New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-15

system Of impost, visited collectively the whole
population OF the domain, engendered and deve-
oped communal organization.
The united inhabitants OF a manorlal estate con-
stituted a little republic, administered by them
selves, and having no obligation except that Of
paving the obr0k, or collective rent.
The Russian commune was at first an associa-
ton purely agricultural but when Peter |. intro
duced European industry into his empire, both
sovereign and lords appropriated whole villages 10
particular branches Of manufacture, and thus lald
the foundation OF the industrial commune. we
propose to examine these different communes IN
turn.
The most important and interesting il, beyond
doubt the rural commune. This remarkable pO-
ltica institution is based upon this great princi-
pie of Sclavonic law-the indiysibIlity OF the
family estate, and the division of the usutrHcf.
Whether the commune be free and possess pro-
perty in its own right, (which IS the case among
all the Cossacks) or whether the tenure be more
or less limited as in the domains OF the Crown,
and in the immortal possessions, the landed pro-
perty is considered as belonging 10 the community
at large and not to the respective members who
cultivate IL.
This idea of possession, common to all people
of Sclavonic origin exists intact and IN It's PRINT
tive state even 70 the present day, certain parts
of Servia Croatia, and Sclayonla, where accord
ing to NJ. Harthausen, the land is not even divided,
but remains under the supervision OF the old IN
habitants Of the village, who divide and distribute
the aggregate product OF the harvest.
In the Russian commune the spirit of commun-
i'm ia not carried so far. The land there is d.
yided, and every male inhabitant has the right to
claim for his share the usufuct of quantity equal
to that of the other members. And in order that
this equality may always continue, the general d-
vision of the land takes place regularly ut certain
stated periods
At the end OF a certain number of years the
Rus sian Government causes census to be taken
OF the whole population Of the empire, for the
purpose of ascertaning the exact number of IN
habltants liable TO pei sOnal taxation and military
service. The year when this census is taken Is
by law the wear fOr dividing the lands OF the COM
munts. This division is conducted as follows:
Each commune has its land surveyors, persons
of experience and integrity, who commence by
prtpa,ing an exact statement OF the quantity of
land to lie divided. This operation finished, they
estimate the different parts of which it is com.
pose according to their fertility and their pro-
ducts and then divide them into many lots as
there are single claimants in the communtyi so
that every one has, not an equal quantity of land
but quantity propOrtlOned to its intrinsic value.
This apportionment takes place by lot and such
is the equity which has hitherto prevailed that it
hardly ever happens that any one is dissatisfied.
For the rest reserved portion OF land Is always
set aside to meet any reclamation which may
afterward be made and at the death of any men,
Der his part is added to this reserve.
This system of continual partition, peculiar to
the Russian commune, possesses the immense adj
vantage of rendering hereditary poverty lmpossl-
BILE. If the father ruins himself, whether by his
own fault or by misfortune the son is not less en-
titled TO his portion of land he is not compelled
to suffer N any way from the error or negligence
of his parents. Thus the proletary, that plague
of ancient and modern society, il IN Russia un-
known.
But IN the mode of possession aud of culture the
Russian communes are subject to two distinct re-
gimes. Most of the cOmmunes are regarded IN
some sort as the actual prOpnetOrS OF the SOIL.
They cultivate the whole of it, and receive the
entire product, excepting only enough to pay the
annual ObrOk or rent agreed upon with the lord OF
the manor. This rent once paid, the commune Is
mistress OF itself and manages its own affairs as 1t
pleases.
But there are communes too poor to pay the
rent and where the proprietor finds 1t for his IN
erest to treat with his serfs IN an entirely differ
ent manner. These communes are subject to the
cory6e in other words, the lord retains a quarter
or third of the land Of the village, and cOmpels
the srefs to cultivate it on his account, in cOnsId
erbtOn of the use of the rest which he abandOns
to them.
1t will readily be perceived that such system
must lead to innumerable abuses To counterfeit
the most serious results OF tins arbitrary regime,
wbich the lord has the right to exact from his
serfs at three days per week. - From this essential
difference in the mode of possession arises an
equally important difference in the mode of al0t-
meDt.
All the members OF the cOmmunes which pay
the ObrOk or annual rent-n fact all the male IN
babitants-can claim an equal or equivalent por-
ton of the land. The father has the right to de-
mand this portion in the name of his son who is
under se and it is accorded to him but each lot
is subject to partial rent. BY this arrangement
the family which possesses three or four lots pays
rent three four times as large as the possessor
OF but single lot. In word, the rent is proper
toned to the quantity of land which is held. On
the other hand, IN the villages under the c0rrfe
regime, the principle is entirely different. 1t is
not there a question of cedng more or less land
according to the number of males in family, but
of allowing so much land for so much work: so
that n strong and vigorous man, IT he Is able to
perform two or three times as much mork as his
neighbOr, may possess twice or thrice as much
soil. The young, the aged, the unfortunate, by
the simple fact of their inability to work, are ex-
eluded from any claim to the immortal lands.
Such is the principle on which rests the terrific
rial distribution.
In order to encourage marriages i'll country
which is deficient in population it is provided that
each new family shall have a right to portion OF
the soil. As soon man marrles he becomes a
legitimate claimant, and the commune lmme-
diately comedies to him the lot Of land which be-
fore it refused him. Thus in Russia the single
peasant is almost unknown.
For the rest, whatever mode of apportiOnment
is adopted, and whether the peasants pay the
yearly rent, or subject to the cOrree, each one
possesses in principle, at least equal right to
the uSufruct of the land, which is not as in other
countries the property of the individual, but the
joint property of all the members Of the COM
mune. This is the basis of the institution.
Let us now pass to the administrative organiza-
ton of the commune. Every village has for its
chiefthe st0rosta or elder who is elected by uni
versal suffrage. The stdrOsta has one or several
associates or deputies (deSsiatsky) chosen by tea
heads of families. According to rule, he should