They fled to Canada in 1898 
 and found as much fault with the laws of Canada as 
 with those of Russia. The Molokani, or drinkers of 
 milk, resemble the Dukhobortsi, and are a worthy people 
 in many respects. They taboo alcohol, tobacco and 
 meat. Some of the Tartars have a doctrine which re- 
 quires them to shave every part of their bodies except 
 the head and face. The “Old Believers” constitute a 
 really powerful sect of the Greek church, which origi- 
 nated in a protest against making certain corrections in 
 the ritual of the church, purely matters of error made 
 by copyists. To shave their whiskers is a mortal sin. 
 They strenuously uphold the practice of making the 
 sign of the cross by using two fingers instead of 
 three. They allege that the Holy Ghost was not on 
 the cross. The two fingers represent the dual nature 
 of Christ, that of God and man, and they hold that the 
 Holy Ghost had no part in the crucifixion.* Witch- 
 craft, which always thrives in ignorance, breaks out 
 occasionally in the mir. While I was in Petrograd in 
 1913, a distemper, prevalent in an interior Russian 
 village, was charged up to witchcraft, and the excited 
 people turned out en masse to hunt down the witch. 
 The village rumseller was accused and the mob beat 
 him to death. Apparently the people guessed right 
 
 *Pares; Russia and Reform, p. 141. 
 
 46 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 for once, but the affair provided another disagree- 
 able job for the police. The “Jumpers” are a sect 
 somewhat resembling the “Holy Rollers” of America, 
 but some of their ceremonies are of such a character 
 that they cannot be described in print. 
 
 From end to end, Russia is honeycombed with 
 charitable institutions and charitable enterprises, many 
 of which are under clerical control and management. 
 They do not seem, however, to have their origin in 
 religion, but spring rather from the natural desire of 
 the people to be helpful. In this we mark another 
 contradiction of the Slavic mind. When a Russian 
 violates a law, punishment of the most brutal sort is 
 inflicted and the offender submits with true Slavic 
 stoicism. But the traveler among these people can- 
 not but observe everywhere the spirit of helpfulness 
 and the universal desire to render assistance. On the 
 trains, at the hotels and wherever I went, the German 
 appeared for the most part in the arrogant role of an 
 Almighty being; the Austrian was haughty, selfish 
 and indifferent ; the Frenchman was cynical and 
 frivolous; but the Russian, the Lett and the Finn hov- 
 ered around like a friend watching for a chance to be 
 helpful, to render some kindness. 
 
 I was at sea for thirteen days with a party of 
 sixty Russian doctors, lawyers, school teachers and 
 professional men who were returning from a tour of 
 America. By canvassing to ascertain what American 
 thing most interested them, I learned to my surprise 
 that they were not at all concerned in the Washing- 
 ton Monument, in Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon 
 or even Bunker Hill. They were only eager to know 
 all about American social and charitable enterprises. 
 They had visited Hull House in Chicago, journeyed 
 to Freeville, New York, to inspect the George Junior 
 
 47 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Republic, and had made themselves familiar with the 
 social settlement enterprises of the “East Side” in 
 New York. They were interested in compulsory edu- 
 cation, the principal present demand of the Social- 
 Democratic element, “the intelligents” of Russia. 
 
 On landing at Libau, a Russian friend escorted 
 me to the principal attraction of the city, an immense 
 beer garden on the water front. The ticket of ad- 
 mission required a revenue stamp. Such a stamp is 
 required for admission tickets to all amusement en- 
 terprises throughout the Empire. The proceeds go to 
 “charity.” “If one can afford to go into a beer gar- 
 den, he can afford to contribute a mite to charity,” 
 commented my friend. Passports for foreign travel 
 issued to Russian subjects call for a stamp tax 
 amounting to about five dollars in American money. 
 This goes to “charity.” Again I was told, “If a Russian 
 can afford to travel, he can afford to contribute well to 
 charity.” On shipboard, I was cautioned to throw over- 
 board my playing cards, if I had any. “Only playing 
 cards manufactured by our charity establishment are 
 permitted to be sold or introduced into Russia,” I was 
 informed. The numerous barefooted women and 
 children around the streets of Libau, running in and 
 out of the liquor shops, indicated whence came the 
 need for at least a part of this revenue collected 
 everywhere for “charity.” 
 
 I noticed among Russians the common practice 
 of always providing themselves with kopeks* when 
 they go out on the streets. These they toss to beg- 
 
 *A louble amounts to about fifty cents in American money. 
 One hundred kopeks make one rouble. In some places, begging 
 is an established “industry” and is licensed the same as street 
 peddlers. Comparatively few beggars are to be found in Petro- 
 grad, but they swarm the streets of Moscow and many other cities. 
 
 48 
 
< 
 
 in 
 
 Q 
 
 :2; 
 
 < 
 
 in 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 1/3 
 
 X 
 
 bi 
 
 > 
 
 5 
 
 < 
 
 ffi 
 
 H 
 
 Q 
 
 U3 
 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 2: 
 
 X 
 
 bi 
 
 bi 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 bi 
 
 ffi 
 
 H 
 
 :z: 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 bi 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 c/3 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 P-, 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 X 
 
 cu 
 
 c/3 
 
 £ 
 
 H 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 c/3 
 
 < 
 
 IS 
 
 >H 
 
 Q 
 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 iz; 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 bi 
 
 ffi 
 
 H 
 
 tb 
 
 O 
 
 bi 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 U3 
 
 K 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 BACK ROW, LEFT TO RIGHT — GRAND DUCHESS MARIE, GRAND DUCHESS OLGA AND GRAND DUCHESS 
 TITANIA. CENTER ROW — THE TSARINA AND THE TSAR, AND GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA. 
 FRONT ROW — THE TSAREVICH, GRAND DUKE MICHAEL ALEXIS, HEIR TO THE RUSSIAN THRONE. 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 gars, who appear everywhere and who make their 
 rendezvous in the traktirs, the licensed dramshops of 
 the lower class. “We know that most of these beg- 
 gars will spend their money for drink. It is too bad, 
 but some may be really hungry, and who can tell 
 which one?” So it was explained. During the two 
 days that I was with my Russian friend, in Libau and 
 Riga, he would encourage my giving to “charity,” but 
 would not permit me to pay for anything else. “You 
 are in Russia and pay nothing while you are with 
 me,” he would insist. The beggar is the walking ad- 
 vertisement of what vodka* has been or has done to 
 the Russian people. 
 
 Russia leads the world in its ratio of births, mar- 
 riages and deaths. Of every i,ooo people, 266.9 die 
 before they are one year old.f Five hundred and 
 eighty-two die before they are five years old, and six 
 hundred and twenty-nine die before they are ten years 
 of age. When a child comes into the world, the 
 chances are three to one that he will not live to be 
 ten years old. Vodka is recognized as being largely 
 responsible for this frightful record. 
 
 Another important factor, more or less inter- 
 woven with drink practices, is the many loose cus- 
 toms of Russian social life. The mujikj of the vil- 
 lages know little or nothing of home life as it exists 
 
 *Voda is the Slavonic word for “water.” Vodka is a 
 derivative difficult to express in English. It carries with it 
 both a diminutive and a sinister meaning. “Little water” 
 spoken contemptuously is an approach to the meaning of the 
 word. 
 
 fKennard; Russian Year Book for 1914, p. 611. 
 
 tMujik is an insulting diminutive of the Slav word mujh, 
 which means “man.” Mujik is equivalent to “little man,” spoken 
 contemptuously. 
 
 49 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 in America. Marriages are contracted, for the most 
 part, for other reasons than love. The young people 
 grow up with no very well-defined convictions as to 
 chastity. The servant girl class in the cities is re- 
 cruited from the villages. The city is largely made 
 up of great apartment houses built around a court 
 which has a single entrance ; the establishment is 
 managed locally by the dvornik (janitor) and, in case 
 of a large establishment, there is a starshiy dvornik 
 (head janitor). This dignitary is the agent of the 
 landlord in renting the apartments and in collecting 
 the rent. He is also the agent of the police in their 
 system of espionage, reporting all who come and go. 
 Daily reports are made to the police as well as to the 
 landlord. He is held responsible by both. The police- 
 man depends on the dvornik and the dvornik depends 
 on the policeman. As a rule, the dvornik gets no pay 
 for his services. He is left to graft off the tenants 
 and the visitors as best he can. The tenants are 
 usually quite liberal, especially if they are engaged in 
 a doubtful occupation, because trouble wfith the 
 dvornik means trouble with the police. 
 
 The servant girls of the establish- 
 ment or various establishments are the 
 chief source of information for the dvor- 
 nik. These girls, ignorant, handsome, of 
 more or less loose habits, become the 
 easy prey of the dvornik. Vicious con- 
 tributions to the situation are added by 
 male members of the family and by tran- 
 sient visitors, but, for convenience sake, 
 ^ most of the trouble is laid onto 
 
 the dvornik. He becomes the 
 
 Ox 
 
 social goat. 
 
 Thus there come into the 
 
 50 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 world veritable swarms of fatherless children. Very 
 little is thought of it and nothing else is expected of 
 these servant girls from the villages. The baby is 
 taken to the nearest foundling hospital to be taken 
 care of by public charity. The girl goes back to her 
 work and the same thing happens again the follow- 
 ing year. 
 
 Out of this social warp and woof, there has grown 
 up the Russian priyut, the charity system that, like 
 everything else in Russia, is of Brobdignagian propor- 
 tions. Babies must be cared for in the foundling 
 hospitals, they must be educated in some institution, 
 and all this is done on a wholesale scale. The largest 
 of these foundling hospitals is in Moscow, where, in 
 one single institution, from 15,000 to 20,000 babies 
 are cared for each year and some 900 nurses are em- 
 ployed. Within three blocks of the Winter Palace is 
 a gigantic foundling hospital covering nearly a whole 
 city block of ground. For the most part, the nurses 
 are recruited from the girl victims of the rotten social 
 system. 
 
 Out of this situation has grown up what is known 
 as the “Institutions of the Empress Marie,”* a gigantic 
 charitable trust the like of which the world has never 
 seen before. It exists by virtue of no statute or law, 
 yet its annual budget is passed on and approved by 
 the Tsar himself. It renders no public account of 
 its receipts or expenditures. While the public Is 
 taxed for its support, its fiscal operations are kept 
 secret. Its revenues are further augmented by be- 
 quests, donations, and from the practical sale of 
 decorations and honors. 
 
 It is fitting that this remarkable system of chari- 
 
 *In Russian government circles, the “institutions” of the Em- 
 press Marie are technically known as “Section IV.” 
 
 51 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ties should be officially called the “Institutions of the 
 Empress Marie,” in memory of one of the most pa- 
 thetic figures in Russian history. Empress Marie 
 Feodorovna was the great, great grandmother of 
 Nicholas II. and is affectionately called the “Mother 
 of the Tsars.” She lived through the reigns of three 
 Tsars, those of her husband and two of her sons. 
 Princess Dorothea Sophia, of Wurtemberg, who, on 
 her marriage to Grand Duke (afterwards Tsar) Paul, 
 was received into the Greek church as Marie Feodor- 
 ovna. Paul ruled for five years, ending with his as- 
 sassination on the night of March 23, 1801. He was 
 a man of low mentality, wallowing in secret vices, of 
 violent temper and eccentric unto madness. He took 
 the first step looking to relieving the condition of the 
 serfs by decreeing that they need not work for their 
 masters more than three days each week. He reduced 
 taxes, and that is about all there is to his credit. He 
 was strangled in his room adjoining that of his sleep- 
 ing wife, by his own officers, and within a few hours 
 many of the houses of Petrograd were illuminated 
 for joy.* But the noble wife who survived him be- 
 came, through her womanly virtues, one of the bright 
 spots in Russian history. 
 
 These institutions were originall)'- begun by Em- 
 press Marie in 1796, when she became the head of the 
 original charitable educational society. In 1828, the 
 
 *Paul equipped his army with show buckles and pigtail wigs. 
 His face was so ugly that he refused to have his own portrait 
 on the coins, as had been the custom, thus initiating the present 
 plan of using the double-headed eagle instead. People were 
 compelled to kneel in the mud as he passed. He hated round 
 hats and gave orders to the policemen to knock off every hat 
 of that sort that they saw. He was constantly issuing ukases 
 about the style of clothes. His assassination has been justified 
 on patriotic grounds. 
 
 52 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 management of the concern passed into the hands of 
 Section IV. of the Private Chancellory of His Im- 
 perial Majesty. The present head of the institution 
 is Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, mother of 
 the present Tsar. It was she who established, some 
 years ago, a series of schools for girls known as the 
 Mariinskiya Gymnasii, which schools form a part of 
 the system named in honor of the “Mother of the 
 Tsars.” 
 
 Another extensive source of revenue for these in- 
 stitutions is the monopoly on playing cards. The in- 
 stitution owns a factory where the playing cards are 
 made, and no playing cards are allowed in the Rus- 
 sian Empire that are not manufactured by this con- 
 cern. The administration offices of this concern are 
 at No. 7 Kasanskaia, Petrograd, and occupy quarters 
 as large as the whole Interior Department in Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 As indicating the character of the institutions 
 into which the children are placed when they come 
 out of the foundling hospitals, the following is a list 
 of concerns of the institution which are covered into 
 what is called the Petrograd Educational Establish- 
 ment ; 
 
 The Asylum of Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaievitch, for 
 i6o extern children, with an orphan asylum for loo girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Holy Andrew, for 145 extern children, with 
 orphan asylum for 40 girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Nikolaievsky, for 55 extern children, with 
 orphan asylum for 35 girls, 30 little girls and a nursery school 
 for IS pupils. 
 
 The Church of the Holy Methodius, for 50 intern girls. 
 
 The Gromovsky of the Holy Sergei, for no extern girls, 
 with orphan asylum for 90 boys. 
 
 The Asylum in memory of the Tsarevitch Nikolai Alexan- 
 drovitch, for 160 extern children. 
 
 53 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 The Asylum in memory of Mary, Catherine and George, 
 for 150 extern children. 
 
 The Asylum of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaievna, for 35 
 intern girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Alexander-Mariinsky Ivan Basilevsky, for 
 130 extern children. 
 
 The Asylum in memory of the 19th of February, 1861, for 
 40 intern girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Alexandrinsky, for 150 extern children. 
 
 The Orphan Asylum of the Grand Duchess Alexandra 
 Iosifovna, for 40 intern girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Elizabeth and Mary, for 160 extern children. 
 
 The Asylum of the Duchess’ Beloselsky-Belosserbsky, foi 
 25 little intern boys. 
 
 The Asylum of Lavalskv, for 115 extern children. 
 
 The Asylum of Baron Frederix, for extern children of the 
 attendants of the Petrograd Widow-House, with orphan asylum 
 for 30 intern girls. 
 
 The Asylum in memory of F. P. Rodokanaki, for 150 extern 
 children. 
 
 The Asylum in memory of the Tsarevitch George Alexan- 
 drovitch, for 40 intern boys. 
 
 The Asylum of Alexander Nevskj', for 75 intern boys. 
 
 The Asylum Ochtensky, for 150 extern children, with orphan 
 asylum for 30 girls. 
 
 The Asylum of Nikolai, Olga and Elisabeth Adamovitch, 
 for 90 extern children, with orphan asylum for 40 boys. 
 
 The Asylum of Petergovsky, for 90 extern children. 
 
 The Asylum Udelny (in summer) for 40 children. 
 
 Besides these, there are many schools for girls 
 in many parts of Russia under the control of the Edu- 
 cational Establishment. 
 
 While no public reports are made of the expendi- 
 tures under this “trust,” and its financial affairs are 
 kept secret, yet, by some intrigue, the payment of 
 some graft and a promise to not use the figures any- 
 where “in Russia,” I was able to secure copies of the 
 official estimates for the two years 1912-1913. On the 
 back of each, the Tsar had written in his own hand, 
 “Let this be carried out.” 
 
 54 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 DETAILED SECRET BALANCE SHEET SHOWING THE 
 ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURES OF THE “INSTI- 
 TUTIONS OF THE EMPRESS MARIE” FOR THE 
 YEARS 1912 AND 1913. 
 
 Expenses : 
 
 Ordinary expenses. 
 
 ( i) Central administration and 
 
 control , $ 
 
 ( 2) Maintenance of churches of 
 
 all schools 
 
 ( 3) Maintenance of educational 
 
 institutions 
 
 ( 4) Maintenance of schools 
 
 ( 5) Maintenance of hospitals and 
 
 asylums 
 
 ( 6) Repairs of buildings and new 
 
 buildings 
 
 ( 7) Pensions and yearly relief.... 
 
 ( 8) Subsidies to institutions, oper- 
 ations of which are not in- 
 cluded in the estimates of 
 scholarships in these insti- 
 tutions, gratifications, relief, 
 traveling expenses and 
 other special and small ex- 
 penses 
 
 ( 9) Payment of capital debts 
 
 (10) Sums, having to be added to 
 
 capitals and deposits 
 
 (11) Expenses on leaseholds 
 
 (12) Expenses on manufacturing 
 
 and sales of cards 
 
 (13) Expenses from tax on pub- 
 
 lic plays and amusements... 
 
 (14) At the disposal of the trustee- 
 
 ship not anticipated by the 
 estimates and for pressing 
 needs in the course of the 
 year 
 
 Provided : 
 
 According to Estimates 
 1912 1913 
 
 584.113.00 $ 584,701.00 
 
 24,527.00 26,161.00 
 
 2.651.225.00 3,000,001.00 
 
 7.785,758.58 7,900,864.58 
 
 2.072.359.00 2,140,585.00 
 
 831.909.00 901,335-00 
 
 1.619.300.00 1,619,023.00 
 
 936.062.00 
 39,236.28 
 
 192,274.88 
 
 307.420.00 
 
 1,144,426.00 
 
 405.000. 00 
 
 868.000. 00 
 
 941,497-00 
 
 113,271.23 
 
 216,772.49 
 
 350,505.00 
 
 1,082,092.00 
 
 485.000. 00 
 
 865.000. 00 
 
 Total $19,461,610.74 $20,226,808.35 
 
 General Manager (Signed) Prince Andrew Livin. 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 The tragedy of childhood has been written large 
 over every vodka shop in the Empire. It is an ap- 
 palling fact that, during the year 1911, 155 children in 
 the public schools committed suicide. 
 
 In Russia, it is not customary for a doctor to send 
 a bill or make any specific charge for his services ex- 
 cept in case of surgical operations. What is paid is 
 regarded as a “free will offering.” The national 
 charity idea is highly developed in the medical prac- 
 tice. In 1910 there were 7,682 hospitals in Russia, 
 with 201,868 beds. They were attended by 19,414 
 male and 1,590 women doctors. The following table 
 shows growth of the hospitals:^ 
 
 Year No. Beds Persons Treated 
 
 1891 108,325 1,192,199 
 
 1901 136,516 1,696,885 
 
 1911 210,473 3,122,879 
 
 There are 250,000 blind people in Russia who 
 are cared for at a cost to the nation of 60,000,000 
 roubles. Two days are set apart in May of each year, 
 called “camomile days,” in which white camomile 
 flowers are sold all over the Empire, the proceeds go- 
 ing to the expenses of the campaign against consump- 
 tion. Large sums are collected in this way. In 
 Odessa alone, in 1913, the proceeds amounted to 
 $20,000. 
 
 At the opening of the European war in 1914, a 
 “Supreme Council” was created to take over the 
 management of the Red Cross and other charity work 
 connected with military operations. This work is 
 temporary and wholly distinct from the operations of 
 “Section IV.” The “Council” operates under the 
 presidency of Empress Alexandra, wife of the present 
 Tsar. 
 
 *Kennard; Russiaji Year Book for 1914, p. 610. 
 
 56 
 
6inAM))Tb300-An>TI»qArCTBOBAHI)li|OMAPOMAHOBUXli 
 
 XttNMOrnHECKt(nEPE1HMEH|[i|iPI«AeHklXlBO)KAEHP»CK«rilHAP9AA.31E«rtHnitlU||IU«VH(> 
 COSAITIHHAUAmPOANHbl-PDCCIIt. 
 
 nirv^|[^^}mKiiiiiAi<uBntm)nincvm>ntN)ii)injiu]inpi)nl]APi;)M(nnaiummriiKjpwiicn»iiuvnu(mociiDl^ 
 
 iA(i>(rin!^uiK:JiMW<^icii««}UPCAiiiwwiiPrr!WKk)uiiUPnu«iifWiu>(i)iiiu;iiuiAMWwviQmmK[uunHuiiranAn[i|«^ 
 
 ttS 
 
 Nn,iiio%ctm: 
 
 ' ' ' U(rin!AbuiK:JiMW'iAiPDiicii«'t}UPCiiiiwwiiPrr!fuuiKk)UKvnufliifWiu>(i)iiwi)vuuiw ^ 
 
 i!iw>i;KiLwiiWfljkjjw;iiviaa(<^mi«a«pfi!}flUAnipT'Vwiiw:mwwH\»r''' 
 
 .. ., - . ..... 
 
 — 
 
 uilaewijWi»pi'M‘j«a.'}:«wo5ho^ — '‘■ 
 
 P«IIPKU‘' ■ ■ " ■ " ■ 
 
 iWH)iiwi'aiW^«&i»TOi'wuK£WWPJCKi'i<ncayi»ynr?wQ,n}wrx'5Sfi^i«j^ 
 :wr,.'vvikfei»ma!tMj(n!«'Wffu™»i!i>Nw«wwrKv»rTSton&T>Ai»AE:4jjjf^ 
 
 .. _ M,tfAii]jiwytoc«)'<::(»>(y'A>-a'V}MpfmiCi‘'^^OAP&PoniJ!t.'WitwioAst(«*«v^ 
 
 iwjf(PWflpfifotft'i8^{iffiM>inHKr»s#Rti^'auywii>UPwwi:w{WJ'»iitMTO^ 
 
 T^uAitPiitUiP^fruwiVirhmifBMPwniiikia^'iijpiTiivMfr. ....... f,,- ••, - ■ - - 
 
 iriia&<r*&it(t;iw^?pv!A:>A«ftMA^Uq3f>'wP.i!'il»?*UAiiDUin«ii«towiMPKa»(CiAttM|i: ■-• — - 
 
 yiriiAMJ).1110^OriHArttlKPf#M«{ll)iCWJ3«JI5l|AftlWlllS»roilOTt;i4WyPCPJIL'MBFW;«!.'MAHHlVlW^^ 
 
 ^iyr>1:w'W^b*^^’l!P;v.mV^WilA:^^'aPWfc‘:uli«f^IPll-Hb^AOO^«MAMbeAMMOA3lJl'W^wy‘^W^aWS9«^v■i'^■JM:ftqi>'*KtfJW^rwrvf?^ 
 
 iMn!y-*)BtPt;rARjpaTo:(f.pme(ip.uii':rriiiPiv;ubi-jp1iipjrJU‘piiABoioA;BO!v«30BV')ouai‘>><HPP>(cuKir3»rpiHiifUiy;(n()^p(tinuuiriikCAjt)<(«utAf,{'n!cE]'anHmtc^ 
 ' - -^fiil(|BAi!AAPtra)iMM»vfteBaw*BCCx((nnn«lwWktio^i{Pwiw«!iiA.'it!^'Aji»&iiPfi'-np»i1t5i<iJi'W5w5KiSAi)rAlTWf 
 
 
 itmfiwwiws;! 
 {iiAiiMitni'W'yriiiftfiiQMiiffli 
 cMHi'ir'PiSSuyJWMiiiWEP; 
 
 ClAMAl - 
 
 !WjiAi-.>MP‘-;f'p«wtPf2i5?:»t»t;rt.wJanhi 
 
 yiW4jDfiMtttIWP*fJiVrtmillWlf£AAPiimTOlpl««t^ 
 
 
 
 (J^^||RMr(ylbWKUilnli^ppMCpp^(uMtfC'Alllr«PUBemq&pliBPH^K)WP»rpM] 
 
 !iyi»iiwWEcmiiui«nff'M)rijiAA6oiiWi»[o»yu*HA)tyvi«e4*>'p?npflLu«ifw«wpi©fltu^^ 
 
 ril.\>UiWb'fri'AMlir90MOnifrir;(OlRMtHllOAHllPD'BHAfOOC'A31Pj(HPW!l4':7)'}l'VVO{lii;Uk'«BPUlXIilf3r('ra;}tn(MlUAia 
 
 llM1i!<;'lC3»W»l'PSlSfl!I«({iiaVUiE::i>sWrfJI.VIlflWy>rfAMliWM0«lWJfi!O«NII1IICAHl(PCI'5HAfO,OCfA 
 
 mu 'wytbAiicDUPi>^i!iui!9.wuvj^’it!i^}«r?i!nip> iiiinn/iuni3i](t'ii(i!ur{riliiAQ ecAxuaiydiTH'SMHunrfi'V'MiioiQ; 
 n«!iM««(Ainft%-HHVHi:i(:w!ffNi6ifP'j{iiii!i!nypjiu’.'.^fm«»iMi«nmM4K.sKHnoA«tfMiipfrHAcpj®i'fpi»U.wn 
 -“•i«<w:jiwwwuwi'sfHiiKipiiiyfUj«|ijU3vgji:*iKi<i''rtnini!««A,Bti(ttil — 
 
 tHC!BJilfLKy«WB!W»|lWt4yinWa(!A!/«'li:t«!i'%fV’»>P) 
 
 ■ i)io:;™^ipioii^o-ipnwiii{r}pw»iu««jvaw^ 
 LwnplWWWWAVlJ'ffli^CBKB^ 
 
 llUHillilViaBNWnPSCffttiVjyAWK 
 
 iiUiiiip?(/iiKnr>PifiueDA(niain;VA« 
 
 _., ,......., ..._.. ....nflliiuwiroiiP«}P5KWii}«i|iiiiiM# 
 
 ;;Bi;t5WP!®jnA%iWJO'p\&f.pr;)|tlckHPHl!JM>'H«M««MW«r5MWIHIlflCDfAP:Ha-P4iW5AJlHiWnnWllPafW»PJ!igi^ 
 
 lpUiUMnL'Jlpnc!AlTB^^l>l>vlC[};!'(mpjKMN}wrI?',dA(wlfmlilNl^(A(«rHlI5^'(llp^pmK‘.^W^PAJ^nl!PU3fAUK,‘npnlrillMIA%lP^fu^)SVltnv> 
 
 ■ ■ ■ ‘•■;»).ipjviPiicn«jttuuf'ip;Ll)ij»!Kf»«mW»^ 
 
 inHi(wAuA«ii«j;/){ltPfc!rtiUi» 
 
 iiittwytoiuicpiiwu 
 lirtMWrPIllO 
 
 .... . ^fUj«|ijU3vgji:»iKKi''rtnini!««A,Bti(tt»0E8nHATAiMni:MAwniiiWdPi=f<JM'n!nA!«iA«pl 
 
 mjnP4Pwrtiia^PHgi'WMtfu«siEtH-APirti(w;Hip-rmiyi^^^ rr ^ i mi * • t *■. • 
 
 f»ntPtAm«tr>p;;p«ipm(!7i;ntyjAnfrn^tf:3:LPMi(M4)j^:i>:«MiwnAwi\»iaAKi8AvnPKJHAHi{HC!ABNeiiMDa«'^i(:M>>i<iAiU9r' 
 
 M«'»liHlt;'ftK’W!HIP6('«WUr»;: i-.f.. 
 
 i¥w..'»yAiPi''jwW(>;irw'ji 
 
 Ntovi'i^' 
 
 i»flipv/iA’Pfiirinjf'riiiJi( 
 
 'f:Ki:'P;'iWiWWUKirfUH 
 
 .„ ,_lf'4{?U:j5il>iChlUffVktfO(UA!iCilhW 
 
 PAlP’f'UEi)tfMl»r«W'j’<.'OtWBeJPy'3y.lArK’lilr^'l'P4n.4;iiuiP'nitpA.ut«Oi1rbC/u4HmunMKiUiu:jW)l0HOyi<lvrirMHVQI4^^AM? 
 
 _. P.'PtWil^ii>fylUn«»lliUAliKN8OTAtt»H4Wtft'MWP4IC»pA«i''.iimo«lf*srar?»OmtflSnHAfi|llfcijihm 
 
 uu«•lnbE.v^gl(«m(E^^(c^itfn>‘•!ii;i)Un»(HtPt^Al»llJPr(^crm''tc^EgQIB'flH<«r^le»KWC3g^bTMuMe^^An^M^r«H(AMu<(&«;(}muAi:u'£ll^. 
 
 tf-EAyBuunM(krjnmcnAriuNMM'XiAHnci.tiuArrBruHffpnrxyAAPkrDiop»iiuPM:;:ouiiHiiTKUCrbccpp;non^iUBe(umierorbmAiv,»ai:Aa 
 
 u.»^h>'A^HCiuM»a'(^iiaiEFUBwtMbciArnii}Effrvii;7ns;iPUMuiMgriQi4eHCK<w&MHCRiHb.'nlTAj^iiaf^ecinnt^Hbt]Anpeu^ 
 
 iwvp»:;i".!!fw«At»">PiiiPAC’f*«J4 
 
 
 tKW, 
 
 PtAiUA 
 
 riAtriftit’toa*«t6Mi^''ATwuP5x»HiP*(iAwoBi'»ri«»:w!3jc0?ti/,A^«Aw(inmA(RwiAiininiTP7iji«i!oiJiiikM&{fffPil 
 ‘“•"'‘■•"■•'■■“ttiwiS'WHLyiA'v'i^.MptprRnuiiwjTCTynAfiii'iiAnwiwfNiptPABWoanni 
 
 _.. . , ..._ ^._JIHAHl{A)WWU3MWJ»fIfft 
 
 iOxBkJ>?CC«illO»i:-USmilHllK(V«AH>>»l(lKPfkCMP?llttl»OBAitaP!RpeHyiMPfOiUJICklH:;.E|)imtP!rcinA« 
 
 (MtPWHPt blA(yt(ritXHnttpnf<Qnt?(ApfUIPtnNin)|(lAt/nriO!At>A9UAOP^iO4[IX{ai(VAnOAdOHABAnM«UHlBMnlbHCMl0MHrmCAP^lAnmCD»i(H(fAAAbM^ 
 iuBrwuwiBAPiii«iciNrtivmipt(r>n{Av:(iiiKMiimrir.nppA^MaprvBy(groroM^MHoi«inAreuHeu[i;AniuiruBar(uiicuAMMn(nii[ii{5i>fi0nirimm>utiiMH 
 jmA{«0Bytieiji!nPAiM3Hg(ulv^»tii(((ffvn>rMEiPArxui(N4Aii.E)iPt%£piieitHNHemt^pau(iuMgiuw7Prnu)uAA^rMiA)in^^ 
 
 (i»MifHOCB|IOKCn)lk»K^(p^A(iiKDEOl(1ttr^KUi?Xi:'4 
 AfiMnntcjip<pAiiMneni(A(iir^to;winbC!igH)iiniunNy 
 (MtPWHPt aiA(yt(ritxwittpnf<Qnt?(ApfuiPtnNin)i(lAt/ 
 BAPiiyiciNrtivmipt(r>n{Av:(i) 
 
 I ‘^OPJJCU^'PPliitllKJHUBMp 
 
 irti>nniiAivrviiMuv««r'?;iolnNn^>’turnixxBPPAtpWi''iEm!!roMi>yy<MMAAU.AJtPiMAtPtf‘ii;n«AA!4cwMj)#i^VFp^i^^^^^ 
 i'AnA^y>'i2i(tMACE!K:i|pUiXAJUMuriezM::;:ai;(:i#»lti4JEAfibHxenTricnjMiVHniAi<^.^iweAffn(ypinfrHPAA;4fvtfiiPiTA4^ 
 EHMMxia>iitM>ui'}>i;'it'ACiva«iMuvNjUAiA'jfijabitHAiiutiiii(&yijiaiTiiir'ar)ranB6n'OMiimpiNrpi2t(7r9p(wA){biMMiPff(}nAiuui 
 - - - - ' - ' — - - -.wfbiPscrwMifwafnuTBfliNU!* 
 
 ii'{3raKurm'ePiK{HKwunMmifii}iAi^PKUiianATNrM^cciAfBKU(rrijOPiiAMiiFuAit»iniWftun(PUA(BMAmmNir.''imT^^^ 
 
 amAr3ioPa'KUAUMB'<^nu>'!MUui(iirifwiuxmo)n>wei«(UimKUAMPri)aMMratfAiKnAKWwnmuM{PPn((WAUFtj)m'r8i7;aK^ 
 iTwjftiiitin-^ftr»3«nAg:pfs:ir^oroPuA*<ptnPA8t'a'inn»^«w:Po<i«jAAjiwr^AivrdnoTiuPMAC»kH8APMi!tt»«»A«Ci«»ffP)wi|rj/iiri:cBoeM/’ — 
 
 CM'WHiMTWiyMPJWAgniWil ., ^.. 
 
 5M«S{mW-WHA;«lia(mO'lilliir[gAxt4f;\viAHfKr»MIWMIrtNll((K<*l?IffMll(n‘iAWM«b3Hlfl«MblJ>^ --- 
 
 RinlCtU(41fH£1bUlift)(nmilAU1><iUp’^nlK!IV^p1P^1(PAl0nl]llAlfUf'4yDWlA;b’MMIb0M«PlVimimijUNP:i3JUMmAlhn»C4f^lHPinyCBAAAr3ftim^ 
 (CAu«uiOwiKra‘4AUi:A:ugauminjuiK:iiAHm7(:ACAi,'u^WiUM9AtN^><yauAiHAcviifwilin9tr»BMp(lluBHH!CPAMeP(Bcnpnk^i^ 
 Hll[flFWrpWu(ti^jri(SN(PCOi^llUIOitOibWiy();C,^4tinrM^4PewA?HAHElKOAtncu9»7KMAqAKAJ^EMy|;nilAKI{Itl)PAIOIIbi(HI(iT(lH01U>nrKCOIimi)n^ 
 ffiUAM’iiJ(itiiA^7iim»BCKiHT{AbS}yii3lKSUW^.*iJ|'bSfflC>nep8Aromci?CM?»i4jiKAAK’)ypKr«KAancTMVoraA{}piMrtiPtr»UAU»)unKauum 
 OMrniniioo«^£Hi)0)UN{vj^'urKqNipypKioiAPttdi’inVP>';yT3>KeHiAKprbnon.iAranPA!>AnncaiinBKOPfNiiiuixAAAr}pcAiiinAfMiKAnsAAntuicMiMPis 
 rml^Bmki*^3tt9^{gl^fl|^AKyW^P«l«l^HCPf^Kppi'Jm8JS^iKt^•t^CH«ltfJkn^flbM'I5P^C^MH?K^^TV?BfCTA^W(S^^fM(MHAW^mAWm(lWa^l^roWAiff! 
 nKaHAffe»V«'*3WfcfA'(y«;WlJPlj;yAWffr\5P'TxaClf3feit'-"rii>HAJha»»APMiHWlOW4^fMk/()Cyii*HMnWMrAAAMfMAm'A*aUfBm/)lJMAl»IUIUin: 
 (PMHKueBi((^p-ai5&p(>UAii-i(utcH;Atiiitii;pM'a^i,>.'ii(((»:pi«SiK4meiliHMiiiAA»itAA'<'AHai''nCiwmejnji^KwmAnMK0itnBym(rilinHbin^ 
 
 “ ‘WIVIOAJiaxjmilM -esigj . 'iOlWMHAMMflAAJJMIlPvCgr.nt/^WH^WMiitoAlMAibHfA^ 
 
 — flwiAn 
 
 iPAljW r'ftlA r «« 
 
 AWIHWKgW!AHlflCAAeJlrtAlW>tlRS{MiAfT»»CMbKrMKlW!«'>P«u'M!WACb: 
 
 nMMim;iUUhaKP.AHn(i.viiiuiAiiiE.v',raji[iM(iiriitK(Ti)lAn.<E»iLk.-iK 
 
 'uuaaik(a»i. AL'am pa 
 
 . 'iOlWMHAMMflAAJJMIlPvCavnt/AWH^WMiitoAlliM 
 
 f? <UmiblU(WAKA)CAAV^«.WO,r^6eAmn](Mgf^KSAAIlHNI»AA{MT^iiMCnO(b 
 ~ ~ AioAioiMwo^jynQVm^ciAibfltuiC^CnfAiirMrAionwmjAiAiMiKNA/Ate 
 
 . .. JMCb:OSf)A«imrbJCBWp:lf*fcMailP»A{ltWeM«MKMTnAiniJM)«WKTbMlirtBT^^ 
 
 nMMimAi(t^BAHQMMuiuiA:E3:i!ArAn(iA'vm(PAm''*"ibA'wnpgtnactpyNrPMUKr()D&nANAnSMnnhnei(HiMf^BmnrMiUKCw9r!^ 
 MHf)AnH(lKI!riffiAU.Mau«oUc(A^yuh3KA^n|ffAPAVl]WHCi;livP..^{;&«!i1'yKNHUUiVl^^yr;;5i(^lKKr<iCU|lVU>1M^niOMrfllMRrtnlAEHMWlU^ 
 rnKGf:bB)'iR^nA^iaiaiAiicvjE(i>iv:er;iidi?npwyp(fucwinr.uKfecTUHUiMAgy 8N3ci(iiia>!U(XTui)emxoP('^Mi^KKMCA»QAeeAM^ 
 »muviu{atf<v>WAUTpniiiPt;roKji)id')i<«inimi 9Ar«tit(iOAAm'>i6iUACbA!np!M)oirbcmMTM>n'AroniiMMHtfbmAA!K(Mir8DH*ai2AfkMflmi0m'iw 
 lin01PIAAKnbA»ui(HiriAjntmxllinutiPtuil|IiBttB|(iiiJuniHU){SMCAf«;PAU((lUii;A&lfflAA(WUIU.iE;p.> .limnf«ACM^)Urni9n«rPt(irAWIfftiA(WAlllAir)IPAn^ 
 JBnPAAaHoev{iUuuli(n)HylgrlUMllll(l(^Hprl»MVPMt]I9il)rr|uvwBu(vu»AAlyMAPMulAAl^HWP}AA:^<>^/Ulitf«lali^Hrll</tfv^ 
 
 EfoHMnEPATOPtKOCBEAHNECTBO r«c9AAnHArnmTtn aSSi. 
 
 HhkoaahIIs 
 
 PORTRAIT OF TSAR NICHOLAS II. DONE IN RUS- 
 SIAN TYPE IN WHICH ARE RECORDED THE PRINCI- 
 PAL EVENTS OF SL.VVIC HISTORY. 
 
RUSSIAN CHARITY 
 
 Recent social legislation of a high order indicates, 
 eloquently, the natural philanthropic nature of the 
 people. Excellent child labor laws have been enacted. 
 Children under 12 years of age cannot be employed as 
 laborers, and their labor is restricted until the age ol 
 15. A good workman’s compensation act was passed 
 on June 2, 1903. A bill which passed the Duma in 
 May, 1912, (approved in June) provides for compul- 
 sory workman’s insurance. On October i, 1913, there 
 were 1,594 sick clubs under the act, with a member- 
 ship of 1,176,564. All works employing over twenty 
 hands where motive power is used and all works of 
 other kinds employing thirty hands are subject to the 
 law. The government has organized thirteen regional 
 insurance companies to take care of the business aris- 
 ing under this law. Factories are inspected by gov- 
 ernment officials. Co-operative societies are encour- 
 aged by law, government establishments are instituted 
 for the encouragement and sale of peasant industries, 
 and practically every attempt at social improvement 
 to be found in America has its counterpart in Russia. 
 
 Russians are more broadly human, probably, 
 than any other race of people. While poverty is ap- 
 parent everywhere, starvation is unknown among 
 peasants when there is food for anybody. When 
 there is no famine in the land, it would be difficult for 
 anybody to starve in Russia, for he can beg success- 
 fully almost anywhere.* That is a beautiful custom the 
 mujik has of leaving a piece of bread on the outer 
 window sill of his house at night for some hungry one 
 who might come along. Human sympathy and ap- 
 parent human brutality are everywhere. The Rus- 
 
 ^Famines are common in Russia and then there is plenty of 
 starvation. Some of the descriptions of famines by Tolstoi and 
 Korolenko are illuminating and distressing. 
 
 57 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 sian will nurse a stricken stranger with the tender- 
 ness of a woman and brutally annihilate a robber as 
 though he were vermin. It is the untrammeled, un- 
 restrained impulse of the animal called man. On the 
 one hand is the greatest demonstration of charitable 
 undertakings that the world has ever seen ; on the 
 other hand is the ferocious treatment of prisoners and 
 the bloody pogroms against the Jews. Who can 
 fathom this thing called “man?” 
 
 \ 
 
 58 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 HE early Varanger chiefs who 
 came from Rus to become the 
 hired princes of the Slavic po- 
 litical entities brought with 
 them fighting men, druzhiny (compan- 
 ions), as assistants. Like the princes 
 themselves, these intermarried with the 
 natives and became Russianized. These 
 “boyars,” as they were named, formed 
 a fighting and eventually a land-hold- 
 ing class. They had the right of mi- 
 gration and served any prince whom 
 they chose, going from one to another. 
 While they “held” allotments of land, 
 they did not own them ; they held the land in return 
 for service to the prince. Even the prince would, at 
 times, move on from one principality to another ; in 
 which case his boyars would accompany him, dis- 
 band or enter the service of some other prince. The 
 prince, aided by his boyars, defended the people. The 
 farmer worked the land that he might sustain his 
 boyar and the boyar shared the rental with the prince. 
 Allotments of land were held subject to the wishes of 
 the boyar. The boyar, in turn, held it subject to the 
 wishes of the prince, and the prince held it all subject 
 to the wishes of the veche, the assembly of burghers. 
 Land, unless worked, was worthless, hence the value 
 was considered to lie in the labor expended on the 
 land rather than in the land itself. Everybody was 
 
 59 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 free, the laborer, the boyar and the prince. The only 
 exception was the slaves captured in war, and these 
 belonged to the prince. Gradually, however, there 
 came into being a class of personal fighting retainers 
 of the prince who had no landed holdings, and who 
 worked or fought merely for hire. 
 
 By this process, there grew up a society, apart 
 from the slaves who had no rights at all, a free popu- 
 lation divided into (i) the “men of service” and (2) 
 the villeins or farmers. The former class was divided 
 into (i) the boyars who had landed holdings, and 
 (2) the free fighting men who had no such holdings. 
 The villein had the right to transfer his allegiance 
 from one boyar to another and even from one prince 
 to another. In each case, he maintained his rights 
 over the land which he held, provided he worked. In 
 such a case, jurisdiction over the land went with the 
 villein from one boyar to another and even went with 
 him from one prince to another. That did not mean 
 that he “owned” the land; nobody owned land in the 
 modern sense. The villein merely held for the time 
 being the right to cultivate the land. If a boyar ob- 
 jected to one of his villeins transferring his allegiance 
 to another, that was a matter to be fought out or to 
 be adjusted mutually between him and the worker 
 and between him and the boyar to whom the villein 
 went. In case a villein transferred his allegiance to 
 another prince the first prince had no recourse except 
 to go to war with the second prince, and he could not 
 do this without the support of his own veche. As the 
 matter stood at this period of social development, the 
 villein had rather the best end of the situation. At 
 any time that it saw fit, the veche, made up of the 
 villeins, could dismiss its prince and employ an- 
 other. Dismissal of the prince carried with it. the 
 
 60 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 dismissal of the boyars. The question arises, why did 
 the villein or the burghers voluntarily submit to pay- 
 ing tribute or rental to the boyar and to the prince 
 above him when they had it in their power to dismiss 
 them both? The reason lies in the fact that without 
 the prince and his retainers, the burghers would have 
 no protection. They would fall a prey to robbers or 
 perhaps to some stronger, more exacting and distant 
 prince who had secured complete control over his 
 burghers. The situation was further complicated by 
 the development of free communes, free primitive 
 corporations who held their communal land in com- 
 mon and elected delegates or representatives to the 
 court of the prince. Thus eventually there appeared 
 three sets of buyers in the labor market, the boyars, 
 the prince and the free communes ; and naturally 
 chaos increased as the demand for labor increased. 
 
 In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, new in- 
 fluences came into being. As explained in Chapter I., 
 the aggression of the Lithuanian princes on the west 
 and the oppression of the Tartar hordes on the east 
 welded together these independent principalities un- 
 der a “grand prince,” and these “grand princes,” in 
 turn, were swallowed up by the “grand prince” of 
 Moscow, who developed into a Tsar. These aggres- 
 sions, from time to time, compelled the prince to in- 
 crease the number of his armed men, which, in turn, 
 multiplied his financial burdens, till at length, in the 
 fifteenth century, this problem led to the introduc- 
 tion of the Pomiestie (manor). The fighting men were 
 scattered about on frontier tracts of land, chiefly to 
 the east, each being given, as a holding, a tract of 
 land. Thus a living barrier was placed between Mos- 
 cow and her Tartar enemies. The fighting man held 
 his land as long as he continued to serve, and he 
 
 6i 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 served as long as he continued to hold the land. The 
 tenure of the manor was considered a little more 
 temporary than the hereditary holding, but even the 
 hereditary holding did not carry with it the owner- 
 ship of the land. In return for the use of the land, 
 the burgher or villein worked a certain number of days 
 for the free servant or the landlord. 
 
 Herein lay the weakness of the situation, a weak- 
 ness that became more apparent as outside dangers 
 increased. As long as the boyar had no actual con- 
 trol over the villein and as long as the prince had no 
 actual control over the boyar, the entity, in time of 
 danger, was but a rope of sand. As long as the villein 
 could not always be depended on to serve the boyar, 
 the boyar could not be relied upon to serve the prince ; 
 the boyar could not fight unless he was fed and there 
 was none to provide his upkeep except the villein. 
 
 Attempts were made to remedy this situation by 
 multiplying the difficulties of villein migration. The 
 prince desired to have as many inhabitants as pos- 
 sible because the revenues depended upon the popu- 
 lation ; and, for the same reason, the landed proprietor 
 desired to have as many as possible to till his lands. 
 The free communes desired as many members as pos- 
 sible because taxes came to be levied on the com- 
 mune as a whole and each member relieved every 
 other member by assuming a part of the burden. The 
 prince, the landlord and the communes, therefore, did 
 all in their power to prevent migrations. This was 
 accomplished partly by law, but more frequently by 
 sheer force. The villein was not allowed to leave as 
 long as he was in debt to his landlord, which was 
 generally the case, for the burgher, like the mujik of 
 today, was not overcautious about getting into debt. 
 The communes would refuse to allow a member to 
 
 62 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 leave unless someone was provided to take his place. 
 The grand prince of Moscow aided in preventing mi- 
 grations. Formerly, when the princes were independ- 
 ent, it was an easy matter for the farmer to go from 
 one prince to another; but when all were under the 
 jurisdiction of the grand prince, it was not so easy. 
 
 It was not until 1597, during the reign of Boris 
 Godunov, the usurper of the throne and the last Tsar 
 of the Rurik dynasty, that the fatal step was taken 
 that marked the beginning of serfdom. In that year, 
 Boris enacted a law providing that if a tenant left 
 his holding on any except St. George’s day, the pro- 
 prietor could compel him to return at any time within 
 five years. In 1649, when the laws respecting the 
 peasant were codified in the Ulozhenie, the five-year 
 limit and the provisions about leaving on St. George’s 
 day were abolished, and it was enacted that nobody 
 had a right to receive a tenant who had abandoned 
 another landlord without the latter’s permission. In 
 theory, certain obligations were laid upon the land- 
 lord. He could not divorce the tenant from his land, 
 and he must provide him with land and implements. 
 While the tenant had only the loan of the livestock, 
 the landlord could not take it away from him by force, 
 and although he could still appear before the courts 
 as a free man and retained all of his civil rights except 
 that of changing his domicile, these rights, in the 
 working out, became more and more visionary.* 
 
 There is no evidence whatever that it was the in- 
 tention, either of Boris Godunov or of the framers of 
 
 *The leading authority for the early history of the peasantry 
 of Russia is M. Belaef. His Krestyane na Rusi was published 
 in Moscow in i860. For English readers, good chapters are 
 devoted to this subject by Wallace, in his Russia, and by Baring 
 in his Russian People. See also Kennard’s Russian Peasant. 
 
 63 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the Ulozhenie* to create a system of personal slavery. 
 There are yet plenty of people in Russia, particularly 
 among the Slavophiles of Moscow, who will strenu- 
 ously deny that personal slavery ever existed in Rus- 
 sia except as to captives taken in war. It was un- 
 doubtedly the intention to fasten the tenant to the 
 land only, and thus to remedy a condition that had 
 become a recognized evil. It was purposed for the 
 mutual advantage of both classes and to solve tem- 
 porarily a pressing economic problem. What it actu- 
 ally accomplished was the personal enslavement of 
 the whole peasantry of Russia for two hundred years. 
 
 When two men are chained together, it is in- 
 evitable that the weaker shall become more or less 
 the prey of the stronger. The landlords began system- 
 atically to levy fines upon their tenants and to col- 
 lect such fines by flogging. From this it was but a 
 step to actually selling peasants without the land. At 
 first, this was wholly without legal authority, but at 
 length the right to sell one’s peasants without the 
 land was formally recognized by law.f 
 
 There still remained some distinction between the 
 tenants and the slaves on the one hand and the “free 
 wandering people” on the other. Then came Peter 
 the Great with his numerous public enterprises re- 
 quiring enormous amounts of money, and new schemes 
 of taxation. He caused a census to be taken in which 
 slaves, domestic servants, peasants and agricultural 
 laborers were all included in one classification. He 
 levied a poll tax on each and, to simplify the collec- 
 tion of the tax, he made the landlord responsible for 
 
 *This codification took place under the reign of Alexis, the 
 second Tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and who was the first 
 Tsar who undertook to cope with the evils of liquor. 
 
 tSee ukase of October 13, 1765, and that of June 27, 1682. 
 
 64 
 
CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, PETROGRAD 
 
 BUILT AT A COST OF 23,000,000 ROUBLES OVER THE 
 SPOT WHERE ALEXANDER II. WAS MURDERED. THE 
 HOLE MADE BY THE DYNAMITE BOMB IS LEFT AS IT 
 WAS IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, COVERED BY A 
 CANOPY SUPPORTED BY JASPER PILLARS. ON THE 
 WALLS ARE NEARLY A MILE SQUARE OF MOSAIC PIC- 
 TURES. THE ENTIRE INTERIOR, INCLUDING FLOORS, 
 IS OF MOSAIC. 
 
RUSSIAN PLAYING CARDS 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 it all. Then all the “free wandering people” were re- 
 quired to either enlist in the army or enroll them- 
 selves as serfs to some proprietor, or as members of 
 some commune. Those who failed to obey were clas- 
 sified as “vagrants” and sent to the galleys. There 
 was then no longer room in Russia for free men out- 
 side of the landlord and official classes. Even these 
 were not wholly free. All were a part of a great 
 social machine in the service of the state. In theory, 
 everyone, male and female, must serve the state in 
 some manner. 
 
 The unrestrained brutality of the Slav inflicted 
 upon the serfs such hardship and oppression that they 
 fled by the thousands to enlist in the army. Peter 
 thereupon came to the relief of the landlords, for- 
 bidding the serfs to enlist without the consent of their 
 masters, under penalty of being beaten by the knout 
 and sent to the mines.* The landlords received the 
 right to transport unruly serfs to Siberia for life. 
 During the reign of Catherine II., the climax of serf- 
 age was reached. The serfs were declared by law to 
 be a part of the master’s immovable property,t a part 
 of the working capital of the state. As such, they 
 could be bought and sold and given as presents. They 
 could not even marry without the consent of the over- 
 lord. The only legal restrictions in their favor were 
 that they must not be offered for sale at public auc- 
 tion or during times of conscripton. In all other re- 
 spects, serfs were treated precisely as private prop- 
 erty. Then and there was established the custom — a 
 custom which continued down to i86i — of computing 
 
 *Ukase of June 2, 1794; ukase of Jan. 17, 1765, and ukase 
 of Jan. 28, 1766. 
 
 tUkase of Oct. 7, 1792. 
 
 65 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 a noble’s fortune by the number of his serfs, rather 
 than by the number of his acres or by his income. He 
 was worth so many thousands of “souls.” In order 
 to keep the vast horde of serfs in subjection, they 
 were forbidden to make any complaints under pen- 
 alty of being beaten with the knout and sent to the 
 mines.* The frightful abuses heaped upon the serfs 
 have not been ignored by the Russians themselves, 
 and much has been written on the subject in the Rus- 
 sian language. Some of these outrages described are 
 of the most horrible character. 
 
 In theory, there was some justification for serf- 
 dom in the argument that obligatory service was im- 
 posed upon all. The serfs served the nobles in order 
 that the nobles might serve the Tsar. What there 
 was in this theory, however, was wholly overturned 
 by Peter III., in 1762, when he issued a manifesto 
 abolishing the obligatory service of the nobles. But 
 so completely had the original meaning of serfage 
 been obliterated that no one thought of carrying out 
 the logical consequences of the manifesto as to the 
 serfs. The serfs remained in chains. The last points 
 of difference between the legal status of the serf and 
 that of slaves captured in war had long since been 
 obliterated. All were slaves in the fullest sense of 
 the word. Even the masters did not become free in 
 fact under the edict of Peter. Under Catherine the 
 Great, the gentry became more servile than ever. The 
 great Suvorov showed his genius by devising new 
 ways of groveling.f 
 
 All moral sense withered under such a pressure. 
 Thus soil was prepared for the development of those 
 
 *Ukases of August 22, 1767, and March 30, 1781. 
 
 fPares; Russia and Reform, p. 119. 
 
 66 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 Nihilist ideas that would dynamite into atoms every 
 existing thing without knowing or caring what is to 
 be put in its place. It is inconceivable that such a 
 strained and artificial state of society could long en- 
 dure, especially at a period when the beacon lights of 
 human liberty were being lighted at so many points 
 throughout the civilized world. During the reign of 
 Catherine II. (1768-96) the subject of emancipation 
 was informally considered by the Empress. She dis- 
 cussed it with Voltaire, to whom she had taken a 
 fancy and with whom she carried on a personal cor- 
 respondence. The question was also raised with her 
 by Bearde I’Abaye Marmontel and by the Society of 
 Political Economy of Petrograd. But, instead of tak- 
 ing any steps in the direction of liberation, Catherine 
 went to the limit of reaction, stripping the serfs of 
 the last remnant of their rights and, in 1788, extend- 
 ing the system of bondage to the soil to the peasants 
 of Malo (little) Russia and to the Ukraine, the present 
 government of Kharkov. She did, however, severely 
 punish certain masters for cruelty to serfs, but she 
 took no steps whatever looking to improving their 
 
 67 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 political condition. It remained for Paul (1796-1801), 
 who is generally regarded as being crazy, to take the 
 first steps of any sort looking to the amelioration 
 of the condition of the serfs. This took the form 
 of a requirement that they need work for their mas- 
 ters only three days out of the week. This, if a way 
 had been provided to effectively carry it out, would 
 have dealt the system a blow in a vital part, but there 
 was no one to enforce its provisions. 
 
 Alexander I. and also his famous Prime Minister, 
 Speranski (1801-25) were heartily in favor of eman- 
 cipation of the serfs, and they had the ability to make 
 progress in the reform. But even an autocrat is 
 obliged to consider public sentiment and, in such a 
 mighty undertaking, the subject had to be approached 
 by degrees. Two years after Alexander’s accession 
 to the throne, a beginning was made by giving to 
 landlords the power to liberate their serfs ; and, 
 shortly afterwards, 47,000 were set free, enfranchised 
 and made a separate class. In 1819, the serfs in the 
 three Baltic provinces were liberated on condition 
 that they relinquish to their masters what little rights 
 they had to their land.* 
 
 Nicholas I. (1825-55), like his father, was friendly 
 to the emancipation idea. Many of the nobility Avere 
 also friendly to the plan. While it is true that Nicho- 
 las I. was an obstinate reactionary, yet one of his 
 enemies, Prince Dolgoruki, gives him this testimony .f 
 
 *The emancipation idea was promoted by the Petrograd So- 
 ciety of Political Economy. In 1812, the Society offered a re- 
 ward of $1,000 for the best essay on the advantages of free and 
 servile labor. As long as the Tsar was favorable to emancipa- 
 tion, the Society was free to promote the idea Avithout fear of 
 interference. 
 
 tQuoted by Rambaud. Vol. III., p. 221. 
 
 68 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 “However hostile he may have been to the doctrine 
 of liberty, we must do him the justice to say that he 
 never ceased through his whole life to cherish the 
 idea of emancipating the serfs.” Many of the troubles 
 of Speranski came about through his schemes looking 
 to emancipation. The nobles of Petrograd, Tula, 
 Dunaberg and Riazan even petitioned Nicholas to 
 form local committees to draft an emancipation 
 scheme. Under the curious system of land tenure 
 that had grown up and under the more liberal treat- 
 ment of serfs since Catherine II., the serfs came to 
 believe that they had certain legal rights to their hold- 
 ings and were adverse to any changes that would 
 lessen the little hold that they had upon the land. 
 Besides this, the government conceived the idea that 
 the state should not consent to any scheme that would 
 uproot the serf from his holdings and allow the lib- 
 erated one to wander about at will. Such a move, it 
 was believed, would render impossible the collection 
 of taxes and lead to disorder besides. It was also felt 
 that to place severe restrictions upon the movements 
 of the liberated ones would result in leaving him still 
 more in the power of the landlord. And to give the 
 land to the peasants would seem to take it away from 
 the proprietors, depriving them of certain vested 
 rights. As a matter of fact, land tenure did not carry 
 with it any clear idea of ownership on the part of 
 anybody. In theory, it was held by permission of 
 the Tsar in return for some service rendered the state. 
 Seeing no way out of the dilemma, Nicholas con- 
 tented himself with making two important improve- 
 ments in the condition of the serfs. He established 
 in each manor an “inventory” in which a record was 
 made of payments by serfs to the masters, so that 
 they could be protected from extortion. He also made 
 
 69 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the serf a sort of a perpetual tenant of the land. The 
 latter step was far-reaching in that it greatly reduced 
 the power of the landlord over the villein. 
 
 The real work of emancipation was left as a 
 legacy to Alexander II. (1855-81.) He entered heartily 
 into the project, but was convinced that it was neces- 
 sary to have the support and co-operation of the 
 nobles. In March, 1856, about a year after his acces- 
 sion, he received the nobles of Moscow and made to 
 them the following speech ; 
 
 “I have heard, gentlemen, that rumors have been current 
 among you with regard tO' my intention of abolishing the bond- 
 age of the peasant. In order to refute various statements which 
 are devoid of foundation, on so important a subject, I consider 
 it necessary to declare to you that I have no intention of doing 
 this now. But you naturally are yourselves aware that the ex- 
 isting method of owning souls cannot remain unchanged. It is 
 better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it will 
 be abolished by a movement from below. I ask you, gentle- 
 men, to consider how this can be best carried out.”* 
 
 During the next five years, the question of eman- 
 cipation was the dominant one in Russian politics ; 
 no less than six committees were formed, under the 
 direction of Alexander, to consider the problem. The 
 first committees were disposed to do nothing radical, 
 but were reorganized by the Tsar, who became dis- 
 contented with their policy of inaction. The news- 
 papers were almost unanimous in favor of emancipa- 
 tion, but they advocated endowing the peasant with 
 the land. This alarmed the nobility, who came to 
 favor emancipation also, but disagreed as to how it 
 should be carried out. Most of them insisted that 
 the nobility should have the ownership of all the land, 
 which principle had already been half-way recognized 
 
 *I have used the translation given by Baring in his Russian 
 People. 
 
 70 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 by the government, but that the serfs should have the 
 right to buy their homesteads. 
 
 Through five years of effort in reconciling the 
 tangle of differences, Alexander, aggressively assisted 
 by Grand Duke Constantine, who acted as president 
 of the principal or general committee, pressed for a 
 conclusion. The Tsar was determined upon emanci- 
 pation, but sought to compel the nobles to agree upon 
 an equitable basis of carrying out the project. When 
 the various committees, including the “drafting com- 
 mittee,” turned in their final reports, the general com- 
 mittee held forty sessions, each lasting from six to 
 seven hours, debating the matter. The last session 
 of the committee took place on January 26, 1861, 
 under the personal presidency of the Emperor. Two 
 days later, the decision of the committee was con- 
 sidered by the Council of State. On February 19, the 
 act of emancipation was signed by Alexander. On 
 March 2 it was ratified by the Senate, and on March 
 5 it was read out after mass in the churches of Petro- 
 grad.* 
 
 What remained of personal bondage to the master 
 was wiped out, but this was not regarded as of the 
 greatest importance either by the serfs or by the land- 
 lord. The real problem settled was the tenure of the 
 land, along with which went the liberties of the peas- 
 ants. Approximately 350,964,187 acres, practically 
 one-half of all the land of Russia, passed from the 
 control of the landlords and was placed in the hands 
 
 *For fuller information regarding serfdom and the emanci- 
 pation, reference should be made to Seminev’s work on the 
 Emancipation of the Peasants, Wallace’s Russia, Maurice Bar- 
 ing’s The Russian People, and Rambaud’s History of the Rus- 
 sian People. Periodical literature is rich in articles on the sub- 
 ject, but much of it is written from an exparte standpoint and 
 more or less inaccurate. 
 
 71 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 of the peasants in perpetuity. The government paid 
 the landlords in cash for the land, and the peasants 
 were given fifty years in which to reimburse the gov- 
 ernment, paying 6 per cent interest on the deferred 
 payments. The peasants were to own the land in 
 common, and the whole community was made re- 
 sponsible for each peasant’s payments. Each peasant, 
 however, had the right to buy himself out of the com- 
 munity life by paying in one installment the amount 
 necessary to redeem his holding. Thus the whole 
 social system was placed on a new basis. The new 
 order of things made a new administrative step neces- 
 sary. A large measure of self-government was ac- 
 cordingly given the serfs. The mir or village was 
 made a self-governing entity and the volost or can- 
 ton, in which twenty or thirty villages were often in- 
 cluded, was revived as an administrative unit, and, on 
 this new basis, Russian administration was reorganiz- 
 ed into the governmental system described in Chapter 
 II. of this book. 
 
 “Let there be light. And there was light,” is the 
 way we read of the Creation in Genesis. In theory, 
 the Tsar, as an autocrat, has the same completeness of 
 absolute power as to matters of government. In reality 
 he has no such power. He is compelled to recognize 
 the public sentiment of his subjects and can go no 
 farther than that public sentiment will permit. Since 
 the da 3 ^s of Catherine the Great, there has not been a 
 Tsar of Russia who was not sympathetic to the libera- 
 tion idea. The first steps looking to that end were 
 taken by the lunatic Paul, and each Tsar up to Alex- 
 ander II. added his contribution to the project. It 
 required fifty years of persistent effort on the part of 
 the autocratic power to accomplish this freedom of 
 the Russian people. There had to be overcome the 
 
 72 
 
THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM 
 
 stupidity of the serfs and the selfishness of the land- 
 lords. Had it been a plain question of the personal 
 servitude of the peasants, they would doubtless have 
 been freed a quarter of a century earlier, but the far- 
 reaching complications of land tenure constituted the 
 factor of trouble. It is one of the mockeries of his- 
 tory that Alexander II., who finally secured the free- 
 dom of the serfs, who conferred upon them a very 
 large measure of self government, was blown to pieces 
 by a dynamite bomb in i88i. In the opinion of many, 
 the reaction that followed was a natural one, and 
 the clock of progress was set back in Russia fully 
 twenty-five years. The hand that threw the bomb 
 under the carriage of Alexander visited upon the Rus- 
 sian people two decades of trouble and sorrow. 
 
 Russian history is ghastly with stories of the 
 severity of her punishments for crime, but these pun- 
 ishments were largely for offenses against property. 
 Criminal offenses against the person were not re- 
 garded as important. The system of private revenge 
 was more or less recognized. In early times, fright- 
 ful tortures were in vogue. But this was a period 
 when the same tortures were prevalent all over Europe. 
 Even the clergy inflicted punishment upon the priests. In 
 1748, the Bishop of Vologda decreed “cruel corporal 
 punishment” against priests who wore coarse, ragged 
 clothes. The world is familiar with the tragedies ot 
 the convict system of Siberia, but the convict systems 
 of England and America have a record widely incon- 
 sistent with humane methods. There has been great 
 progress in humane methods in the convict systems 
 of both Russia and the United States during the past 
 twenty years. 
 
 It is not generally known, however, that Russia 
 is far in advance of America in the matter of capital 
 
 73 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 punishment. Elizabeth abolished the death penalty 
 in 1744, and it has never been revived except for 
 military purposes and in cases of attempts on the life 
 of the royal family. The killings of the “revolution” 
 of 1905 were regarded as military measures. 
 
 From the beginning, the “intelligents” of Russia 
 have fought against all forms of corporal punishment 
 as being against the “dignity of the human person.” 
 The knout has always been the favorite method of 
 punishment and applied for nearly every offense from 
 murder down to neglect to pay one’s taxes. The 
 abolition of corporal punishment was one of the re- 
 forms carried out by Alexander II. and accomplished 
 in 1863. But while the government abolished cor- 
 poral punishment the people did not. A system of 
 “local option” exists as to flogging. Volosts and can- 
 tons are at liberty to use that method in their self- 
 government if they wish to do so, and it still quite 
 generally exists. Too much censure, therefore, should 
 not be visited upon the Russian government on ac- 
 count of the knout, since it long since abolished the 
 barbarous practice, only to have it retained by the 
 people themselves. 
 
 74 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 ■N the runos of Kalevala, the poetical 
 creation of the Finnish people, 
 which Max Muller calls the “fifth 
 great epic of the world,” we read 
 of the great smith, Ilmarinen, and 
 of his wedding to the Rainbow 
 Maiden. As a condition to the wed- 
 ding, the Mistress of Pohjola had 
 imposed supposedly impossible tasks, 
 such as catching a huge pike from 
 the river of the Region of Death, 
 plowing a field of vipers, etc. But 
 he succeeded because the Rainbow 
 Maiden, who really loved him, and 
 who possessed supernatural powers, 
 always came to his aid. 
 
 A great ox was slaughtered for 
 the wedding feast. It was so large 
 that it took a swallow all day to fly 
 from tip to tip of its horns. A house 
 ! of corresponding size was built, and Louhi herself 
 
 undertook to provide the beer for the nuptial feast. 
 : The beer was brewed by Ostomar the “ale con- 
 
 structor,” and, in song and drink, the marriage was 
 consummated. From legendary times, drink comes 
 i down to the historical and thence to the present-day 
 
 ! people of Finland. And yet the Finns are now the 
 
 most sober people in Europe, if not in Christendom, 
 i The warmest friends of the Finns are those who 
 
 75 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 know them best — those who have penetrated the shell 
 of their inner life. Travelers who rush through the 
 country looking out the car windows and seeing the 
 Swedish signs on buildings everywhere, leap to the 
 conclusion that the Finns are allied in language and 
 blood to the Scandinavians. But a little investigation 
 establishes the fact that the Finn is an Asiatic and 
 that he speaks a language whose noun has sixteen 
 declensions. There is to be found the fickleness, the 
 imagery, the love of myth and folklore, the music, the 
 poetical instinct of the Oriental, combined with the 
 hardened fiber of the snowbound North. “Ixion, com- 
 ing down from heaven, having banqueted with all the 
 gods, remembered only the patterns of the table 
 cloth,” we are told. And just so the average traveler 
 sees the granite walls, the quaint log houses, inspects 
 the “Finnish bath,” wonders at the great gray walls 
 of Sveaborg, listens to the roar of Imatra, but wholly 
 fails to penetrate the inner soul of these remarkable 
 people. 
 
 For thousands of years, the Finnish people have 
 been a subject people, driven from place to place be- 
 fore the morning of history, often in a condition bor- 
 dering on serfdom, always the vassals of an overlord, 
 and yet they emerge from it all the soberest, the best 
 educated, the most democratic people in Europe, if 
 not in the world. Like the American Indian, they 
 were driven from place to place. They were crowded 
 out of Asia and driven up the valley of the Volga 
 until they settled in the bleak regions of the frozen 
 North. There they have remained so long that, witli 
 the Laplanders and Esthonians, they have been mis- 
 taken for the aborigines of Northern Russia. For at 
 least a thousand years these people have lived in the 
 territory they now occupy. 
 
 76 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 Because fragments of Finnish speech are found 
 in nearly every language of Europe, ethnologists have 
 constructed all sorts of theories as to the origin of 
 these people, but an easy and probably accurate ex- 
 planation of this is the remarkable antiquity of the 
 race and their constant contact w^ith other medieval 
 tribes. O^ving to their geographical location, the Lap- 
 landers and Esthonians have never been seriously dis- 
 turbed by foreign people and have been left to work 
 out their own salvation. And it is probably for this 
 very reason that these people have made comparatively 
 little progress in human affairs. The Finnish people, 
 located on the battleground between the Scandinavians 
 and the Slav, have been overrun and oppressed as well 
 as protected by both. 
 
 The Finnish woman is good looking but not beau- 
 tiful, plain but not ugly; intellectual but very human. 
 She walks with a peculiar deliberate step, jabbing her 
 heel into the sidewalk in a way that spells “determina- 
 tion” in any language. She swings her arms with the 
 precision of one who means business. She is a verit- 
 able reproduction of the popular conception of Portia 
 in the Merchant of Venice. She is feminine but not 
 ethereal, strong but not masculine. Such women breed 
 strong men — Finnish men. They were given the 
 elective franchise in 1906 and immediately made use 
 of it in Finnish fashion. Some twenty were elected to 
 seats in the Finnish Parliament. The majority of the 
 employees of the banks are women and they appear 
 side by side with the men in most of the walks of 
 life. It was a woman who founded the first really 
 successful temperance society in Finland thirty years 
 ago. 
 
 While the Finnish people cling to Finnish things 
 
 77 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 with most unyielding tenacity, they show an aston- 
 ishing readiness to adopt progressive ideas. They 
 own most of the public utilities ; their laws are of the 
 most advanced type. The railway station agent is 
 also the postmaster, the custodian of the postal sav- 
 ings bank and the telegraph operator besides. 
 
 Finland {Suomi or Suommenmaa, in Finnish) is 
 a more or less independent Grand Duchy, bearing 
 about the same relation to Russia as Canada does to 
 Great Britain. The Tsar is the Grand Duke of Fin- 
 land and the Governor of Finland, an appointee of 
 the Tsar, is his personal representative. It has its 
 
 SELLING MILK AT HELSINGFORS 
 
 78 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 own postal system, its own coinage, its own tariff 
 system and an independent parliament, whose acts, 
 however, are subject to the veto power of the Tsar, 
 its Grand Duke. People going from Finland into 
 Russia or from Russia into Finland are subject to 
 customs and immigrant regulations just as though 
 coming or going into foreign countries. Tariff or 
 customs dues, also are paid both ways. 
 
 Christianity was introduced in 1157, practically 
 the entire population now being adherents of the 
 Lutheran church. King Eric IX. came over from 
 Sweden and both conquered and baptized the people. 
 He was assisted by Henry, Bishop of Upsala, who 
 was afterwards killed and canonized. He became “St. 
 Henry,” patron saint of Finland. The country, for 
 nearly 600 years, was under the jurisdiction of Sweden, 
 whose iron rule forced upon the people Swedish laws, 
 Swedish religion and the Swedish language. During 
 all that time the country was frequently overrun by 
 the armies of both Sweden and Russia, the stricken 
 land being the battleground of the wars between the 
 two countries. 
 
 In 1716 Peter the Great secured control of the 
 entire country of Finland, and, to emphasize his con- 
 trol and to make secure his hold on the Baltic sea, he 
 built the city of Petrograd. Charles XH. later re- 
 covered a part of the territory, all, in fact, except the 
 province of Viborg. Gustavus HI., who began to 
 reign over Sweden in 1771, conferred upon Finland 
 certain “fundamental laws” which the people have 
 succeeded in maintaining ever since. In another war 
 Gustavus IV. attempted to recover Viborg, but he 
 only succeeded in losing all that Sweden had gained 
 in that country. By the peace of 1809, Russia again 
 secured control over the whole of Finland, including 
 
 79 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the Aland Islands. But Finland came back under 
 Russian control not as a conquered province, but as a 
 semi-independent Grand Duchy, Tsar Alexander I. 
 recognizing the constitution of the country and mak- 
 ing oath to maintain the same. All went well until, 
 under the influence of the “Slavophile” movement, it 
 was proposed to “Russianize” all territory under the 
 Russian flag, the present Tsar issued his celebrated 
 manifesto of February 15, 1899, virtually abrogating 
 the Finnish diet and the Finnish constitution. A 
 military law followed in July, 1901, practically amal- 
 gamating the Russian and Finnish forces. The Rus- 
 sian language and Russian officials were forced upon 
 the people. In April, the Russian Governor, Gen- 
 eral Bobrikov, was invested with dictatorial powers 
 and proceeded to “Russianize” the country, operating 
 with the same tyrannical methods that he had pre- 
 viously used with success in the Lithuanian provinces. 
 A general strike followed and Bobrikov was killed by 
 a young Finn patriot. By the Imperial Manifesto of 
 November 7 the status quo of 1899 was restored. It is 
 one of the mockeries of history that General Bobrikov 
 was appointed on August 30, 1898, exactly six days 
 after the Tsar issued his famous “Peace Manifesto” 
 of August 24 of that year. In 1910. a renewed at- 
 tempt on the part of Russia was made to curtail Fin- 
 nish rights, but the Finns have maintained their own 
 fairly well. Some of the issues are still unsettled. 
 
 One cannot travel far in Finland without hear- 
 ing that old jest of a certain Karelian who was so 
 averse to walking through a field of rye for fear of 
 tramping down the grain that he got four men to 
 carry him through. There is an application of this 
 same principle that has never appealed very strongly 
 to the Finnish people. The man who is so afraid of 
 
 80 
 
COP.YRIGHT BY UNDERWOOD & UNDERWOOD 
 
 THE IZByV or home OF A RUSSIAN PEASANT 
 
 PEASANT HOMES ARE MADE OF LOGS AND OFTEN 
 BURNED BECAUSE OF THE DRUNKEN CARELESSNESS OF 
 THE INMATES. AN EPIDEMIC OF DRUNKENNESS ATTEND- 
 ING FEAST DAYS IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN EPIDEMIC OF 
 FIRES. THE ENTIRE FAMILY. WITH THE SONS AND 
 DAUGHTERS, THEIR WIVES, DAUGHTERS AND CHILDREN, 
 ALL LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE AND HOLD ALL PROPERTY 
 IN COMMON. THE HEAD OF THE FIOUSE, USUALLY THE 
 OLDEST OR THE KEENEST IN TRADE, IS CALLED THE 
 BOLSHAK (BIG ONE), OR BOLSHUKHA IN CASE THE “BIG 
 ONE” IS A FEMALE. THE MIR, OR VILLAGE, IS MERELY 
 AN EXAGGERATED FAMILY, WITH THE STAROSTA IN 
 CHARGE AS THE HEAD OF AFFAIRS. EACH MEMBER OF 
 THE FAMILY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMMON DEBTS 
 JUST AS EACH FAMILY OF THE MIR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE VILLAGE. ALL THAT EACH 
 ONE EARNS, WHETHER HE BE AT HOME OR WORKING 
 ABROAD, GOES INTO THE COMMON TREASURY. EVEN THE 
 EARNINGS OF THE ISVISCHIK OR THE DVORNIK IN PETRO- 
 GRAD, LESS ACTUAL EXPENSES, IS SENT HOME TO THE 
 BOLSHAK OF THE IZBA WHENCE HE CAME. 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 the ravages of intemperance that he advocates licens- 
 ing people to sell liquor at a profit to himself has 
 never had much economic standing among the rugged 
 natives of that rugged country. 
 
 The beginnings of the temperance reform in Fin- 
 land were contemporary with those of America. In 
 i8i6 and again in 1819, the Finnish Home Society 
 offered prizes for essays against distilleries. In 1828, 
 there was published at Abo, in the Swedish language, 
 a tract against drink and, a year later, it was trans- 
 lated and published in Finnish. In 1833, there was 
 published in Petrograd a tract on “The Punishment 
 of Drunkenness.” The tract was published in the 
 Finnish language and is supposed to have been a 
 translation from the English by Pastor Henrik Reng- 
 wirt, who published other temperance tracts and also 
 circulated a temperance pledge. His propaganda was 
 against indulgence in hrandvin, a rye or potato spirit, 
 which was the prevailing Finnish intoxicant. In 1846, 
 a temperance society was formed at Jamsa by K. A. 
 Arvelin with an initial membership of seven people, 
 but in a year it had grown to a membership of 300. 
 On December 20, 1846, another temperance society 
 was formed at Jywaskyla by P. Smirnov, and by Jan- 
 uary, 1847, it had a membership of fifty-three. These; 
 movements, inspired and prompted chiefly by Pastor 
 Rengwirt, died out, but were revived again in 1853. 
 Pastor Rengwirt may properly be designated as the 
 pioneer or the founder of the temperance reform in 
 Finland. 
 
 The second stage of the reform was initiated and 
 promoted by a woman. In 1847, ^ Finnish matron, 
 Hilda Helman, formed a little temperance society with 
 a department for the instruction of children. Among 
 the things taught was the homely truth that neither 
 
 81 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 drinking liquor nor selling liquor for profit resulted in 
 the promotion of sobriety. That little burr of truth 
 stuck to the Finnish national life. In 1853, a com- 
 mittee was formed for the publication and dissemina- 
 tion of Finnish literature. This was the work of St. 
 Baranovski, a Russian professor in the University of 
 Finland, assisted by that famous Finnish patriot, J. 
 W. Snellman. In i860 this committee was organized 
 into a society, its object being to unite all the Fin- 
 nish temperance people into a concern for the promo- 
 tion of temperance principles. This societ)^ was merely 
 a moderation enterprise, but, on October 15, 1883, it 
 organized a total abstinence department and from that 
 time its growth became rapid. 
 
 The total abstinence movement really began from 
 the work of a local preacher by the name of Broady 
 who had returned from a visit to England. On July 
 I, 1877, Broady delivered a “total abstinence” lecture, 
 which resulted in the formation of a total abstinence 
 society at Wasa. The same year, as an outcropping 
 of Hilda Helman’s work, the first distinctively chil- 
 dren’s temperance society was formed at Helsingfors. 
 The sentiment of the times is indicated by the dis- 
 missal of a school teacher at Jacobstad, a year later, 
 because he taught the children that alcoholic drink 
 made one drunk. In 1881 a temperance society was 
 formed at Abo and in 1882 one was formed at Hel- 
 singfors. 
 
 The year 1883 a most important one in the 
 history of the temperance reform in Finland. In that 
 year, the society at Abo began the publication of a 
 temperance periodical. In the same year the society 
 at Helsingfors published a book on the question, the 
 facts and arguments being taken largely from English 
 sources. The book was extensively circulated through- 
 
 82 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 out the country and led to the reorganization of the 
 old society of Pastor Rengwirt, which bore the name 
 of Kohtunden Ystavat. This reorganization took place 
 on October 14, 1883. The society immediately began 
 the work of organizing new societies along lines sim- 
 ilar to those being established in America and England. 
 The movement was inaugurated in the first temper- 
 ance convention ever held in Finland, that of 1883. 
 The reform was placed by the convention on a higher 
 plane than it had occupied before. One resolution 
 passed read, “The aim of the temperance societies is 
 to move alcoholic drinks to the chemist’s shop, which 
 is the right place for them.” The reorganized society 
 took the name Raittenden Ystavat (Friends of Tem- 
 perance) and this society still holds the leadership ot 
 the reform in Finland. It now owns a one-half in- 
 terest in a large four-story building of granite in Hel- 
 singfors, where its headquarters are located, and re- 
 ceives annual grants from the government. 
 
 The growth of the temperance societies in the 
 early stages of the reform in Finland is indicated by 
 the following: 
 
 Year No. Societies No. Members 
 
 1877 3 80 
 
 1882 4 513 
 
 1883 18 1,049 
 
 1884 58 4.385 
 
 1885 95 7,865 
 
 1886 121 9,801 
 
 The Raittenden Ystavat has published a year book 
 almost from its beginning and a large amount of other 
 temperance literature. 
 
 The leading spirit in the formation of the Rait- 
 tenden Ystavat was Dr. A. A. Granfelt, a cultured man 
 of noble parentage, a son of one of the great the- 
 
 83 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ologians of Finland. He was educated for the career 
 of a physician, but gave up the practice of his pro- 
 fession to devote his entire time to the temperance 
 cause. He was, for many years, secretary of the so- 
 ciety and became known throughout the world for his 
 efforts to redeem his people from the curse of alcohol. 
 The early reformers in America and England were for 
 the most part men and women from the lower or 
 middle walks of life. The universities and colleges 
 held aloof. But the reform in Finland, from its early 
 days, has been promoted largely by university men. 
 Dr. Granfelt himself, besides being a college man, was 
 a member of the upper house of the Finnish diet. 
 
 In 1890, we find the formation of the “Teachers’ 
 Society of Health and Temperance,” which, in con- 
 junction with the Raittenden Ystavat, has been largely 
 responsible for temperance education in Finland to 
 this day. The people got a breath of the spirit of 
 Mary H. Hunt, and two years later the first scientific 
 temperance text book was published and the educa- 
 tional propaganda was begun under the guidance of 
 Mrs. Ali Trygg Helenius, wife of Dr. Matti Helenius- 
 Seppala, of the University of Helsingfors, a member 
 of the Finnish Parliament. She was president of the 
 Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of Finland. 
 When the history of the temperance reform in Finland 
 shall have been written, these two will stand out clear 
 on the horizon as the Neal Dow and the Frances Wil- 
 lard of that country. The reforms in that land for the 
 last twenty years, since the days of Dr. Granfelt, all 
 point to Prof, and Madame Helenius, of Helsingfors. 
 One cannot read far into temperance literature with- 
 out meeting some of the writings of this remarkable 
 couple ; the reformer, patriot, linguist, and that won- 
 derful woman, Ali Trygg Helenius, his wife. 
 
 84 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 While this temperance reform in Finland was 
 born of woman and nursed into life under the breath 
 of university influence, the rugged agitation that found 
 voice in legislation was partly due to the organized 
 workingmen of Finland, the chief suf- 
 ferers of the drink traffic. The work- 
 ingman, direct and to the point in his 
 mental processes, reasoned that what 
 had been inflicted upon the people un- 
 der the protection and under the au- 
 thorization of law could be removed in 
 the same manner. At the second gen- 
 eral meeting of the organized workers 
 of Finland, held at Tammerfors in 
 1896, the following resolution was adopt- 
 ed : “The meeting recognizes strict 
 
 A MOONSHINE STILL IN FINLAND 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 temperance as the correct principle in regard both to 
 the individual advocate of the workers’ movement and 
 the efforts of the workers’ societies.” The successful 
 mover of this resolution in his address advocated a 
 general workers’ “strike” against drink, but he was a 
 trifle ahead of his day. It was discussed, but time was 
 needed for the establishment of the idea. But two 
 years later the scheme took tangible form. Two work- 
 ingmen of Kota, Kalle Heikkila and Emil Andersson, 
 called a meeting for the purpose of launching this very 
 “strike” idea. The meeting was held in the city of 
 Kota, on March 6, 1898. For a beginning it was de- 
 cided that, for a period of one year, from May i, 1898, 
 to May I, 1899, they would observe strict abstinence 
 from all kinds of intoxicating beverages, including 
 wine and beer. 
 
 The movement, doubtless, would have been a 
 local one had not another Finnish genius risen to the 
 needs of the occasion. Dr. Konr. Relander, just 
 elected to the superintendency of the Workingmen’s 
 Society of Uleaborg, caught the vision. He called a 
 meeting of workingmen at Uleaborg and organized 
 the movement on a national scale. Dr. Relander’s 
 name carried with it confidence and authority wher- 
 ever the Finnish language was spoken. Circulars and 
 appeals were sent out over the country and the unique 
 strike reached enormous proportions. It was found 
 that 70,000 workingmen and women of all classes of 
 society had enlisted in the “strike against alcohol.” 
 On May i, the “strikers” held great open-air meet- 
 ings, the like of which Finland had never seen. In 
 Tammerfors, the great manufacturing city, out of a 
 population of 27,000 people, 8,000 joined the strike. 
 
 This violent agitation of the thought and con- 
 science of the people could have but one result. The 
 
 86 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 demand arose that the drink shops that had been es- 
 tablished by law be removed by law. The people de- 
 clared that the time had come when drunkenness 
 should no longer be promoted by authority of the 
 statutes of Finland. Democracy, unlike despotism, is 
 direct in its attacks. No Daniel is needed to interpret 
 its resolutions. And so, when representatives of all 
 the “strike leagues” met at Tammerfors, on Novem- 
 ber 14 and 15, 1898, all were ready for progressive and 
 radical action. Among the resolutions passed by the 
 convention, the following were unanimously agreed 
 upon : 
 
 1. Speakers on temperance must be supplied, at least one 
 in every county. They should work everywhere, in the cities as 
 well as in the country, organizing Strike Leagues and temper- 
 ance societies, and spreading temperance literature. 
 
 2. A board of nine members should prepare a universal 
 program of work, and the plan for future arrangement and 
 prosperity of the movement. 
 
 3. The manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks should 
 be regarded as unworthy and disgraceful employment in which 
 no honest man should be engaged. 
 
 4. To be drunk, during office hours especially, but also out- 
 side of such, should be considered so great a crime as to make 
 any person guilty thereof entirely unfit for any office whatever, 
 whether it be that of state, of the community or of the private 
 individual. 
 
 5. Those taking part in the strike movement should, pro- 
 vided other interests are not at stake, always vote for such 
 candidates to the Landtdag (parliament) or to the city council 
 as are willing to advance prohibitory laws, and by virtue of ex- 
 isting laws promote the temperance cause as much as possible. 
 
 6. Instruction concerning the effects of alcoholic drinks, 
 based upon scientific facts, should be introduced into the schools. 
 
 7. The chief aim of the Strike League Against Intoxicat- 
 ing Drinks is to effect strict Prohibition of all sale, manufacture 
 and importation of intoxicating drinks. In the next session of 
 the Landtdag should be introduced a giant petition, with signa- 
 tures from all parts of the country, in which the government 
 
 87 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 should be requested to enact such measures as are necessary for 
 the realization of the Prohibition laws. 
 
 It was this agitation that gave impetus to legisla- 
 tion against the traffic in debauchery, which was 
 already well under way. The year before the forma- 
 tion of the Raittenden Ystavat, the government of 
 Finland passed an act allowing municipalities to adopt 
 the so-called “Gothenburg system” of selling liquor 
 and granting local option to the rural districts. Un- 
 der the local option feature of this law, the people 
 lost but little time in driving the drink traffic out of 
 the greater part of the country. In a report made to 
 the World’s Temperance Congress held in London in 
 1900, Dr. Helenius stated that of the 422 parishes, 
 representing a population of nearly 2,000,000 people, 
 all had voted out the traffic except nine. 
 
 Under the Gothenburg system, private corpora- 
 tions of alleged “disinterested” men take over the 
 retail traffic. The stockholders receive 6 per cent of 
 the profits. Of the balance, three-fifths go to various 
 philanthropic purposes in the city where the concern 
 is located. The other two-fifths go to the improve- 
 ment of roads. The sale of beer and wine was also 
 largely controlled by the benevolent monopoly. The 
 laws were to be strictly obeyed and, in theory, the 
 drinking of the people was to be discouraged. The 
 operations of the law did not work out according to 
 the theory. The temperance people, for the most 
 part, would have nothing to do with the liquor selling. 
 The companies, therefore, drifted into the control of 
 politicians and persons interested in the manufacture 
 of liquor, and who, for other reasons than their divi- 
 dends, were interested in large sales of drink. The 
 temperance people promoted the local option cam- 
 paigns against the drink shops and fought the “Goth- 
 
 88 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 enburg” liquor shops. At the International Congress 
 Against the Abuse of Alcohol, held in Christiania, 
 Norway, in September, 1890, Edw. Bjorkenheim, rep- 
 resentative of Finland, said: 
 
 “The experiences of Finland with the Gothenburg system do 
 not run in a favorable direction, and it is evident that there is 
 a strong current of opinion against it in the country. Especially 
 is this the case in temperance circles, that is, among people who, 
 provided the system would answer its professed object — to 
 further the interest of temperance and morals — would be the 
 first to hail it as a valued friend and ally. . . . 
 
 “Temperance sentiment in Finland is unanimously and de- 
 cidedly against the Gothenburg system ; and should this system 
 as it is now organized, have a future in our country, then in the 
 constitution of the various companies it must be laid down : 
 
 “(i) That the net profits without deductions be paid over 
 to the state exchequer. 
 
 “(2) That their operations be put under strong and special 
 public control ; and 
 
 “(3) That every allusion to their presumed furtherance of 
 moral and temperance progress be suppressed.” 
 
 Changes have been made from time to time in 
 the details of the law. As it stood at the breaking 
 out of the European war in 1914, legislation in regard 
 to alcoholic drink is divided into three classes : 
 
 First. Liquors that contain more than 22 per 
 cent alcohol. This class is composed entirely of 
 spirits. 
 
 Second. Liquors that contain from 4 to 22 per 
 cent alcohol. This class covers wine, punsch, etc. 
 
 Third. Liquors that contain less than 4 per cent 
 alcohol. This class covers the beer. 
 
 “Disinterested management” has a monopoly of 
 the entire first class. In some places it has the 
 monopoly of all classes of liquors. Three-fifths of 
 the profits go to the community to be used in parks 
 and things outside the usual subjects of taxation. The 
 
 89 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 other two-fifths go to the state to be used in extend- 
 ing railway systems. Appropriations are made to 
 temperance societies. The stockholders get 6 per 
 cent dividends, the usual rates of interest being 7 and 
 8. The stockholders are usually politicians and friends 
 of the distillers who have a direct interest in promot- 
 ing sales instead of curtailing them. Certain local 
 option features have been extended to the cities. The 
 city council and mayor can abolish the saloons with- 
 out reference to an)^ higher power. If, however, the 
 city council votes out the saloons and the mayor dis- 
 approves, the question is referred to the governor of 
 the province for decision. 
 
 There are now something like 80,000 members of 
 temperance societies in Finland. The membership of 
 the leading societies is approximately as follows: 
 
 Raittenden Ystavat 25,000 
 
 Finlands Svenska Nykterhetsforbund (Swed- 
 ish Temperance Societ}' of Finland) 14,000 
 
 College Student Abstainers 8,000 
 
 Abstaining Railway Men 1,000 
 
 Women’s Christian Temperance Union 500 
 
 There is also a temperance organization among 
 the physicians. 
 
 The attempt to “Russianize” Finland in 1904, 
 which resulted in the killing of the tyrant Governor 
 Bobrikov and the general strike of 1905, led to a re- 
 formed diet and several legal reforms. The olden 
 Four Estates were superseded by a parliament of 2CO 
 members. The new reformed law also raised the 
 number of legal voters from about 100,000 to 1,250,000, 
 nearly 50 per cent of the entire population. It was 
 then (1906) that women came into full suffrage. 
 
 At the first election, in 1906, the voters chose a 
 90 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 new parliament, twenty-five of whose members were 
 women. And when the parliament assembled, in 
 1907, one of its first acts was to pass a Prohibition 
 law of the most drastic nature (October 21, 1907). 
 The absolute prohibition of all kinds of alcoholic liquor 
 was decreed. A man could not even have liquor in 
 his house, and wine for the sacrament was even for- 
 bidden. In the debates, one member declared that 
 he did not see why churches should be the only 
 taverns in the country. The bill, which was passed 
 on October 31, 1907, contained a paragraph to the 
 effect that it should become operative on July i, 1909. 
 The Finnish senate, which 
 is the local government, re- 
 fused to recommend to the 
 governor that the law be 
 approved. The date for the 
 taking effect of the law was 
 therefore passed without the 
 Imperial approval, and the 
 whole law consequently be- 
 came void. 
 
 At the second session of 
 parliament the same bill 
 was again passed. This time 
 an impression was made on 
 Petrograd. The Imperial 
 government began some ne- 
 gotiations with the Ducal 
 government at Finland look- 
 ing to some modifications 
 of the law as the price of The Market 
 
 Imperial approval. Up to Helsingfors 
 
 this writing (March, 1915), the negotiations are still 
 in progress, and the prohibition bill has not yet 
 
 91 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 (March, 1915) become a law. The motive for this 
 act on the part of the Tsar has been erroneously at- 
 tributed to his reluctance to losing the revenue of 
 Finnish spirits under the Russian liquor monopoly. 
 This idea is a mistaken one, for the reason that the 
 Russian liquor monopoly did not extend to Finland. 
 The liquor business in Finland is under the control of 
 the Finnish government, except as the Tsar, as Grand 
 Duke of Finland, has the veto power over acts of the 
 Finnish parliament. 
 
 Prior to 1864, the peasants had the right to distill 
 liquor at their homes, and about 20,000 home stills 
 were in operation in a population of one and two- 
 thirds millions of people. The annual consumption 
 of liquor per capita reached about twenty liters. In 
 1864, the peasants renounced the right of private dis- 
 tillation, and since then the distillation has been un- 
 der state control, with high taxes. Later, the Gothen- 
 burg system with local option was introduced as state 
 supra. Where the Gothenburg system was in vogue, 
 the consumption of liquor was not much affected, but 
 in the rural districts, nearly all of which adopted the 
 prohibition policy, the drink was well nigh annihili- 
 lated. By 1895 tbe consumption of spirits per capita 
 had dropped to about 1.84 liters for the whole coun- 
 try. It has increased slightly since then. There is 
 not a workman’s club in all Finland where drink is 
 sold. There is not a Socialist or labor newspaper in 
 all Finland that will accept any sort of liquor adver- 
 tisements. 
 
 While it is true that Finland makes its own laws 
 subject to Imperial approval, it is also true that the 
 Grand Duchy is under the supreme military jurisdic- 
 tion of Petrograd. At about the same time that the 
 traffic in vodka was eliminated in Russia because of 
 
 92 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 the war of 1914, the same was prohibited in those sec- 
 tions of Finland which were declared to be under 
 military law. The text of the order of the Governor 
 General of Finland declaring this policy was as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 “The inhabitants of the localities declared to be in the state 
 of war are hereby notified that the Commander-in-Chief has 
 issued orders forbidding in Finland the sale of whisky and other 
 alcoholic drinks until the end of the war. 
 
 “Any violation of these orders is punishable in accordance 
 with my orders, issued on November 24, 1914, without any court 
 trial, by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, 
 or by a money fine, not exceeding 8,000 marks.”* 
 
 Because the liquor traffic in Finland was con- 
 fined almost entirely to the large cities, all of which 
 were under military rule, the order practically elim- 
 inated the drink traffic from the entire country. 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (New York), March 4, 1915. 
 
 93 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 STATISTICS OF DENATURED ALCOHOL FOR FINLAND 
 
 ( From the Tionde Argangen for 1912.) 
 
 YEAR 
 
 ALCOHOL 
 
 FOR FUEL 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 1893 
 
 • 23,339 
 
 127,758 
 
 1894 
 
 19,817 
 
 201,912 
 
 1895 
 
 46,617 
 
 253,750 
 
 1896 
 
 51,509 
 
 300,859 
 
 1897 
 
 77,998 
 
 269,295 
 
 1898 
 
 114,409 
 
 313,055 
 
 1899 
 
 157,344 
 
 367,913 
 
 1900 
 
 183,667 
 
 371,693 
 
 1901 
 
 207,775 
 
 428,371 
 
 1902 
 
 168,238 
 
 385.439 
 
 1903 
 
 219,953 
 
 413.556 
 
 1904 
 
 229,353 
 
 418,973 
 
 1 90s 
 
 237,020 
 
 444,678 
 
 1906 
 
 246,037 
 
 407,898 
 
 1907 
 
 340,926 
 
 516,931 
 
 1908 
 
 338,21s 
 
 537.035 
 
 1909 
 
 355,482 
 
 517,037 
 
 1910 
 
 480,531 
 
 728,824 
 
 I9II 
 
 478,810 
 
 702,397 
 
 STATISTICS OF MALT LIQUORS FOR FINLAND. 
 
 (From the Tionde Argangen (Statistical Year Book) for 1912.) 
 
 YEAR 
 
 NUMBER 
 
 OF 
 
 BREWERIES 
 
 NUMBER 
 
 OF 
 
 WORKERS 
 
 VALUE OF 
 
 PRODUCT 
 
 IN MARKS 
 
 BEER 
 
 AND 
 
 PORTER 
 
 *SMALL 
 
 BEER 
 
 1891 
 
 89 
 
 1,411 
 
 7,113,910 
 
 24,931,485 
 
 
 1892 
 
 91 
 
 1,309 
 
 6,127,804 
 
 21,744,498 
 
 
 1893 
 
 87 
 
 1,136 
 
 5,561,254 
 
 19,347,146 
 
 
 1894 
 
 87 
 
 1,182 
 
 5,350,285 
 
 18,840,575 
 
 
 1895 
 
 88 
 
 1,267 
 
 6,188,487 
 
 22,019,457 
 
 
 1896 
 
 87 
 
 1,352 
 
 7,016,014 
 
 25,372,360 
 
 
 1897 
 
 88 
 
 1,451 
 
 7,951,882 
 
 27,780,236 
 
 
 1898 
 
 87 
 
 1,509 
 
 8,054,540 
 
 29,569,01^ 
 
 
 1899 
 
 89 
 
 1,571 
 
 8,873,761 
 
 26,994,395 
 
 7.975,570 
 
 1900 
 
 87 
 
 1,559 
 
 8,003,051 
 
 28,595,768 
 
 7,732,192 
 
 1901 
 
 87 
 
 1,508 
 
 8,476,095 
 
 28,091,372 
 
 7,164,806 
 
 1902 
 
 85 
 
 1,465 
 
 7,254,100 
 
 24,699,346 
 
 8,931.170 
 
 1903 
 
 90 
 
 1,421 
 
 6,641,900 
 
 19,200,264 
 
 3,145,379 
 
 1904 
 
 89 
 
 1,246 
 
 6,506,737 
 
 20,378,564 
 
 5,643,331 
 
 190S 
 
 89 
 
 1,257 
 
 6,717,600 
 
 20,972,737 
 
 4,996,416 
 
 1906 
 
 86 
 
 1,280 
 
 7,507,000 
 
 23,464,406 
 
 6,354,172 
 
 1907 
 
 90 
 
 1,390 
 
 8,785,500 
 
 27,930,394 
 
 5,699,020 
 
 1908 
 
 88 
 
 1,31s 
 
 7,242,700 
 
 18,054,580 
 
 2,916,218 
 
 *Records incomplete. 
 
 94 
 
THE STORY OF FINLAND 
 
 PRODUCTION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS IN FINLAND 
 (From the Tionde Argangen for 1912.) 
 
 YEAR 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 ESTABLISH- 
 
 MENTS 
 
 PRODUCTION IN 
 LITERS OF SO PER 
 CENT ALCOHOL 
 
 1871 
 
 44 
 
 6,391,234 
 
 1872 
 
 52 
 
 7,989,288 
 
 1873 
 
 & 
 
 9,750,978 
 
 1874 
 
 62 
 
 10,838,977 
 
 1875 
 
 62 
 
 11,240,371 
 
 1876 
 
 64 
 
 11,209,318 
 
 1877 
 
 63 
 
 10,838,712 
 
 1878 
 
 64 
 
 10,563,022 
 
 1879 
 
 60 
 
 8,116,304 
 
 1880 
 
 56 
 
 6,268,029 
 
 1881 
 
 
 9,294,292 
 
 1882 
 
 66 
 
 10,296,734 
 
 1883 
 
 70 
 
 11,045,171 
 
 1884 
 
 71 
 
 11,284,693 
 
 1885 
 
 69 
 
 11,285,427 
 
 1886 
 
 66 
 
 11,331,202 
 
 1887 
 
 51 
 
 5,700,491 
 
 1888 
 
 35 
 
 4,280,085 
 
 1889 
 
 48- 
 
 7,054,060 
 
 1890 
 
 45 
 
 7,749,346 
 
 1891 
 
 46 
 
 7,685,734 
 
 1892 
 
 39 
 
 6,766,194 
 
 1893 
 
 30 
 
 5,031,799 
 
 1894 
 
 33 
 
 7,033,298 
 
 1895 
 
 26 
 
 5 , 122,759 
 
 1896 
 
 27 
 
 6,076,906 
 
 1897 
 
 31 
 
 8,311,694 
 
 1898 
 
 26 
 
 6,768,287 
 
 1899 
 
 28 
 
 8,598,306 
 
 1900 
 
 29 
 
 10,017,697 
 
 1901 
 
 26 
 
 6,833,543 
 
 1902 
 
 24 
 
 6,518,554 
 
 1903 
 
 24 
 
 6,062,998 
 
 1904 
 
 23 
 
 6,465,100 
 
 1905 
 
 28 
 
 8,246,906 
 
 1906 
 
 23 
 
 6,844,499 
 
 1907 
 
 20 
 
 6,247,887 
 
 1908 
 
 22 
 
 6,361,775 
 
 1900 
 
 26 
 
 7 , 979,933 
 
 95 
 
s eo 
 
 a CO oo^s 
 5 'o ■^o^ *0 
 roCcOsOCO 
 
 30 tN.rs.— 
 N 'O *^10 ^S. 
 
 T^ .-s 00 
 VO CO o 
 
 00 CVJ ^ 
 
 *rrrj oor 
 o a\ o 0 
 rs. c • 
 
 c 
 
 CO 0 \ f *5 
 ^rs,cg 
 
 oa ■*r cv 
 
 ^ ^ ^ evj" 
 
 lOOO\Oir)I>.C' 300 f>»tN.»O-" 
 ■f^ow^u^voootfjOTrcgtN. 
 
 cva VO ^s. c »-' 
 
 o ca VO o\ rr »■ 
 
 oocvifooocovovmN.of>* 
 
 moooov^ooovrvirjcvjt-H 
 
 0\ C\ ^ TT o\ cva o CO iN» •-' 
 w.— ’’i/^^u^'rTvoofcoovcoovO*^ 
 ovoc>aovcx\ors.'co*-'cvaooc** 
 
 -HCOv/^ONOVf-s.r^VOOvCvvC'^OO 
 Tw^tvooc'au^rr'Oovct^OvtN. 
 COOvfN.Cvi'ar^T^^r^sOvOcvJ^ 
 ot^" 5 j"w^o^mvor^p^ ^rCo 
 tN.OO^'^tN.CVlC— *tr>CvOO'VO 
 CVJf^f^CvJ— 'CSJCvjCgCVJCM^r^C'a 
 
 CvOrx 00 vO'T 3 -O'>J' 00 »^«r;ir> — 
 OOOOVOVCVO— Ot>.OtN»(vj,—r t>, 
 
 •^r^o^oo o^^oo»-« — f^c^ov 
 VO rv ^ oroTc^io VO u^rvvo* — * o^ 
 «^OOCOOOvOOO'Ovca»00'OCOO 
 cv)^cv)^f-'>-4<-^<-icvacva^cvaM 
 
 ^IOIOVOOVOCQO' 00 ^' 0<010 
 
 is.fvaioTrovov^^iofO'O-^r^. 
 
 OOOC^VO’-^^OvOrorvO^^ 
 
 ■^cocor^cocv^ootCo^^^^tCoo^ 
 
 ^cvji—^ F* »-H fo ^ ro VO ^ fO 
 
 r'vrapoTrcvooovorfO'ioovoir'a 
 TT CO oa 'O 00 — ^ to VO lo VO « ^ 
 *-*votN.r«»t— fot>*^voov'CrN.ro 
 cot>.cot>.r>.fo"^<^v£r^*o'»OfO 
 Ovvocvavooaooofo^ocoo 
 i-«cvacva»-<^c'acvacvaoac>acvafo<o 
 
 1 ^. 
 
 'oooorvvoc-^rrooooo 
 vovOOCOO^vosOvOOOvovoj 
 cc^aoO'^^vC^^cocv^^o'OvDo — 
 
 »-^\ 0 Ovot>»f 00 \fN..\ 0 O"£ 0 C 
 
 -fors.vo'^^or^.c'accveoov 
 po VO ^co -^r VO o 00 ovo VO ^s, — 
 OVO •“« ■^0CCV^^s*'O Cv* 
 
 •ots.rs.tx^'Ovof'^’rvo^tNk 
 
 ooocaoowoovoooo 
 
 lOvoOVOvovovovoo-^OCvo 
 
 oaovootN.povorj-^coca<nrvC' 
 
 txrN.rovo*-iso»— ’a-^rgC'T-cCv 
 cvaO'OT^c^avoOfOlov^'^voc^J 
 OfOoavoOvovoeoO-HOCvj^ 
 vovOvOOvCOvoCvrvVCvo — ^s^ 
 00 'Ol>»' 0 ^vor«vfOvovOCv — 
 ^a^-lc^a«-«^c«ac^ac>apocvac'a<^a^o 
 
 *. ca ov cva o N VO VO VO fo cva cc VO 
 
 5 eva o ^ p^ po ^ cv VO Ov <n VO Ov po , 
 
 VO* 00 oT — *■ cT 00 00 VO^CV*^© — VO Ov 
 vo^'^rvporx^r^porvai^^vo 
 PO^^POPOPO^POVOVOVOVOVO 
 
 ovo — cvapo^vo©r>.co©©«-< 
 ©ooooococoo-^-^ 
 OOOvCv^OvOvOvCvCvwVCvOvOv 
 
A CORNER IN OLD RIGA 
 
 SHOWING PETER'S CHURCH AND CONVENT HEILIGEN GEIST 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE BALTIC PROVINCES. 
 
 T he history and conditions of the so- 
 called “Baltic Provinces,” Courland, 
 Esthonia and Livonia, are so dif- 
 ferent from that of the remainder of 
 Russia that it is necessary to treat of them in 
 a separate chapter. These provinces lie along 
 the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland. The 
 people are made up chiefly of Letts, Lithu- 
 anians and Esthqnians. The Esthonians 
 belong to the same racial stock as the Finns, the 
 Lapps, and the Maygars of Austria. The Letts and 
 Lithuanians are allied peoples, though the latter, be- 
 cause of their long contact and association with the 
 Poles, partake about as much of Polish characteristics 
 as of the Lettish. Their language, the Lithuanian or 
 Lettausch, is a strange mixture of Lettish and Polish. 
 There is no linguistic or racial connection between 
 these people and the Esthonians, who are their hered- 
 itary enemies. 
 
 The Esthonians inhabit chiefly the province of 
 Esthonia, the chief city of which is Revel, at the 
 mouth of the Gulf of Finland. The Letts live in the 
 provinces of Livonia and in the old Duchy of Cour- 
 land, the chief city of which is Riga. The Lithuan- 
 ians are more to the south, in the provinces of Kovno 
 and Wilna. For centuries the Lithuanians maintain- 
 ed a pretty complete independent existence, first un- 
 der the princes of Lithuania, then under the kings of 
 Lithuania, later as a duchy under the King of Poland. 
 Altogether, these races comprise nearly 5,000,000 
 
 97 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 people. Originally, the Esthonians were addicted to 
 piracy and made themselves a terror to merchant 
 traders on the Baltic Sea. In 1195-6 Canute VI. con- 
 quered the Esthonians and baptized them by force. 
 But they promptly returned to their old ways when 
 the King left the country. Courland was originally 
 peopled by the Cours, a Lettish tribe, but their sep- 
 arate identity as a tribe has long since been lost. 
 Revel was founded by Waldemar II. in 1219 and an- 
 nexed to the Danish crown. But in 1224 came the 
 Germans, who overran and conquered Livonia, Es- 
 thonia and Courland, under the leadership of the 
 Brethren of the Sword. For a couple centuries, the 
 Bishop exercised local temporal power, under the 
 Hanseatic League, which was in commercial control. 
 While the sovereignty of the country was banded 
 about by Sweden, Poland and Russia, the real control 
 of affairs remained in the hands of the German barons. 
 For six hundred years the German overlords ground 
 down these people into serfdom of the most galling 
 sort. Even most of the land to this day is owned by 
 descendants of these German nobles. These German 
 estates are unusually large, averaging from 9,500 to 
 11,000 acres in size. Esthonia and Livonia came un- 
 der complete control of Russia by the Treaty of 
 Nystad in 1721. In 1795, the assembly of nobles of 
 the Duchy of Courland placed their country under 
 Russian jurisdiction. Serfdom, which had been fasten- 
 ed upon the people by the Germans for so many cen- 
 turies, was abolished under Alexander 1 . in Esthonia 
 in 1817 and in Livonia in 1819. For a time these 
 Baltic provinces continued a sort of a collective gov- 
 ernment, under the Russian flag, but this was abol- 
 ished in 1876. 
 
 While the Esthonians have an hereditary enmity 
 98 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 to the Letts and Lithuanians, all three elements are 
 united in hatred to the Germans, who held them in 
 serfdom for six centuries, after robbing them of their 
 lands and homes. The German barons still hold the 
 lands and also numerous hereditary privileges, which 
 adds to the inherent anti-German feeling. Among 
 these ancient hereditary baronial privileges is that of 
 brewing beer. For some years the Russian govern- 
 ment has sought to underwrite or redeem these brew- 
 ery privileges, but without success. The difficulty in 
 the way has been the failure to agree upon a price 
 which the barons were willing to accept for relinquish- 
 ing their privileges. The fact that the breweries are 
 controlled by those whom they regard as oppressors 
 makes it easy for the Lettish people to espouse tem- 
 perance principles. They are a restive, turbulent peo- 
 ple, who do not take kindly to the prevailing economic 
 system and are chronic insurgents. Had they been a 
 more numerous people and had they not been so situ- 
 ated geographically that their territory was period- 
 ically overrun by the armies of stronger nations, the 
 Letts would, beyond a doubt, have become a great 
 people. 
 
 This feeling against their German overlords had 
 an opportunity to express itself just after the close of 
 the war between Russia and Japan. At that time, 
 unrest throughout the Tsar’s domain was very gen- 
 eral, and fires of insurrection broke out in many direc- 
 tions. The Lett^feeling that their hour had come to 
 act, arose in revolt. , Their revolt was not directed 
 so much against the rule of the Tsar — that was far 
 away. It was directed more against their local Ger- 
 man landlords. As is usual among people long in 
 servitude and cherishing bitter grievances, the insur- 
 rection took the form of fearful excesses and outrages 
 
 99 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 of all sorts committed against those whom they re- 
 garded as their oppressors. In self protection, the 
 land owners appealed to Petrograd, making common 
 cause with the government against the peasant classes. 
 This insurrection was quelled in the most ruthless 
 Russian fashion by General Bobrikov, who wreaked 
 vengeance upon the peasants by inflicting upon them, 
 with compound interest, the outrages that they had 
 visited upon the landlords. Since then the land of 
 the Letts has been more or less of an armed camp, 
 about 7,000 Russian soldiers being constantly quarter- 
 ed in their section. 
 
 It is because temperance activities in these prov- 
 inces have been so generally promoted by the revolu- 
 tionary element that the Russian government has 
 always been suspicious of the Baltic anti-alcohol re- 
 formers. The German brewers were more influential 
 with the Russian governor than the peasant and 
 tenant class. And there is some justification for this 
 feeling of suspicion in Russian circles. Mr. Jean 
 Seskis, the editor of Dsmitenes Wehstnesis, the largest 
 daily paper in Riga, and which is published in the 
 Lettish language, told me in 1913 that the “temper- 
 ance movement and the revolutionary movement are 
 one and the same thing.” It represents a revolt 
 against the baronial brewer and the Russian govern- 
 ment vodka monopoly. 
 
 There have been at least three distinct “temper- 
 ance movements” in these Baltic provinces, and it is a 
 satisfaction to Americans to know that the first move- 
 ment was of distinctly American origin. In 1835, Rev. 
 Robert Baird went to Germany and there published a 
 German translation of his History of Temperance So- 
 cieties in America, distributing 30,000 copies in that 
 country. He visited Petrograd and was received by 
 
 100 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 the Tsar, but the chief results of his Russian work 
 were among the Lettish people. In 1836 Pastor Sok- 
 owlsky, of Roop, near Riga, published some informa- 
 tion respecting American temperance societies ob- 
 tained from Baird in a journal called News from the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. Some of the people thereupon 
 decided to form a society of the same kind. They 
 drew up rules for such a society, which, under date of 
 August 26, 1842, they submitted to the provincial gov- 
 ernor for approval. The governor forwarded the rules 
 to Petrograd for instructions. In a few months, the 
 Imperial government replied, forbidding the forma- 
 tion of such societies “lest they should be mistaken 
 for separate religious sects.”* But, in the meantime, 
 the agitation continued and the formation of temper- 
 ance societies had been progressing without authority. 
 In 1837, Pastor Dobbner, of Neuen, Muhlen, published 
 some matter respecting American temperance societies 
 at the expense of the Patriotic Club of Riga. About 
 the same time. Pastor Jurgenshon, of St. Matthai, 
 translated Schokke’s Brandy Plague into Lettish with 
 such extraordinary effect that in the two parishes of 
 Schwaneburg and Marienburg 14,000 persons became 
 abstainers. Results then came rapidly for a time. In 
 1838 certain peasants of Lower Bartofsky, in the prov- 
 ince of Courland, printed an appeal for sobriety in 
 the Lettish Gazette, which, on April 15, was copied 
 into the Northern Bee, of Petrograd. At the same 
 time, 96 of these men went to their pastor and induced 
 him to form a temperance society. In a short time 
 the original 96 grew to 179. During the same year 
 other, societies were established at Frederickstadt and 
 at Jacobstadt, with more than 100 members each. 
 
 *Burns, Temperance History, Vol. I., p. 120. 
 
 lOI 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 In 1838, Baird’s reform also swept over Livonia, 
 and with such remarkable effect that the profits from 
 the sale of liquors were materially reduced. To pre- 
 vent this, the German landlords addressed complaints 
 to the Russian government. On July 21, 1838, the 
 Russian government issued a mandate to the Con- 
 sistories of Livonia directing that “they should in- 
 form the parish pastors that the government disap- 
 proved of their efforts.” This, under the Slavic mystic 
 way of putting things, amounted to an order to sup- 
 press the reform, and it was suppressed. Conforming 
 to the government mandate, the provincial govern- 
 ment of Livonia, on July 23, 1838, put forth a similar 
 decree and, on July 29, the Consistory of Riga issued 
 orders to the clergy in conformity with these decrees. 
 The reform begun by the clergy under inspiration of 
 Robert Baird for the uplift of the people, was sup- 
 pressed at the behest of the German barons, who did 
 not want their liquor profits reduced. The agitation 
 was a lively one while it lasted. A considerable num- 
 ber of tracts were published, one of which reached a 
 circulation of 60,000 copies. The reform moved so 
 swiftly that public almshouses were not allowed any 
 spirits and the inmates thereof were not permitted 
 in the drinking shops.* 
 
 In 1865 the clergy of Lithuania or Livonia again 
 began agitating the temperance question, with large 
 initial success, but with the same result. As soon as 
 the success of the movement became apparent, Gen- 
 eral Mouraviev strictly forbade the clergy to discuss 
 the temperance question in their pulpits on the ground 
 that the government depended largely on the liquor 
 revenues, and that these revenues w'ould be dimin- 
 
 *Burns, Vol. L, p. 152. 
 
 102 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 ished if the people ceased using liquor. The liquor 
 business was then a government monopoly, the old 
 “farming” system having recently been abolished. At 
 this time, throughout the Empire, 42 per cent of the 
 government revenues was derived from the traffic.* 
 The government, accordingly, suppressed the temper- 
 ance agitation among the Letts just as they had done 
 before in 1838 and 1842. 
 
 On my visit to this section in 1913, I had several 
 days rich with experience among these people. I had 
 eight or nine hours in Libau, where I landed in com- 
 pany with some eight hundred others, and, as most of 
 the trains left at night, the government railway sta- 
 tion was thronged with people waiting and meeting 
 their friends. The waiting room was merely a gigan- 
 tic barroom, where the hundreds tarried hour after 
 hour, drinking vodka and beer alternately until they 
 fell asleep and, in drunken stupor, were dragged out 
 by the guards, policemen or soldiers. They were 
 dragged across the floor just as a dead dog would be 
 handled. There were eight hours of this sort of thing. 
 Where the victims of government vodka were taken 
 to, I do not know. But they were dragged out by 
 government agents for punishment after other govern- 
 ment agents had gotten them beastly drunk in a place 
 provided by the government for that purpose. 
 
 The next morning, Sunday, after an all night’s 
 ride, I landed in Riga. Here, again, the waiting room 
 of the government railway was but a great barroom. 
 Just outside was a magnificent government shrine 
 where supplication is made for the souls of the dead, 
 so many of whom are the victims of government 
 vodka. The government barroom was open and do- 
 ing big business — the government shrine was closed. 
 
 *Burns, Vol. II., p. 63. 
 
 103 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 I found this condition obtaining throughout Russia. 
 In the large waiting rooms of the railway stations 
 there was generally a large bar at one end and a 
 shrine with a picture of Christ at the other. The 
 traveler takes his drink seated at the table and then 
 makes the sign of the cross to the ikon as he rises 
 from his seat. 
 
 The bibulous center of Riga is the “House of the 
 Black Heads,” a social guild of young men who took 
 that name to distinguish themselves from their gray- 
 haired seniors. They built their “House” originally 
 in 1330, and it still stands with the front adorned with 
 allegorical figures and arms of cities which belonged 
 to the Hansa order. In the past the organization left 
 its impress upon the commercial and political life of 
 its time, but now the chief duty of a member is to 
 give, in its hall, a 1,000 rouble drinking bout shortly 
 after his initiation. A great wine house, forming a 
 part of the same structure, affords a convenient source 
 of supply. 
 
 In the lower social strata, miserj" and filth are to be 
 found everywhere. The centers thereof are in the 
 cafes which are so much extolled by certain American 
 philosophers and writers. The cafes and traktirs are 
 astonishingly numerous where the vodka of the gov- 
 ernment and the beer of the German overlord is sold. 
 They do close on Sundays until after the divine ser- 
 vice. The balance of the Sabbath is given over to un- 
 restrained drunkenness and disorder. 
 
 In a two hours’ walk through sections where the 
 cafes were most numerous, I saw more drunkenness 
 than I had seen in America during the previous six 
 months. Drunken men slobbering over drunken wom- 
 en in the cafes ; drunken boys and girls reeling 
 through the alleys, drunken isvoschicks lashing their 
 
 104 
 
HOUSE OF THE “BLACK HEADS,” RIGA 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 horses through the streets, drunken sailors on the 
 water front; drunken people were everywhere. 
 
 Through some social workers I learned that there 
 were 18,000 women, outcasts from society, making a 
 vicious living out of the lusts of the city and that the 
 liquor cafes are the centers of their trade. What an 
 appalling tragedy of human life ! Here are wretched, 
 exhausted women who can now only ply their trade 
 by ushering young girls in the way of vice. Women 
 sweeping the streets and driving heavy dray wagons, 
 for they must live. There are beautiful parks on every 
 hand where these miserable victims of a false social 
 system may breathe and starve. The bell of a mag- 
 nificent cathedral calls them to vespers, where they 
 carry their diseased bodies, clad in filth and rags, and 
 knock their heads on marble floors while they call on 
 God for mercy. Oh, the pity and the irony of it ! 
 
 On January 21, 1891, a temperance evangelistic 
 movement, under the name, “White Cross,” was in- 
 stituted at Riga through the initiative of the Christian 
 fellowship of the Lutheran church. It was conducted 
 somewhat along the lines of the Gospel pledge sign- 
 ing campaigns of America, but included in its pro- 
 gram the combating of vice. It was on a strictly 
 evangelistic basis. During the same year the Lettish 
 Abstinence Union Auseklis, of Riga, was founded 
 (May 17). The Auseklis maintains a temperance res- 
 taurant, the profits of which are used to provide tem- 
 perance literature. The usefulness of this concern 
 still continues. Its president is A. Deglau, Rumpen- 
 hofschestrasse 25. The “White Cross” was reorganiz- 
 ed May 10, 1908. Total abstinence is a requisite for 
 membership. This work is conducted in two di- 
 visions. The German section is led by Das Gemein- 
 schaftsblatt, while the Lettish section is led by Wahrti 
 
 105 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Unternehmungen. Each Friday, dinner is served at 
 their place of meeting, and Sunday services are con- 
 ducted every Sunday evening. Its president is H. 
 Loote, Alexanderstrasse 13. Another “White Cross” 
 union, the Livlanderischer, was established at Dor- 
 paterstrasse 5, on December 21, 1911. 
 
 As a further outgrowth of this same movement, 
 the Anti-Alcohol Union Nordlicht was founded in 
 Miihlgraben on May 15, 1904.^ This is still active un- 
 der the presidency of Y. Albett. On March 22, 1907, 
 the Evangelical Union “Uplift” was founded at Rom- 
 anostrasse 22, Riga. This organization has branches 
 at Vitebesk, Diinaburg, Pernau, Dorpat, Moscow and 
 Behnen. The president of the movement is G. Rabl. 
 It conducts a periodical devoted to the temperance 
 reform. The Temperance Evangelist Union was es- 
 tablished May 8, 1907, at Moskauerstrasse 197, Riga, 
 under the management of K. Schilling. The move- 
 ment, beginning with 1891, was purely an evangelical 
 one, conducted under the leadership of the Lutheran 
 church. It was a resurrection of the movement which 
 was founded by Robert Baird in the thirties and which 
 reached its climax in 1838, after which it was sup- 
 pressed by the Russian government. It was strictly 
 evangelical in its character, under the care of the 
 Lutheran church organization. For the reason that 
 the movement was regarded as a branch of the work 
 of an established church, it received no opposition this 
 time at the hands of the government authorities. 
 
 On February 29, 1908, a movement of another 
 character was started which did meet with govern- 
 ment opposition. On that date, the Riga Union for 
 the Support of Total Abstinence was founded. This 
 was intended purely as an educational movement, its 
 purpose being to provide scientific lectures on the 
 
 106 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 alcohol question for the public schools. A consider- 
 able amount of literature was translated from the 
 German into Lettish and some into Russian. It 
 opened auspiciously and a large number of lectures 
 were given in the schools. The leading spirit of the 
 movement was Andrei Friedenburg, a prominent law- 
 yer. The prosperity of the concern was short, for 
 the government soon forbade the society the use of 
 the public school buildings for the purpose of these 
 lectures. Because the cost of hiring halls for the pur- 
 pose of popular lectures was prohibitive, the work of 
 the society was thereby well-nigh annihilated. It con- 
 tinues a nominal existence, however, on the Suwora- 
 strasse, under the presidency of Mr. Friedenburg. 
 
 Contemporary with this educational movement, 
 another concern was established, not quite so direct in 
 its announced purposes, and which met with a better 
 fate. It was organized on December 4, 1907, under 
 the name, “Association for the Promotion of the Gen- 
 eral Welfare,” a name sufficiently general to enable 
 any sort of propaganda to be conducted under its flag. 
 Its headquarters at Kuterstrasse 4 are open every 
 working day. Its president is Pastor O. Scharbert. 
 Its declared purpose is to promote the general welfare 
 of the people in relation to hygiene and morals. One 
 section of this association is the anti-alcohol propa- 
 ganda under the general superintendency of its presi- 
 dent, C. W. Schmidt, a familiar figure at recent inter- 
 national anti-alcohol gatherings. This division is again 
 split up into “groups.” The “group” of men and wom- 
 en teachers is led by Fraulein Elizabeth von Grevingk, 
 while the “group” of abstaining workingmen is led 
 by its president, K. Nelins. A membership fee of one 
 rouble is charged. This organization has combined 
 so much general philanthropic work with its anti-alco- 
 
 107 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 hoi propaganda that it has not attracted the opposition 
 of the authorities. The concern has been planning 
 new departures, such as a permanent literature depot, 
 a permanent anti-alcohol exhibit, a traveling exhibit 
 and a house of refuge for victims of drink. 
 
 The Russian government has had much trouble 
 with secret organizations, which have generally been 
 revolutionary, and so never has been disposed to allow 
 the Good Templar order to secure a foothold any- 
 where in its domain. Some years ago, an attempt was 
 made to launch the order in Finland, but the govern- 
 ment promptly suppressed it. It was through the 
 diplomacy of Edward Wavrinsky, of Stockholm, In- 
 ternational Chief Templar of the order, that a be- 
 ginning was made by the organization of a local lodge 
 at Riga on February 3, 1911. A sort of a tentative 
 consent was obtained from the Governor. Two lodges 
 are now in operation, each having a membership of 
 about 100. One operates under a German and the 
 other under a Lettish ritual. The Lettish meetings 
 are held at Kiiterstrasse 4, while the Germans meet at 
 Andreastrasse 3. It was my privilege to attend a ses- 
 sion of the German lodge. These meetings are at- 
 tended with more than the usual secrecy observed by 
 Good Templar meetings in other sections of the world, 
 there being a fear that if too much attention is attract- 
 ed to their work the Governor will suppress the en- 
 terprise entirely. 
 
 As a result of the above-mentioned enterprises, 
 two more anti-alcohol movements have been under- 
 taken. One is the formation of two societies among 
 the Lithuanian or Litausch people of the city. One 
 of these is the Litauscher Roman Catholic Temper- 
 ance Union, founded September 23, 1909, and which 
 meets at Elizabethstrasse 22, under the presidency of 
 
 108 
 
THE BALTIC PROVINCES 
 
 Mr. Skardynski. The secretary is L. Kairys, and its 
 treasurer is Y. Tukschitkalnis. The Litausch or 
 Lithuanian people are chiefly Catholics. Another 
 Litausch temperance enterprise, which was an out- 
 growth of the Catholic organization, is the Litauscher 
 Anti-Alcohol Union, Liedra, which was formed on 
 August 10, 1910, under the presidency of P. Bogdan- 
 pwiez, A. Sturkas as secretary and Y. Weilantas as 
 treasurer. These societies are prospering. 
 
 Other temperance organizations now established 
 in Riga are: Riga Temperance Union Rihts, founded 
 May 10, 1908; Temperance Union Agris Rihts, or- 
 ganized March 5, 1910; Temperance Union Welle, or- 
 ganized February 3, 1911; Temperance Union Upsina, 
 organized on the same date ; Temperance Union 
 Warpa, organized October 9, 1911, and the Riga Cath- 
 olic Temperance Union, founded on March 17, 1909. 
 
 As these societies have progressed without any 
 political entanglements, the confidence of the govern- 
 ment in them has increased and the former hostility 
 to them is gradually being placated. The organiza- 
 tions have wisely refrained from any other propaganda 
 than that of the social and moral uplift of the people, 
 so that now the suspicions of the authorities as to 
 their intentions are well-nigh obliterated. The tem- 
 perance reform is accordingly more firmly established 
 in the Baltic provinces than in any other section of 
 Russia. The movement in this section is especially 
 hopeful for the reason that it arises almost entirely 
 from among the people rather than being handed 
 down from above, as is the case largely in Petrograd 
 and Moscow. 
 
 Another curious feature of the case is that the 
 movement in the Baltic provinces is largely of Ger- 
 man origin and a reflection of the temperance reform 
 
 109 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 that has been sweeping over Germany during the past 
 fifteen years. Nearly all of the literature used is of 
 German origin. It is either printed in the original 
 German or translated into Lettish, Litausch and Rus- 
 sian. So far the modern reform has not penetrated 
 far among the Esthonians. There is yet some racial 
 feeling of hostility between the Esthonians and the 
 Letts, which may account for it in part. The hostility 
 of the Letts toward the Germans mentioned in this 
 chapter is not directed against the German people, but 
 against the German barons or landholders. There is 
 adequate ground for this feeling, and it is hereditary. 
 It is among the curious freaks of history that relief 
 from the oppression of alcohol comes from the Teu- 
 tons, the very people that held the Lettish people in 
 serfdom for six centuries. 
 
 no 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE VODKA MONOPOLY. 
 
 I T is quite natural for an au- 
 tocracy to assume control of 
 anything which concerns 
 either the common interest or 
 the government. It is perhaps 
 more natural for an autocracy to 
 do this than for a democracy, where 
 the power is widely diffused and 
 where there are so many different 
 interests to be placated and dealt 
 ^ with. So the Russian government, 
 with no constitution to interfere, 
 has never hesitated to take over 
 any industry for the time being or 
 permanently that seemed neces- 
 sary. It being the source of power, there was no 
 appeal. From time to time, the Russian government 
 has tried, in various ways, to lessen the evils that 
 have grown out of the drink practices of the people. 
 In principle, the personal habits of the citizens are 
 of no concern to the government unless they should 
 be of such a character as to undermine the efficiency 
 of the people from a public standpoint. A drunken 
 people cannot well produce taxes ; they are inefficient 
 as soldiers and a source of trouble in times of public 
 disturbance. These reasons, combined with a natural 
 feeling of sympathy for the victims of drink, have led 
 the government of the Tsar at various times to in- 
 terfere. 
 
 Ill 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 The measures adopted for the most part alter- 
 nated between a system of government control of some 
 sort on the one hand and, on the other, a bald system 
 of farming out to the highest bidder the privileges of 
 debauching the people. In either case, the govern- 
 ment harnesses the traffic to a system for extracting 
 revenue and plenty of it. Drink profits came easy. 
 There was no grumbling. The traffickers were glad 
 to pay for the privilege. About all the government 
 had to do was to take the money and watch out that 
 it got its share. 
 
 In 1650, during the reign of Alexis (1645-76), the 
 first known attempt was made to lessen the evils of 
 the drink practices of the people. Alexis was the 
 second Tsar of the Romanov dynasty. By this time 
 the central power had become well solidified. Indus- 
 try and art were making much progress. The ec- 
 clesiastical reforms of Nikon were promulgated, the 
 famous Russian ballet was introduced and the theatre 
 had its first important start. The alcohol reforms of 
 Alexis were along the natural lines of government 
 regulation, and several attempts were made with more 
 or less success by him and his successors. Each of 
 these various schemes of regulation embodied a sys- 
 tem of “farming” the retail sale of liquors out to the 
 highest bidder. Beginning with 1705, this plan soon 
 became fairly well established. The revenue there- 
 from rapidly increased. In 1750, it amounted to 
 2,500,000 roubles; in 1779 to seven millions, and in 
 1811 to over thirty millions.* In 1767, a farming 
 system was elaborated by Catherine II. in which the 
 element of government regulation became somewhat 
 more prominent. 
 
 *Sovremennaya Illustratzia, Petrograd, Jan. 29. 1915. 
 
 II2 
 
ARC OF FOUNTAINS 
 
 IMPERIAL PALACE, PETERHOF, RUSSIA 
 
LEO TOLSTOI 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 Under this system of government supervision, the 
 highest bidder was allowed the privilege of selling 
 alcohol in a certain locality. Government regulations 
 determined the prices to be charged and the number 
 of places of sale to be opened in each district. In re- 
 turn for the money paid, the successful bidder was 
 commissioned to spread drunkenness as widely as he 
 wished or could and without much restraint as to 
 methods used. Eventually this business fell largely 
 into the hands of the Jews, especially in the western 
 and southern provinces. And in this very thing, the 
 Jews sowed the seeds of bitterness from which they 
 reaped an abundant harvest of trouble in later years. 
 The thrifty “farmers” were not over scrupulous. The 
 mujik who got drunk found his pockets emptied. The 
 drunken villager was unable to pay his share of the 
 taxes levied upon the mir, and his thrifty neighbors 
 were thus compelled to make up the deficit. Selling 
 on credit and the collection of the drink debts by im- 
 prisoning the debtor was only one of the numerous 
 and flagrant abuses connected with the “farming” 
 system of selling the drink. In the Jewish districts, 
 the liquor shops where the people were debauched, 
 maltreated and robbed were mostly in the hands of 
 the Jews, and these oppressions came to be charged 
 to the account of the Jews. In 1913, while out at 
 sea for nearly two weeks with a party of about sixty 
 Russian “intellectuals” — doctors, lawyers, school 
 teachers and others, I made extensive inquiry among 
 them as to the reasons for the hostility of the people 
 to the Jev/s. As they were all social democrats, they 
 could not be charged with prejudice in favor of the 
 government. They all insisted that they had no 
 prejudice against the Jews, that the government was 
 not hostile to the Jews, and unanimously declared that 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 religion had nothing whatever to do with the trouble. 
 They all agreed that the Jew was a better tradesman 
 than the mujik; that the mujik always got the worst 
 of it in a deal with the Hebrew ; that the Hebrew 
 almost invariably lived by trade rather than by pro- 
 ductive industry; that the tendency of the mujik was 
 to despise anybody who did not work ; that he regard- 
 ed the tradesman as his oppressor, and that thereby the 
 mujik accumulated large stores of resentment which 
 occasionally broke loose in a frightful pogrom in 
 which Slavic brutality was inflicted upon the hapless 
 Jews without stint. In this, a pogrom and its causes 
 bear some resemblance to similar phenomena in the 
 mining camps of Colorado and West Virginia. At 
 night over the stove in the peasants’ izha, the children 
 hear of the abuses heaped upon their fathers, their 
 grandfathers and their great-grandfathers by the 
 Jewish “farmers,” and they remember. These stor- 
 ies do not lose anything in the telling, and thus the 
 seeds are there planted for further trouble. The Jew- 
 ish “farmers” little dreamed of the misfortunes that 
 were to be visited upon their sons and their sons’ sons 
 through this traffic in vodka. Under the plan of 
 Catherine, this situation became so acute that in 
 1856 the Jews of Russia, while being permitted to re- 
 side in villages and hamlets, were forbidden to live in 
 any house where wine, beer or spirits were sold, or 
 to meddle with that trade, or possess any distillery or 
 dispose of any liquor in any way.* 
 
 The flagrant abuses developed under the “farm- 
 ing” system of Catherine led half a century later to 
 a reversal of that policy. In 1819, Alexander I. issued 
 a manifesto abolishing the farming system and insti- 
 
 *Burns, Vol I., p. 402. 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 tuting therefor a government monopoly along the 
 lines of one recently abolished by Nicholas II. Under 
 Alexander’s manifesto, the government took over the 
 entire monopoly of the -wholesale traffic, leaving the 
 retail trade in private hands. The price was fixed at 
 seven roubles per vedro. The -whole affair was bad- 
 ly managed and the financial returns miscalculated 
 by Count Gouriev, the Minister of Finance. The gov- 
 ernment revenues falling off, the price of vodka -was 
 raised to eight roubles per vedro. The “farmers” 
 fought the system. Illicit distilling and illicit selling 
 resulted, and all sorts of violations of the law were in- 
 creased in order to compel the government to return 
 to the old system. Alexander was a benevolent 
 despot, but not a strong one. True, the invasion of 
 Napoleon was thwarted during his rule, but the defeat 
 of the French was accomplished by the rigors of the 
 Russian winter rather than by the prowess of Russian 
 arms. Alexander tried to accomplish the emancipation 
 of serfdom, but he was not strong enough to carry it 
 through. He wanted to promulgate a constitution 
 and even drafted, one, the “Imperial Charter for the 
 Russian Empire,” but both the document and the pro- 
 posal were suppressed. Because of the lack of ad- 
 ministrative ability the government became discour- 
 aged at the want of results from the vodka monopoly, 
 and accordingly^ in 1827, the scheme was abandoned 
 and the old farming system was re-established. 
 
 There then followed 35 years of the old time 
 abuses of the “farming” system. True, some regula- 
 tions were promulgated for holding the retailers in 
 check and designed to minimize the recognized evils 
 of the system, but the farmers, emboldened by their 
 success in frustrating the governmental monopoly 
 plan, generally ignored the regulations and trespassed 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 upon them whenever possible. In i86i, Alexander 
 II. entered upon his famous series of reforms, one of 
 them being the emancipation of the serfs described in 
 Chapter IV. Another of these reforms affected the sale 
 of spirits. It abolished entirely the farming system 
 and, instead of it, provided that an excise tax should be 
 levied upon all spirits at the distilleries, according to 
 the size of the plant and the annual output; and that 
 all distilleries as well as the places for the sale of 
 spirits should be licensed by the government. 
 
 The new system went into effect on January i, 
 1863, and proved to be no better than the original sys- 
 tem. It gave the distillers full freedom of action, pro- 
 vided they paid the excise tax and the license dues. 
 Otherwise, the question of drunkenness was left 
 wholly in the hands of the manufacturers and sellers 
 of spirits. The number of vodka shops was practical- 
 ly unlimited, and increased rapidly. The government 
 taxed the alcohol before it left the distillery and cared 
 nothing as to where it went after that. As the num- 
 ber of vodka shops increased, competition brought the 
 prices down, and the consumption per capita went up 
 at a terrific rate. In 1894, the last year of the excise 
 system, the government revenue from the liquor traf- 
 fic was 297,000,000 roubles, with the total population 
 of the country at 123,500,000. 
 
 In the province of Moscow, every little village 
 was said to have two drink shops, which formerly was 
 not the case. Peasants took part of their wages in 
 brandy. A correspondent of the London Times* stated 
 that the distilleries increased from 87,000 in 1862 to 
 288,000 in 1864, according to the government calcula- 
 tions. When the “farming” system was resumed in 
 
 *Quoted by Burns, Vol. II., p. 63. 
 
 I16 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 1 ■ j • 
 
 1827, it afforded revenue to the amount of 72,000,000 
 roubles. At the time of the emancipation of the serfs, 
 the revenue had grown to 130,000,000 roubles, or 
 about 40 per cent of the total government revenue. 
 
 The profits derived by the vodka “farmers” were 
 colossal. At the time of the emancipation there were 
 216 farmers in Russia, and their annual income was 
 calculated to be about 800,000,000 roubles. The farm- 
 ers were the real “bosses” in the provinces. The 
 whole administration, from the governor down, re- 
 ceived regular salaries from them. The Minister of 
 Finance once published the list of expenses of one 
 such “farmer.” It was found that he spent over 17,- 
 000 roubles a year in bribing the administration.* 
 Much has been written concerning the evils of 
 the “farming” system of dealing with the liquor traf- 
 fic in Russia, and nothing has been said to its advan- 
 tage except that it produced abundant revenue. At 
 times, the government seemed to encourage excessive 
 drinking in order to increase the revenues. Dr. Burns 
 quotes Flaxthausen as saying, “In the central pro- 
 vinces the peasants are seduced into drunkenness, 
 while in other provinces they are forced into it.” In 
 1880, in many places, the fines of the local courts were 
 commonly paid in vodka, which was usrtally consum- 
 ed on the spot by the judges and the parties to the 
 suit.f Writing in 1878, Sir Duncan Mackenzie Wal- 
 lace gives this description of conditions prevailing 
 generally ; 
 
 “To appreciate aright this ugly phenomenon we must dis- 
 tinguish two kinds of venality. On the one hand there was the 
 habit of exacting what are vulgarly termed ‘tips’ for services 
 performed, and on the other there were the various kinds of 
 
 *Sovremennaya Illustratcia, Jan. 29, 1915. 
 
 fBeaulieu; I’Enipire des tsars, Vol. II., p. 310. 
 
 II7 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 positive dishonesty. Though it might not be always easy to draw 
 a clear line between the two categories, the distinction was 
 fully recognized in the moral consciousness of the time, and 
 many an official who received regularly bezgreshniye dokhodi 
 (sinless revenues), as the tips were sometimes called, would have 
 been very indignant had he been stigmatized as a dishonest man. 
 The practice was, in fact, universal, and could be, to a certain 
 extent, justified by the smallness of the official salaries. In 
 some departments there was a recognized tariff. The ‘brandy 
 farmers,’ for example, paid regularly a fixed sum to every of- 
 ficial, from the governor to the policeman, according to his rank. 
 I know of one case where an official, on receiving a larger sum 
 than was customary, conscientiously handed back the change. 
 The other and more heinous offenses were by no means so com- 
 mon, but were still fearfully frequent. Many high officials and 
 important dignitaries were known to receive large revenues, to 
 which the term ‘sinless’ could not by any means be applied, 
 and yet they retained their position, and were received in so- 
 ciety with respectful deference. That undeniable fact speaks 
 volumes for the moral atmosphere of the official world at that 
 time.”* 
 
 The same writer gives a further description of the 
 corruption that the vodka traffic visited upon the ad- 
 ministration of the mir. He writes: 
 
 “Not unfrequently a volost elder trades with the money he 
 collects as dues or taxes ; and sometimes, when he becomes in- 
 solvent, the peasants have to pay their taxes and dues a second 
 time. The volost court is very often accessible to the influence 
 of vodka and other kinds of bribery, so that in many districts 
 it has fallen into utter discredit, and the peasants say that any- 
 one who becomes a judge ‘takes a sin on his soul.’ The village 
 assemblies, too, have become worse than they w^ere in the days 
 of serfage. At that time the heads of households — who, it must 
 be remembered, have alone a voice in the decisions — were few in 
 number, laborious, and well-to-do, and they kept the lazy, unruly 
 members under strict control; now that the large families have 
 been broken up, and almost every adult peasant is head of a 
 
 *Wallace, Russia, Vol. I., pp. 300, 301, edition of 1878. This 
 edition of Wallace’s Russia is permitted to be sold in Russia. 
 His later edition is excluded. 
 
 I18 
 
THE VOIjKA monopoly 
 
 household, the Communal affairs are often decided by a noisy ma- 
 jority; and almost any Communal decision may be obtained by 
 •treating the mir " — that is to say, by supplying a certain amount 
 of vodka. Often I have heard old peasants speak of these things, 
 and finish their recital by some such remark as this : ‘There is 
 no order now; the people have been spoiled; it was better in the 
 time of masters.’ ”* 
 
 Early in the eighties, the laws were somewhat im- 
 proved by prohibiting the sale of liquor apart from 
 food, except in corked bottles. Establishments that 
 were authorized to sell by the bottle could have but 
 one room and could not have on the premises any 
 open vessels containing vodka. This was intended to 
 eliminate the drinking shop, but it had little effect on 
 the drinking because one could step into a traktirf 
 and get a dram with a bit of bread or fish. 
 
 About this time, the conservative press began to 
 agitate for a return to the monopoly system of selling 
 liquor, because of the multitudes of abuses that had 
 grown up under the existing system. The idea ap- 
 pealed to the government and, in 1885, Alexander III. 
 instructed his Minister of Finance, N. K. Bunge, to draw 
 up a report on the tentative monopoly scheme. Bunge 
 recalled the troubles that had existed formerly with 
 the influential “farmers” and the lack of financial re- 
 turns under the monopoly plan launched by Alexan- 
 der I., and, accordingly, made a report to the Tsar 
 adverse to the proposed plan. Two years later, 1887, 
 Bunge resigned and was succeeded by M. Vishne- 
 gradski, who was more friendly to the idea, but Vishne- 
 gradski delayed the matter from time to time and 
 never did launch the project. He was succeeded in 
 1893 by Sergius Julevich Witte, who had just rounded 
 out fame through his successes in finance and as Di- 
 
 *Ibid, Vol. III., pp. 178, 179. 
 
 fA traktir is a cheap restaurant where drinks are served. 
 
 II9 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 rector of Railways of the Empire. In his report to the 
 Tsar, M. Witte explained the purposes of the propos- 
 ed monopoly as a “system, by means of which the 
 Minister of Finance hopes to put an end to the griev- 
 ous influence of the retailers of spirits on the moral 
 and economic condition of the people.” The monopoly 
 law was enacted along the lines laid down by the 
 Minister, on June 6, 1894. It left the distilling busi- 
 ness open to private enterprise, under government 
 supervision. The production, whether from grain or 
 potatoes, was to be limited. The government under- 
 took to purchase from distilleries in any district where 
 the monopoly was in operation a quantity equal to 
 66 per cent of the total consumption of the district, at 
 a price fixed by the Minister of Finance. The balance 
 of the amount needed was to be either purchased at 
 auction, or manufactured in the government distiller- 
 ies. The spirits were to be rectified at the govern- 
 ment warehouses, and then bottled in quantities of 
 from one two-hundredth to one-fourth of a vedro. The 
 sale was to be permitted in stores managed by gov- 
 ernment officials, or in those of private persons, espe- 
 cially licensed for the trade. 
 
 The system, was introduced at first into the four 
 eastern provinces of Perm, Oufa, Orenburg and Sa- 
 mara. It was found to be so profitable that it was 
 extended from time to time until, on January i, 1901, 
 it was extended to all provinces in European Russia 
 except the Grand Duchy of Finland. It was later ex- 
 tended to all the Empire, including Siberia, except 
 Transcaucasia, Amour, Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the 
 central Asiatic possessions. 
 
 As a fiscal system, the government spirits mono- 
 poly was truly a stroke of financial genius. In 1909 
 the government revenue from the liquor trade was 
 
 120 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 527,064,262 roubles. Under the excise system, with 
 a tax of four roubles and forty kopeks on each vedro, 
 the revenue on an equal quantity of spirits would have 
 been 371,011,366 roubles, the increase under the pres- 
 ent system being 173,724,968 roubles. Formerly this 
 surplus money went into the hands of the vodka sell- 
 ers. Under the monopoly it went to fill the govern- 
 ment treasury, exhausted by the Russo-Japanese war. 
 The treasury, empty for four years after the war, fill- 
 ed up rapidly. Thus it contained in cash, in 1909, 
 1,900,000 roubles; in 1910, 107,400,000; in 1911, 333,- 
 000,000; in 1912, 477,000,000. 
 
 The introduction of the new system was effected 
 with wonderful and unhoped for celerity and thor- 
 oughness. The semi-official Novoe Vremia, comment- 
 ing upon this, said : 
 
 “It was truly a colossal reform, as far as the capital requir- 
 ed and the territory embraced were concerned. No one knows 
 whence came all those hundreds of millions of roubles, neces- 
 sary for the formation of the new department and the recruit- 
 ing of a whole army of officials, now (1911) numbering over 
 120,000, a whole host of inspectors, superintendents, collectors; 
 whence came the millions needed for the construction of enor- 
 mous warehouses for whisky, etc. The reform has been intro- 
 duced methodically and insistently, with German rather than 
 Russian precision. Never in the history of Russia have such 
 colossal means been applied to the problems of either education 
 or religious instruction.” 
 
 But yet Novoe Vremia concludes this showing by 
 this significant statement, “As a result of this, drunk- 
 enness has rapidly gone up and not down.” 
 
 In the official “Estimate of Government Revenues 
 and Disbursements for 1913” the Russian Minister of 
 Finance gives some interesting figures as to the im- 
 portance of the spirits monopoly as a source of reve- 
 nue. In the table below, the profits from the spirits 
 
 121 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 monopoly and the state railroads are taken at net 
 figures. The total receipts from the former are esti- 
 mated at 800,000,000 roubles, and the latter at 783,- 
 000,000 roubles. 
 
 GOVERNMENT REVENUES IN ROUBLES 
 
 Spirits monopoly 594,000,000 
 
 Custom House duties 334,000,000 
 
 Direct taxes 250,000,000 
 
 Tariff 218,000,000 
 
 Government property and capital.. 206,000,000 
 
 Indirect taxes 195,000,000 
 
 State railroads 186,000,000 
 
 Internal tax on sugar 128,000,000 
 
 Postal and telegraph service 117,000,000 
 
 Other revenues 138,000,000 
 
 PER CENT OF 
 THE TOTAL 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 Total 2,366,000,000 100 
 
 Thus, 25 per cent of the whole income of the gov- 
 ernment for 1913 was officially estimated to come from 
 its control of the spirits monopoly. The total receipts 
 from the whole transaction were estimated for the 
 current year at 800,000,000 roubles ; its expenses were 
 estimated at 206,028,000 roubles. This leaves the gov- 
 ernment, which is, naturally, exempt from the excise 
 tax, an estimated net profit of 593,962,000 roubles, or 
 almost 300 per cent. 
 
 While the annual revenues of the Russian govern- 
 ment from the vodka monopoly reached nearly a bil- 
 lion roubles toward the last, it must not be taken that 
 that enormous amount represented the actual net in- 
 come of the government from that source. Out of 
 this must come the heavy expenses of administra- 
 tion. An indication of what these expenses amount 
 to may be gleaned from the following tabulation of 
 the expenses for the three years, 1911, 1912 and 1913. 
 The expense for the last two years are official esti- 
 
 122 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 mates and not, therefore, probably exact. Russian sta- 
 tisticians are rather slow about their work and the 
 actual figures are not promptly to be obtained : 
 
 EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
 VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 IN ROUBLES 
 
 ITEMS OF EXPENSE ipil 
 
 Expenses of the Excise Dept. 1,958,000 
 
 Buildings 2,946,000 
 
 Maintenance of places of 
 
 manufacture and sale 31, 793, 000 
 
 Taxes 1,532,000 
 
 Preparation and transporta- 
 tion of alcohol and wine, 
 and expense for bottles. .. 117,365,000 
 Subsidy to temperance Comm. 2,500,000 
 Bonus to promoters of spir- 
 its industry 22,085,000 
 
 Refund to rural and Cossack 
 communities for loss of al- 
 cohol trade 7,624,000 
 
 1912 
 
 1.958.000 
 
 3.190.000 
 
 32,508,000 
 
 1 . 535.000 
 
 127,582,000 
 
 2,500,000 
 
 RUSSIAN 
 
 1913 
 
 1.960.000 
 
 3.921.000 
 
 33,390,000 
 
 1.640.000 
 
 132,684,000 
 
 3,000,000 
 
 18,565,000 21,809,000 
 
 7,624,000 7,624,000 
 
 Total 187,803,000 195,462,000 206,028,000 
 
 While the sales of vodka have fluctuated some- 
 what in recent years, the profits of the monopoly have 
 steadily and rapidly increased. This is explained 
 partly by the fact that the price of vodka is being 
 gradually increased. This increase, however, has not 
 been noticeable enough to affect the sales. Before 
 1900 the price of vodka was 7 roubles per vedro. 
 After the boxer uprising, it was raised to 7 roubles, 
 60 kopeks. During the Russo-Japanese war the price 
 went up to 8 roubles ; finally, in 1908, the price made 
 its last jump to 8 roubles, 40 kopeks, and it still re- 
 mained at this figure when the monopoly was abolish- 
 ed. As the foregoing table shows, this did not dimin- 
 ish the consumption. It did, however, increase the 
 profits. Economy in expenditures is another factor in 
 
 123 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the increase of profits. Thus, in 1909, the net profit 
 on one vedro of vodka was 6 roubles, 25 kopeks ; in 
 1910, it was 6 roubles, 42 kopeks; and in 1911, 6 
 roubles, 52 kopeks. 
 
 The gross revenue from the vodka monopoly, 
 since the year 1905, when the institution was estab- 
 lished throughout the empire, is as stated below. The 
 table also includes liquor revenue other than those 
 from the monopoly : 
 
 RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LIQUOR REVENUE* 
 
 
 MONOPOLY 
 
 TAX REVTENUE 
 
 WHERE MONOPOLY WAS 
 
 YEAR 
 
 REVENUE 
 
 NOT INTRODUCED 
 
 1905 
 
 609,365,000 
 
 29,771,000 
 
 1906 
 
 697,504,000 
 
 39 , 394,000 
 
 1907 
 
 707,142,000 
 
 41,117,000 
 
 1908 
 
 
 39,054,000 
 
 1909 
 
 
 40,161,000 
 
 1910 
 
 
 44,015,000 
 
 I9II 
 
 783,132,000 
 
 47,664,000 
 
 1912 
 
 824,692,000 
 
 48,899,000 
 
 1913 
 
 837,660,000 
 
 50,777.000 
 
 1914 
 
 935,805,000 
 
 54,660,000 
 
 It would be entirely incorrect to calculate the 
 consumption of liquor in Russia either from the in- 
 crease in profits or from the increase in the gross reve- 
 nues from the sale of drink. The increase in the 
 prices charged for the liquor accounts, in part, for the 
 increased receipts, and this fact, together with the in- 
 creased efficiency of administration, helps to explain 
 the increased profits. Again, it would be highly im- 
 proper to quote statistics of monopoly sales prior to 
 1906 as indicating the consumption of liquor in the 
 Empire for the reason that it was not until then that 
 the monopoly extended its operations to practically 
 
 ♦Kennard; The Russian Year Book for 1914. 
 
 124 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 the whole country, including the populous sections of 
 Siberia. Because sales since that year were practi- 
 cally all made through the monopoly, statistics of 
 sales from that time may properly be taken as to indi- 
 cate the consumption. The following tabulation gives 
 the monopoly sales for each year, in vedros,* since 
 and including 1905 : 
 
 SALES OF SPIRITS UNDER THE MONOPOLYf 
 
 EUROPEAN 
 
 YEAR RUSSIA SIBERIA TOTAL 
 
 1906 79,421,000 6,046,000 85,467,000 
 
 1907 80,938,000 5,937,000 86,875,000 
 
 1908 79,629,000 6,375,000 86,004,000 
 
 1909 77,918,000 6,403,000 84,321,000 
 
 1910 83,203,000 6,339,000 89,542,000 
 
 1911 85,462,000 6,188,000 91,650,000 
 
 1912 89,942,000 6,580,000 96,522,000 
 
 1913 91,200,000 6,300,000 97,500,000 
 
 1914 102,000,000 7,000,000 109,000,000 
 
 The statistics of the monopoly sales prior to the 
 year 1905 are not interesting except as showing the 
 growth of the monopoly. During this period, the in- 
 stitution was being gradually extended throughout the 
 country. The following are the statistics of monop- 
 oly sales in its early years : 
 
 SALES OF THE SPIRIT MONOPOLY 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDRO S 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 1895 
 
 2,950,000 
 
 1898 
 
 31,113,000 
 
 1896 
 
 
 1902 
 
 
 1897 
 
 
 1904 
 
 70,312,000 
 
 It should be noted that most of the vodka sold 
 by the monopoly is vodka of forty per cent proof 
 spirit; that is, forty per cent alcoholic strength. To 
 
 *A vedro is equal to 3.249 American gallons. 
 fKennard; Russian Year Book for 1914. 
 
 125 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 render this consumption in gallons, one must multiply 
 by 2.7 to reduce the amount to Imperial or English 
 gallons and multiply it by 3,249 to reduce it to Amer- 
 ican gallons. The monopoly sales for 1914 would 
 therefore amount to 294,300,000 Imperial or 354,141,- 
 reach America are in Imperial gallons, and accordingly 
 somewhat misleading to the American reader. 
 
 Before the introduction of the monopoly, eighteen 
 years ago, there were 2,090 distilleries in Russia. In 
 1912, the number had arisen to 2,983, an increase of 
 43 per cent. In the same year, the government own- 
 ed and managed 26,016 retail establishments for the 
 sale of the product. Besides this, there were 524 pri- 
 vate refineries and branches. 
 
 The consumption of alcohol per capita in the dif- 
 from 0.25 vedro in the Siber- 
 ian provinces to 0.98 vedro 
 in the Lake Governments of 
 Central Russia. The demand 
 for vodka in towns and cities 
 has been three and a third 
 times greater than that in 
 the country districts. As 
 the manufacturing industries 
 grow, and larger and larger 
 numbers of rural population 
 are drawn to the cities, the 
 sale of alcoholic drinks bids 
 fair to increase even more. 
 The breaking up of the vil- 
 lage communes facilitates this 
 migration to the cities, and 
 thus, indirectly, aids the al- 
 cohol trade. 
 
 And yet, it is true that 
 
 ferent provinces varied 
 
 126 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 the number of vodka stores decreased. Thus, in 1911 
 there were 26,334 stores, 322 less than in 1910; while 
 the figure for 1910 showed a decrease of 412, as com- 
 pared with 1909. But at the same time, during 1910, 
 the number of restaurants, licensed to sell alcoholic 
 drinks, increased by 459 over the figure of the pre- 
 ceding year. Moreover, the number of violations of 
 the monopoly law in 1910 was 82,432, an increase over 
 1909 of 15,714. During the same year, 65,211 un- 
 licensed places of sale of alcoholic drinks were open- 
 ed, an increase over the preceding year of over 12,000. 
 The monopoly was by no means successful in stamp- 
 ing out the illicit traffic. On the contrary, it appear- 
 ed to actually stimulate the unlicensed trade. The 
 people resented the government’s engaging in this 
 traffic and forbidding the people to do the same. 
 
 It is interesting to note how different seasons of 
 the year affect the consumption of alcoholic drinks. 
 The following percentages are approximately averag- 
 ed by months ; 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF VODKA IN RUSSIA BY MONTHS 
 
 January . . . . 
 
 . . . . 9.44 per cent 
 
 February . . . 
 
 . . . 6.19 per cent 
 
 March 
 
 ... 6.54 per cent 
 
 April 
 
 . . . 7.10 per cent 
 
 May 
 
 ... 8.38 per cent 
 
 June 
 
 
 July 7.15 per cent 
 
 August 7.96 per cent 
 
 September 9.70 per cent 
 
 October 10.87 per cent 
 
 November 9.24 per cent 
 
 December 10.16 per cent 
 
 The minimum consumption is in the denial sea- 
 sons, when Lent occurs. It increases toward the 
 end of the year, reaching the maximum in October 
 (or September), when the crops of the year are re- 
 alized. The heavy consumption in December and 
 January is due to the fact that these months espe- 
 cially abound in holidays. In Russia drinking is con- 
 sidered an essential feature in celebrating a holiday. 
 
 127 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 As a French writer upon the subject of temperance 
 (Dr. Marcou) remarked, there are fifty-two Sundays 
 and an incalculable number of holidays during the 
 year in Russia, and all these are signalized by a lib- 
 eral patronage of the monopoly liquor shops. 
 
 Dr. N. Grigoriev, editor of Viestnik Tresvosti, the 
 temperance monthly of Petrograd, compiles for me a 
 series’ of statistics from government sources in an at- 
 tempt to survey the per capita consumption of vodka 
 for the past half century. They are interesting as 
 showing the fluctuation of the drink under various 
 changes in economic conditions. The following table 
 shows the total and per capita consumption of vodka 
 in Russia from the inauguration of the law of Alexan- 
 der II., which went into effect on January i, 1863, 
 down to the formation of the monopoly ; 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF VODKA IN RUSSIA IN VEDROS 
 
 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 
 
 \"EDROS 
 
 
 
 PER 
 
 
 
 PER 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 1863... 
 
 . . .90,100,000 
 
 1.23 
 
 1879- • • 
 
 . . .78,900,000 
 
 .83 
 
 1864 
 
 . . .62,600,000 
 
 .84 
 
 1880 
 
 . . . 76,000,000 
 
 .78 
 
 i86s. . . 
 
 
 •93 
 
 1881 . . . . 
 
 . . . 74,000,000 
 
 ■74 
 
 1866. . . 
 
 
 .88 
 
 1882 
 
 . . . 73,400,000 
 
 ■72 
 
 1867 
 
 . . .70,500,000 
 
 .88 
 
 1883... 
 
 . . . 74,500,000 
 
 ■71 
 
 1868... 
 
 . . .71,200,000 
 
 .87 
 
 1884. . . 
 
 
 .66 
 
 1869. . . 
 
 . . . 74,200,000 
 
 .89 
 
 1885... 
 
 . . . 66,600,000 
 
 .61 
 
 1870 
 
 . . . 72,300,000 
 
 .86 
 
 1886... 
 
 . . .64,000,000 
 
 ■ . .58 
 
 1871. . . 
 
 . . .76,300,000 
 
 .89 
 
 1887... 
 
 
 ■58 
 
 1872. . . 
 
 . . . 76,400,000 
 
 .88 
 
 1888... 
 
 . . . 66,800.000 
 
 ■58 
 
 1873- •• 
 
 . . . 76,000,000 
 
 .87 
 
 1889. . . 
 
 . . .66,200,000 
 
 ■57 
 
 1874... 
 
 . . .71,500,000 
 
 .80 
 
 1890 . . . 
 
 . . .62.700.000 
 
 ■S 3 
 
 1875- 
 
 
 .78 
 
 1891 . . . 
 
 . . . 58,400,000 
 
 ■49 
 
 1876. . . 
 
 . . .67,300,000 
 
 ■74 
 
 1892. . . 
 
 . . . 59,400,000 
 
 ■49 
 
 1877.. • 
 
 66,300,000 
 
 .72 
 
 1893- •• 
 
 . . .59,100,000 
 
 ■49 
 
 1878... 
 
 73.300,000 
 
 .79 
 
 1894... 
 
 . . ,64,000,000 
 
 •52 
 
 Russian statistics are not kept with the same ex- 
 actness as are those of Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, 
 
 128 
 
MILKMAIDS OF KIEV 
 
 ONE OF THE STRANGE THIXC'.S TO BE SEEN IN KIEV. 
 THE "HOLY CITY” OF RUSSIA, IS THE MILKMAIDS BRING- 
 ING MILK INTO THE CITY IN EARTHEN JARS, IN THE 
 MORNING. KIEV IS A CITY OF ABOUT 319,000 POPULATION, 
 THE SEAT OF A UNIVERSITY. THERE IS LOCATED ST. 
 SOPHIA’S CATHEDRAL, IN WHICH ARE THE BONES OF 
 VLADIMIR THE SAINT, WHO HAD NEARLY A THOUSAND 
 WIVES, AND REFUSED TO BE CONVERTED TO ISLAM BE- 
 CAUSE THE RELIGION FORBADE WINE. AFTER THE 
 MILKMAIDS AND VEGETABLE MEN COME AND GO IN THE 
 MORNING, THERE APPEAR ON THE STREETS A MEDLEY OF 
 SHOP MEN, OFFICIALS, STUDENTS, ECCLESIASTICS AND 
 NOBLEMEN. THERE ARE MANY LANDED GENTLEMEN IN 
 THE REGION OF KIEV WHO SPEND MUCH OF THEIR TIME 
 IN PETROGRAD. THE PEOPLE OF KIEV INSIST THAT IT 
 WAS THERE AND NOT AT NOVGOROD WHERE THE REAL 
 RUSSIAN NATION HAD ITS BIRTH. 
 
RUSSIAN NATIONAL 
 TYPE 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 or Great Britain, except as to finances. Russian vital 
 and other statistics abound in discrepancies, which are 
 always encountered when one begins to probe them. 
 The statistics compiled by the different departments 
 and different authorities do not always agree, but, for 
 the purpose of comparison, they can be relied upon 
 approximately. Dr. Grigoriev’s computations of the 
 
 DIAGRAM SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCO- 
 HOL IN RUSSIA PER CAPITA DURING THE LAST 
 25 YEARS, IN HUNDREDTHS OF VEDRO.* 
 
 129 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 consumption of vodka since the establishment of the 
 monopoly are given herewith : 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF VODKA IN RUSSIA UNDER 
 THE MONOPOLY 
 
 PROVINCES WHERE 
 
 
 
 
 MONOPOLY 
 
 NUMBER 
 
 
 
 PER 
 
 WAS 
 
 VODKA 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 IN FORCE 
 
 SHOPS 
 
 189s 
 
 
 ■52 
 
 4 
 
 3.940 
 
 1896 
 
 
 •SI 
 
 13 
 
 16,577 
 
 1897 
 
 62, 800, OCX) 
 
 •SO 
 
 20 
 
 20,158 
 
 1898 
 
 
 •50 
 
 35 
 
 26,896 
 
 1899 
 
 70,300,000 
 
 •54 
 
 35 
 
 25.441 
 
 1900 
 
 69,600,000 
 
 •52 
 
 43 
 
 28,873 
 
 1901 
 
 65 , 8 oo,o(X) 
 
 ■49 
 
 64 
 
 38.423 
 
 1902 
 
 
 •49 
 
 71 
 
 41.132 
 
 1903 
 
 72,000,000 
 
 •52 
 
 71 
 
 41.458 
 
 1904 
 
 
 •51 
 
 75 
 
 42,261 
 
 1905 
 
 
 •53 
 
 75 
 
 42,342 
 
 1906 
 
 86,500,000 
 
 .60 
 
 75 
 
 43.155 
 
 1907 
 
 88,ooo,ocx) 
 
 •59 
 
 75 
 
 45,798 
 
 1908 
 
 87,200,000 
 
 •57 
 
 75 
 
 48,327 
 
 1909 
 
 85,800,000 
 
 •55 
 
 75 
 
 49,473 
 
 1910 
 
 90,000,000 
 
 •56 
 
 75 
 
 49.517 
 
 I9II 
 
 92,600,000 
 
 .56 
 
 75 
 
 49.915 
 
 1912 
 
 96,500,000 
 
 .62 
 
 75 
 
 
 The monopoly system was theoretically accom- 
 panied by temperance efforts. Temperance commit- 
 tees were to be formed to discourage drinking and 
 these committees, to some extent, were subsidized by 
 small appropriations from the vodka profits. Where 
 any real efforts were made to discourage drinking, 
 there was reported a falling off of drunkenness after 
 the advent of the monopoly. These temperance com- 
 mittees usually consisted of twenty-two members for 
 each district. These twenty-two were more or less 
 officially connected with the government, and were 
 generally too busy to do anything for temperance. If 
 
 130 
 
THE VODKA MONOPOLY 
 
 they did become active, it was at the risk of coming 
 into collision with other monopoly government of- 
 ficials, whose welfare depended on the amount of li- 
 quor that they sold. Russian officials as well as others 
 know the advantage of preserving friendly relations 
 with other government officers. To use Mr. Kennan’s 
 application of a Russian proverb, these committees were 
 like “the seven nurses” under whose care “the child 
 loses its eyes.” In some cases, the temperance com- 
 mittee did really valuable work. This situation suffi- 
 ciently explains why the consumption of liquor and 
 drunkenness decreased in some localities while it in- 
 creased in so many others. 
 
 In Petrograd, there was a considerable temper- 
 ance activity, chiefly by private societies and individ- 
 ual organizations, however, rather than by any agents 
 of the monopoly. These activities became quite ex- 
 tensive beginning with the year 1898. Mr. Nicholas 
 de Cramer, member of the Imperial Council, and one 
 of the principal temperance leaders in the Empire, 
 compiled for me a tabulation showing the per capita 
 consumption of vodka in Petrograd since the temper- 
 ance activities got under way in 1898; 
 
 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF VODKA IN 
 PETROGRAD 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 YEAR 
 
 VEDROS 
 
 1898 
 
 2.25 
 
 1906 
 
 1.85 
 
 1899 
 
 2.21 
 
 1907 
 
 1.80 
 
 1900 
 
 2.12 
 
 1908 
 
 1-70 
 
 1901 
 
 2.03 
 
 1909 
 
 I-S 7 
 
 1902 
 
 1-95 
 
 1910 
 
 I-S 7 
 
 1903 
 
 I.8s 
 
 I9II 
 
 1-72 
 
 1904 
 
 1-83 
 
 1912 
 
 1-75 
 
 1905 
 
 1 .84 
 
 
 
 By an examination of a preceding table, it is 
 shown that, while the per capita consumption of vodka 
 
 131 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 throughout the Empire has fluctuated, the tendency 
 for a number of years has been upward. If, therefore, 
 the record for Petrograd and certain other places has 
 shown a decrease, then the balance of the country 
 must record a marked increase in order to equalize 
 the statistics. If the per capita consumption decreases 
 in a great city like Petrograd, how much more must 
 the per capita consumption increase in other sections 
 in order to make the whole Empire show an increase? 
 
 132 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 I T is one of the ironies of fate that the out- 
 rageous drinking practices of Russian 
 life are, and for a thousand years have 
 been, largely associated with sacred 
 things. The Russian calendar is strewn with 
 numerous saints’ days, feast days and holi- 
 days of a religious character. It is then that 
 drunkenness unrestrained runs riot. It was 
 pointed out in the previous chapter that gov- 
 ernment statistics actually show a larger in- 
 crease in the consumption of vodka during those 
 months in which religious holidays are most frequent. 
 My personal observations confirm what is recorded 
 by nearly every writer on Russian affairs, that the 
 holidays of Russia are days of widespread drunken- 
 ness. Recorded accounts of outrages, debaucheries, 
 assaults, fires, murders and frightful cruelties visited 
 upon the innocent in connection with holiday de- 
 baucheries compete with the narratives of the bloody 
 orgies of Ivan the Terrible in their shocking effects 
 upon the human sensibilities. 
 
 The drink traffic among the Slavs has always 
 centered around certain social institutions correspond- 
 ing to the American saloon, the British public house 
 and the Continental cafe. The kabak first appeared 
 in Russia early in the sixteenth century. It was a place 
 where drinks only were sold, a drinking place pure 
 and simple. The institution and also the word itself 
 is of Tartar origin. When he returned to Moscow 
 
 m 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 from a siege in Kasan, Ivan the Terrible forbade the 
 sale of alcoholic drinks, and permitted only his close 
 friends and counsellors to drink it. For this close 
 circle of privileged persons he built a special drink- 
 ing house, which was called the Kabak. This drink- 
 ing place, thus established by the Russian Tsar, is 
 the ancestor of the thousands of similar places that, 
 until recently, were scattered like a network all over 
 Russia. It is indeed fitting that the institution of the 
 kabak in Russia was accomplished by the most blood- 
 thirsty monster in all the history of that people. 
 Ivan’s prohibition was of short duration. The first 
 kabak was established in 1552. A hundred years later 
 there were approximately one thousand kabaks. 
 
 With the incoming of the various schemes of 
 government regulation, excise restrictions and, later, 
 the monopoly systems, there came the cheap restau- 
 rant where food also was sold in connection with the 
 drink. These took the name traktirs. The kabak does 
 not appear in Russia at the present period. The 
 traktir became the chief center of drunkenness. The 
 chief intoxicant is a distilled spirit called vodka, made 
 from potatoes or grain, chiefly rye. It is the same as 
 the American whisky without the coloring matter. 
 In fact, it is not quite as high in alcoholic strength as 
 the whisky. Vodka is of only 40 per cent alcoholic 
 strength, while whisky is usually about 50. Pevo is 
 nothing but lager beer. Braga is a sort of a home- 
 made beer of low alcoholic strength. Kvass is a 
 very weak fermented beverage, usually made of dry 
 chorny khleb, a black bread made of the whole grain 
 of rye without yeast. Outside of the feast day drunk- 
 en carousals, kvass is the beverage par excellence of 
 the Russian peasant. The usual method of making 
 it is to put a pailful of water into an earthen vessel, 
 
 134 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 and shake into this two pounds of barley meal, or 
 dried chorny khleb, half a pound of salt, and some 
 honey, more or less according to the wealth of the 
 family. This is first stirred and then placed in the even- 
 ing in the oven with a moderate fire. In the morning 
 it is left for a time to settle and ferment; the clear 
 liquid is then poured of¥, and it is ready to drink in a 
 fev/ days. Sometimes the kvass is made of the juice 
 of cranberries, apples or other fruit, and it then cor- 
 responds to the American cider or home-made wine. 
 Drunkenness arises chiefly from the vodka, and, in a 
 lesser degree, from the pevo. The pevo is not much 
 drunk by the lower classes. Like the American In- 
 dian, the mujik wants something that will “bring the 
 drunk.” The village spirit shop is known as the lavka. 
 Outside of alcoholics, tea is the great national drink. 
 It is made in a samovar, which is not a teapot but a 
 tea urn, warmed from within by hot charcoal. The 
 tea is served in a glass, usually with sugar and lemon, 
 but without milk. The tea house is much used for 
 the illicit sale of liquor. The waiter will run to the 
 nearest government liquor shop and return with a 
 teapot full of vodka. 
 
 Tsar Vasili Ivanovich (1505-32), son of Ivan the 
 Great and father of Ivan the Terrible, gave permis- 
 sion to some of his courtiers to drink at any time and 
 as much as they chose. But, in order that their habits 
 might not corrupt the people, the drinkers were 
 segregated and compelled to live apart in a special 
 suburb on the south side of the river at Moscow. 
 These people became known as the nali, or the 
 “drinkers.” 
 
 The prohibition of Ivan the Terrible {supra) was 
 short lived. It was but the passing whim of a cruel 
 tyrant. Russia at this period went through a long 
 
 135 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 series of famines. Ivan kept a large standing army 
 for the defense of his empire and, for the upkeep 
 thereof, he resorted to all kinds of extortion upon his 
 subjects, who starved and cringed in holes and cran- 
 nies to escape the knout, the rack, the stake and the 
 wheel of torture. One of Ivan’s schemes to produce 
 revenue was the establishment of these public kahaks 
 for the sale of vodka, where the people were com- 
 pelled to resort to drink the fiery liquor and spend 
 their earnings. For had not St. Vladimir already 
 written, “Roiissi vessele peetee: nee mo jet hez tavo 
 byt.” (Russia’s joy is drink: she cannot exist with- 
 out it.”) And was it not Vasili (Buslaevich), the 
 hero drunkard, who stood in blood up to his knees on 
 the Volkhof bridge, holding in check all the mujiks 
 of Novgorod, and thus saved Russia? Anthony Jen- 
 kinson, an English adventurer and trader living in 
 Moscow in time of Ivan IV., wrote: 
 
 “At my being there, I heard of men and women that drunk 
 away their children and all their goods at the Tsar's tavern, and 
 not being able to pay, having pawned himself, the taverner 
 bringeth him out to the highway and beates him upon the legs; 
 then they that pass by, knowing the cause and preadventure, 
 having compassion upon him, giveth the money, so he is ran- 
 somed.’’* 
 
 The privilege of running the tavern was let out 
 by the Tsar to some tenant or was bestowed upon 
 some courtier for a year or two at a time. In case the 
 liquor dealer prospered, he found himself in trouble. 
 Jenkinson tells us that “then, he being grown rich, is 
 taken by the Tsar and sent to the warres again, where 
 he shall spend all that he has gotten by ill means, so 
 that the Tsar in his warres is little charged, but all 
 the burden lieth upon the poor people.” In addition 
 
 *Quoted by Gerrare, Story of Moscow, p. 236. 
 
 136 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 to the drinking of brandy, Jenkinson further tells us 
 that the Muscovites had “many sortes of meates, and 
 delight in eating gross meates and stinking fish.” 
 Kennard,* quoting an account of the social customs 
 of the period (1551), states that at the church feasts 
 men and women, boys and girls, spent the night in 
 some out-of-the-way spot, dancing, singing, indulging 
 in every form of sensual excess, and “when dawn 
 came, they ran shouting like mad folk down to the 
 river, where they all bathed together, and when the 
 bell rang for matins they went back to their houses, 
 and there fell down like dead people of sheer ex- 
 haustion.” 
 
 Ivan’s character was a strange compound of 
 greatness and barbarism. He cemented Russia into 
 a nation, which had not been accomplished before. 
 Cruel, dissolute, superstitious, he yielded to the most 
 shameful excesses, and then, covered with monkish 
 garments, he would lead a pious procession. After his 
 greatest slaughters, he would pray for the souls of 
 his victims. In the face of his schemes for vodka 
 revenue, he writes a scolding letter to the monks of 
 St. Cyril, saying, “Beyond the monastery there is a 
 house filled with provisions. Some say that strong 
 drinks are beginning to be smuggled into the cell of 
 Scheremetief. Now, in monasteries, it is against the 
 rules to have foreign wines ; how much more, then, 
 strong liquors ?”f 
 
 The times of Peter the Great (1682-1725) was a 
 period of great activity and also a period of much 
 drunkenness. Peter himself was a prodigious drinker. 
 He was a man of much the type of Prince Bismarck, 
 
 *Russian Peasant, p. 165. 
 
 tQnoted by Rambaud, Vol. L, p. 288. 
 
 137 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 drank heavily like Bismarck, and deplored drink, as 
 did the great German. He established what he called 
 the “most drunken collegium,” or the “most drunken 
 conclave,” of which he was the head and in which he 
 and his friends rendered due honors to the god Bac- 
 chus. Means of punishment at these feasts for some 
 infractions of the rules was that the guilty man was 
 compelled to drain a huge goblet nicknamed “the 
 great Eagle.” One such goblet was sufficient to ren- 
 der an ordinary man senseless. According to his own 
 words, Peter drank thirty-six glasses of wine at the 
 celebration held in honor of the capture of Revel. 
 Peter’s Chief Admiral, Apraksin, used to boast that 
 he had drunk, upon one occasion, one hundred and 
 eighty glasses of wine in three days.* Rambaud, 
 recognized as a very careful and conservative writer, 
 gives a most graphic and almost unbelievable descrip- 
 tion of one of these affairs of Peter. He writes: 
 
 “The assemblies of Peter the Great were at first only a 
 parody of those of Versailles. Bergholtz, a German who came 
 in the train of the Duke of Holstein in seventeen hundred and 
 twenty-one, complains that men allowed themselves to smoke in 
 the presence of ladies ; that the ladies sat apart, embarrassed in 
 their unwonted attire, silently watching each other; that the 
 nobles were often carried away in a state of drunkenness by 
 their drunken lackeys. Did not Peter himself institute as a 
 punishment for any breach of good behavior the emptying of 
 the “great eagle,” a huge goblet filled with brandy? To amuse 
 the new society and give life to his capital, he instituted mas- 
 querades, cavalcades of disguised lords and ladies, the feast of 
 fools, the Great Conclave, presided over by the “Prince-pope,” 
 his former tutor, the aged Zotof, who was dressed in crimson 
 velvet trimmed with ermine. At his feet sat a Bacchus riding 
 on a cask, with a rummer in one hand and a drinking vessel in 
 the other. He was surrounded by intoxicated cardinals, among 
 whom were to be found noblemen, princes, acting-governors, 
 and sometimes the Tsar himself. The procession would pass 
 
 *Sovremennaya Illustratzia (Petrograd), Jan. 29, 1915. 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 along the street followed by a sledge harnessed to four huge 
 hogs, driven by a gentleman of rank. Then a court jester, 
 dressed as Neptune, with crown, long white beard, and trident, 
 would come sitting in a sort of mussel shell, accompanied by 
 two sirens. Then a throng of sledges arranged with sails like 
 boats, and commanded by the Admiral or the Tsar. Bergholtz 
 describes the launching of a ship which took place in July, sev- 
 enteen hundred and twenty-one. The Tsar, the Prince-pope and 
 all his cardinals, the senators, and a large number of the first 
 men of the empire were present. No one was allowed to leave 
 the ship until word was given. ‘Almost all were drunk, and 
 yet they desired still more, until their powers were exhausted. 
 The great Admiral was so full that he wept like a child, which 
 is said to be a habit of his when he takes too much. The Prince, 
 Menshikov, was so intoxicated that he fell dead drunk,’ and was 
 taken home by his servants. ‘The Prince of Moldavia was 
 quarreling with the obert'olitseimeister ; here a couple were 
 fighting, there another couple were drinking, and swearing 
 everlasting brotherhood and fidelity.’ Peter forbade the use of 
 servile diminutives and prostrations before the Tsar, and by 
 blows with his cane he taught his nobility to feel themselves 
 free men and Europeans.”* 
 
 Peter conquered the swamps on which he built 
 Petrograd, and greatly enlarged the boundaries of his 
 Empire, but he, in turn, was conquered by drink. 
 Rambaud thus describes the end of Peter the Great: 
 
 “His health was broken by his toils and his excesses, and he 
 no longer took any care of himself. On the twenty-seventh of 
 October, seventeen hundred and twenty-four, he flung himself 
 into icy water up to his waist to save a boat in distress ; he 
 began to feel the first symptoms of illness, but he recovered, 
 and in January he again instituted the election of a Prince- 
 pope. Buturlin, who had taken the place of Zotof in this office, 
 had just died, and a new Conclave of Cardinals was assembled. 
 Peter, as usual, drank to excess. In the ‘benediction of the 
 waters’ he caught a fresh cold, and died on the twenty-eighth of 
 January, seventeen hundred and twenty-five, without being able 
 either to speak or write his last wishes. He was then only fifty- 
 three years of age. 
 
 *History of Russia, Vol. IL, pp. 84, 85. 
 
 139 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 “He was, above all, a man of war, marked as such by his 
 tall figure, his robust limbs, his nervous and sanguine tempera- 
 ment, and his strong arm, as strong as a blacksmith’s. His life 
 was a struggle with the forces of the past, with the ignorant 
 nobles, with the fanatical clergy, with the people who plumed 
 themselves on their barbarism and nation isolation, with the 
 Cossack and Strelits, representative of the old superstition. 
 This combat, which shook Russia and the world, he found re- 
 peated in his own family. It began with his sister, Sophia, and 
 continued with his wife, Evdokia, and his son, Alexis. Entirely 
 given up to his terrible task, Peter all his life disdained pomp, 
 luxury and every kind of display. The first Emperor of Russia, 
 the founder of Petrograd, forgot to build himself a palace; 
 his favorite residence of Peterhof is like a villa of a well-to-do 
 citizen of Saandam. His table is frugal, and what he sought 
 in his orgies of beer or brandy was a stimulant or a distraction.’’* 
 
 Anna (1730-40) showed some symptoms of re- 
 volt at the dissolute excesses of the court under Peter 
 I. and his successors. She would not allow a drunken 
 person in her sight. Prince Kurakin alone had per- 
 mission to drink as much as he wished. But, in order 
 not to do away entirely with such a pretty custom, 
 January twenty-ninth, the anniversary of the Em- 
 press’ coronation, was devoted to Bacchus. On this 
 day every courtier was expected to kneel before the 
 Empress and drain a monstrous glass filled with 
 Hungarian wine.f The reign of Elizabeth (1741-62) 
 was characterized by increased zeal for the orthodox 
 religion. She suppressed the Armenian churches in 
 the two capitals, revived the laws of Peter I. against 
 people who talked in church, confiscated tobacco 
 pouches found in church, forbade public baths com- 
 mon to men and women in large towns and repressed 
 with stripes and chains drunkenness among priests. 
 Personally she was weak and of dissolute manners. 
 
 *Rambaud; History of Russia, Vol. II., pp. 124, 125. 
 
 ^Memoirs of Manstein, quoted by Rambaud, Vol. II., p. 142. 
 
 140 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 Rambaud thus describes certain phases of her reign: 
 
 “Legislation became less severe. Elizabeth imagined that 
 she had abolished the penalty of death, but the knout of her 
 executioners killed as well as the axe. Those who survived 
 flagellation were sent, with their nose or ears cut, to the public 
 works. Torture was employed only in the gravest cases. It 
 is estimated that during her reign more than eighty thousand 
 were knouted or sent to Siberia. But if the civil code did not 
 advance, a code of procedure and a code of criminal investiga- 
 tion were completed. The police had hard work to maintain 
 even a show of order in this rude society. The government was 
 powerless to stop brigandage on the great highways, pirates still 
 captured ships on the Volga, and armed bands gave battle to reg- 
 ular troops. Moscow and Petrograd were like woods of ill- 
 fame. Thieves had lost none of their audacity, and one of 
 them, Vanka Kain the Russian Cartouche, is the hero of a whole 
 cycle of songs. Edicts were promulgated to prevent the keeping 
 of bears in the capitals, and to hinder them from being allowed 
 to roam at night through the towns of the provinces.* 
 
 Elizabeth’s son, who ruled as Peter III. (1762-68), 
 was half-witted and a confirmed drunkard. He was a 
 great admirer of Germany and ceded back to that 
 country all that his mother had won from her in war. 
 At a great dinner, given in honor of the conclusion 
 of the treaty, he caused consternation by proposing a 
 toast to the health of the King of Prussia, in which 
 he declared in a half drunken manner: “Let us drink 
 to the health of the King our master ; he has done me 
 the honour to confide to me one of his regiments. I 
 hope he will not dismiss me; you may be assured that 
 if he should order it, I would make war on hell with 
 all my Empire.” 
 
 Russian society had become sufficiently civilized 
 to look upon the gross habits of Peter with some dis- 
 gust. “The life led by the Emperor,” wrote the 
 French ambassador, De Breteuil, “is shameful. He 
 
 ^History of Russia, Vol. II., p. 168. 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 smokes and drinks beer for hours together, and only- 
 ceases from these amusements at five or six in the 
 morning, -when he is dead drunk. . . . He has re- 
 doubled his attentions towards Mademoiselle Vor- 
 ontsov. One must allov/ that it is a strange taste ; 
 she has no wit; and as to her face, it is impossible to 
 imagine anything uglier ; she resembles in every way 
 a servant at a low inn.” Peter ended his career by 
 being killed in a palace row by Alexis Orlov in July, 
 1762.* 
 
 It is idle to think that such a condition among 
 the ruling class would not be reflected in the lives of 
 the people. Even the great Tourgeniev, a generation 
 ago, wrote in his Virgin Soil, “Everything sleeps in 
 Russia, in village and city — officers, soldiers, mer- 
 chants, judges, fathers, children — all are asleep. Only 
 the drink shop sleeps not, saturating Holy Russia with 
 drink.” Again he records, “and clasping in her hands 
 a bottle of strong vodka, her forehead at the Pole, her 
 heels upon the Caucasus, sleeps, in heavy stupor, our 
 fatherland. Holy Russia.” Ravaged by every imagin- 
 able scourge, by an autocratic rule, cholera, famine, 
 pogroms, chronic famine, Russia found her only “joy 
 in drink.” The peasant drank himself into a head- 
 ache, and then drank more liquor to cure the head- 
 ache. Indeed, the accepted remedy for a headache 
 acquired in this manner was more vodka with a piece 
 of pickled herring.f Except on holidays, the peasant 
 contented himself with being merely tipsy, but. on the 
 day of some saint, he would drink himself senseless. 
 My first day in Petrograd was a saint’s day, and I 
 
 *Baring; The Russian People, p. 171. Bilbasov; History of 
 Catherine 11. , Vol. 11 . , p. 127. 
 
 tBaring; The Russian People, p. 59. 
 
 142 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 personally witnessed half a dozen mujiks drop down 
 senseless on the sidewalks. 
 
 The ignorant peasant, in his chronic, hereditary 
 superstition, peoples the air and woods with demons,* 
 as if he was not already supplied sufficiently with 
 troubles. One demon, the Polevoi, the field demon, 
 is a particular pest of drunkards. He takes the 
 form of a man dressed in white. His body is black 
 and his eyes are of various colors. Instead of hair 
 his head is clothed in green grass. The Polevoi 
 is generally docile, but sometimes becomes danger- 
 ous, creeping upon the sleeping peasant lying drunk 
 in the fields to strangle him. If the agricultural tools 
 don’t work, if the soil is too hard or if anything in 
 the field goes wrong, it is the Polevoi. “I have seen 
 an intoxicated mujik, before lying down to sleep in 
 the field, place a bottle full of vodka by his side, and, 
 with the words, “Vot dlia tebya, Polevoi!” (“There! 
 that’s for you, Polevoi!”) , “sink to slumber,” writes 
 Dr. Kennard.f 
 
 There are certain phases of Russian peasant life 
 that should be described, but I am fearful to use my 
 own words lest I may be accused of permitting Ameri- 
 
 *Dr. Kennard, in his Russian Peasant, gives the following 
 list of demons, household and otherwise, and a sketch of the 
 characteristics of each : 
 
 Household demon or Domovoi. 
 
 Farmyard demon or Domovoi dvaroff. 
 
 Bath demon or Bannik. 
 
 Barn demon or Ovennik. 
 
 Hole demon or Keekeemona. 
 
 Wood demon or Leshi. 
 
 Field demon or Polevoi. 
 
 Water Demons, demon or Vodianoi. 
 
 Water Fairies, demon or Roussalki. 
 
 Incarnations (substitutes) Oborotni. 
 
 ^Russian Peasant, p. 70. 
 
 143 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 can imagination to get the better of me. The truth 
 is so unnatural, so extreme in its character, so ab- 
 horrent, that, instead of speaking for myself, I will 
 call in as witnesses some of the most conservative 
 writers on Russian affairs. Not one of them is a 
 radical, and each work quoted circulates freely 
 throughout Russia. Let Maurice Baring, editor of 
 the Russian Review and member of the Liverpool 
 School of Russian Studies, describe a peasant wedding 
 and peasant recruiting for the army : 
 
 “The Russian peasant marries young. The courtship takes 
 place in the spring, and the wedding in the autumn. The wed- 
 ding is the occasion for a great feast, lasting generally three 
 days. The bridegroom and his friends walk about in the village 
 playing accordions and drinking vodka in different houses, and 
 throwing sugar to the children. If possible he will get horses 
 to drive him to church. The night before the wedding there 
 will probably be a dance, which will last all night. Weddings 
 are the chief festivals and merry-makings in the life of the 
 Russian peasant. Another cause of merrj'-making is the de- 
 parture of recruits. In the autumn a military deputation ar- 
 rives at a village, and the recruits are chosen by lot. About 
 thirty per cent of the male population is taken. Only sons are 
 excused, the sole worker in a family, schoolmasters, and priests, 
 and there are other exceptions. The men who are chosen spend 
 the time which elapses between their enlistment and their de- 
 parture in merry-making. They get drunk nearly every day. 
 They walk about the village playing accordions. They are gen- 
 erally glad to go, and their parents are nearly always glad to 
 get rid of them.”* 
 
 Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, K. C. V. O., one 
 of the most thoroughly informed writers on Russian 
 subjects, thus describes a feast in honor of some saint: 
 
 “To celebrate a parish fete in true orthodox fashion it is 
 necessary to prepare beforehand a large quantity of braga — a 
 kind of home-brewed small beer — and to bake a plentiful supply 
 of piroghi or pies. Oil, too, has to be procured, and vodka in 
 
 *Baring; The Russian People, pp. 66, 67. 
 
 144 
 
COPYRIGHT BY UNDERWOOD a UNDERWOOD 
 
 INTERIOR OF A SIBERIAN (MINUSINSK TRIBE) HOME. 
 NOTICE THE EVER-PRESENT LIQUOR BOTTLES 
 ON THE TOP SHELF 
 
RUSSIAN NATIONAL 
 TYPE 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 goodly quantity. At the same time the big room of the isba, as 
 the peasant’s house is called, has to be cleared, the floor wash- 
 ed, and the table and benches scrubbed. The evening before the 
 fete, while the piroghi are being baked, a little lamp burns before 
 the Icon in the corner of the room, and perhaps one or two 
 guests from a distance arrive in order that they may have on the 
 morrow a full day’s enjoyment. 
 
 “On the morning of the fete the proceedings begin by a 
 long service in the church, at which all the inhabitants are pres- 
 ent in their best holiday costumes, except those matrons and 
 young women who remain at home to prepare the dinner. About 
 mid-day dinner is served in each izba for the family and their 
 friends. In general the Russian peasant’s fare is of the simplest 
 kind, and rarely comprises animal food of any sort — not from 
 any vegetarian proclivities, but merely because beef, mutton, and 
 pork are too expensive ; but on a holiday, such as a parish fete, 
 there is always on the dinner-table a considerable variety of 
 dishes. In the house of a well-to-do peasant there will be not 
 only greasy cabbage-soup and kasha — a dish made from buck- 
 wheat — but also pork, mutton, and perhaps even beef. Braga will 
 be supplied in unlimited quantities, and more than once vodka 
 will be handed around. When the repast is finished, all rise to- 
 gether, and, turning towards the ikon in the corner, bow and 
 cross themselves repeatedly. The guests then say to their host, 
 ‘Spasibo za khleb za sol ’ — that is to say, ‘Thanks for your hos- 
 pitality,’ or more literally, ‘Thanks for bread and salt;’ and 
 the host replies, ‘Do not be displeased, sit down once more for 
 good luck’^ — or perhaps he puts the last part of his request into 
 form of a rhyming couplet to the following effect: ‘Sit down, 
 that the hens may brood, and that the chickens and the bees may 
 multiply !’ All obey his request, and there is another round of 
 vodka. 
 
 “After dinner some stroll about, chatting with their friends, 
 or go to sleep in some shady nook, whilst those who wish to 
 make merry go to the spot where the young people are singing, 
 playing, and amusing themselves in various ways. As the sun 
 sinks towards the horizon, the more grave, staid guests wend 
 their way homewards, but many remain for supper; and as even- 
 ing advances the effects of the vodka become more and more 
 apparent. Sounds of revelry are heard more frequently from 
 the houses, and a large proportion of the inhabitants and guests 
 appear on the road in various degrees of intoxication. Some 
 of those vow eternal affection to their friends, or with flaccid 
 
 145 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 gestures and in incoherent tones harangue invisible audiences ; 
 others stagger about aimlessly in besotted self-contentment, 
 till they drop down in a state of complete unconsciousness. 
 There they lie tranquilly till they are picked up by their less in- 
 toxicated friends, or more probably till they awake of their 
 own accord on the next morning.”* 
 
 We will let Dr. Howard P. Kennard, editor of 
 the standard Russian Year Book, described the Feast of 
 Masslenitsa or “Butter week” preceding the great feast 
 of Lent. He writes: 
 
 “On Friday night all go to bed early to prepare for the two 
 final and most important days of the feast — Saturday and Sun- 
 day. On these two days, feasting, driving, dancing, and drink- 
 ing — especially the latter — reach their height, the amount of 
 vodka consumed being enormous. The peasants dance, sing, and 
 drink, and then drive madly through the village, returning again 
 only to quench their apparently inexhaustible thirst. Every izha 
 has its table laid with vodka and provisions, and every one is 
 free to enter and imbibe to the full, to his heart’s content. 
 
 “On Sunday night the orgy approaches to its extreme height. 
 All form circles, and dance and drink, drink and dance, till as 
 midnight approaches King Vodka reigns supreme. !Many are too 
 intoxicated to do anything but roll helplessly and idiotically 
 about, em.bracing all and sundry, the while they shout ‘Slava 
 Bogoo’ (‘God be praised’), and kiss one another franticalh', 
 swearing eternal friendships, finally endeavoring to dance a 
 jig, and falling inert masses of human flesh, sans thought, sans 
 sight, sans tout, into the snow, whence they are dragged either 
 by comrades less drunk, or else by their female relatives, who, 
 as a general rule, do not partake to such excess. 
 
 “At II :30 the church bell is tolled by the priest as a warning 
 to his flock that the end of the feast is near. Previous to this 
 has the bell been tolled at 5 p. m., and I can vouch for it that 
 the flock answered to the warning note pealed by the priest with 
 a will, drinking deeper, deeper, deeper, and becoming more 
 wildly excited at the thought that but a few hours remain. But 
 from 11:30 p. m., when the bell began tolling, and continues to 
 toll till midnight, when it ends abruptly, the orchestra of the 
 Holy Church, as it were, playing for Bacchus and the devil, the 
 scene absolutely beggars description. Pandemonium reigns, and 
 
 *Wallace; Russia, Vol. L, pp 150, 151. Edition of 1878. 
 
 146 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 all thoughts of morality, or propriety, or decorum, are thrown 
 broadcast to the winds. All give themselves up to an unbridled 
 bestial orgy, till clang, clang, clang goes the big bell, tolling the 
 hour of 12, the hour ordained by the Church for the feast to 
 cease, and with it gaiety, the dancing, the drinking — all. 
 
 “From that moment till Easter, seven long weeks, must the 
 peasant fast. Flesh, fowl, m.ilk, eggs, butter, sugar and in the 
 last week and on every Wednesday and Friday even fish is denied 
 him ; but this is not really of such great significance, seeing 
 that his means will not, as a rule, permit him to purchase it. 
 Those who are very strict practice total abstinence during the 
 three days previous to Easter Day. All drinks except water 
 are forbidden”* 
 
 Referring to conditions during an earlier period, 
 that of the Muscovite Rennaissance, Alfred Rambaud, 
 Chief of the Cabinet of Ministry of Public Instruc- 
 tion and Fine Arts of Paris, and Corresponding Mem- 
 ber of the Academy of Sciences of Petrograd, Avrites : 
 
 “Owing to the general ignorance, there was no intellectual 
 life in Russia; owing to the seclusion of women, there was no 
 society. Compared with the gallant and witty society of Po- 
 land, Russia seems a vast monastery. The devil lost nothing 
 in the long run. The nobles, living in the midst of slaves sub- 
 jected to their caprices, degraded themselves while they de- 
 graded their victims. Debauchery and drunkenness were the na- 
 tional sins. Rich and poor, young and old, women and children, 
 often dropped down dead drunk in the streets, without sur- 
 prising any one. The priests, in their visits to their sheep, got 
 theologically drunk. ‘Even at the houses of the great lords,’ 
 says M. Zabielin, ‘no feast was gay and joyous unless every 
 one was drunk. It was precisely in drunkenness that the gay- 
 ety consisted. The guests were never gay if they were not 
 drunk.’ To this very day, ‘to be merry’ signifies to have been 
 drinking. The preachers, even, while attacking the national 
 vice, touched it delicately. ‘My brothers,’ says one of them, 
 ‘what is worse than drunkenness? You lose memory and 
 reason, like a madman, who knows not what he does. Is this 
 mirth, my friends, mirth according to the law and glory of 
 God? The drunkard is senseless. He lies like a corpse. If 
 
 *Kennard; The Russian Peasant, pp. 87-9. 
 
 T47 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 you speak to him, he grunts like a brute. He foams, he stinks, 
 he grunts like a brute. Think of his poor soul which grows 
 foul in its vile body, which is its prison. Drunkenness sends 
 our guardian angels away and makes the devil merry. To be 
 drunk, is to perform sacrifices to Satan. The devil rejoices, and 
 says: ‘No; the sacrifices of the pagans never caused me half 
 so much joy and happiness as the intoxication of a Christian.’ 
 Fly, then, my brothers, the curse of drunkenness. To drink is 
 lawful, and is to the glory of God, who has given us wine to 
 make us rejoice. The Fathers were far from forbidding wine, 
 but we must never drink ourselves drunk.’ ”* 
 
 Current writers on Russian affairs, who have 
 penetrated into the rural districts, frequently note 
 being within “smelling distance” of a Russian village. 
 The village is a collection of peasant homes. Let Dr. 
 Kennard describe the average Russian izha : 
 
 “We have said before that there is no chimney in the ordi- 
 nary izha. The steam, as shown above, finds vent within, and 
 the wretched inmates not only wallow like pigs in this pesti- 
 lential atmosphere, blended of the excretory putrescences ex- 
 haled from the bodies of men and animals — for there lies 
 a pig, and yet again fowls — but he actually utilizes it at 
 times for the purpose of a vapor bath. He loves this vapor- 
 laden condition — he has been brought up on it ; it is to him as 
 the breezes of the hills and dales are to the hardy Scot, and he 
 would be lost without it. It breeds a sense of cozj^ well-being 
 in him. One can say, without the slightest exaggeration, that 
 he loves this foul-smelling, nauseating hell far better than the 
 limitless expanse of fresh air outside. He is part and parcel 
 of his own filth-sodden izba. 
 
 “The stove, besides acting the part of vapor and warmth 
 producer, is used as a kitchener, in which everj^thing is cook- 
 ed, and as a sort of open wardrobe on which even^dhing is 
 laid to keep warm. Further, it is used as a public bed for the 
 family, for on the top of this sleep during the night, and fre- 
 quently during the long winter days, men, women, and chil- 
 dren — as many as can crowd on its broad, accommodating sur- 
 face. Here they congregate in a huddled mass — man with wife, 
 brother with sister, and as often as not a son will marr>' and 
 
 *Rambaud’s History of Russia, Yol I., pp. 297, 298. 
 
 148 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 escort his spouse to the top of the self-same stove, there to 
 take her place among her newly found relatives, and add yet 
 one more human item to the already overcrowded izba. Pigs, 
 lambs, fowls, lie where they may, and all are covered with 
 loathsome parasites of varied breed, of which the peasant takes 
 not the faintest notice. Custom has inured him to their at- 
 tacks, and so the disgusting reptiles live their life unimpeded 
 year in, year out. Fresh air there is none, except occasionally 
 admitted throughout the outside door, and ‘filtered’ through 
 the comparative purity of the outside room.”* 
 
 In Siberia, conditions similar to those in Euro- 
 pean Russia prevail, but are complicated by local 
 peculiarities. The convict population and the native 
 tribes injected new factors into the situation there. 
 In 1894, there were 18 distilleries and 22 breweries in 
 Western Siberia, and 16 distilleries and 9 breweries 
 in Eastern Siberia. In the Amur district, there were 
 one distillery and sixteen breweries. These did not 
 supply the demand and considerable quantities of 
 wines and strong liquors were imported, chiefly 
 through Odessa and Vladivostock. The vodka traffic 
 fell largely into the hands of one Kosiello Poklevsky, 
 who became known as the “Vodka King.” Vodka 
 played the principal part in trade with the natives. 
 On saints’ days and saints’ Mondays, the working 
 men in the mines, as well as the peasants, would pour 
 their earnings down their throats. The peasants of 
 Minusinsk are said to have consumed vodka to the 
 extent of more than a million roubles during the year 
 1896. Usury and all sorts of evils followed in the 
 wake of these practices. Official statistics show that 
 the average interest on loans in Irkutsk amounted to 
 5 per cent per month and occasionally as much as 
 200 per cent per annum. Mr. J. Stadling, who was 
 sent to the delta of the Lena by the Swedish govern- 
 
 ♦Kennard; Russian Peasant, pp. 30, 31. 
 
 149 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ment, to search for traces of the lost explorer Andree, 
 gives this glimpse into drinking conditions in the 
 Yakut country; 
 
 “At one of these stations I witnessed a touching scene. It 
 was the home of one of the boys who accompanied us as row- 
 ers. His parents seemed to be above the average with regard to 
 intelligence and cleanliness. When we were about to leave, I 
 overheard the mother seriously talking to her son in a half- 
 whispering tone. Understanding very little of the Yakut 
 language, I asked our interpreter — a Cossack officer, who stood 
 by me — what she was saying. Somewhat reluctantly he ex- 
 plained that the good mother was warning her son that he 
 ‘should be on the watch against the evil ways of the Russian.’ 
 At the very next station I had an opportunity of observing 
 that this warning of the heathen mother against the evils ways 
 of Christians was not superfluous, for here we found all 
 the natives dead drunk, one of the ‘Christian’ Russians hav- 
 ing recently been there selling vodka to the poor people. 
 
 “Besides the great harm which liquor does among the na- 
 tives, there is the evil influence of criminals to be reckoned 
 with, the worst class of whom are let loose among these inno- 
 cent people, who have to keep them in their homes. These un- 
 welcome ‘guests’ of course invariably play the parts of mas- 
 ters, demoralizing both young and old, and not seldom both 
 morally and physically ruining the girls.’’* 
 
 From time to time sporadic attempts have been 
 made to alleviate these conditions, but the appalling 
 proportions of the problem and the mountains of diffi- 
 culty lying in the way made such efforts appear hope- 
 less. The Orthodox church was splendidly organized 
 and equipped, but both the church and the people 
 were so thoroughly inoculated with the idea that re- 
 ligion had to do with belief and form rather than with 
 conduct that the church was of little or no avail as a 
 remedial agent. The natural sympathies of the people 
 were directed to rescuing victims of the vodka rather 
 than to shutting off the causes of the great deluge of 
 
 *Stadling; Through Siberia, p. 152. 
 
 150 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 national misery. In the year 1652, a conclave was as- 
 sembled to discuss the liquor problem under the rule 
 of Alexis (1645-76), second Tsar of the Romanov 
 dynasty. It was a serious attempt and it was decided 
 that there should be thereafter but one liquor shop in 
 each large city and none whatever in the smaller ones. 
 Under the support of Alexis, this policy was con- 
 tinued for eleven years, but the government revenues 
 were so affected that the temperance policy was 
 abandoned. 
 
 The alcoholic practices of the people and serfdom 
 developed side by side, and drink excess reached its 
 climax at the same time that serfdom was most widely 
 established, in the two decades previous to the eman- 
 cipation by Alexander II. in 1862. It was during this 
 period that desultory attempts were made to accom- 
 plish better conditions as to drink. As early as 1834, 
 some temperance publications, obtained from America, 
 were translated and published in Russian, Lettish, 
 Esthonian and the Finnish languages. This under- 
 taking was that of an American residing in Russia 
 whose name I have been unable to obtain. In Octo- 
 ber, 1840, another American, Robert Baird, visited 
 Russia, had an interview with Tsar Nicholas, who 
 promised to have translated into Russian Baird’s His- 
 tory of the Temperance Societies in America. Ten 
 thousand copies of the Russian translation were print- 
 ed, and 5,000 of the Finnish. In this same year, at 
 Hoffungsthal, near Odessa, a German landlord offered 
 to pay the government himself the amount of the 
 liquor license fees provided the liquor shops were ex- 
 cluded from his estate. In 1854, during the Crimean 
 war, costly errors in military operations on both 
 sides were made through the drunkenness of respon- 
 sible officers. There were times when the siege of 
 
 151 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Sebastopal came near being ruined by drunken of- 
 ficers. Writing under date of November 25, 1854, 
 Dr. Russell, the war correspondent of the London 
 Times, reported, “A drunken man may put an end 
 to the British expedition.”* In 1858, the clergy 
 took up the temperance question in earnest, promot- 
 ing total abstinence among the peasants, and with 
 striking results. “In some places, the consumption 
 diminished to one-twelfth of its normal extent. Some 
 estate owners sought to weaken the movement by re- 
 ducing the price of spirits. On some estates the dis- 
 tilleries were closed. One nobleman, a great land- 
 owner in Padolia, made vigorous efiorts to persuade 
 his peasants to abandon the use of vodka. Temper- 
 ance unions were established in the provinces of 
 Kursk, Nizhnei and Kazan, Saratov and Astrakhan. ’’f 
 On the following year, 1859, the movement reach- 
 ed its height. “Five thousand workmen employed in 
 the great building establishments of Petrograd took 
 the pledge. At Wilna, the corporation of Shoemakers 
 and Joiners formed a league to root out the custom 
 of drinking ardent spirits. Backsliders were sub- 
 jected to penalties of various kinds. In many com- 
 munes, the newly reformed peasants carried their 
 zeal to an extent that the authorities did not approve. 
 The Minister of the Interior, in a dispatch to the gov- 
 ernment of the Central Provinces, ordered that ‘when- 
 ever the peasants resolve to abstain from spirituous 
 liquors, they must not be hindered in so laudable a 
 design, provided that those who take the pledge do 
 not attempt to punish those who differ with them’.”i 
 
 *Quoted in Burns’ Temperance History, Vol. I., p. 370. 
 
 ■fibid, p. 424. 
 
 tlbid, p. 437. 
 
 152 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 During the sixties the people were so engrossed 
 in reorganizing themselves under the new conditions 
 arising from the emancipation of 1862 that the liquor 
 evil was largely lost sight of. It was resurrected 
 somewhat in the seventies. In 1872, the workmen 
 employed in the silver works at Moscow united in 
 taking an abstinence pledge for one year. Members 
 who violated the pledge were fined one rouble. In 
 1874 a large number of communes began exercising 
 the rights of local self-government conferred upon 
 them at the time of the emancipation twelve years 
 before. These communes forbade the sale of vodka 
 to habitual drinkers and made the sellers liable for 
 damages arising from their trade. In the district of 
 Pensa, 200 communes went farther and prohibited the 
 sale by peasant proprietors, which was almost equiva- 
 lent to general prohibition in that district. 
 
 During the eighties another movement was sprung 
 which amounted to little at the time, but, on ac- 
 count of the high character of the men responsible 
 for it, had large influence in later years. In 1886, ac- 
 companied by his wife. Dr. Peter Semyonovich Alex- 
 yiev, of Moscow, a close friend of Count Leo Tolstoi, 
 visited America for the purpose of inspecting hos- 
 pitals, prisons and elementary schools. Becoming in- 
 terested in the American contest against drunkenness, 
 he began agitating the temperance question on his re- 
 turn the following year. Being a man of high stand- 
 ing, education, courage and of great activity, his ef- 
 forts made a lasting impression. In the preface to a 
 volume, “About America,” which he published in 1888, 
 he noted. 
 
 “Neither the wonder of wild nature in the Rocky Mountains 
 nor the menacing might and grandeur of Niagara, produce such 
 an impression on a Russian as the success of the fight with 
 
 153 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 drunkenness — the temperance movement — and the successful 
 development, in all classes of society, of morality and the strict 
 application of practical morals.” 
 
 He wrote much on the subject for various learned 
 Russian societies and also a work, Concerning Drunk- 
 enness, which was published* in Moscow by the maga- 
 zine Russkaya Mysl (Russian Thought), first in a 
 cheap, abridged form. In 1901 an enlarged and per- 
 manent edition was published at one rouble, prefaced 
 by a dissertation by Count Tolstoi entitled. Why Do 
 People Stupefy Themselvesff This dissertation was 
 translated and published in London under the caption, 
 Alcohol and Tobacco. In 1896 another edition of Dr. 
 Alexyiev’s book, enlarged and revised, was published! 
 in Moscow, to which was added a comprehensive 
 bibliography of the temperance reform. The bibliog- 
 raphy contained 705 items for Great Britain and the 
 Colonies, 142 for the United States, 247 for Germany, 
 124 for ten other countries combined (up to 1885 
 all these cases), to ten for Russia. Of these ten, four 
 are in Latin, four in German, one is in Swedish and 
 one in Russian, the latter, evidently, an article re- 
 published from The Medical News. There appeared 
 no item in the Russian language. 
 
 Count Tolstoi took up the reform in characteris- 
 tic fashion. He was an evangelist, a prophet, rather 
 than an organizer of reform. The Count, in 1887, 
 ordered the starosta of his village to summon all the 
 
 *The censor’s permit for this volume was dated March 
 29, 1887. 
 
 fCount Tolstoi’s dissertation was dated July 10, 1890, but 
 the book itself was actually written in 1899. 
 
 JThis edition was prepared by Dr. Alexyiev at Riga, in 
 1895, where he lived after his return from government medical 
 service in Siberia until his death in August, 1913. 
 
 154 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 inhabitants at lo o’clock in the morning. A table 
 and bench were placed before the communal house, 
 and of what took place there a writer tells the fol- 
 lowing story; 
 
 “The Count took out of his pocket a piece of paper and put 
 it on the table with a bottle of ink and pen. Great curiosity 
 was aroused. When all were present, he gave them a lecture 
 in plain, simple language of the dangers of drunkenness, on 
 the evils that followed the use of tobacco and vodka. He 
 spoke slowly and persuasively, urging arguments that would ap- 
 peal to peasant folk and introducing striking anecdotes and 
 similes. 
 
 “The women urged their husbands to follow Tolstoi’s ad- 
 vice ; so, seeing that he had them on his side, he asked those 
 who would agree henceforth to drink no more, to sign the 
 pledge. 
 
 “‘Do you consent?’ he cried. 
 
 “Just at that moment a harsh voice sounded: ‘Let him 
 pass.’ 
 
 “‘Room for Yeagor Ivanovich,’ cried the peasants, and an 
 old mujik stepped forward. 
 
 “‘I want to speak a word about temperance,’ said he. ‘I 
 want to call your attention to the fact that at weddings, births 
 and baptisms, it is impossible to get along without vodka. One 
 can do without smoking, but vodka — that is different. It is in- 
 dispensable. Our fathers always drank it; we must do the 
 same.’ 
 
 “‘You can substitute sugared rose-water,’ replied Tolstoi. 
 ‘In the south rose-water is always served with sherbets thick 
 as honey.’ 
 
 “‘Doesn’t that make men drunk?’ asked many at once. 
 
 “‘No.’ 
 
 “‘Put your hand in front of your mouth, Yeagor Ivanovich. 
 Do you need to keep it wide open?’ whispered the women. 
 ‘Sign it !’ 
 
 “‘Do you, then, agree?’ asked the Count again. 
 
 “‘Yes. Yes.’ 
 
 “The mujiks crowded up to the table; the women were 
 radiant ; even the children seemed to realize that something 
 great was happening; the idea of sugared rose-water enchanted 
 them. 
 
 ^55 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 “‘So then, no more vodka, nor more tobacco?’ 
 
 “ ‘No. There’s an end of smoking and drinking. You have 
 promised.’ 
 
 Tolstoi -was far more considerate of the mujik 
 who got drunk than he was of the men of culture, 
 students and professors who drank in the presence of 
 waiters and thus set an example of evil. He saw a 
 certain charm in the affection displayed by the tipsy 
 mujik, but for the educated classes who drank, he 
 poured out his vials of wrath. Against the celebra- 
 tion of the anniversary of the University of Moscow, 
 which ended in much drunkenness and debauchery, 
 the Count launched a diatribe in his Culture’s Holiday 
 which aroused much protest. 
 
 In 1885 the excise laws were remodeled and in- 
 cluded what was really a local option measure. The 
 people themselves, through their elected representa- 
 tives in the urban municipalities and in the rural com- 
 munities in the country districts, were empowered to 
 limit the number of licensed houses, or even to abolish 
 them altogether. By another enactment vodka could 
 only be consumed on the premises by the working 
 classes in traktirs — eating houses where food as well 
 as drink was supplied. 
 
 Another measure which indirectly aided in raising 
 the status of the working classes and preparing the 
 ground for temperance reform was the complete re- 
 vision of the factory laws. Before the law of 1886 
 many employers of labor gave their workpeople vodka 
 as part of their remuneration. This was made a crim- 
 inal offense, entailing a severe penalty. All compen- 
 sation for labor was required to be in cash. 
 
 The activities of Alexyiev and Tolstoi had no im- 
 
 *Nathan Haskell Dole; Life of Count Lyof N. Tolstoi, 
 p. 322. 
 
RUSSIAN DRINKING CONDITIONS 
 
 portant immediate effect, but the strong utterances of 
 men of such high standing, widely circulated through- 
 out the empire, laid the foundation for greater things 
 to follow. In 1890, there were few temperance or- 
 ganizations left in Russia. The society at Petrograd 
 was quite active and had six branches. A society ex- 
 isted in Kronstadt and one in Esthonia. On May 12, 
 twelve students in the religious academy at Petrograd 
 took the solemn pledge. On March 5, 1890, Professor 
 Antonious of the Academy formed a society among 
 the workmen at Howard’s paper factory. Providence 
 appeared to be opening the way for the introduction 
 of the government monopoly idea on a scale never 
 before attempted in the history of the world. The 
 rise and development of this institution was set forth 
 in the preceding chapter. Its final overthrow will be 
 recorded in the last chapter of this book. 
 
 157 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS. 
 
 O N September i, 1894, Dr. N. Grig- 
 oriev, a physician of Petrograd, 
 established a monthly temperance 
 magazine, the Viestnik Tresvosti 
 (“Messenger of Temperance”). Dr. 
 Grigoriev was a man of wealth, of 
 scholarship and of purpose. He was 
 wise enough to conduct his publication 
 along conservative lines and thus 
 avoided trouble with the censor. And 
 yet he recorded the facts as they ex- 
 isted. The periodical is still being 
 published by Dr. Grigoriev at 32 Gorokhovaia, Petro- 
 grad, and is the first permanent temperance publica- 
 tion launched in the Russian Empire. He lighted a 
 fire that eventually spread all over Russia and helped 
 to create a condition that made possible the over- 
 throw of the government monopoly, which, curiously 
 enough, was established under a law enacted only 
 three months prior to the launching of the magazine 
 itself. 
 
 The monopoly was instituted from mixed motives. 
 There were those who hoped and believed that the 
 project would relieve the stress of drunkenness and 
 would tend to better things. On the other hand, 
 others looked only at the fiscal side of the enterprise. 
 Indeed, the monopoly had been introduced into four 
 provinces in 1893 an experiment and, in presenting 
 the proposal to the Council of the Empire, the Min- 
 
 159 
 
 7? ‘ n 
 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ister of Finance said : “The tax on alcohol can give 
 the government all the revenue that it needs, which 
 would be more than we get now, with much less in- 
 convenience.”* Unfortunately for the temperance 
 side of the proposal, the actual administration of the 
 monopoly {Monopolka) was left almost entirely in 
 the hands of those interested in the fiscal side of the 
 project. Temperance, accordingly, suffered. 
 
 The law inaugurating the monopoly as the gen- 
 eral policy of the government was enacted on June 
 6, 1894, and entitled the “Law Concerning the Sale 
 of Liquor.” From that time on, for several years, tem- 
 perance effort was at a low ebb. The friends of tem- 
 perance were generally disposed to wait until the re- 
 sults of the monopoly system became apparent. 
 
 One important exception to this was the installa- 
 tion of an extensive temperance enterprise at Moscow 
 under the leadership of Grand Duke Sergius, Gov- 
 ernor General of Moscow and uncle of the Tsar. This 
 movement had a stormy birth. Sergius was a reac- 
 tionary of the reactionaries. He ruled with a tyran- 
 nical hand and, on the morning of February 17, 1905, 
 shortly after he inaugurated the temperance enter- 
 prise, he was blown to pieces by a dynamite bomb, 
 thrown by a young man named Kaliayev, while riding 
 through St. Nicholas gate of the Kremlin. His wife. 
 Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, a woman of the 
 highest character, was so horrified at the shocking 
 tragedy that she renounced the world, organized a 
 convent and entered the same under the name of Sister 
 Beatrice. Sergius, while recognized as a tyrant and a 
 man of alleged peculiar vices, must be given the credit 
 
 *P. Pavlov, in Sovremennaya Illustratsia, Petrograd, Jan. 
 29, 1915. 
 
 160 
 
WINE SKINS AND WINE , SHOPS OF TIFLIS 
 
 THE DISTRICT OF KAKHETA, NOT FAR FROM TIFLIS, IN 
 THE CAUCASIAN REGION, IS FAMED FOR ITS WINES. THESE 
 ARE MARKETED IN SKINS IN THE BAZAAR OF TIFLIS. UN- 
 LIKE OTHER EASTERN COUNTRIES, A WHOLE OX SKIN IS 
 MADE INTO A WINE CONTAINER, THE BURDYUKI. WHEN 
 ONE WISHES A DRINK, THE LACE IS LOOSED FROM THE 
 FORELEG OF THE SKIN AND THE WINE PROCURED. TPIE 
 WINE SHOP ITSELF IS BELOW THE STREET, WHERE, IN 
 A SORT OF A BOVINE CATACOMB, ROWS OF WINE-FILLED 
 BEEF SKINS ARE TO BE FOUND INSTEAD OF BARRELS. THE 
 WINE IS HAULED INTO THE MARKET ON CARTS DRAWN 
 BY OXEN, WHOSE OWN SKINS, AFTER DEATH, ARE OFTEN 
 MADE INTO WINE RECEPTACLES FOR OTHER OXEN TO 
 DRAW. THE WINE OF THE WELL-TO-DO IS A TAWNY PORT 
 IN COLOR. THAT OF THE POORER CLASSES IS THIN, SOUR 
 AND VERY CHEAP. THE WINE SHOP IS THE CAUCASIAN 
 CENTER OF GOSSIP, THE SA.ME AS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. 
 
RUSSIAN NATIONAL 
 TYPE 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 for the foundation of the first great temperance insti- 
 tution in the Russian Empire. 
 
 These Moscow enterprises now reach enormous 
 proportions and are all centered around the so-called 
 Alexis Public Temperance House. This concern 
 covers a great block of ground. There are the offices 
 of administration, a gigantic restaurant where good 
 food is served cheaply and without intoxicants, a 
 drinkless theater, a sort of a playground, reading 
 rooms, all on an extensive scale. During the summer 
 months, more than 200 employees are required to 
 conduct the establishment. At this establishment, 
 nothing is done except to provide amusements, eating 
 facilities, theater performances and reading rooms 
 without alcoholic attachments. No direct temperance 
 work is attempted and no pledges of abstinence are 
 solicited. It is purely a “substitute” and as good a 
 one as could be devised. It takes its name from the 
 Crown Prince of the Empire, the Tsarevich Alexis, a 
 lad now in his teens and in frail health. Every year, a 
 special photograph of Prince Alexis is made and fram- 
 ed to be hanged on the walls of the great dining hall 
 of the institution. These photographs half surround 
 the big room. 
 
 About a mile away from the main establishment 
 is the principal library from which the temperance 
 propaganda proper is carried on. This library con- 
 tains 8,620 carefully selected scientific volumes, at- 
 tached to which is an elaborate chemical laboratory. 
 This part of the work is now under the direction of 
 two Russian scientists. Dr. Michael Ivanovitch Belski 
 and Dr. Nicholai Alexandrovitch Flehoff. Connected 
 with them is a staff of investigators, writers and lec- 
 turers. Their work is chiefly through the teachers. 
 They address teachers’ gatherings and instruct teach- 
 
 i6r 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ers in the evils of alcohol drinking. They conduct ex- 
 periments in the laboratory and demonstrate to the 
 teachers what alcohol will do to the human body. 
 Gatherings of teachers come to Moscow at different 
 times to study in the library and attend the lectures. 
 Connected with this main library is about a dozen 
 small branch libraries in different parts of the city, 
 some of which are in private houses, but all controlled 
 by the central institution. The entire expense of this 
 work amounts to approximately 1,100,000 roubles, or 
 about $550,000 in American money. 
 
 In 1898, following the lead of Grand Duke Sergius, 
 a most extensive temperance project was launched 
 under government subsidy, but under the patronage 
 and supervision of Alexander, Prince of Oldenburg, 
 cousin of the present Emperor. The movement was 
 established first at Petrograd under a government 
 subsidy amounting to approximately 6,750,000 roubles. 
 The Association, headed by the Prince, founded five 
 People’s Palaces in Petrograd besides public gardens 
 and recreation grounds in different parts of the city, 
 where refreshments of all sorts, except alcoholic bev- 
 erages, were provided at cheap rates. Theaters were 
 constructed in the grounds, where entertainments 
 were given, while there was provided a constant suc- 
 cession of interesting lectures on health and temper- 
 ance. In each of these “palaces” a doctor attends 
 every Sunday and public holiday, and gives gratuitous 
 consultations to all applicants. The entertainments 
 begin at 4 in the afternoon, and continue until mid- 
 night, with a break between 6 and 7 p. m., when 
 the temperance lecture is given. In two of these 
 “People’s Palaces” the entrance is gratuitous, in the 
 others there is a small fixed charge. For the main- 
 tenance of these Temperance palaces the government 
 
 162 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 now provides a subsidy of 260,000 roubles per year. 
 Other concerns of similar sort were launched in dif- 
 ferent parts of the Empire. In expenditure of money, 
 the government has been lavish. During the past ten 
 years, something like 45,000,000 roubles have been 
 expended on these projects. Temperance, however, is 
 but a small and indirect part of the work of these in- 
 stitutions. On the whole, they are for general social 
 welfare. In some of them, nothing is said about tem- 
 perance, but temperance could not help being some- 
 what advanced by providing amusement enterprises 
 at popular prices where the visitor is not confronted 
 by the inevitable vodka bottle and the beer stand. 
 The Petrograd enterprises now include such places as 
 Peter’s Park, the Garden of Taurida, the Garden of 
 Basil Island, the Garden of Ekaterinhov, the Eloat- 
 ing Public Dining Room, and the extensive operations 
 of the Municipal Committee for Public Temperance. 
 The latter, in a way, is the parent of the original in- 
 stitution, founded by Oldenburg, which has been in 
 existence for about fifteen years. This latter concern 
 now conducts six theaters, an anti-alcoholism muse- 
 um, eighteen public libraries, five popular dining rooms 
 and gives free instructions in national music. During 
 its existence, 9,518 performances were given in the 
 theaters by the committee, the repertoire consisting 
 of 667 different plays. Under its direction, 4,907 tem- 
 perance lectures have been given, which were attended 
 by 1,582,787 persons. The committee libraries circu- 
 lated 320,436 volumes, its playgrounds were visited by 
 900,000 children, its dining rooms were visited by 
 19,000,000 persons and its parks were visited by 68,- 
 264,907 people. Seven years ago, the committee estab- 
 lished twenty-two movable lunch rooms, using nine 
 horse wagons, three automobiles, six platforms and 
 
 163 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 four hand carts. During the periods of its existence, 
 these movable con;cerns have serv^ed 1,200,000 hot 
 meals. These various temperance societies of Petro- 
 grad, under the general leadership of the Prince of 
 Oldenburg, have now developed into the following: 
 
 1. Petrograd Temperance Society, Great Ochta. Porocho- 
 vaia 44. This is a concern to combat excessive drinking by the 
 population of Little and Great Ochta and neighboring localities. 
 Honorary members pay five roubles ; active members pay three 
 roubles. The society maintains a free public library and read- 
 ing room. 
 
 2. All-Russian Working Union of Christians. This is a 
 total abstinence society under the protection of Grand Duke 
 Constantine Constantinovich. It is conducted on the basis of 
 Christian love and mutual help. 
 
 3. Alexander Nevsky Temperance Society of the Boshres- 
 ensky Church. Obvodny canal 118. This is conducted under 
 the auspices of the Orthodox church. It organizes temperance 
 unions, conducts excursions, provides lectures and literature. It 
 has four schools and two workshops, one of the latter being a 
 printing plant that has many branches, ten of which are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 In the Putilov factory, Petergovskoie Shosse 80. 
 
 At Baltisky street ii. 
 
 On the Vassily Ostrov, Great Prospect 61. 
 
 At Mitavsky Pereulok 4. 
 
 At Great Spaskaia 53. 
 
 At Smolensky street, Port Arthur House. 
 
 In the village of Martyshkino, Petrograd district. 
 
 In Kronstadt. 
 
 In Tsarskoie Selo. 
 
 In Oranieubaum and some other places. 
 
 4. Voniratyvskoe Temperance Societj-, connected with the 
 Spasso-Preobrashensky church. Sabalkanskj' 103. 
 
 5. Kasnaskoe Temperance Society. Connected with the 
 Kasnaskoe Society for the propagation of religious and moral 
 education according to the Orthodox Creed. Great Ochta, Tanfi- 
 lova 33. 
 
 6. Matthew Temperance Society. Connected with Matthew 
 Church. Matveevskaia 8. The society has about 8,000 total ab- 
 staining members, of whom 600 are women. 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 7. The First Russian Sergei School of Temperance. Old 
 Sergieva Pustyn, N. W. Railway. The society has two parish 
 schools with one class for girls on the premises of the society 
 and one school, with two classes for boys, opposite monastery 
 Troitsky Sergieva Pustyn. Besides general education, the “science 
 of temperance” is taught and agriculture. This is one of the 
 most famous institutions of its kind in Russia. 
 
 8. Finnish Temperance Society Alkov. The work of this 
 society is among the Finnish people of Petrograd and vicinity. 
 It has three choirs and pays much attention to music. 
 
 9. The Esthonian Temperance Society Jaith. Small Breb- 
 etzkaia 3. The society has a library. It combats excessive drink- 
 ing among the Esthonian people of Petrograd and vicinity. 
 
 10. The Oulianovskoie Parish Temperance Society. Con- 
 nected with the Church of Holy Peter Metropolitan. Peter- 
 govskoie Shosse 30. The society has a parish school. 
 
 11. The Serafimovskoie Temperance Society. Connected 
 with Serafim Church. 
 
 Another and a newer society that has come into 
 much prominence is the Society for Fighting Against 
 Alcohol in the Public Schools.* This concern is sim- 
 
 *The officers and members of this organization are 
 
 Prof. A. A. Kornilov, University of Moscow, President. 
 
 I. Subbotin, Secretary-Treasurer. 
 
 Honorary Member; President of the Moscow Temperance 
 Association, Major General W. F. Jounkovsky. 
 
 Members ; Dr. W. G. Archangelsky, Dr. L. P. Bogolepov, 
 Dr. A. P. Bogolepov, Rev. P. W. Bogoslovski, A. F. Beliakov, 
 Dr. T. 1 . Viasemsky (Moscow University), Dr. Davidov, A. I. 
 Elishov, Dr. W. A. Zagumenski, Dr. N. R. Ivanshev, Councillor 
 of State A. D. Italisnky, S. S. Ievlev, Dr. A. M. Korovin, Dr. 
 M. U. Lachtin (Moscow University), A. V. Laperovski, Rev. N. 
 A. Liubimov, Dr. A. I. Lianz (University of Moscow), G. F. 
 Markov, A. N. Ostkevich-Rudnizki, Councillor of State S. A. 
 Petrovsky, Councillor of State A. N. Popov, Dr. W. T. Popov, 
 Rev. N. A. Porezki, State Councillor A. S. Potozki, Rev. N. A. 
 Preobrazhenski, Rev. N. P. Rosanov, Dr. K. N. Romanovich, 
 Councillor of State A. D. Samarin, I. W. Subbotin, Dr. I. U. 
 Tarasevich, Dr. N. D. Titoff, Dr. T. N. Terrian, A. A. Flerov, 
 Dr N. A. Flerov, Prof. C. I. Chervinsky (Moscow University), 
 W. B. Sheremetev, A. W. Shilov, V. M. Shilov. 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ilar to the American institution, the Scientific Tem- 
 perance Federation, which has its headquarters in 
 Boston. Its work is the promotion of the scientific 
 side of the alcohol problem in educational institutions. 
 
 Besides the above organizations which are dis- 
 tinctly temperance societies, there are many others 
 that conduct a temperance propaganda in connection 
 with their other religious or philanthropic efforts. 
 The following are the principal organizations of this 
 class : 
 
 1. Resurrection Alexander Joseph Brotherhood. This 
 brotherhood maintains an asylum. One for 40 little boys, an- 
 other for 40 little girls and one for 25 old women. It has 
 a day asylum for 40 girls from the street and a common room 
 for 10 more. 
 
 2. Sampsonievsky Christian Brotherhood. Great Sampson- 
 ievsky 37. The chief work of this society is moral and religious 
 instruction to combat drunkenness. 
 
 3. Nevsky Orthodox Brotherhood. Gavanskaia 63. This 
 is a society to help each other lead a Christian life. It conducts 
 conferences, holds lectures, etc. 
 
 4. Petrograd Orthodox Esthonian Brotherhood. Ekater- 
 inovsky Prospect 24. This is controlled by Pastor Isador 
 Sourievsky. The brotherhood owns a church and a parish 
 school with living rooms for the members. It has a reading 
 room, a free library, and bookstores. It is a sort of a social 
 center with special reference to Esthonian people. It also 
 maintains a free asylum for Esthonian girls. 
 
 Another of the Imperial family to become inter- 
 ested in the temperance reform was Grand Duke Con- 
 stantine Constantinovich, uncle of the Tsar. He is 
 the president of the All-Russian Working Union of 
 Christians (supra), and it was partly through his in- 
 fluence that the Tsar abolished the vodka monopoly. 
 Unlike some of the Russian magnates, Constantine 
 advocates total abstinence. The Grand Duke is prac- 
 
 166 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 tically the sole owner and autocrat of the city of 
 Pavlovsk (pertaining to Paul), which was, in 1913, 
 practically the only “dry” city of Russia. The city 
 of 5,000 people is located about five miles south of 
 Tsarskoe Selo, the home of the Tsar. The property 
 was formerly owned by Tsar Paul, son of Catherine 
 the Great. Drinking places in Pavlovsk are forbidden 
 by direction of the Grand Duke. It was his aim to 
 run the place as a “Prohibition city,” and he succeed- 
 ed so far as his jurisdiction went. But the railway 
 department of the Russian government, much to the 
 disgust of the Duke, put a drinking bar in the Pavlovsk 
 government railway station and the government liquor 
 monopoly opened a sort of a “speakeasy” just outside 
 of the city limits. Thus Pavlovsk became a dry city 
 with these two important exceptions. 
 
 It is a curious fact and significant of the complex 
 and contradictory character of the Russian govern- 
 ment and people that, while these gigantic temperance 
 enterprises were being conducted under the patronage 
 of members of the Imperial family, and largely under 
 subsidies of the Russian government, that other 
 agencies of the same government were working in 
 precisely the opposite direction. Mr. Eleonsky, in his 
 story. Fighting for Temperance, tells of a country 
 clergyman, Father Paul. The bishop of the diocese 
 in which Father Paul’s parish happened to be, obey- 
 ing a circular of the Holy Synod, sent out orders to 
 his subordinates to fight the great evil. Father Paul, 
 with the aid of the village head, persuaded the com- 
 munity to petition the government for the removal of 
 the vodka stores from their district. When the petition 
 reached the local Superintendent of the Monopoly De- 
 partment, trouble straightway began. An official was 
 sent to Father Paul’s parish to investigate the case, 
 
 167 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 and he discovered the “conspiracy” of the clergyman 
 and the village head. A few days later, Father Paul 
 received a warning from the Bishop henceforth not to 
 interfere in the affairs of the village community, and 
 “in the question of temperance to limit himself ex- 
 clusively to moral persuasion, taking good care to 
 keep the same in agreement with the Christian doc- 
 trines ; and should the complaint be repeated, a stricter 
 punishment would be accorded to him.” 
 
 But, fortunately, these attempts at repression 
 were sporadic and not general throughout the Empire. 
 Those having the conduct of the monopoly did what 
 they could to discourage these efforts, but other in- 
 fluences were at work, continually adding strength to 
 the opposition. Moreover, the government Bureau of 
 Popular Temperance, which had general direction of 
 the numerous temperance committees throughout the 
 country, began doing some real valuable work. The 
 maximum of effort for this bureau was reached during 
 the year 1905, when 70,700 lectures were given under 
 its auspices in 6,716 towns and villages. These lec- 
 tures were attended by 7,400,000 persons during the 
 year. Granted that these lectures were not all very 
 radical in their temperance utterances, it is incon- 
 ceivable that they should not have produced a pro- 
 found impression. 
 
 In December, 1909, and January, 1910, the first 
 All Russian Congress to Combat the Drink Evil was 
 held at Petrograd, which gave a still further impetus 
 to the anti-alcohol movement. This congress was 
 widely attended by both conservatives and radicals. 
 In order to take part in it, Russian trades unionists 
 organized themselves into workmen’s development 
 clubs, printing ten thousand question lists for investi- 
 
 168 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 gation among Petrograd workmen to gather informa- 
 tion as to conditions of labor and drink.’’' 
 
 With the establishment of the Duma, all eyes 
 were turned to that body, but not until the third 
 Duma did the temperance question receive serious 
 attention. On December 20, 1907, the Duma passed 
 a resolution expressing the hope that the government 
 would restrict the sale of alcohol in the famine-stricken 
 districts. The subject was discussed again in 1908, 
 1911 and 1912. In the last-named year a Commission 
 was appointed to inquire and report. Three of its 
 recommendations were finally adopted, the most im- 
 portant of which were (i) the reduction of the alco- 
 holic strength of vodka from 40 per cent to 37 per 
 cent, and (2) the decision to call the attention of the 
 clergy to the evils of alcoholism. 
 
 On May 24, 1913, during the debates on the 
 budget in the Imperial Duma, the management of the 
 alcohol monopoly came in for fierce criticism. One 
 member, I. N. Tuliakov, in the debate, said; 
 
 “The present Minister of the Interior in conversation with 
 a French journalist explained that the drunkenness, exploited 
 by our Government, is a result of the severe climate of our 
 country. However, the fundamental reason which brings the 
 Russian people to the vodka evil is not the climate, but poverty, 
 oppression, lack of justice, dreadfully long hours of labor, low 
 pay, terrible housing conditions, the arbitrary rule of the police, 
 the trampling under foot of the human personality, regular and 
 systematic famines. The condition of laborers in the enter- 
 prises controlled by the ministry of finance is not better and 
 sometimes even worse than in private enterprises.” 
 
 In the course of the same debates another mem- 
 ber of the Duma, Prof. Levashev, spoke as follows : 
 
 “Even from the point of view of our fiscal system it is obvi- 
 ously dangerous to rest contented with a budget based primarily 
 
 *Gordon, The Anti-Alcohol Movement in Europe, p. 162. 
 
 169 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 upon receipts from alcohol. It is clear that only that tax can 
 grow progressively which is based upon a gradual increase of the 
 productive powers of the country. An increase of profits from 
 a Government vodka monopoly can be considered as merely tem- 
 porary. For this growth goes hand in hand with a devastation 
 of our villages, with a full disorganization of the fundamental 
 industry of our people, the agriculture, and with a constantly 
 increasing poverty.” 
 
 Another member, Prince S. P. Mansirev, also de- 
 nounced the alcohol monopoly in a spirited speech 
 from the tribune :* He said : 
 
 “In the Government of Liefland there are vodka stores that 
 bring to land owners upon whose property they are situated a 
 net annual profit of 6,000 roubles and more. It is disgusting to 
 see a millionaire rob poor workingmen of their last pennies, 
 which he puts into his own pocket, but it is shameful to behold 
 our own Minister of Finance trudging along behind such 
 worthies.” 
 
 During the debate, so much mockery was made of 
 the policy of the government in gathering its revenues 
 from the vodka monopoly and then making appro- 
 priations for the promotion of temperance that the 
 Duma decided to cut down by 500,000 roubles the esti- 
 mates of the government for the temperance propa- 
 ganda. 
 
 In 1904, the Russian Congress of IMedical Men 
 met at Petrograd to discuss medical and sanitary 
 questions. It was not at all a temperance organiza- 
 tion, but it is difficult to probe into such problems 
 without encountering the alcohol problem. The tem- 
 perance question was discussed informally but earn- 
 estly by the Medical Congress, with the result that 
 they passed the following resolutions ; 
 
 *The speeches in the Duma are not made from the seats of 
 the members as in American Legislative bodies, but from the 
 “tribune,” a sort of a pulpit arranged for the purpose. 
 
 170 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 “The spirit monopoly not only does not check alcoholism in 
 Russia, but it actually favors its growth, because of its value in 
 filling the coffers of the state. 
 
 “An active and successful conflict against alcoholism, which 
 is in Russia a social evil of the first magnitude, is only possible 
 if we had full guarantees of liberty for our persons and words, 
 and freedom of the press and public meetings. 
 
 “It is only under these conditions that it would be possible 
 to spread widely among the people instruction as to the injury 
 caused by alcoholism, and the real causes of its development.” 
 
 There was plenty of trouble waiting for the doc- 
 tors who had the temerity to criticize a government 
 institution. Dr. Kelnyck is authority* for the state- 
 ment that several of the participating physicians were 
 punished by being transported to Siberia. 
 
 The year 1913 was a most notable one in the his- 
 tory of the temperance cause in Russia. The ele- 
 ments of reform had acquired such strength among 
 the people as well as among the powers in Petrograd 
 that they could, without fear of reprisals from the 
 monopoly authorities, investigate the drink troubles 
 and speak and write freely. It was noised about, for 
 instance, that the government had established through- 
 out the nation one monopoly vodka shop for every 264 
 versts and one temperance committee for every 1,722 
 versts. The incongruity of that situation, from a tem- 
 perance standpoint, was apparent even to a mujik. 
 The monopoly was openly attacked from many sources. 
 In a paper read before the International Anti-Alcohol 
 Congress at Milan, Italy, in September, 1913, Imperial 
 Councillor Nicholas de Cramer showed that, in the 
 year 1906, there was one registered drunkard to 16,962 
 inhabitants in Paris, to 1,020 inhabitants in Vienna, 
 329 inhabitants in Berlin, and to every 25 inhabitants 
 in Petrograd. Moreover, in the same paper, Mr. 
 
 171 
 
 *Drink Problem, p. 255. 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Cramer directly attacked one of the fundamentals of 
 the monopoly system, that of its temperance pre- 
 tentions. He said : 
 
 “It is a grave error if one thinks that amusements and 
 recreation can win people away from the public house, and that 
 drunkenness can be checked by theatrical performances and park 
 concerts, for, first, elements little developed spiritually gain 
 nothing in good taste from a course of pleasures; and second, 
 pleasures, in and of themselves, are able neither to arouse the 
 will nor to strengthen it — the will, which above all is necessary 
 for the weak, characterless man in his fight with the injurious 
 habit” 
 
 Not only did individuals investigate, but govern- 
 ment bureaus and city and local authorities probed 
 into the problem. Official investigations showed that 
 in the village schools of the government Saratov 79 
 per cent of the boys and 48^^ per cent of the girls 
 habitually drink vodka. In the government of Pskov 
 the percentage was 83 and 68. During the eighteen 
 years of the government vodka monopoly, 84,217 
 deaths were registered as immediate results of drunk- 
 en bouts, these figures being far below the real ones, 
 as in numerous vast districts in Russia there are 
 neither hospitals, doctors nor any other authority for 
 registering cases of death or their causes. 
 
 An inquiry on the subject was made in the schools 
 of Ekaterinodar. Out of 5,721 pupils, it was found 
 that 63 per cent drank. Of these 2,500, 25 per cent 
 had taken to drink at the age of eight, 20 per cent at 
 seven, and ii per cent at six, while many of them, it 
 is shocking to state, had made the acquaintance of 
 alcohol at the age of four. 
 
 It was shown that, in many of the distilleries, 
 school children are employed in different capacities. 
 Very often their pay consists partly in money and 
 partly in alcohol. In the Krasninskj" canton, of the 
 
 172 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 Government of Smolensk, a local doctor examined the 
 children working in spirits distilleries and found that 
 they receive quantities of alcohol as a part of their 
 pay. In four schools of the canton, the children, thus 
 made chronic drunkards, form 28 per cent of the total 
 number of pupils. In Krapvensk, where the school 
 and the distillery are in very close proximity, the 
 number of children receiving alcohol for their work 
 is almost 55 per cent of the number of pupils in the 
 school. 
 
 When the discovery was communicated to the 
 zemstvo assembly, its members decided at first that 
 the matter is “outside of their jurisdiction,” and 
 should therefore be let alone. Finally, however, they 
 drew up an appeal to the people, pointing out the in- 
 jurious effects of alcohol upon the child’s organism. 
 To this appeal was appended the opinion of the as- 
 sembly as to the desirability of government regulation 
 for the punishment of persons “who give alcoholic 
 drinks to children.” But even here the assembly did 
 not deem it wise to come out directly with an accusa- 
 tion against the distillers, who were guilty of the re- 
 volting crime. 
 
 The town council of Moscow made an official 
 investigation and ascertained that of thfe adults ad- 
 dicted to drink, 90 per cent learned to drink while 
 at school. It further established the fact that of 
 the 18,134 schoolboys of the Moscow government be- 
 tween the ages of 8 and 13, 12,153, or 66 per cent, 
 had taken to drink. It found that out of 10,404 school 
 girls of the same ages, 4,733, or 45 per cent, had taken 
 to drink. 
 
 With such appalling facts staring the people in 
 the face, results for the better began to appear in 
 rapid succession. People and local authorities all over 
 
 173 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the Empire had been petitioning Petrograd for the 
 closing of the government vodka shops. True, under 
 the existing law, the local authorities had author- 
 ity to close up private shops, but they had no such 
 control over the government monopoly establish- 
 ments. There was nothing to be gained, therefore, in 
 forbidding the private shops which paid them a reve- 
 nue when the government stores continued, which 
 paid them no revenue. Under the old orders of the 
 Minister of Finance (June 25, 1898), applications of 
 local authorities for the closing of monopoly shops 
 were to be refused, except in unusual cases near army 
 barracks or near great industrial plants in which 
 the superficial government or influential corporations 
 might be more or less directly interested. The idea 
 of efficiency was beginning to take root. The gov- 
 ernment began to get glimpses of the advantage of 
 safeguarding industry and government manufacturing 
 concerns from the ravages occasioned by the monop- 
 oly vodka. 
 
 Under the new orders of September i, 1913, the 
 Minister of Finance directed the superintendents of 
 excise tax districts to “satisfy the demands of rural 
 communities that the sale of alcoholic drinks be for- 
 bidden in their districts and that the vodka stores 
 already existing there be removed.” Many places im- 
 mediately began acting upon the suggestion. Rostov- 
 on-the-Don entered upon the prohibition policy. At 
 Warsaw, great supplies of vodka were destroyed, the 
 fire brigade assisting in the destruction. Vilna, Vlad- 
 imir and the holy city of Kiev got up great petitions 
 for dry cities, the petitions being headed by the mu- 
 nicipal governments. Ivanovo-Voznesensk came un- 
 der the prohibition policy. In some districts, the 
 governor took an active part in stirring up the people 
 
 174 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 along temperance lines. Lieutenant Governor Bab- 
 itch, of the Kubansk Territory and Commander of the 
 Kubansk Cossacks,* issued an order, f dated March 
 27, 1913 (No. 121), exhorting the people to abstain 
 and calling upon the local administrative bodies to 
 use the “harshest” measures to eliminate the evil. 
 
 *“Cossack” is a Tartar word originally meaning “robber,” 
 but it now has no such meaning. It is applied to certain Tartar 
 tribes, loyal to the crown and who are great fighters. 
 
 fThe text of this “order” read : 
 
 ORDER ISSUED FOR THE KUBANSK TERRITORY BY 
 THE GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY AND COM- 
 MANDER OF THE KUBANSK COSSACKS. 
 
 Issued March 27, 1913, at the City of Ekaterinodar. — No. 121. 
 
 The data gathered by the Territorial Administration have 
 established the fact that during the year 1912 the monopoly 
 vodka stores, situated at the populated points of the Kubansk 
 Territory, sold 2,153,906 vedro of monopoly vodka (whisky). 
 Taking the lowest estimate of the price of a vedro of vodka 
 viz., 8 r. 40 kop., we find that during the one year, 1912, the 
 population of the territory spent for the monopoly vodka alone 
 18,092,894 r. 40 kop. Assuming that approximately as much was 
 spent for beer, vodka, liqueurs and other imported drinks, we 
 come to the conclusion that during one year the population of 
 the territory spent almost 40,000,000 r. for drink. 
 
 The figures given above show clearly how deeply drunken- 
 ness is enrooted in the population. 
 
 Let me remind you, Cossacks and other inhabitants of the 
 territory entrusted to me, that drunkenness is a terrible evil. 
 It impairs the material welfare not only of whole communities, 
 but also of separate families. It aids the development of crime 
 and other offenses against public morals, of horse-thieving, 
 thefts, murders, riots and other vices. It creates family dis- 
 cords, aids the spreading of different diseases, and what is 
 more dreadful than anything else, it leads to a gradual degenera- 
 tion of the population. This terrible evil, the drunkenness, is 
 fostered not only by the presence of the institutions, conducive 
 to its development, but in part it is due to the deep-rooted and 
 widely established habit of the people to celebrate by drinking 
 every occasion, whether sad or joyous, of their public or family 
 
 175 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 It was in this historic year (1913) that the vodka 
 ration in the Imperial Navy was abolished, and soon 
 after the sale of vodka was prohibited in the restau- 
 rants attached to all government works and institu- 
 tions. The sale of vodka is also forbidden in all places 
 of amusement, including theaters, and the legal 
 strength of all vodka sold was reduced to 37 per cent 
 alcohol. 
 
 life. Still another false opinion has taken root in the people, 
 and that is, that whisky strengthens a man, freshens him, stimu- 
 lates him, aids him in convalescence, etc. But you must have 
 noticed from personal experience that exactly the opposite is 
 true. Moreover, careful scientific investigations have shown that 
 the action of alcohol is to stimulate the organism only tempor- 
 arily, and that, after its effects pass away, even greater weakness 
 sets in. 
 
 In order to bring about and to strengthen the welfare and 
 the well-being of the people, it is necessary to inaugurate a most 
 vigorous campaign against this drunkenness, that has developed 
 everywhere, against this most cruel and most powerful foe of 
 mankind, that drains the people of its best juices and poisons 
 away its best powers and tendencies. 
 
 I invite the members of the administrative bodies in the 
 populated districts and all well-intentioned inhabitants to pro- 
 mote among the people more rational ideas concerning the harm 
 of alcoholic drinks, both by the personal example of abstinence 
 and by advice and instruction. 
 
 On my part, I shall assist in every way permitted me by the 
 law, all undertakings on the part of communities or private indi- 
 viduals, tending to decrease drunkenness. At the same time, 
 I enjoin upon all members of the administrative bodies to take 
 the harshest measures for the elimination of unlicensed sale of 
 alcoholic drinks and to lend the greatest possible aia in tu.s 
 direction to the different temperance societies and their indi- 
 vidual members. 
 
 This order must be read at the full village, hamlet and 
 stanitza assemblies. 
 
 Governor of the Territory and Commander of 
 the Kubansk Cossacks. 
 
 Lieutenant-General Babitch. 
 
 176 
 
THE IMPERIAL DUMA. PETROGRAD 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 The Holy Synod had taken up the combat against 
 alcohol in the previous year (1912) with more zeal 
 than it had ever shown before. It was ordered that 
 August 29, St. John the Baptist’s day, be set apart in 
 all the churches as “temperance day,” on which special 
 temperance services are to be held, processions are to 
 march through the streets and warnings are to be 
 given to the people against drink. During the year, 
 the Synod called a conference of all practical church 
 workers to consider the temperance question. As the 
 Synod shares in the profits of the alcohol monopoly 
 to the extent of about 14,000,000 roubles per year, the 
 conference, at the start, was forbidden* to criticize 
 that institution. The conference, nevertheless, rec- 
 ommended the establishment of a permanent “Rus- 
 sian Brotherhood of Temperance,” and organizing of 
 monasteries for combating alcoholism. It “recom- 
 mended to the clergy to couple its care for temper- 
 ance with efforts to encourage the development of co- 
 operative institutions in the different parishes.” 
 Further, “the conference deemed it desirable to peti- 
 tion the government for a subsidy for the church tem- 
 perance organizations.” On November i, 1912, the 
 Synod approved these recommendations and decided 
 to put to actual application those of the resolutions, 
 the execution of which comes within the scope of the 
 Synod’s jurisdiction, and to recommend, through its 
 Procurator, the other resolutions to the departments, 
 within whose jurisdiction they happen to fall. 
 
 Another point was won during the year 1913. On 
 the previous year, the management of the Alexis Pub- 
 lic House of Moscow (supra) had petitioned the Tsar 
 for a system of scientific temperance instruction in the 
 
 *Vestnik Tresvosti. No. 225, p. 17. 
 
 177 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 public schools. This, in 1913, was granted. A system 
 of special instruction in the evils of alcohol was adopt- 
 ed, the use of which is obligatory upon all educa- 
 tional establishments in the Empire, and the Imperial 
 Educational Committee entrusted the work of com- 
 piling the necessary text books for use in the lower 
 and higher schools and colleges to the celebrated Rus- 
 sian physician, Dr. Mendelssohn, of Petrograd.* 
 
 In this agitation, one of the principal defenders 
 of the monopoly system was M. Louis Skarzynski, a 
 functionary of the Russian monopoly, and who at- 
 tended as a delegate from the Russian government 
 several of the International Anti-Alcohol Congresses. 
 In 1907 he visited the temperance gathering at Stock- 
 holm, on which occasion he attacked the comparative 
 statistics of insurance companies as to abstinence, 
 using for his purpose the figures of Isambart Owen, 
 who allied himself with the brewers’ papers for thirty 
 years and who is not quoted any more, even by the 
 liquor men themselves. 
 
 In 1909 M. Skarzynski visited the United States 
 to gather data of the failure of prohibition in this 
 country. On his return he published in a statistical 
 report a caricature on prohibition states. He attacked 
 everything in the way of reform that did not involve 
 selling liquor, and was one of the leading spirits of 
 the conference held at Paris, January 27, 1913, to 
 organize what became known as the International Com- 
 mittee for the Scientific Study of the Liquor Question, 
 and which has headquarters at 63 Rue Galilee, Paris. 
 This is a concern of men largely identified with the 
 manufacture of liquor and who seek to find a way to 
 
 ’"Frances E. H. Palmer, autlior Russian Life in Town and 
 Country, in Alliance News, (Manchester, Eng.) July, 9, 1914. 
 
 178 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 solve the drink problem without interfering with the 
 sale of drink. 
 
 All this prepared the way for the stirring con- 
 test in the Council of the Empire that took place 
 early in 1914. The contest was occasioned by the in- 
 troduction of a bill providing for excise reforms. This 
 bill has an interesting history back of it. During the 
 first sessions of the Third Duma, Michael Dimitrie- 
 vich Tschelishev, a member of the Duma, introduced a 
 bill providing for drink reforms. Among other reforms 
 the bill provided for the enlargement of the smal- 
 lest bottle in which spirits were sold, greater privi- 
 leges of local option, limitation of the time of sale of 
 intoxicants. The Duma committee that had the bill 
 under consideration added several new features. The 
 amendments proposed by the committee provided for 
 rewards to be granted for the discovery of illicit traf- 
 fic in intoxicants, for prohibition of sale of drinks on 
 railroad stations, steamers, etc., for permission to 
 women to take part in discussions leading to a peti- 
 tion for local prohibition, for the removal from the 
 label of the vodka bottles of the Imperial coat-of- 
 arms and substitution in its place of information con- 
 cerning the harm of alcohol. Most of these amend- 
 ments were accepted by the Duma. 
 
 In December, 1911, the bill went to the Council 
 of the Empire and was referred to a special com- 
 mittee, where it remained for two years. Its intro- 
 duction for discussion in the Council on January 10, 
 1914, was the occasion for the contest. The Duma 
 bill left the Council committee so changed that it was 
 scarcely recognizable. The participation of women 
 in discussions of the question of alcohol was not al- 
 lowed. The rest of the provisions, e. g., concerning 
 
 179 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 the size of bottles, the percentage of pure alcohol, etc., 
 were changed.* 
 
 Still the bill contained a local veto feature as to 
 government monopoly shops as well as to private 
 concerns. This proposal, which became the principal 
 point at issue, is thus stated by Nicholas de Cramer, 
 a member of the Council : 
 
 “To the village communities the right is given to pass 
 ordinances through which in the course of three j'ears, in the 
 territory of the village or municipality, every sale of brandy, 
 wine or beer, or of brandy and beer only, will be forbidden. 
 After three years the prohibition of sale can be renewed for 
 another three years. In the vote of the community members, 
 the wives and mothers of those having the property qualifica- 
 tion take part. Force of law upholds the enactment through a 
 two-thirds majority. A special magisterial ratification of the 
 enactment is not necessary and the same can only be attacked 
 on formal grounds. The places for selling drink must be closed 
 on January first of the year following the enactment.” 
 
 The fight in the Council lasted for several weeks, 
 occupying in all fourteen sessions. During the heat 
 of the controversy, Petrograd newspapers published 
 the names of 24 members of the Council, including 
 the president of the body, M. G. Akimov, who were 
 actually the owners of estates on which distilleries 
 were located. The total amount of alcohol produced 
 at the distilleries owned either by members of the Im- 
 perial Council themselves, or by their near relations, 
 is 1,389,376 vedro (3,751,215 gal.) In addition, it was 
 shown that numerous other members of the Council 
 were financially interested in many other ways in 
 perpetuating the monopoly. 
 
 At the first session of the Council at which the 
 liquor traffic was discussed (February, 1914), the 
 special committee to consider the alcohol problem re- 
 
 *Reitch (Petrograd), Jan. ir, igi4. 
 
 180 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 ported a measure falling far short of the requirements 
 of the temperance people. In supporting the commit- 
 tee proposal, its chairman, M. Zinoviev, urged that it 
 would be a serious mistake to sacrifice the economic 
 interests of the country by the suppression of alcohol. 
 At this point, the famous Sergius Julevich Witte came 
 into the debate. His furious attack upon the monop- 
 oly attracted international attention, largely because 
 of the fact that it was through his own efforts, as 
 Minister of Finance, that the monopoly was adopted 
 20 years before. Responding to the report of the 
 committee, Mr. Witte said, in part : 
 
 “As I have already had occasion to remark, the Spirits 
 Monopoly was introduced as a means of suppressing the then 
 existing inordinate consumption of alcoholic drinks of the most 
 harmful kind. In the eighties of the last century, when, just 
 as at the present time, Russia was under the destructive influ- 
 ence of alcoholism, different committees, among them the so- 
 called ‘Drink Parliament,’ were organized for the purpose of 
 finding means for combating the great national evil. 
 
 “These committees accomplished 
 nothing, and it was then decided that 
 the crudest instrument which can be 
 used either for torturing the body 
 and spirit of a nation, or for guard- 
 ing the people from human weak- 
 nesses, should be taken by the gov- 
 ernment from the hands of the 
 owners of the alcohol capital. It 
 was decided to introduce a govern- 
 ment spirits monopoly. 
 
 “The new system was begun to 
 be introduced in 1893, s-nd by 1903, 
 when I ceased to be the Minister of 
 Finance, it was in operation prac- 
 tically all over Russia. 
 
 “From the fiscal point of view, 
 the new reform was thoroughly satis- 
 factory. . . . But the chief object of the reform was not the 
 
 3A KyJIHCAMH EOPbBU. 
 
 tpuUoa n Toe. Oertrt t Oopun n OMMTMm.) 
 
 Cartoon from Russian pa- 
 per illustrating the fight 
 between the bill and the 
 bottle. 
 
 181 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 strengthening of the alcohol economy, but the suppression of the 
 great national evil, the alcoholism. In this respect the reform 
 has thus far given but negative results. 
 
 “How did this come about? During the period of the in- 
 troduction of the monopoly, i. e., prior to 1904, most of the 
 official and non-official reports of our press bore witness to 
 the fact that with the introduction of the monopoly drunkenness 
 began to assume a more decent character. But scarcely had the 
 monopoly been introduced when the war broke out, followed by 
 the internal troubles. The picture began to change rapidly. 
 The real object of the reform, the suppression of alcoholism, 
 was pushed to the rear, and the object of the monopoly became 
 the pumping of the people’s money into the government treasurj-. 
 
 “Together with the Monopoly, three laws were introduced, 
 calculated to combat the alcohol evil. One referred to the estab- 
 lishment of temperance committees, the second provided for a 
 punishment for the violation of the Monopoly law, and the third 
 provided for a punishment for drunkenness. 
 
 “These were merely test laws, imperfect as they were. . . . 
 Even to the present day these laws are executed very perfunc- 
 torily, merely as a matter of form. 
 
 “During the war, owing to a great need of money, a special 
 stress was laid upon deriving large profits from the Spirits 
 Monopoly. From the fiscal point of view, this ‘stress’ gave 
 excellent results. The receipts of the Monopoly have almost 
 doubled since 1904, having increased by 500,000,000 roubles. 
 
 “In order to emphasize the meaning of this sum, a half- 
 billion roubles, by which the receipts for alcohol increased dur- 
 ing the last decade, suffice it to say that the total present budget 
 of the Ministry of Public Education is only about 160,000,000 
 roubles, i. e., less than one-third of this increase. 
 
 “. . . . Moreover, while the receipts from the sale of 
 whisky have increased by almost a half-billion, the microscopic 
 means, devoted to the maintenance of the temperance commit- 
 tees, 4,000,000 roubles at the beginning, have not only not in- 
 creased during the last decade, correspondingly with the increase 
 in the receipts of the treasury, but, on the contrary, have dimin 
 ished to 2,500,000 roubles. 
 
 “For political reasons many reading-rooms, tea-rooms, and 
 even several committees themselves, were abolished. The 
 prosecution of the clandestine alcohol traffic has been conducted 
 very inefficiently, owing to the insufficiency of means. As a 
 
 182 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 consequence, this traffic has developed enormously. Drunkards, 
 either already drunk or drinking right in the street, form an 
 ordinary occurrence of our city life. They serve as an object 
 for indifference on the part of the police, and for sport on the 
 part of the children. There are no special quarters for ine- 
 briates at the police stations even of our capital cities. 
 
 “Finally came the year 1907. Officially, ‘peace’ was restored 
 in the country. During the seven years that have gone by since 
 then, many changes have taken place in the wide world. Two 
 European kingdoms have been formed, the great Chinese Em- 
 pire has been transformed into a republic ; blood has flown free- 
 ly in the awakened Balkans; England and America have passed 
 legislation changing fundamentally their financial and economic 
 systems; the Panama Canal has been opened, etc., etc. 
 
 “But what have we done for the suppression of alcoholism, 
 the great evil that corrupts and destroys the Russian people? 
 
 “Absolutely nothing. As a result of our utter lack of activ- 
 ity in the direction of combating the evil of alcoholism, we are 
 confronted by a new evil, the so-called ‘Hooliganism.’ Hooligan- 
 ism is a legitimate child of alcoholism. We are already begin- 
 ning to frame laws against this new monster, but it seems to 
 me that the only sensible way of decreasing Hooliganism is to 
 cast aside our indifference to the nation-wide epidemic of drunk- 
 enness that holds our country in its grip.” 
 
 Count Witte then discussed the relation of the 
 monopoly receipts to the Russian budget, showing 
 that the money thus received forms 26 per cent of the 
 total revenue. He proved, by official statistics, that 
 the profits of the transaction not only covered the 
 enormous deficit produced by the war, but had also 
 already built up a surplus of almost 500,000,000 
 roubles. He continued : 
 
 “Even if we take into consideration the increase of popula- 
 tion since 1904, and assume that, owing to a vigorous activity 
 on the part of the government and the different societies, the 
 increase of the expenditure for drink would not exceed that of 
 the population, then at the present time, instead of a surplus 
 of over a half-billion, we would have a deficit of over 700,- 
 000,000 roubles. 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 “From the data that I have presented to you, you can sec 
 what part the profits of the Spirits Monopoly play in our fiscal 
 economy. This, it seems to me, explains the phenomenon that 
 fiery speeches are made against the great national evil of alco- 
 holism at any time except during the discussion of the govern- 
 ment budget. 
 
 “But if the past of alcoholism appears dark and gloomy, the 
 future of the great evil appears even darker to me.” 
 
 Here Count Witte entered into another financial 
 discussion, showing how the constant growth of the 
 international armaments necessitates a rapid increase 
 of the war budgets and how this fact alone may re- 
 duce to nothing the “sincerest” desire to suppress the 
 great evil of alcoholism. He concluded as follows; 
 
 “In view of the above, and as matters stand at present, if 
 you really wish to combat the great national evil of alcoholism, 
 and if you wish to pass measures not for the monetary self- 
 gratification, or as a matter of evasion, you should adopt the 
 following measures, which I propose to you, after having given 
 the subject careful and elaborate consideration: 
 
 “First of all it is necessary to disarm the tempter, the 
 Mephistopheles of our fiscal budget repertory, to cut down the 
 receipts from alcohol, so that there would be no temptation to 
 increase them for the purpose of balancing the budget and 
 building up the surplus. 
 
 “Let us say that the total gross receipts from the sale of 
 alcohol should not exceed 545,000,000 roubles, the figure at which 
 they stood in 1904, immediately after the introduction of the 
 Monopoly. Increase this sum to correspond to the growth of 
 our population during this decade to, say, 670,000,000, and, finally, 
 fix the receipts from this source at 700,000,000 roubles. Any 
 surplus, over and above this sum, should not enter into the 
 government revenues, but should be devoted to the organizations 
 established for combating the evil of alcoholism. 
 
 “It may be expected that in time there would be no such 
 surpluses, provided that, in the making of our budget, we would 
 not be interested in a constant increase of liquor profits at the 
 expense of corrupting the people by means of alcohol. 
 
 “I know that it may be objected that the fixing of the liquor 
 receipts would be an extraordinary measure. That is true, but 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 surely extraordinary evils necessitate extraordinary measures. 
 
 “A government that realizes its duty before the people is 
 not unwilling to adopt extraordinary measures in economic and 
 financial matters. The Reichstag did not hesitate before levying 
 an enormous military tax upon the whole of Germany. The 
 British and the American parliaments did not hesitate before 
 overturning the whole century-old economic-financial policy for 
 the good of the people. These measures are ultra-extraordinary, 
 iconoclastic from the point of view of finance book doctrinar- 
 ianism. 
 
 “And if, in disarming Mephistohpeles, the revenues will de- 
 crease, cover them by normal means, by additional tax levies, 
 and by open and not secret government loans, for which pur- 
 pose you must extract from the depths of the Taurida Palace 
 the bills providing for new taxes, which have been reposing there 
 for the last eight years. 
 
 “Then make proper appropriations for a prosecution of the 
 clandestine traffic in alcoholic drinks, for a suppression of street 
 alcoholism, for the prosecution of the violators of the law. 
 Use millions of roubles, and not a few paltry kopeks, for the 
 maintenance of institutions, devoted to these ends, with their 
 necessary personnel, miserably small at present; for the mainte- 
 nance of temperance committees. 
 
 “Only by adopting such measures can you decrease drunk- 
 enness, or at least arrest its further growth. 
 
 “As for the bill under consideration at present, I must say 
 that, under the existing conditions, I do not believe in its 
 effectiveness. 
 
 “Even if, after the long trip which the bill has before it, 
 it will emerge without undergoing very great injuries, it will 
 finally, unless followed by other extraordinary measures, be 
 classed among the laws which may be filed in a library and 
 labeled ‘An Attempt With Inefficient Means.’ ’’ 
 
 The principal reply to Witte was that of Finance 
 Minister Kokovtsov, who defended his monopoly ad- 
 ministration, and who was supported in his forensic 
 attempt by several distillers. But the war of words 
 centered around the two giants, Witte and Kokov- 
 tsov. The temperance people failed in their complete 
 ambitions, but an excise reform measure, with some 
 
 185 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 provisions for local option, was adopted by the Coun- 
 cil in the course of the fourteen sessions devoted to 
 the bill, and the fragmentary provisions were sent to 
 the State Chancellory for final codification. On Feb- 
 ruary 26 the codified bill was sent to the Duma for 
 reconsideration.* While Witte failed in his main 
 contention, yet in the masterly attack that he made 
 upon the monopoly, he wrote the political death war- 
 rant of its sponsor, M. Kokovtsov, and gave the mo- 
 nopoly itself a stab in the vitals from which it never 
 recovered. 
 
 Another factor of trouble arose at this period to 
 plague the monopoly, in the form of a “man of the 
 people.” Michael Dimitrievich Tschelishev, also a 
 member of the Duma. Tschelishev was born of poor 
 parents in a small village in the Volga country. He 
 was self-educated. Later he removed to Samara, 
 where he now lives. He engaged in trade and became 
 wealthy, but he is so intensely Russian that, wherever 
 he goes, he wears the national Russian garb, a blue 
 blouse, with tasseled girdle and baggy, black breeches 
 tucked away in top boots. Tschelishev first became 
 interested in the temperance question through an 
 anti-alcohol book given him by a mujik. After 
 Tschelishev became an alderman of Samara, one of 
 his tenants, while drunk, killed his wife. Thereupon 
 Tschelishev began his great fight against the vodka 
 which caused such things. I will allow him to relate 
 the essence of the first part of his contest in his own 
 words : 
 
 “On the supposition that the government was selling vodka 
 for the revenue, I calculated the revenue received from its con- 
 sumption in Samara. I then introduced a bill in the city coun- 
 cil providing that the city give this sum of money to the imperial 
 
 *“ Reitch” (Petrograd), February 27, 1914. 
 
 186 
 
THE GREAT FIGHT FOR REFORMS 
 
 treasury, requesting at the same time that the sale of vodka be 
 prohibited. This bill passed and the money was appropriated. 
 It was offered to the government, but the government promptly 
 refused it. 
 
 “It then dawned upon me that Russian bureaucracy did not 
 want the people to become sober, for the reason that it was 
 easier to rule autocratically a drunken mob than a sober people. 
 
 “This was seven years ago. Later I was elected mayor of 
 Samara, capital of the Volga district, a district with over a 
 quarter of a million inhabitants. Subsequently I was elected to 
 the Duma on an anti-vodka platform. In the Duma I proposed 
 a bill permitting the inhabitants of any town to close the local 
 vodka shops, and providing also that every bottle of vodka 
 should bear a label with the word poison. At my request the 
 wording of this label, in which the evils of vodka were set forth, 
 was done by the late Count Leo Tolstoi. This bill passed the 
 Duma and went to the Imperial Council, where it was amended 
 and finally tabled.”* 
 
 In his efforts to get the Duma to adopt his 
 “poison” law, his principal opponent was M. Kokov- 
 stov, the Minister of Finance, who objected against 
 any interference with drink on fiscal grounds. The very 
 character of this argument only intensified the ardor 
 of Deputy Tschelishev to overthrow the vodka monop- 
 oly itself. How this was finally accomplished is 
 shown in the concluding chapter. 
 
 *-The New York Times Current History of the War; Vol. L, 
 No. 5, p. 832. 
 
 187 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 lHROUGHOUT the various de- 
 bates in the Duma during 1913, 
 M. Kokovtsov, Minister of Fi- 
 nance, was the center of attack. 
 He was accused of manipulating the 
 vodka monopoly for purely fiscal pur- 
 poses and ignoring the philanthropic 
 side of the institution. In his defense 
 he provided additional ammunition for 
 the temperance people by urging only 
 the financial needs of the country. 
 When any attempt was made to devise 
 measures for the diminution of drunk- 
 enness, Kokovtsov would oppose, al- 
 ways for fiscal reasons. In pressing this 
 claim to such an extreme, the Finance 
 Minister dug his own political grave. 
 Nothing is more popular in Russia than schemes of 
 philanthropy and social betterment. And when Ko- 
 kovtsov uniformly opposed such movements for finan- 
 cial reasons, he placed himself politically on the 
 wrong side of the debate. 
 
 The stirring events of 1913 had developed a pow- 
 erful combination against the vodka system. The re- 
 lentless agitation of Tschelishev, the idol of the com- 
 mon people of the entire Volga country, was vigorously 
 supported by Imperial Councillor de Cramer, a power 
 in the Baltic provinces. The temperance teachings of 
 Tolstoi have filtered into the remotest corners of 
 
 189 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Russia. Two of the most powerful members of the 
 Imperial Family itself, the Prince of Oldenburg and 
 Grand Duke Constantine, both uncles of the Tsar, 
 were at the head of the two great temperance move- 
 ments in the Empire. Constantine had established his 
 city of Pavlovsk on prohibition principles only five 
 miles from the home of the Tsar, and his efforts were, 
 in part, thwarted by the monopoly authorities estab- 
 lishing a couple speakeasies, one in the railway sta- 
 tion and one just outside of the Pavlovsk city limits. 
 And, to add to the complexity of the situation, the 
 town council of Moscow and numerous other admin- 
 istrative bodies had conducted official investigations 
 into the drink question, and the results thereof uni- 
 formly much more than confirmed the most radical 
 statements that had been made by the temperance ad- 
 vocates anywhere. Kokovtsov’s only answer to all 
 this was that interference with the situation would 
 affect the national finances. The great newspapers of 
 Petrograd and Moscow were openly and boldly criti- 
 cizing the monopoly, printing cartoons and galling 
 accounts of the “drunken statistics” provided by the 
 vodka authorities. Verily, the elements of a storm 
 were brewing, and conditions were ripe for some kind 
 of a crash, the true Slavic way of doing things. 
 
 In the meantime, the Tsar himself had been con- 
 ducting, in his own way, some personal investigations. 
 He went to Moscow and other provinces, where he 
 observed conditions with his own eyes. Once con- 
 vinced, the Tsar acted swiftly and wdth true Russian 
 vigor. On January 30, 1914, the first great blow fell. 
 The Tsar sent to M. Kokovtsov, Minister of Finance, 
 a polite note thanking him for his services and ex- 
 pressing regret that he was no longer able to continue 
 in the service as Minister. That is the Russian way 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 of dismissing a high official. On the very same day, 
 he summoned Peter L. Bark, a man of Jewish extrac- 
 tion, and appointed him as the successor of Kokovtsov. 
 And in a rescript* dated the same day, the Tsar out- 
 lined an altogether new policy as to the management 
 of the vodka monopoly. The full text of the rescript 
 was as follows : 
 
 “The journey through several governments of the Great Rus- 
 sia, which I undertook last year with God’s aid, afforded me an 
 opportunity to study directly the vital needs of my people. With 
 great pleasure did I behold the brilliant manifestations of the 
 great creative powers of my people; but, at the same time, with 
 profoundest grief, I saw sorrowful pictures of the people’s help- 
 lessness, of family poverty, of broken-up households and all those 
 inevitable consequences of insobriety and often of toil, that is 
 denied in times of difficulty the monetary aid of a well-regulated 
 and easily accessible credit system. 
 
 “Since then, constantly reflecting upon, and verifying, my 
 impressions and information, I have come to a firm conclusion 
 that there lies upon me a duty, imposed by God and by Russia, to 
 introduce without delay fundamental changes into the manage- 
 ment of the financial and economic problems that confront the 
 country’s government — changes that would work for the good of 
 my beloved people. 
 
 “We cannot make our fiscal prosperity dependent upon the 
 destruction of the spiritual and economic powers of many of my 
 subjects, and therefore it is necessary to direct our financial 
 policy towards seeking government revenues from the unexhaust- 
 ed sources of the country’s wealth and from the creative toil of 
 the people, to seek constantly, while preserving wise economy, to 
 increase the productive powers of the country and to take care 
 of the satisfaction of the people’s needs. 
 
 “Such must be the ends of the desired changes. 
 
 “I am firmly convinced that they must succeed and that they 
 are absolutely necessary for the good of my people, especially 
 since both the Duma and the Imperial Council have turned their 
 attention to these needs of the people by revising our alcohol laws. 
 
 "NICHOLAS.” 
 
 ’*‘A ukase corresponds very closely in its character to an 
 American proclamation. A rescript is the form of instructions to 
 the Ministers and corresponds, in effect, to a statute law. 
 
 191 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Then, as soon as the formalities could be com- 
 pleted, the Minister of the Interior, N. A. Maklakov, 
 sent out instructions to the Governors of the provinces 
 directing that the new order of things be carried out. 
 The text of the Minister’s instructions read : 
 
 “His Imperial Majesty, in a rescript given on January 30, 
 1914, to the Minister of Finance, has chosen to point out that the 
 prosperity of the Russian Treasury must be placed in dependence, 
 not on the devastation of the spiritual and economic powers of 
 the people, but on an increase of its material prosperity and of 
 the productive powers of the people, which should not be under- 
 mined by intemperance. 
 
 “In order to carry out the will expressed in His Majesty’s 
 rescript the police must take measures to limit the abuse of alco- 
 holic drink and to aid all persons and institutions fighting against 
 drunkenness by all means permitted by the law. 
 
 “In issuing this letter I feel certain that the police, realizing 
 its duty and the great importance of this matter, which has re- 
 ceived the gracious attention of the Czar, will zealously attend 
 to the execution of all the government measures which will fol- 
 low a programme dictated by His Imperial Majesty. I am certain 
 that the police will not allow in this matter any technical friction. 
 The whole department must work in unison. A union of all the 
 servants of the Emperor for the realization of this holy purpose 
 will insure its success.”* 
 
 In these sudden and drastic movements, the Ko- 
 kovtsov idea of operating the monopoly as a purely 
 fiscal agency to collect revenue was completely over- 
 thrown. In the future it was to be operated along 
 lines that should discourage rather than encourage 
 drink, in so far as this could be accomplished while 
 operating the monopoly at all. The temperance lead- 
 ers did not, at this time, ask for the immediate aboli- 
 tion of the vodka monopoly. They merely urged that 
 it should be operated in such a manner that the mini- 
 mum of evil should come out of the traffic and that it 
 
 *Sovremennoye Slovo (Petrograd), March, 1914. 
 
 192 
 
NEVSKY PROSPECT. PETROGRAD, THE GOSTINNY DVOR ON THE LEFT 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 should not be used to exploit to the utmost the mis- 
 eries and sufferings of the people. De Cramer repeat- 
 edly stated that if liquor was to be sold at all, it could 
 be sold by the government with the least harm, “pro- 
 vided the government really wished for that result.” 
 This reform in the policy of the government was, 
 therefore, accomplished more than six months before 
 the European war broke out or was even thought of. 
 
 And those who bore the heat and burden of the 
 contest are not forgotten. On January 22 five mem- 
 bers of the Duma, L. P. Zalit, Prince S. P. Mansirev, 
 I. M. Rambot, J. U. Goldman and U. M. Oras, sent 
 a congratulatory telegram to Nicholas de Cramer, 
 member of the Imperial Council, saying: “With a 
 feeling of deep satisfaction we have watched your 
 efforts in the Council of the Empire directed against 
 one of the greatest evils of mankind, alcoholism. In 
 full accord with you, we greet in your person a valiant 
 militant, to whom the prosperity of the people is 
 dearer than the narrow material interests of the nobles 
 of the Baltic provinces. Even if your efforts were 
 not successful, it was surely by no fault of yours. One 
 cannot possibly convince all those who prize most 
 their own material interests.”* 
 
 The reversal of the policy of the government as 
 to the operations of the monopoly brought quick and 
 radical results. During the first six months of 1914, 
 the receipts from the vodka monopoly, as compared 
 with the first six months of 1913, decreased by 2,500,- 
 000 roubles, showing that the previous rapid increase 
 in consumption of the beverage had received a radical 
 check. f Again, the policy of the government in grant- 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (Moscow), Jan. 23, 1915 
 
 fStatement of Finance Minister Bark in the Duma, reported 
 in Novae Vremia (Petrograd), July 27, 1914. 
 
 193 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 ing petitions for the closing of vodka shops had a re- 
 markable effect. During the five months, from Febru- 
 ary I, 1914, to July I, 1914, more than 800 petitions 
 for local prohibition were “satisfied.” During this 
 period, 1,149 liquor shops were closed by prohibition, 
 of which 447 were government monopoly shops and 
 702 were private ones.* The reform was well under 
 way before the outbreak of hostilities. The govern- 
 ment, under Peter L. Bark as Minister of Finance, had 
 begun permitting local option, which had been refused 
 by the Imperial Council in its consideration of the 
 excise reform bill of only a few weeks before. 
 
 When the storm of war broke over Europe in the 
 latter days of July, there came the first steps looking 
 toward the wiping out of the drink traffic in Russia. 
 Simultaneously with the orders for the general mob- 
 ilization of the Russian troops went the order to 
 close, immediately, all vodka, wine and beer shops in 
 the Empire, an exception being made in the case of 
 first-class restaurants. This order was promulgated 
 by Grand Duke Nicholas, Commander-in-Chief of the 
 Russian forces, and was purely a mobilization meas- 
 ure to prevent disturbances similar to those that ac- 
 companied the mobilization for the Japanese war in 
 1904. The order was effective only until complete 
 mobilization should be accomplished. 
 
 The results of this order were surprising. Rus- 
 sia accomplished her mobilization in less than one- 
 half the time it was expected to take. The rapid mob- 
 ilization of the Russian forces, made possible by the 
 closing of all drinking places, was the first disappoint- 
 ment to German calculations. Under the leadership 
 of the irrepressible Tschelishev, deputations were or- 
 
 *Novoe Vremia, July 15, 1914. 
 
 194 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 ganized to present petitions to the Tsar asking that 
 the prohibition of Grand Duke Nicholas be continued 
 until the war shall be over. The beneficent results of 
 the closed policy during the mobilization were so ap- 
 parent that quick results were obtained. The Tsar, 
 on August 22, ordered that the existing prohibition of 
 the sale of vodka and spirits be continued until the 
 close of the war. This order did not apply to beer, 
 the prohibition of which was only for the period of 
 mobilization. 
 
 On August 25 the Council of Ministers adopted a 
 rule proposed by the Minister of Finance to continue 
 the prohibition of beer and porter until October i. 
 
 On August 27 the Admiralty Council decided to 
 abolish the rule of giving sailors a cup of vodka on 
 certain occasions and substituted money therefor. 
 
 On September 27 the Tsar confirmed the decision 
 of the Council of Ministers to the effect that on re- 
 ceipt of petitions of village administrative bodies and 
 city councils, government vodka shops and also pri- 
 vate liquor shops of all sorts should be closed, not 
 only within the jurisdiction of the petitioners, but also 
 within a limit of 300 yards of the boundaries thereof.* 
 All shops, under such petitions, were to close within 
 three months, and fees for the unexpired portion of 
 the license term were to be returned pro rata. It was 
 also ordered that, in the future, no license be granted 
 for more than one year and that all existing licenses 
 cease to be in force on December 31, 1914. The effect 
 of these orders was that the sale of vodka was pro- 
 hibited during the continuation of the war and that, 
 after October i, 1914, the sale of beer and wine was 
 
 *This order was published under date of October 10 in Bul- 
 letin of Laivs, No. 275. Series No. i. 
 
 19s 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 left to the decision of the local authorities, under a 
 sort of local option system. 
 
 On October 13, 1914, the Tsar approved of two 
 elaborations of the former orders, both of which were 
 promulgated on October 20 over the signature of 
 Peter L. Bark, Minister of Finance. The first of these 
 orders. No. 2373, reads as follows; 
 
 “The decision of the Council of Ministers, confirmed by His 
 Imperial Majesty on the 13th day of the current month of Octo- 
 ber, grants the Minister of Finance a right to permit, in the cities 
 and towns, beginning with November i, 1914, upon conditions pre- 
 scribed by him, the sale of beer and porter, which should not be 
 consumed on the premises, providing that in the localities which 
 are under military or siege law permission for the sale of beer 
 should be given only by consent of the proper military authorities. 
 
 “In view of the above decision of the Council of Ministers, 
 confirmed by His Majesty, I allow the superintendents of the 
 Excise Departments, upon obtaining the consent of the Governors 
 and the Mayors, and in the localities which are under military or 
 siege law of the proper military authorities, to permit in the 
 cities and towns, beginning with November i, the sale of beer 
 and porter from wholesale and retail stores, on the condition that 
 the number of such places of sale should not exceed in each city 
 10 per cent of the total number of such places of sale, and that 
 the drinks should not be consumed on the premises. Moreover, 
 the sale of beer and porter for consumption outside of the place 
 of sale may be permitted in certain ‘Rhine Cellars,’ but only in 
 case, as a result of local conditions, the granting of such per- 
 mission is found advisable. At the same time I request the su- 
 perintendent of the Excise Department that the sale of beer and 
 porter should not be permitted in places of sale in which there 
 is any suspicion of their right to sell the above-named drinks, and 
 also not to permit the sale of these drinks in such parts of the 
 city in which the resumption of the sale of beer and porter is 
 not desirable for the introduction of temperance, due to the 
 character of the population. 
 
 “In the case of petitions presented by public institutions re- 
 questing a total prohibition of the sale of alcoholic drinks, the 
 sale of beer and porter should not be permitted. 
 
 “In order to introduce a sufficient control over the proper 
 conditions of the sale of these drinks I request the superintend- 
 
 196 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 ent of the Excise Department to take proper measures to insti- 
 tute a constant watch by the officials of their departments over 
 the separate places of sale of beer and porter. In the case of 
 any violations of the rules of such sale the superintendents of 
 the Excise Departments are instructed to report this immediately 
 to the Governors and Mayors and, aside from prosecuting the 
 offenders, to request the proper civil or military authorities to 
 order such places of sale of beer and porter closed, as provided 
 for by Article 594 of the Excise Statute or by the Rules of the 
 Extraordinary Law or of the Military Law. 
 
 “This is issued to the superintendents of the Excise Depart- 
 ments for their guidance.” 
 
 The second order, No. 2374, reads : 
 
 “The decision of the Council of Ministers, confirmed by His 
 Imperial Majesty on the 13th day of the current month of Octo- 
 ber, reads as follows; Until the end of the war all petitions of 
 public institutions requesting a complete prohibition of sale of 
 alcoholic drinks should be honored, and such sale in the localities 
 covered by the petitions should be prohibited in all places of sale, 
 without exception. If the petition comes from a village or volost 
 community, or zemstvo councils or city councils, such orders 
 should be issued by the Governors and the Mayors. Petitions 
 coming from other institutions should be examined by the Min- 
 ister of the Interior and, if found correct, proper orders should 
 be issued by him. The superintendents of the Excise Department 
 are informed by this decision of the Council of Ministers, con- 
 firmed by His Imperial Majesty, for their information and guid- 
 ance.”* 
 
 So far as the military side of the situation was 
 concerned, the opinions and recommendations of 
 Grand Duke Nicholas, Commander-in-Chief of the 
 Russian forces, had great weight because on him 
 rested responsibilities of supreme moment. It was he 
 who caused the original prohibition order during 
 mobilization to be issued, and it was largely on his 
 recommendation that the prohibition of vodka was 
 continued throughout the period of the war. So far 
 
 *Both orders were published in full in Sovremennoye Slovo 
 (Petrograd), Oct. 22, 1914. 
 
 197 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 as the districts involved in military operations were 
 concerned, Nicholas not only enforced the anti-vodka 
 order with great vigor, but even prohibited the traffic 
 in wine and beer. Absolute prohibition of the traffic 
 in intoxicants of every sort prevails throughout the 
 districts in which the Russian armies operate.* The 
 success of the prohibition mobilization was such a 
 vast improvement over any other mobilization ever 
 attempted in Russian history that the lesson was too 
 apparent to be ignored. This was the universal testi- 
 mony of all the newspaper correspondents. “None of 
 the reservists or of the civilians were intoxicated. The 
 soldiers, the Cossacks, the sailors, and even the hooli- 
 
 *London Times, Nov. i6, 1914. 
 
 Clzajjaaie yronasinroro. 
 
 Cartoon from Monthly Magazine (Petrograd), Sept., 1914, show- 
 ing philanthropists fishing victims out of the great flood of 
 Government liquor. 
 
 198 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 gans, were all as sober as judges. To sell a drop of 
 spirits entailed a fine of 3,000 roubles.”* 
 
 Then came an agitation looking to the permanent 
 prohibition of the vodka traffic. This movement was 
 led by such men as Deputy Tschelishev, of the Duma, 
 and Nicholas de Cramer, of the Imperial Council. 
 Tschelishev personally interviewed the members of 
 the Ministry. The Minister of Communications, Ruch- 
 lov, said that he was entirely in favor of total prohi- 
 bition. The Minister of War, General Souchomlinov, 
 declared that alcoholic drinks will never be allowed in 
 the country as long as the war lasts. The Minister of 
 Agriculture, Krivoshein, also declared himself in favor 
 of total prohibition. When the question of the sale 
 of grape wines was discussed, Krivoshein remarked ; 
 “There is no provision in our law that would deter- 
 mine the composition of the grape wines in use. The 
 strength of the wines sold in different parts of the 
 country is entirely arbitrary, and measures must be 
 taken against this.” Count Witte, while expressing 
 his gratification at the closing of the government 
 vodka shops, pointed out the fact that it is necessary 
 to wage a determined struggle against the clandestine 
 sale of alcoholic drinks, which sale should be regarded 
 as a crime of the highest order.f 
 
 Soon came the death warrant of the vodka monop- 
 oly. About the ist of October the All-Russian Work- 
 ing Union of Christians, headed by its president. 
 Grand Duke Constantine, uncle of the Tsar, petitioned 
 the Emperor to make permanent the abolition of the 
 traffic in vodka. The reply came back from Tsarskoe 
 Selo in the following historic telegram : 
 
 *Francis McCullough, article on Teetotal Russia, in London 
 Daily News, Sept. 18, 1914. 
 
 ^Viestnik Tresvosti (Petrograd), Nov., 1914, p. 10. 
 
 199 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 “Petrograd. To the Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich. 
 I thank the Russian Christian Labor Temperance Organization. 
 I have already decided to abolish forever the government sale of 
 whisky in Russia. “NICHOLAS.”* 
 
 This does not necessarily mean that complete 
 prohibition of the vodka traffic in Russia is to be made 
 permanent, but it does mean that the government 
 traffic in the same is at an end. The death warrant of 
 the monopoly has been executed. 
 
 The agitation leading up to this telegram of the 
 Tsar was of a most remarkable character. Confer- 
 ences of representatives of the administration, the 
 church and city zemstvos, held in twenty-two govern- 
 ments under the chairmanship of the respective gov- 
 ernors, reported that the results of the prohibition 
 were most satisfactory. Of these 22 conferences, 17 
 urged that all alcoholic drinks, including wine and 
 beer, should be prohibited. Four voted in favor of 
 permission to sell grape wine, but not a single con- 
 ference voted in favor of continuing the sale of beer.f 
 The Holy Synod received petitions from 17 bishops 
 asking that body to use its influence in favor of con- 
 tinued prohibition. The Bishop of Riga sent a peti- 
 tion to the Minister of Finance in the name of the 
 various temperance organizations of that place re- 
 questing him not to allow the beer shops to be re- 
 opened. Workmen in numerous Petrograd factories 
 petitioned the Minister of Finance for total prohibi- 
 tion. A large group of Moscow manufacturers re- 
 fused to petition for the resumption of the sale of 
 liquors. Five hundred employees of Shrader’s factory 
 in Petrograd sent the Common Council an address 
 thanking that body for its efforts for sobriety. The 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (Moscow), Oct 7, 1914. 
 
 ^Viestnik Tresvosti (Petrograd), Dec., 1914, p. 18. 
 
 200 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 University of Kiev, one of the greatest institutions of 
 learning in Russia, sent a petition urging permanent 
 prohibition of alcoholic beverages. In six cities, 
 Sevak, Tula, Dankow, Smolensk, Kniagin and Mos- 
 cow, the members of the juries serving at circuit 
 court sessions sent in petitions for permanent prohi- 
 bition of vodka. In the case of Moscow, the jury was 
 made up of peasants, whose appeal in part read : 
 
 “It was with a feeling of profound sorrow that we saw that 
 the chief cause of the majority of crimes was alcohol. It was 
 hard, indeed, to punish our own brethren, the peasants, who were 
 brought to committing the crimes by drink. Let our voice be 
 joined to the universal call for temperance, that only means of 
 regenerating the prosperity and the spiritual might of the people.” 
 
 The appeal concluded as follows : 
 
 “Drunkenness is worse than the present war. Conditions 
 may improve after the war, but drunkenness can bring nothing 
 but general misfortunes.”* 
 
 The effect of the Emperor’s telegram to Constan- 
 tine forever discontinuing the government sale of 
 vodka was electric. Telegrams and messages of ap- 
 preciation came from everywhere, from the highest to 
 the lowest. One of the most striking was a telegram 
 from the City Council of Moscow, a city that had 
 something like 9,000 liquor shops of various kinds. 
 The text of the telegram read : 
 
 “The City Council of Moscow lays before the feet of Your 
 Imperial Majesty the feelings of exquisite joy experienced by 
 the representatives of the population of the ancient capital upon 
 receiving the intelligence to the effect that you have decided to 
 discontinue forever the government sale of liquor. 
 
 “The city of Moscow expects that from now on the struggle 
 against alcohol, the ancient foe of Russian life, will be carried on 
 as a sacred duty by all the authorities and institutions that guard 
 the life and the peaceful activities of the people, and that tem- 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (Moscow), Oct. 12, 1914. 
 
 201 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 perance will henceforth be the basis of our government and of 
 our national life. 
 
 “The city of Moscow is cheerfully hopeful that the execution 
 of Your Will, O Emperor, will not neglect to bar all paths 
 through v/hich alcohol may again come into general use and con- 
 tinue to poison the national organism, as it had been doing 
 hitherto.”* 
 
 The great cities were quick to act upon their 
 powers to curtail or prohibit the traffic in beer and 
 wine. In this, Petrograd led the way. At first, the 
 City Council prohibited these beverages in all except 
 forty-nine first-class restaurants, but shortly made the 
 prohibition complete. On December 28, the Mayor of 
 the city. Prince A. N. Obolensky, issued an ordert en- 
 forcing the complete prohibition policy decreed by 
 the City Council. Within twenty days after the power 
 had been conferred upon them, the city government of 
 the largest city in Russia, comprising 1,700,000 people, 
 
 *Viestnik Tresvosti, Dec., 1914, p. 15. 
 
 fThe text of Prince Obolensky’s proclamation reads : 
 
 “In view of a petition of the Petrograd City Council, and in 
 accordance with the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, con- 
 firmed by His Majesty on October 13, 1914, and also with the 
 circular order No. 2385, issued by the Minister of Finance on 
 November 5, the district chiefs of police are instructed to stop 
 immediately all sale, whether for consumption on the premises 
 or at home, of all spirits, wine, whiskies and all other alcoholic 
 drinks, not excluding grape wines, champagnes, and beer, in 
 all places where such sale is still going on, i. e., in first-class 
 and club restaurants, and in all wine shops that have no bars. 
 Care must be taken that no clandestine trade in above-named 
 drinks takes place. 
 
 “The sale of alcohol and the monopoly wine (vodka) for 
 chemical, scientific, school, pharmacetic, cosmetic, etc., purposes 
 may be made at the government wine-shops by order of the Chief 
 of the Excise Bureau, and, in certain particular cases, by order 
 of the Minister of Finance. The sale for the same purposes of 
 other alcoholic drinks may take place in private places of sale 
 upon the presentation by the district chiefs of police upon their 
 
 202 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 had enacted total prohibition of all intoxicating liquors. 
 And the spirit of the Russian people in this matrer is 
 exemplified in the attitude of Prince Obolensky, Mayor 
 of Petrograd, who issued the prohibition proclama- 
 tion. Prince Obolensky himself is a distiller and was 
 formerly Associate Minister of Finance. To a news- 
 paper reporter,* he said, regarding the course that the 
 distillers should pursue : “Serious as the matter may 
 be for us, if drunkenness can be eradicated, we dis- 
 tillers are in duty bound to make every possible sac- 
 rifice for it.” What a different spirit from that usu- 
 ally manifested by the average American or British 
 distiller. The Petrograd Council passed the measure 
 by a vote of 56 to 39. 
 
 On December 22 the Moscow City Council adopt- 
 ed complete prohibition of all intoxicants, including 
 wine and beer, by a vote of three to one.f Other 
 
 *Reitch (Petrograd), Sept. 12, 1914. 
 
 •fReitch, Dec. 23, 1914. 
 
 own strictly personal responsibility. Such places of sale shall be 
 required to have special certificates, issued by the Chief of the 
 Excise Bureau, in accordance with the circular order, No. 2385, 
 issued by the Minister of Finance on November 5, 1915. 
 
 “The places where the prohibited drinks are kept, in the 
 establishments that have the above certificates, must be always 
 kept closed, with locked doors and windows, and unlighted at 
 night. They may be opened only for the purpose of making a 
 sale in accordance with the above regulations. 
 
 “The location of the office or the private dwelling of the 
 owner, where such sale may take place, may be indicated upon 
 the doors of the establishments or on the signs. 
 
 “The places of sale, that do not hold a certificate for special 
 sale, must be closed and locked, and entrance into them may take 
 place only by the order of the Excise Inspection. 
 
 “The present orders must be executed immediately upon their 
 publication throughout the entire territory of the city. 
 
 “The Mayor of Petrograd, 
 “Major-General Prince A. N. Obolensky.” 
 
 203 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 cities of the Empire began immediately adopting the 
 total prohibition plan. Tambov, Viatka, Ekaterine- 
 burg, Ufa, Minsk, Astrakhan, Samara, Ekaterinoslav 
 and many other towns and cities both in Russia and 
 Siberia quickly adopted the prohibition of wine and 
 beer. Up to November i, 1914, 52 cities and towns 
 had petitioned for the total and permanent abolition 
 of alcoholic drinks and 15 petitioned for prohibition 
 until the end of the war.* 
 
 It should not be forgotten that in prohibiting 
 these lighter beverages, these cities lose almost as 
 much revenue as does the Imperial Government in 
 abolishing the vodka monopoly. These municipalities 
 have, heretofore, derived a large part of their income 
 from licenses to sell beer and wine in traktirs, wine 
 cellars, restaurants and hotels. The City Council of 
 Petrograd estimates that it would lose 500,000 roubles 
 per year on beer and wine licenses alone, and the ag- 
 gregate loss of all the Russian cities will be very 
 great, but the determination to eradicate drunkenness 
 is so strong that it overrides all considerations of this 
 sort. The people are confident that they will find no 
 difficulty in rearranging the municipal as well as the 
 national finances. 
 
 The beneficent results of the total prohibition 
 policy became at once strikingly apparent. These 
 evidences and the satisfaction of the people were well 
 expressed by the Chairman of the Budget Committee 
 of the Duma. In presenting the Russian Budget for 
 1915, he said: 
 
 “In this connection I would like to call 3'our attention to the 
 extremely important questions of temperance. Our legislative 
 bodies made attempts to solve this question by all sorts of com- 
 promises. It was proposed to diminish something here, change 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (Moscow), Nov. 7, 1914. 
 
 204 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 something there. But the question was decided differently, radi- 
 cally, in a straightforward way. One is almost tempted to say 
 that it was decided in a military way, by a frontal attack. This 
 measure merits the enthusiastic approval of all, even those who 
 drank before. But together with enthusiasm there come from all 
 parts of Russia expressions of fear, lest the great cause of tem- 
 perance be not brought to an end very soon. It seems impos- 
 sible that such a good movement will not deteriorate. But I am 
 confident that the proper governmental department will give us 
 ample assurances that temperance is a fact, which must be taken 
 as such, and that drunkenness and the sale of alcoholic drinks, 
 whether by the government, or by private enterprise, is a part of 
 the unretrievable past. 
 
 “We accept temperance as a great measure, accept it with 
 glad and grateful hearts. And we are confident that new condi- 
 tions of life will soon arise, in which a new type of man will 
 spring into being, man, strong physically and spiritually, who will 
 lead Russia along the road of national independence from all in- 
 fluences, in whatever departments of life they be asserted, in 
 whatever spheres of society they have gained a footing.”* 
 
 Summarizing the results of the dry policy, Mr. 
 Ivan Zhilkin, writing in a leading Russian review, said : 
 
 “All Russia is filled with enthusiasm and gratitude. As if 
 by the waving of a magic wand, drunkenness, debauchery, wild 
 cries, disputing and fighting have ceased in the streets of both 
 villages and towns. Factories and workshops are filling their 
 orders with promptness and accuracy. In households long ac- 
 customed to poverty, strife, drunken quarrels and blows, there 
 are now peace and quiet. The peasant families are even making 
 pecuniary savings, which, although small, are as welcome as they 
 are unexpected. The very face of Russia, long disfigured by 
 alcoholic excess, seems to have been transformed and ennobled.”! 
 
 Writing from Tambov under date of October 28, a 
 newspaper correspondent thus summarizes the changes 
 in that section : 
 
 “Three months have passed since the sale of vodka ceased, 
 and it is now possible to estimate the extent of the beneficent 
 
 *Russkoye Slovo (N. Y.), March 15, 1915. 
 
 ^Viestnik Europa (Petrograd), Sept., 1914, p. 339. 
 
 205 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 results that have followed Prohibition. The villages of this 
 province, according to the reports of the peasants, have become 
 so changed as to be unrecognizable. Fights, robberies and fires, 
 they say, have almost ceased. But, without placing too much 
 reliance upon these statements, we may show the results of Pro- 
 hibition by objective facts. According to the records of the 
 procurator’s office of the Tambov district, the average number 
 of criminal cases in the month of August for the year igii- 
 12-13 was 515. In August, 1914 [after the closing of the vodka 
 shops], the number was only 324. This is the lowest criminal 
 rate on record. Information collected and compiled by the Fire 
 Insurance Board of the same district shows that the average 
 number of accidental or incendiary fires in August and Septem- 
 ber for the five years immediately preceding 1914 was 960. The 
 number in the same months of this year was only 630, which is 
 also the lowest ever recorded. The chief of the Fire Insurance 
 Board adds that this decrease in the number of fires represents 
 a saving of 500,000 roubles in sixty days, or at the rate of 
 3,000,000 roubles a year. In the Moshansk and Tambov districts, 
 where the number of fires has always been great, the results 
 are still more surprising. During the months of the autumnal 
 holidays last year the number of fires in the peasant villages of 
 these districts was 148. In the same months this year it fell to 
 65. The police of the ‘bazaar precinct’ in Tambov report that 
 the monthly average of arrests has fallen from 300 in previous 
 years to 70 in 1914. The police inspector of another Tambov 
 precinct says that his station-house contains so few prisoners 
 that he is thinking of offering it to the sanitary authorities for 
 a hospital. The President of the Tambov Zemstvo Board, who 
 has just returned from an extensive trip through the rural dis- 
 tricts, says that, strange as it may seem, the peasant villages in 
 this time of war show unmistakable evidences of prosperit}'. 
 The mujiks are better dressed, their taxes are paid more prompt- 
 ly, and trade in the village fairs has become more active.”* 
 
 George Kennan, writing in The Outlook for De- 
 cember 16, 1914, summarizes items gleaned from cur- 
 rent Russian newspapers in these words : 
 
 A correspondent of the Russkoye Slovo, telegraphing from 
 Viatka, says ; “The closing of the government dispensaries in 
 this city has been followed by a marked decrease in the number 
 
 *Reitch (Petrograd), Oct. 30, 1914. 
 
 206 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 of robberies. Hooliganism has almost disappeared, and the 
 police lockups, always filled on bazaar days with drunken men, 
 are now empty. According to a member of the provincial 
 zemstvo, the peasant villages are completely transformed. 
 Drunkenness, fighting and disorder, so noticeable on holidays 
 and fair days, have ceased.” 
 
 A correspondent of the same review in Simbirsk says: “The 
 suspension of the vodka traffic has diminished crime in this city 
 by 50 per cent, and hooliganism by 90 per cent. The same re- 
 sults are reported from a whole series of peasant villages in 
 this province.” 
 
 From Orel the report is : “Prohibition has reduced crime 
 here, as compared with previous months, by 80 per cent. The 
 court rooms and police stations are empty.” 
 
 In Voronezh the police state that “in the first half of July, 
 when the vodka dispensaries were open, there were in this city 
 twenty-seven murders or other serious crimes. In the first half 
 of August, when the vodka shops were closed, there were only 
 eight.” 
 
 The detective police of Ekaterinoslav report that “crimes 
 attributable to drunkenness have wholly ceased. Since the be- 
 ginning of the mobilization there has not been a single case of 
 murder, robbery, assault or hooliganism, although prior to that 
 time there were more than a hundred every month.” 
 
 In Ekaterinodar, according to the police, “crime has de- 
 creased by 90 per cent, hooliganism has disappeared, and the 
 town is absolutely quiet.” 
 
 In Saratov “the monthly average of crimes has fallen from 
 130 to 60. The asylum for alcoholics is empty. The river steve- 
 dores have put on new clothes and are sending money home. 
 Attempts at suicide have ceased.” 
 
 In Yaroslav “the registers of the justices of the peace show 
 that between the 31st of July and the 28th of August there was 
 brought before the magistrates only one case. In the same 
 length of time before the suspension of the sale of vodka the 
 number of cases often exceeded 200.” 
 
 A correspondent in Kostroma writes: “The number of 
 crimes and offenses in this city in the fortnight prior to the 
 suspension of the vodka traffic was about 300. In the first half 
 of August there were only 8.” 
 
 And then he adds that, “It would not be difficult 
 to fill many pages of The Outlook with reports like 
 
 207 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 these, from zemstvos, to-wn councils, peasant com- 
 munes, charitable societies, police officials and justices 
 of the peace in all parts of the Empire ; but the above 
 quotations are sufficient, perhaps, to show how com- 
 plete is the economic and sociologic transformation 
 that Russia has undergone since the suspension of the 
 liquor traffic.” 
 
 Writing again in The Outlook for February 17, 
 Mr. Kennan, after detailing some of the difficulties 
 attending the complete enforcement of prohibition in 
 the large cities, thus describes the outcome in the 
 rural districts : 
 
 “In the country, however — that is, in the peasant villages — 
 the state of affairs seems to be quite different. There the drink- 
 ing of intoxicants has almost wholly ceased, partly because it is 
 more difficult to get denatured alcohol and 60 per cent wine in 
 the country than it is in the towns, and partly because the peas- 
 ants regard the war very seriously and have cleansed themselves 
 of the sin of drunkenness, just as a mujik who is about to die 
 puts on a clean, white shirt. Sobriety, in the stress of peril 
 and under the shadow of death, has come to be regarded as a 
 moral and religious duty. Even the peasant women talk more 
 about prohibition than they do about the war, and peasant chil- 
 dren ask their mothers. Will papa always be as he is now?” 
 
 Regarding the manner of the local authorities in 
 accepting the new situation, Mr. Kennan says : 
 
 “Since my previous article on this subject was written 
 scores of district zemstvos (popular assemblies or local legisla- 
 tures) have been in session, and have not only adopted resolu- 
 tions favoring absolute prohibition forever, but have declared 
 war on all ‘moonshiners’ and all substitutes for vodka of every 
 possible kind. The most energetic supporters of these prohibi- 
 tory resolutions are the peasants, while in the ranks of the com- 
 promisers are to be found, for the most part, only the officials, 
 the landed proprietors, and the representatives of the petty 
 nobility.” 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Kennan states : 
 
 “Evidences of the beneficial effects of prohibition continue 
 
 208 
 
AT THE LEFT IS M. PETER BARK, RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FINANCE, EXPLAINING TO M. RIBOT 
 (french minister), in the center, AND DAVID LLOYD-GEORGE (BRITISH MINISTER), ON THE 
 RIGHT, THAT THE ABOLITION OF THE VODKA MONOPOLY WILL NOT CRIPPLE RUSSIAN FINANCES. 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 to accumulate. The efficiency of labor and the savings of labor 
 have increased more than 50 per cent; the peasant population is 
 better dressed and better fed than it has ever been before ; and 
 crime, disorder, fires and ‘hooliganism’ have everywhere de- 
 creased. In the communal skhods (a Russian variety of the 
 New England town meeting) the sober and intelligent peasants 
 have acquired for the first time complete supremacy, and are 
 bringing about a great change for the better in village adminis- 
 tration. Under the old regime the skhods were largely given 
 up to vodka drinking and quarreling, and the better class of 
 peasants would have nothing to do with them. Now the best 
 men take part in them, village affairs are soberly and intelli- 
 gently discussed, and appropriations of village money are made 
 for co-operative societies, reading-rooms, and movies. At one 
 of these skhods a village peasant, speaking on the subject of 
 prohibition, said : ‘Formerly we had the rule of “fists,” shouters, 
 bargain-wetters, and drunkards; but since the village became 
 sober these people have lost their power. Now we elect to 
 office men who can read and write, sober men, and thrifty men 
 — most of them members of co-operative societies.’ ” 
 
 On January 13, 1915, a conference took place un- 
 der the chairmanship of the Mayor of Petrograd, 
 Prince A. N. Obolensky, at which, at the instance of 
 the Petrograd bread dealers, the question of increas- 
 ing the cost of flour, bread and macaroni was dis- 
 cussed. It was pointed out that the price of flour, and 
 consequently of bread, had been raised primarily by 
 the fact that as a result of the prohibition of alcoholic 
 drinks, the prosperity of the people has increased. 
 Especially in the grain-producing governments along 
 the Volga, the farmers were refraining from selling 
 their supplies of grain, as they expect still higher 
 prices. 
 
 Deputy Tschelishev expressed satisfaction at the 
 showing after one month’s experience, in these words : 
 
 “In spite of the general depression caused by the war, the 
 paralysis of business, the closing of factories, and the interrup- 
 tion of railroad traffic, the people felt no depression. Savings 
 
 209 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 banks showed an increase in deposits over the preceding month 
 and over the corresponding month of the preceding year. At the 
 same time there was a boom in the sale of meats, groceries, 
 clothing, dry goods and house furnishings. The 30,000,000 rou- 
 bles a day that had been paid for vodka were now being spent 
 for the necessities of life. 
 
 “The average working week increased from three and four 
 days to six, the numerous holidays of the drinker having been 
 eliminated. The working-day also became longer, and the effi- 
 ciency of the worker was perhaps doubled. Women and chil- 
 dren, who seldom were without marks showing the physical 
 violence of the husband and father, suddenly found themselves 
 in an undreamed-of paradise. There were no blows, no insults, 
 and no rough treatment There was bread on the table, milk 
 for the babies, and a fire in the kitchen.”* 
 
 In its issue dated January 6, 1915, the Russkoye 
 Slovo, of New York, the largest daily Russian news- 
 paper in America, comments on the results editorially; 
 
 “Temperance has made Russian labor much more productive. 
 As a general thing Russian labor is much less productive than 
 either the European or the American. But the mere fact of the 
 absence of drink has increased the productivity of a Russian 
 laborer in some industries by as much as 35 per cent. 
 
 “The following facts are given by a Petrograd labor period- 
 ical. In the furniture shops of the Great and Small Ochta the 
 amount of furniture turned out after the coming of temperance 
 increased by 20-25 per cent. The brush shops turned out 10 per 
 cent more product. 
 
 “The Moscow papers note the fact that despite the difficul- 
 ties of war time and the scarcity of work, the laboring families 
 buy more clothes and home utensils than before the war. The 
 workmen themselves explain this by the fact that the money that 
 was formerly expended for drink now goes toward elevating 
 what is called in the United States the ‘standard of living.’ ” 
 
 On February 12, M. Kharitonov, comptroller of 
 the Russian treasury, speaking before the duma bud- 
 get committee, declared that owing to the great in- 
 crease in the national savings, due to Prohibition, the 
 
 *New York Times’ Current History of the War, Feb., 1915: 
 
 p. 833- 
 
 210 
 
THE OVERTHROW OE THE MONOPOLY 
 
 extraordinary outlay occasioned by the war had caus- 
 ed no suffering' as yet in Russia. 
 
 As proof of this, Mr. Kharitonov said the national 
 savings in December, 1913, which amounted to 700,000 
 roubles ($350,000), had increased to 29,100,000 roubles 
 ($14,550,000), in December, 1914. He added that the 
 total savings for 1913 amounted to 34,000,000 roubles 
 ($17,000,000), as compared with 84,000,000 roubles 
 ($42,000,000), for 1914. 
 
 Continuing his discussion. Comptroller Khari- 
 tonov thus summarized the benefits of the Prohibition 
 program :* 
 
 “The present heroic period has made possible the speedy 
 introduction of heroic measures. The coming of temperance, 
 valuable in other ways, has proven to be especially so for the 
 economic conditions of the country during the war. Temper- 
 ance has been that mighty force that has made it possible for 
 the economic powers of our country to come out triumphant 
 over the baleful influence of the war, and has increased the effi- 
 ciency of our labor. It was this increase in efficiency that made 
 possible to make up for the absence of working hands, whose 
 services are needed for the gun and the sword. It was tem- 
 perance that made possible the growth of savings, which is es- 
 pecially useful in the time of war, when the country has to 
 undergo martial, as well as financial, sacrifices. Einally, temper- 
 ance has made possible the spiritual bond that exists between 
 the country and the battle fronts, has forged the unconquerable 
 unity of the army and the people and has thus been a source of 
 national courage and faith in the eventual triumph over the foe. 
 No one could expect, a year ago, when the Imperial rescript 
 concerning the necessity of combating the alcohol evil was issued 
 to the Minister of Finance, that Russia would so soon become 
 the most temperate country in the world. I shall permit myself 
 to quote in this connection the famous words of Tiutchev: ‘You 
 cannot understand Russia, nor apply to her the common yard- 
 stick. She is different from anything else. You can only be- 
 lieve in Russia.’ ” 
 
 *Kharitonov’s statement before the Budget Committee of 
 the Du.na, as it appeared in Reitch (Petrograd), Jan. 29, 1915. 
 
 2II 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 On February 13, the Paris correspondent of the 
 London Daily Telegraph gave an interview that he had 
 just had with the Russian Minister of Finance, M. 
 Bark. In answer to a remark that what most chal- 
 lenged the admiration of the world was the heroic 
 message of the Tsar renouncing the liquor revenue, 
 the minister said: 
 
 “I have always cherished a great faith in the potentialities of 
 the Russian nation, but I must admit that even my optimistic an- 
 ticipations have been greatly exceeded by the reality. As you 
 know, there was a considerable deficit to be covered in the ordi- 
 nary budget of the year 1914. Well, we have stopped the gap 
 without difficulty or effort. We had 500,000,000 roubles in the 
 free reserve, and other available funds from which we drew, 
 and the problem was solved. I increased some few taxes dur- 
 ing the remaining months of last year, and I found that the sol- 
 vency of the peasants has been raised verj- considerably by the 
 law prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, and that the benefi- 
 cent operation of this edict continues to make itself felt pro- 
 gressively. 
 
 “It is difficult for foreigners to realize how great are Russia’s 
 economic resources, and how much greater thej’- have become 
 since the promulgation by His Majesty of that humanitarian law 
 which, I may add, is felt by the Russian people themselves, not as 
 a restriction, but as an inestimable boon conferred upon them by 
 their provident monarch. I can assure you that the productivity 
 of every class of workmen in Russia, whether we examine those 
 engaged in agricultural or industrial pursuits, has alread)- in- 
 creased by from 30 to 50 per cent, to saj- nothing of the cessa- 
 tion of the waste which formerly accompanied and followed the 
 consumption of alcohol. 
 
 “Again, the rates for the maintenance of prisoners have fal- 
 len, because crime has everywhere diminished, and in some dis- 
 tricts has disappeared altogether. Another indication of the wel- 
 come change which has come over the nation is afforded by the 
 returns of the savings banks. In war time people are ever>-where 
 nervous ; and in Russia, as elsewhere, large sums were -withdrawn 
 from the savings banks as soon as war was declared. Well, since 
 the total prohibition of alcohol, the accounts I have received 
 from these institutions throughout the country are so encourag- 
 ing that even I, whose faith in the Russian people has always 
 
 212 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 been large and firm, did not anticipate the rapid and splendid 
 result which they denote. Although only a few months elapsed be- 
 tween the promulgation o '■he Tsar’s humane and patriotic edict 
 and the end of 1914, the excess of deposits over withdrawals 
 amounted to 84,000,000 roubles, or twice the amount of the pre- 
 ceding year. Russia’s economic situation, therefore, is not merely 
 excellent, but it is rapidly improving, and my faith in her future 
 — not a blind, but a carefully reasoned faith — is boundless.” 
 
 Mary Isabel Brush, in the Saturday Evening Post 
 (Philadelphia) of February 20, 1915, gives a further 
 interview which she had with Finance Minister Bark, 
 at his headquarters in Petrograd, in which the latter 
 declared : 
 
 “When we sold vodka the people were poor. They stimu- 
 lated themselves with an artificial strength to work for a few 
 kopeks, with which they bought more of the fuel for renewing 
 the artificial strength. The fuel, of course, was vodka. Though 
 the money for drink went into the treasury, the human machine 
 which made that money became weaker and weaker. So the na- 
 tion was really cutting off its revenue at the source.” 
 
 In the London Daily Mail, February 22, 1915, its 
 Petrograd correspondent, FI. Hamilton Fyffe, states: 
 
 “The prohibition argument is strong. Crime has become rarer. 
 The records of the courts prove this. Savings bank deposits have 
 increased enormously. The number of patients in Petrograd 
 hospitals has fallen off in a surprising degree. In the towns, 
 workmen who used to spend their wages as soon as they got 
 them are setting up in business for themselves. Peasants who, 
 in vodka days, never put by a kopek, are buying good plows and 
 drills and harvesting machines. There is good work for all and 
 wages are rather higher than they were before the war. In all 
 ranks there are many (women as well as men) who are the bet- 
 ter for their enforced abstinence. Brightness has come back to 
 eyes dulled by over indulgence. Cheeks which were gray and 
 flabby have color in them again.” 
 
 The war correspondents give similar accounts of 
 the happy results of the no-drink policy in the army. 
 “The soberness of the army is beyond question. I 
 
 213 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 have not seen a single tipsy or disorderly soldier or 
 officer, and hearsay reports are extremely rare,” writes 
 one.* And again the correspondent of the same paper 
 reports : 
 
 “The one thing that impresses the observer more and more 
 each day is the soberness and good behavior of the Russian 
 troops. I have now been with the army nearly three weeks, and 
 have seen thousands upon thousands of soldiers from all parts 
 of Russia. I have yet to see the first drunken or disorderly man 
 connected with the army, either officer or soldier. The dread of 
 soldiery, which is the rule when armies are spread over the land, 
 is absolutely lacking. It is certain that the prohibition of strong 
 drink has worked wonders in the Russian Army, and is one of 
 the greatest factors in the splendid showing, both in the field 
 and in the cities, that is being made by the Russian armies today 
 both in Galicia and in the Polish theater of war.”t 
 
 Under date of March 2, 1915, United States Con- 
 sul General John H. Snodgrass, of Moscow, made a 
 report to the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Com- 
 merce of the State Department at Washington. In 
 this report. Consul Snodgrass thus summarized his ob- 
 servations regarding the effect of the Prohibition policy 
 in Moscow : 
 
 “The Prohibition of selling brandy in the government monop- 
 oly shops was introduced throughout the Empire from the be- 
 ginning of the war, on the daj' of mobilization, and has now 
 been in force for more than six months. One of the Russian 
 papers has made inquiries concerning the results of this meas- 
 ure and has published some of the statistical data that were 
 collected. The following list shows the consumption of vodka 
 in the city of Moscow in 1914 compared with the preceding j-ear: 
 July, 612,686 gallons in 1913 and 359,124 gallons in 1914; August, 
 667,926 gallons in 1913 and 23,373 gallons in 1914; September, 
 759>947 gallons in 1913 and 7,314 gallons in 1914; October, 707,688 
 gallons in 1913 and 2,913 gallons in 1914. During the first three 
 months vodka could be obtained at the first-class restaurants for 
 
 *London Times, Nov. 9, 1914. 
 
 \Ibid, Nov. 19, 1915. 
 
 214 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 consumption in the same, the selling of vodka in bottles being 
 prohibited under a fine of $1,500. 
 
 “It is observed in the manufacturing concerns that labor has 
 become much more productive than before. Formerly at the 
 Moscow mills many workmen would not appear on Monday, and 
 a number of those who did were unfit for duty in consequence of 
 their Sunday excesses. This is no longer the case ; both the 
 quality and the quantity of labor performed has improved.” 
 
 The same no-drink policy prevails when the Rus- 
 sian army goes outside of Russian territory. The 
 Army Orders of Grand Duke Nicholas provided that 
 as soon as the Russian troops occupy a town, the 
 
 r y 
 
 215 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 liquor shops must be immediately closed, and that no 
 liquor be supplied to the soldiers under any circum- 
 stances. 
 
 “So tremendous is the improvement, indeed, that 
 even at the end of the war there will doubtless be an 
 agitation for the abolition of the liquor traffic alto- 
 gether, and the conversion of Russia into what the 
 Americans would call a ‘dry’ Empire,” wrote the 
 correspondent of the London Daily News. * The Petro- 
 grad correspondent of the London Morning Post wrote; 
 “The effects of the enforced sobriety throughout Rus- 
 sia have proved to the population how beneficial the 
 government measures have been. Village women are 
 openly saying that heaven has come upon earth, and 
 this in the midst of the most bloody war ever known 
 in history. . . . From many centers, especially from 
 country districts, petitions keep coming in, begging 
 that the present total prohibition, which extends for 
 the duration of the war, may be made perpetual. ”t 
 
 “The great victory over drunkenness in Russia 
 has received far too little attention in this country. 
 Since China proscribed opium the world has seen 
 nothing like it. W e have been well reminded that in 
 sternly prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquor Russia 
 has already vanquished a greater foe than the Ger- 
 mans,” declared the London TimesX in a leading article. 
 
 In the issue of March 5, 1915, the London Times 
 contains the following from its special correspondent 
 with the Russian army, Mr. Stanley Washburn : 
 
 “One cannot write of the Russian mobilization or of the re- 
 juvenation of the Russian Empire without touching on the pro- 
 
 *Sept. 18, 1914. 
 
 fOct. 17, 1914. 
 
 iSept. 21, 1914. 
 
 216 
 
ST. ISAAC’S CATHEDRAL 
 
 THE LARGEST AND MOST MAGNIFICENT CHURCH IN PETROGRAD. BUILT BY CATHERINE 11. IN I 765 . 
 IT RESTS ON OVER 1,200 PILES DRIVEN INTO MARSHY L.VND. EACH OF THE FOUR MAIN 
 ENTR.VNCES ARE SUPPORTED BY SIXTEEN MONOLITHS OF SOLID FINNISH 
 GRANITE, EACH 55 FEET HIGH. 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 hibition of vodka. Those who know Russia never dreamed that 
 when the lid was put on, it would be air-tight, and the pro- 
 foundest believers in prohibition never imagined how far-reach- 
 ing would be the benefits. The first manifest evidence of in- 
 creased efficiency was, of course, in the manner and promptness 
 with which the army assembled; but, from that day, the benefits 
 have been increasingly visible, not only in the army, but in every 
 phase of Russian life. At a time when money has been tight the 
 savings banks have enormously increased their deposits. . . . 
 
 “The most important effects, however, have been in the army. 
 In nearly six months’ association with the armies in many dif- 
 ferent theaters of operations I have not seen a single drunken or 
 tipsy officer or soldier. This, then, was the first sign of what 
 New Russia intended to do in this war. At one stroke she freed 
 herself of the curse that has paralyzed her peasant life for gen- 
 erations. This in itself is nothing short of a revolution.” 
 
 It was not long before the good results of the no- 
 drink regime began to become apparent in government 
 statistics. M. Kharitonov, the Treasury Comptroller, 
 speaking in the name of the Minister of Finance be- 
 fore the Budget Committee of the Duma, on January 
 25, announced that while the population of the Rus- 
 sian Empire is confronted with certain economic diffi- 
 culties as the result of the war, still no great suffering 
 has been caused thereby. The cause of these favor- 
 able economic conditions in Russia was, no doubt, the 
 prohibition of the sale of spirits. As a proof of this 
 he quoted statistics of the national savings, which, in 
 December, 1913, only amounted to 700,000 roubles, as 
 compared with 29,100,000 r. in December, 1914; while 
 in the first half of January, 1913, they were 300,000 r., 
 as compared with 15,300,000 r. for the corresponding 
 period this year. The total savings for 1913 amounted 
 to 34,000,000 r., as against 84,000,000 r. in 1914. These 
 remarkable figures constitute an overwhelming proof 
 of the unshakable economic power of Russia.* 
 
 *London Times, Jan. 26, 1915. 
 
 217 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 During the first two months of temperance the 
 population of Russia saved 144,500,000 roubles, or 
 2,400,000 roubles a day. The Government’s Savings 
 Banks at Moscow and other cities report that recently 
 the number of small depositors has increased, especi- 
 ally among the workers. In small places new branches 
 have to be opened. As a general thing, the month of 
 August shows heavy drawings upon the savings 
 banks, while this year, in spite of the war, the month 
 of August gave an increase of 7,000,000 roubles. This 
 result is considered by the Ministry of Finance to be 
 due entirely to temperance.* 
 
 Naturally there have been attempts at illicit dis- 
 tillation, but these have not been as extensive as 
 might have been expected under such revolutionary 
 circumstances. The Ministry of Finance made an in- 
 vestigation and issued a statement which covered the 
 first six months in which prohibition had been ef- 
 fective. The statement shows that during this period 
 government inspectors discovered 2,825 illicit dis- 
 tilleries producing a special kind of raw whisky called 
 kumushka. The word “distillery,” however, means 
 but little when it is considered that a teapot and a 
 piece of rubber or metal pipe is sufficient to constitute 
 a still. It also appears from the statement that, of 
 these 2,825 distilleries, only 160 were found with a 
 first-class equipment. In all, 92 places were found 
 where polishes and varnishes were rectified into drink- 
 ables and 60 places where denatured alcohol was be- 
 ing rectified. t In a country comprising one-sixth of 
 the earth’s surface, it is somewhat surprising that a 
 larger number of illicit concerns were not unearthed. 
 
 *Viestnik Tresvosti (Petrograd), December, 1914. 
 
 ^Riisskoye Slovo (N. Y.), March 25, 1915. 
 
THT^ OVERTHROW Oi- THE MONOPOLY 
 
 The Russian people are jubilant at the outlook, 
 and so express themselves at every opportunity. Even 
 the distillers who so fiercely fought the excise reform 
 proposals in 1913 now cheerfully accept the situation 
 and, instead of fighting the government, are planning 
 how best to utilize their alcohol by promoting its use 
 in a denatured form in manufactures, and in this they 
 are receiving the hearty co-operation of the govern- 
 ment. These men are for the most part Russians first 
 and distillers afterward. 
 
 Minister of Finance Bark plainly asks Russia to 
 make the sacrifice of removing her troubles because, 
 if she does, “the people will be healthier and the state 
 will be stronger.” Those who made their calculations 
 on Russia going into the war after the manner of a 
 gigantic drunken hoodlum were mistaken for once. 
 Drink was altogether too great a factor in her humili- 
 ation at the hands of Japan to be forgotten. 
 
 What will be done after the war is over, no one 
 can tell. It may be that Providence is using this 
 frightful Golgotha to work out some far-reaching 
 problem for the permanent welfare of humanity. It 
 would be indeed a fortunate war, one well worth 
 while, if it should end in the extinction of both war 
 and drink. What language contains words powerful 
 enough to describe the boon such an outcome would 
 be to the world. There is no seer to foretell, but little 
 by little the veil of the future is being lifted, and we 
 get glimpses of possibilities when the resources of the 
 earth may be used for the welfare rather than for the 
 destruction of the children of men. Out of the chaos 
 of a thousand years comes this semi-barbaric civiliza- 
 tion with a new revelation, to which the world listens 
 and wonders. 
 
 And what of the drink monopoly? “They call 
 219 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 me the ‘father of the drink monopoly,’ and I do not 
 deny it. But I wanted to make the girl an honest 
 woman, whereas she has been brought up by other 
 persons in such a way that she is now walking the 
 Nevsky Prospect. I intended her for an honest life, 
 and not for one of vice. My heart aches on her ac- 
 count,” said the great Count Witte a few weeks be- 
 fore his death. Those who have visited Petrograd and 
 are familiar with the sinister meaning behind the ref- 
 erence to a girl “walking the Nevsky Prospect” can 
 understand the bitterness of the Count’s words. 
 
 Never in the history of the world did a man ally 
 himself to the powers of vice without suffering there- 
 from. Never in the history of civilization has a nation 
 harnessed itself to the institutions of debaucher}^ with- 
 out having visited upon it evils incalculable in their 
 corroding power. One by one civilizations have come 
 and, under such policies, they have disappeared, re- 
 gardless of what good may have been bequeathed by 
 them to history. The development of law did not save 
 wanton Rome. Unnatural vices blotted out Greece 
 despite her art and her philosophy. War did not save 
 Assyria, neither did the perfection of the occult save 
 Egypt, the light of the world for fifty centuries. Just 
 as the university man, given over to vice, ends his 
 days in the Potter’s field, likewise the nation, follow- 
 ing this path, finds itself buried deep under the eternal 
 progress of the world. The law of the survival of the 
 fittest applies to nations with equal force as to indi- 
 viduals, and is as unchanging as the principle of gravi- 
 tation which holds in place planets of the universe. 
 The balances of account hold good in the moral 
 as well as in the physical world, and when an at- 
 tempt is made to compute how many countless bil- 
 lions the people of Russia have paid out in order to 
 
 220 
 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONOPOLY 
 
 get the vodka millions into the government treasury, 
 one is lost in a maze of bewildering calculation. He 
 can have no mental conception of the immensity of 
 the statistics ; neither can he fathom the bottomless 
 depths of human suffering that they represent. Just 
 so, in an attempt to comprehend the distance to the 
 farthest star, the observer is bewildered, stupefied and, 
 in the midst of such things, instinctively, helplessly, 
 hopefully, turns his thoughts and his heart upward to 
 Almighty God. 
 
 221 
 
INDEX 
 
 A 
 
 Abstaining Railway Men, 90. 
 
 Akinov, M. G., 180. 
 
 Albert, Y., 106. 
 
 Alexander I. promotes emancipa- 
 tion, 68; recognizes Finnish Con- 
 stitution, 80 ; abolished farming 
 system, 114; 115; 119. 
 
 Alexander II., 42; efforts of for 
 emancipation, 70 et seq. ; signs 
 act of emancipation, 71; assas- 
 sination of, 73; abolishes corpor- 
 al punishment, 74 ; reforms of, 
 116; 151. 
 
 Alexander III. promotes vodka mo- 
 nopoly, 119. 
 
 Alexander Nevsky Temperance So- 
 ciety, 164. 
 
 Alexander, Prince of Oldenburg, 
 162; 190. 
 
 Alexis (Tsar), 64; 112; conclave 
 of, 151. 
 
 Alexis Public House, petitions for 
 temperance instruction in the 
 schools, 177. 
 
 Alexis, the Tsarevich, 161. 
 
 Alexyiev, Dr., temperance work of, 
 153 et seq. 
 
 All-Russian Congress to Combat 
 the Drink Evil, 168. 
 
 All-Russian Working Union of 
 Christians, 164; 166; 199. 
 
 Andersson, Emil, promotes anti- 
 drink strike, 86. 
 
 Anna, opposed excess, 140. 
 
 Antonious, Prof., 157. 
 
 Apraksin, Admiral, 138. 
 
 Armenian Churches, suppressed by 
 Elizabeth, 140. 
 
 Arvelin, K. A., forms temperance 
 society, 81. 
 
 Askold, 24. 
 
 Association for the Promotion of 
 the General Welfare, 107. 
 
 Autocracy, limitations of, 31; 35. 
 
 B 
 
 Babitch, Lt. Gov., anti-drink order 
 of, 175. 
 
 Baird, Robert, 100; 102; 151. 
 
 Baltic Provinces, illiteracy, 34 ; 
 chapter on. 97 et seq. 
 
 Baranovski, Prof., 81. 
 
 Baring, Maurice, quoted, 144. 
 
 Bark, Peter L., appointed Minister 
 of Finance, 191; 194; 196; quot- 
 ed, 212, 218. 
 
 Bashak, 27. 
 
 Basil, 29. 
 
 Beer, prohibition of, 195; 202; 204. 
 
 Belski, Dr., temperance work of, 
 161. 
 
 Births, rate of, 49. 
 
 Bismarck, 138. 
 
 Bjorkenheim, Edw., quoted, 89. 
 
 Bobrikov, Governor, 80; 90; 100. 
 
 Bogddanpwiez, P., 109. 
 
 Boyars, 22; 59. 
 
 Braga, 134; 144. 
 
 Brethren of the Sword, 98. 
 
 Brush, Isabel, 212. 
 
 Bunge, N. K., 119. 
 
 Bureau of Popular Temperance, 168. 
 
 Butter Week. See Feast of Mass- 
 lenitsa. 
 
 C 
 
 Cafes, character of, 104. 
 
 Camomile day, 56. 
 
 Canton, 39. 
 
 (Canute VI., 98. 
 
 (Capital punishment, abolished, 74. 
 
 Catherine II,, 18; 42; 43; and serf- 
 dom, 65; 66; 67; 69; established 
 farming system, 112; 114; 115. 
 
 Catholic Church temperance activi- 
 ties, 108 et seq. 
 
 Caucasius, illiteracy in, 34. 
 
 Censorship, of the stage and press, 
 17; 18. 
 
 Charity, 45 et seq. 
 
 Charles XII., wars on Russia, 79. 
 
 Chastity, 50; 150. 
 
 Chersonesus, 26. 
 
 Children, 56 ; child labor laws, 57 ; 
 temperance society in Finland, 
 82'; drink among, 172. 
 
 Christianity, introduced, 26 ; in 
 Finland, 79. 
 
 Cleveland, Grover, quoted, 33. 
 
 (College Students Abstainers, mem- 
 bership of, 90. 
 
 Communes, 61. 
 
 Compulsory regulations, 38. 
 
 Co-operative societies, encouraged, 
 57. 
 
 Conscription, 65. 
 
 Constantine Constantovich, Grand 
 Duke, temperance work of, 166; 
 190; 199. 
 
 Constantine, Grand Duke, efforts of 
 for emancipation, 71. 
 
 Consumption of Liquor in Finland, 
 92; 125; in Russia, 127; 128; 
 129; 130; decreased by prohibi- 
 tion, 213. 
 
 Corporal punishment, 64 ; 65 ; 73. 
 
 Cossacks, 175. 
 
 (Ilouncil of Deputies, 43. 
 
 Council of the Empire, debate in, 179. 
 
 Courier of Temperance. See Viest- 
 nik Tresvosti. 
 
 Courland, 97 ; 98. 
 
 C^ramer, Nicholas de., quoted, 131 ; 
 171; quoted, 180; 189; 193; 199. 
 
 223 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 B 
 
 Death penalty, abolished, 74. 
 
 Deaths, rate of, 49. 
 
 De Breteuel, quoted, 141. 
 
 Deglau, A., work of, 105. 
 
 Democracy, 23 ; decline of, 27 et 
 seq. 
 
 Demons, 143. 
 
 Denatured alcohol, statistics for 
 Finland, 94. 
 
 Despotism, 21 ; 23. 
 
 Dietoubiytsi, 45. 
 
 Distilled Spirits, statistics for Fin- 
 land, 95 ; for Russia, 125. 
 
 Distilleries, number of, 116; 126; 
 in Siberia, 149 ; school children 
 employed in, 172; illicit, 217. 
 
 Dobbner, Pastor, 101. 
 
 Doctors, ethics of, 56. 
 
 Dolgurki, tribute to Nicholas I., 68. 
 
 Donskoi, Dimitri, 2'8. 
 
 Dostoievsky, 19. 
 
 Drink, opposed by Alexis, 64 ; in 
 Finland, 75 et seq. ; statistics for 
 Finland, 94; in Riga, 104; 115; 
 117; 133 et seq.; in early Mos- 
 cow, 136; in Peter’s court, 138; 
 in Elizabeth’s time, 141; prac- 
 tices of Peter III., 141 ; among 
 peasants, 144 ; among children, 
 172. 
 
 Druzhiny, 59. 
 
 Dukhobortsi, 46. 
 
 Duma, 31; 57; debate in the, 169; 
 179; 204. 
 
 Dushilschiki, 46. 
 
 Dvornik, 50. 
 
 E 
 
 Education, 33; 177. 
 
 Ekaterindar, drink conditions in, 
 172. 
 
 Eleonsky, Mr., cited, 167. 
 
 Elizabeth, zeal for religion, 140. 
 
 Elizabeth Feodorovna, Grand Duch- 
 ess, 160. 
 
 Emancipation, discussed, 67 ; pro- 
 moted, 68 et seq.; declared, 71. 
 
 Empress Marie, institutions of, 51. 
 
 Eric IX., introduces Christianity 
 into Finland, 79. 
 
 Esthonians, 76; 97; 98; 110; 157; 
 165; 166. 
 
 Esthonian Temperance Society 
 Jaith, 165. 
 
 Evangelical Union Uplift, 106. 
 
 E.xcise Reform Bill, 179. 
 
 F 
 
 Famines, 57. 
 
 Farming System, 103; 112; 114; 
 
 115; profits of, 117. 
 
 Father John, 27. 
 
 Father Paul, 167. 
 
 Feast of Masslenitsa, 146. 
 
 Feast of the Fools, 138. 
 
 Filipovtai, 46. 
 
 Finland, education in, 34; chapter 
 on, 75; grants suffrage to wom- 
 en, 77 ; statistics early temper- 
 ance societies, 83 ; drink legisla- 
 tion, 89 ; prohibition law passed, 
 91; private distillation in, 92; 
 war order in, 93 ; liquor statis- 
 tics, 94 ; 95. 
 
 Finland’s Svenska Nykterhetsfor- 
 bund, membership of, 90. 
 
 Finnish Home Society, offers prizes 
 for temperance essays, 81. 
 
 Finnish Temperance Society Al- 
 kov, 165. 
 
 First Russian Sergei School of 
 Temperance, 165. 
 
 Flehoff, Dr., temperance work of, 
 161. 
 
 Flogging, 64; 65; 73. 
 
 Foundling hospitals, 51. 
 
 Free wandering people, 65. 
 
 Friedenburg, Andrei, temperance 
 work of, 107. 
 
 Friends of Temperance. See Rait- 
 tenden Ystavat. 
 
 Fyffe, H. Hamilton, 212. 
 
 G 
 
 Gemeinschaftsblatt, 105. 
 
 Germans, oppression of in Baltic 
 Provinces, 98 ; 102 ; temperance 
 influence of, 110. 
 
 Good Templars, suppressed in Fin- 
 land, 108. 
 
 Golden Horde, 28. 
 
 Gorky, Maxim, 18; 19. 
 
 Gothenburg System, introduced in- 
 to Finland, 87 ; 92 ; statistics, 96. 
 
 Governor, powers of, 38. 
 
 Granfeldt, A. A., 83. 
 
 Great Eagle, the, 138. 
 
 Greek Church, 150; 166; 177; 200. 
 
 Grevingk, Elizabeth von, 107. 
 
 Grigoriev, Dr. N., statistics of, 
 128; 159. 
 
 Gudonov, Boris, 63. 
 
 Gustavus III., confers fundamental 
 laws on Finland, 79. 
 
 H 
 
 Habeas corpus, 17. 
 
 Hanseatic League, 98. 
 
 Haxtheusen, quoted, 117. 
 
 Heikkila, Kalle, promotes anti- 
 drink strike, 86. 
 
 Helenius, Ali Trygg, 84. 
 
 Helenius-Seppala, JIatti, 84. 
 
 Helman, Hilda, temperance society 
 of, 81; 82. 
 
 Henry, Bishop of Upsala, 79. 
 
 Holy Synod, temperance activity 
 of, 177; 200. 
 
 Hospitals, 56. 
 
 House of the Black Heads, 104. 
 
 224 
 
INDEX 
 
 Illiteracy, 33 ; statistics, 34. 
 
 Imperial Council, 31 ; 36. 
 Institutions of the Empress Marie, 
 51 ; balance sheet of, 55. 
 Intelligents, demands of, 48; 113. 
 International Committee for Scien- 
 tific Study of the Liquor Ques- 
 tion, 178. 
 
 International Congress Against the 
 Abuse of Alcohol, 89. 
 
 Isvoschiks, 104. 
 
 Ivan III. (The Great), 29. 
 
 Ivan IV. (The Terrible), 29; 30; 
 prohibition of, 134; character 
 of, 137. 
 
 Izba, 114; 148. 
 
 J 
 
 Jaroslav, 25 ; 27. 
 
 Jenkinson, Anthony, quoted, 136. 
 Jews, 58; 113; 114. 
 
 Jumpers, 47. 
 
 K 
 
 Kabak, 133. 
 
 Kairys, L., 109. 
 
 Kalevala, 75. 
 
 Kasnaskoe Temperance Society, 164. 
 Kelnyck, cited, 171. 
 
 Kennan, George, cited, 131 ; on 
 Prohibition, 206 et seq. 
 
 Kennard, Howard P., quoted, 142 ; 
 146; 148. 
 
 Kharkov, serfdom extended to, 67. 
 Kiev, 24; 26. 
 
 Kohtunden Ystavat, 83. 
 
 Kokovtsov, defends monopoly, 185 ; 
 
 186; 189; overthrow of, 190. 
 
 Kol Slavin, 30. 
 
 Kornilov, A. A., 165. 
 
 Kovno, illiteracy in, 34 ; 97. 
 
 Kniaz, 2'2. 
 
 Krapvensk, drink conditions in, 173. 
 Krivoshein, Minister, declares for 
 prohibition, 199. 
 
 Kubansk Territory, conditions in, 
 175. 
 
 Kulikvo, battle of, 28. 
 
 Kumushka, 217. 
 
 Kurakin, Prince, 140. 
 
 Kvass, 134. 
 
 L 
 
 Land captain, 40. 
 
 Land tenure, 59 et seq.; 69; 72; 99. 
 Laplanders, 76. 
 
 Lavka, 135. 
 
 Lettish Abstinence Union, Ausek- 
 lis, 105. 
 
 Letts, 97; 99; 103; temperance ac- 
 tivities of, 105; 110. 
 
 Levashev, Prof., quoted, 169. 
 
 Libau, drunkenness at, 103. 
 
 Liberty, 19; 20; 22; 23; 30; Cath- 
 
 erine’s idea of, 43 ; 60 ; 99. 
 
 Litauscher Anti-Alcohol Union Lie- 
 dra, 109. 
 
 Litauscher Roman Catholic Tem- 
 perance Union, 108. 
 
 Lithuania, princes of, 27 ; 28 ; 61 ; 
 97; 99. 
 
 Livin, Andrew, 55. 
 
 Livonia, 97 ; 102. 
 
 Local option, in Finland, 92; 153; 
 174; 180; 194. 
 
 Local self-government, 43. 
 
 Lomonosov, 19. 
 
 Louhi, 75. 
 
 Lutheran Church, dominant in Fin- 
 land, 79 ; activities of in the Bal- 
 tic Provinces, 105 et seq. 
 
 M 
 
 Maklakov, N.A., instructions of, 192'. 
 
 Malt Liquor, statistics for Finland, 
 94. 
 
 Mansirev, Prince, quoted, 170. 
 
 Maria Feodorovna, 53. 
 
 Marie Feodorovna, 52. 
 
 Marmontel, Bearde I’Abaye, 67. 
 
 Marriage, 50; 144. 
 
 Masslenitsa, Feast of, 146. 
 
 Matthew Temperance Society, 164. 
 
 Molchalniki, 46. 
 
 Mendelsshon, Dr., 178. 
 
 Menshikov, drunkenness of, 139. 
 
 Messenger of Temperance. See 
 Viestnik Tresvosti. 
 
 Mir, 40 ; 46 ; new organization of, 
 72; 118. 
 
 Mongols, invasion of, 27. 
 
 Moscow, rise of, 28; 29; illiteracy 
 in, 34 ; 61 ; early drinking cus- 
 toms in, 136 ; temperance move- 
 ment in, 160; drink conditions 
 in, 173; action of City Council 
 of, 200; prohibition in, 203; 213. 
 
 Mouraviev, Gen., 102. 
 
 Mujik, home life of, 49; 57; 62; 
 114; 144. 
 
 N 
 
 Nali, 135. 
 
 Navy, vodka ration abolished from, 
 176, 195. 
 
 Nelins, K., 107. 
 
 Nevsky, Alexander, 25. 
 
 Nicholas I., friendly to emancipa- 
 tion, 68. 
 
 Nicholas II., 52'; 115; rescript to 
 M. Bark, 191 ; prohibition order 
 of, 195 ; 196 ; telegram to Con- 
 stantine, 199. 
 
 Nicholas, Grand Duke, closing 
 drinking shops, 194; 197; 214. 
 
 Nihilism, 42 ; 67 ; 73. 
 
 Nikon, reforms of, 112. 
 
 Novgorod, 24; 25; 26; 28; fall of, 
 29. 
 
 225 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 o 
 
 Obolensky, Prince, prohibition or- 
 der of, 202; 209. 
 
 Old Believers, 46. 
 
 Oldenburg. See Alexander, Prince 
 of. 
 
 Oprichniki, 30. 
 
 Orlov, Alexis, murdered Peter III., 
 142. 
 
 Orthodox Church. See Greek 
 Church. 
 
 Ostomar, 75. 
 
 Oulianovskoie Temperance Society, 
 165. 
 
 Owen, Isambart, cited, 178. 
 
 P 
 
 Patriotic Club of Riga, 101. 
 
 Paul, character of, 52 ; promotes 
 emancipation, 68. 
 
 Pavlovsk, prohibition in, 167. 
 
 Peasants, customs of, 144. 
 
 Personal liberty, 18; 19; 20. 
 
 People’s Palaces, 162. 
 
 Peter I. (The Great), 64; conquers 
 Finland, 79; a heavy drinker, 
 137; 139. 
 
 Peter III., 66; heavy drinker, 141; 
 assassination of, 142. 
 
 Petrograd, illiteracy in, 34 ; educa- 
 tional institutions in, 53; con- 
 sumption of vodka in, 131; 142; 
 temperance movement in, 162; 
 prohibition in, 202'; 204. 
 
 Petrograd Temperance Society, 164. 
 
 Pevo, 135. 
 
 Philippine Islands, government of, 
 32. 
 
 Pogroms, 58; 114. 
 
 Poklevsky, Kosiello, the vodka 
 king, 149. 
 
 Poland, illiteracy in, 34. 
 
 Polevoi, 143. 
 
 Police system, 42 ; 50. 
 
 Political liberty, 20. 
 
 Pomiestie, 61. 
 
 Press, censorship of, 17. 
 
 Priyut, 51. 
 
 Prohibition, in Finland, 91 ; of 
 Ivan, 134; in communes, 153; in 
 Pavlovsk, 167; spread of, 174; 
 180; 194; petitions for, 195; cam- 
 paign for, 199; petitions for, 200; 
 in Petrograd, 202 ; in Moscow, 
 203 ; many places adopt, 204 ; re- 
 sults of, 205 ; Geo. Kennan on, 
 206 ; results of, 210 et seq. ; M. 
 Baric on, 212; Consul Gen. Snod- 
 grass on, 2'13; deposits in savings 
 banks increased under, 216. 
 
 Pskow, 28 ; fall of, 29 ; drink con- 
 ditions in, 172. 
 
 Pushkin, 19. 
 
 R 
 
 Rainbow Maiden, 75. 
 
 Raittenden Ystavat, organization of, 
 83 ; 88 ; membership of, 90. 
 
 Rambaud, Alfred, quoted, 138; 
 139; 147. 
 
 Relander, Konr., 86. 
 
 Religion, 45. 
 
 Rengwirt, Pastor Henrik, promotes 
 temperance, 81 ; 83. 
 
 Revenue, from liquor, 117; 121; 
 
 122; 123; effect of prohibition 
 
 on, 204; 216. 
 
 Riga, conditions in, 104 ; vice in, 
 105; temperance activities in, 106. 
 
 Riga Catholic Temperance Union, 
 109. 
 
 Riga Temperance Union Rights, 
 109. 
 
 Riga Union for the Support of To- 
 tal Abstinence, 106. 
 
 Rostov-on-Don, adopts prohibition, 
 174. 
 
 Ruchlov, declares for prohibition, 
 199. 
 
 Rurik, 24 ; 2'5 ; 26. 
 
 Rus, 22. 
 
 Russell, Dr., quoted, 152. 
 
 Russian Congress of Medical Men, 
 resolutions of, 170. 
 
 S 
 
 St. Henry. See Henry, Bishop of 
 Upsala. 
 
 Samovar, 135. 
 
 Saratov, drink conditions in, 172. 
 
 Savings bank, increase deposits un- 
 der prohibition, 216. 
 
 Scharbert, O., 107. 
 
 Schilling, K., 106. 
 
 Schmidt, C. W., temperance work 
 of, 107. 
 
 Section IV., 51; 53; 56. 
 
 Senate, character of, 37. 
 
 Serafimovskoie Temperance Soci- 
 ety, 165. 
 
 Serfdom, 34 ; chapter on, 59 et seq. ; 
 abolished, 71; in Baltic Prov- 
 inces, 98. 
 
 Sergius, Grand Duke, temperance 
 movement of, 160; 162. 
 
 Seskis, Jean, quoted, 100. 
 
 Siberia, illiteracy in, 34; 65; drink 
 in, 126; 149; critics of monopoly 
 sent to, 171. 
 
 Sineus, 24. 
 
 Skarzynski, Louis, propaganda of, 
 178. 
 
 Skoptsi, 45. 
 
 Slavery, 34 ; 60 et seq. ; abolish- 
 ed, 71. 
 
 Slavic tribes, origin of, 21. 
 
 Slavophiles, 64 ; 80. 
 
 Slayers of Children, 45. 
 
 226 
 
INDEX 
 
 Smirnov, P., temperance society 
 of, 81. 
 
 Smolensk, drink conditions in, 173. 
 
 Snellman, J. W., temperance work 
 of, 81. 
 
 Snodgrass, John H., report of, 213. 
 
 Social insurance, 57. 
 
 Society for Fighting Against Alco- 
 hol in the Public Schools, 165. 
 
 Society of Political Economy, pro- 
 motes emancipation, 67 ; 68. 
 
 Sokowlsky, Pastor, 101. 
 
 Souchomlinov, Gen., declares for 
 Prohibition, 199. 
 
 Speranski, promotes emancipation, 
 
 68 . 
 
 Stadling, J., quoted, 149. 
 
 Stage, censorship of, 17. 
 
 Starosta, 40. 
 
 Stolypin, Premier, 32 ; 38. 
 
 Strigoliki, persecuted, 26. 
 
 Strike Leagues against drink, 86 
 et seq. 
 
 Sturkas, A., 109. 
 
 Suffrage, 33 ; woman’s in Finland, 
 77. 
 
 Suvorov, 66. 
 
 Sweden, subjugates Finland, 79. 
 
 T 
 
 Tartars, invasion of, 27 ; 61. 
 
 Taxes, how paid, 41; 62; liquor 
 
 taxation, 92. 
 
 Teachers’ Society of Health and 
 Temperance, 84. 
 
 Temperance Evangelist Union, 106. 
 
 Temperance Union Agris Rihts, 109. 
 
 Temperance Union Upsina, 109. 
 
 Temperance Union Welle, 109. 
 
 Tenth man, 41. 
 
 Tolstoi,, 19; 153; temperance work 
 of, 154; 187. 
 
 Torture, 73. 
 
 Tourgeniev, 19; quoted, 142. 
 
 Traktirs, character of, 104. 
 
 Truvor, 24. 
 
 Tsar, origin of, 22'; where buried, 
 30; powers of, 31; 35; head of 
 the church, 37 ; limitations of, 72; 
 Grand Duke of Finland, 78 ; 92. 
 
 Tschelishev, propaganda of, 179, et 
 seq; career of, 186; 189; 199; 
 quoted, 209. 
 
 Tukschitkalnis, Y., 109. 
 
 Tuliakov, I. N., quoted, 169. 
 
 U 
 
 Uiezd, 39. 
 
 Ulozhenie, 63. 
 
 V 
 
 Varangers, 22; 23; 24. 
 
 Variag, 22; 23; 24. 
 
 Vasili Buslaevich, 136. 
 
 Vasili Ivanovich, 135. 
 
 Veche, 21 ; 26 ; 2'8 ; 59. 
 
 Vice, in Riga, 105. 
 
 Viestnik Tresvosti, 128; 159. 
 
 Vishnegradski, M., 119. 
 
 Vladimir, 26; quoted, 136. 
 
 Vodka, 42; defined, 49; influence 
 on childhood, 56; chapter on 
 monopoly. 111; revenue from, 
 116; corruption from, 117; prices 
 of, 12'3 ; consumption of, 126; 
 128; 129; 130; in Petrograd, 
 
 131; in Siberia, 149; abolished 
 from navy, 176; prohibited, 195; 
 202 . 
 
 Vodka Monopoly, chapter on. 111; 
 115; 118; instituted, 120; reve- 
 nue from, 121; 122; 123; sales 
 of, 125 ; statistics of, 126 ; pur- 
 poses of, 160; law for, 160; de- 
 bate in Duma on, 169; results of, 
 172; Witte on, 181; overthrow 
 of, 189 et seq. 
 
 Vologda, Bishop of, quoted, 73. 
 
 Volost, 40; 72; 74. 
 
 Voltaire, 67. 
 
 Voniratyvskoe Temperance Society, 
 164. 
 
 Voronstov, Mme., 142. 
 
 W 
 
 Wahrti Unternehmungen, 105. 
 
 Waldemar II., 98. 
 
 Wallace, Duncan M., quoted, 117; 
 144. 
 
 War orders, in Finland, 93; 194. 
 
 Warsaw, illiteracy, in, 34; liquor 
 destroyed in, 174. 
 
 Washburn, Stanley, quoted, 215. 
 
 Wavrinsky, Edward, 108. 
 
 Weilantas, Y., 109. 
 
 White Cross, work of, in Riga, 
 105 ; 106. 
 
 Wine prohibited, 202. 
 
 Witchcraft, 46. 
 
 Witte, Sergius Julevich, 119; insti- 
 tutes monopoly, 120; debating 
 monopoly, 181; 199; 219. 
 
 Women, granted suffrage in Fin- 
 land, 77. 
 
 Women’s Christian Temperance 
 Union, in Finland, 90. 
 
 Workingman’s Society of Uleaborg, 
 
 86. 
 
 Workmen’s Compensation acts, 57. 
 
 Workmen’s Insurance, 57. 
 
 Z 
 
 Zemstvo, 37; 38; 40. 
 
 Zhilkin, Ivan, quoted, 2'05. 
 
 Zinoviev. M.. 181. 
 
 227 
 
GLOSSARY 
 
 Brief definitions are here given of Russian words and terms 
 that frequently appear in American books and newspapers. 
 
 Arshin. A measure of length, equal to i6 vesrshoks, or 2 
 feet and 4 inches. 
 
 Boyars. The early nobles, followers of the prince. 
 
 Braga. Home-made beer. 
 
 Derevnia. A village. 
 
 Desiatina. A unit of square measure, amounting to 2.7 acres. 
 Dom. A house. 
 
 Drozhky. A light, open carriage. 
 
 Drnzhina. Followers or companions of the early princes. 
 Dvor. A yard. 
 
 Dvornik. A janitor. 
 
 Feldsher. Assistant to a physician. 
 
 Funt. A measure of weight, equal to .90281179 avoirdupois 
 pounds. 
 
 Gospodi. The Lord. 
 
 Gubernia. (Government.) A Russian province correspond- 
 ing to an American state. 
 
 Ikon. A holy image or picture. 
 
 hitelligentzia. The intellectuals, the cultured classes. 
 Ispravnik. Head of police in a town. 
 
 Isvoschik. A hackman. 
 
 Izba. A peasant home. 
 
 Kabak. A drinking shop where food is not served. Usually 
 denotes an illicit liquor shop. 
 
 Katorga. A penal colony. 
 
 Kniaz. A prince. 
 
 Kobek. One one-hundredth part of a rouble. 
 
 Kupetz. A merchant. 
 
 Kvas. A mildly fermented beverage made of dried bread or 
 fruit pulp. 
 
 Lavka. A store. Uusually applied to a drinking shop. 
 
 Mir. The village organization. 
 
 Mishchane. The middle class. 
 
 Mujik. The Russian peasant. 
 
 Nagaika. A heavy whip, used by the Cossacks. 
 
 Oulitza. A street. 
 
 Ouyezd. A canton, or “county.” 
 
 229 
 
THE LIQUOR PROBLEM IN RUSSIA 
 
 Pereoulok. An alley. 
 
 Pevo. Lager beer. 
 
 Pogrom. A massacre, or destruction, usually applied to 
 massacres of the Jews. 
 
 Pood. A measure of weight, equal to forty funts, or 36.1127 
 avoirdupois. 
 
 Prospect. An avenue. 
 
 Rescript. An Imperial order issued to a Cabinet Minister or 
 to the Senate. 
 
 Rouble. A coin valued at about 52 cents in the United States 
 money. 
 
 Sobor. An assembly. Generally used with the word Cafed- 
 ralny to denote a cathedral. 
 
 S taros ta. The administrative head of a Russian village. 
 
 Tchetvert. A measure of capacity, equal to 5.95 American 
 bushels. 
 
 Tchinovnik. A government official. 
 
 Traktir. A cheap restaurant where liquor is served by the 
 drink. 
 
 Troika. A three-horse team. 
 
 Troitsa. The Trinity. 
 
 Tsar. The Russian Emperor. 
 
 Tsarevich. The Crown Prince of Russia. 
 
 Tsaritsa, or Tsarina. The Russian Empress. 
 
 Ukase. An Imperial proclamation. 
 
 Veche. The assembly of burghers of early times. 
 
 Vedro. A measure of capacity, equal to 2.7 Imperial gallons, 
 or 3.249 American gallons. 
 
 Vershok. A measure of length, equal to 1.75 inches. 
 
 Versta. A measure of distance, amounting to .6629 mile. 
 
 Volost. A subdivision of the ouyezd. 
 
 Yamschik. A driver. 
 
 Zemstvo. A local assembly. 
 
 230 
 
mmm'. 
 
 V: 
 

Date Due 
 
 Bura{>« Cat no. iiv7 
 
U71L 15.1337 
 
 "'cH