Savannah courier. (Savannah, Tenn.) 1885-1979, 1886-10-21
A RUSSIAN PROBLEM.
The Land Question as 1t Presents Itself In
the Czar's DOminions.


the CZar's Donations.
Twenty-Five years ago the Russian
Government did the biggest thing in
the way of agrarian reform on record.
1t emancipated the serfs who hereto
fore had been the involuntary tillers OF
their masters soil. Nevertheless these
serfs were neither landless men nor the
mere chattels Of their owners. They
were settled in villages, and each COM
mune had the use of as much land as
suiIiced for the support of its members.
The Russian serf, in short, was life
tenant whose rent was paid with his
own labor. His lord could no more
deprive him of his holding, or deny
him the time necessary for its cultiva-
ton, than the serf could refuse to cul-
tivate land of his master or change him
for another. Whatever may have been
the moral and economical drawbacks
of this system, and they were many and
great, it at least assured the tillage OF
the land and prevented the creation OF
a proletariat, class with no other re-
source than their labor, who, if they do
not work this week, must starve the
next, for the communes were bound to
support their own poor, and the mas
ters would, in their own interest, see
to it that their serfs did not lack food.
But the Emancipation act changed all
this, and in a great measure changed
it for the worse. In other words,
emancipation, in itself great moral
good, was so mismanaged that its ma
terial results as touching those for
whose benefit it was designed have
been nothing less than ruinous This
was, of course, not intended; the Gov
ernment had no doubt a sincere desire
to insure the prosperity of the class
which is the main support OF the state
But they attempted to perform the inn
possible, and create at the same time
landed aristocracy and territorial
democracy. For fear of hurting the
mobiles and out of Difference to theil
wishes they did not allot the peasants
as much land as would enable them tt
live and pay the heavy taxes demand
ed from them by the state.
1t may be as well to mention herr
that the traditional Russian conception
of land tenure entirely differs from tina
whichprevails among English-speakins
peoples. Russian peasants hold tha
land, having been made by nobody
and being an article of universal need
ought to be nobody's peculium, it
produce should belong only to him VIII
tills it, and when he ceases to till ii
the land should revert to the commu
nity. A Russian peasant never by an
chance speaks of my land 1t is a.
ways "our land," and the Russian Ian
guage has no word which expresses tn
idea of private ownership in part c
the earth's surface. This theory is hel
more or less by the Slavonic race.
finds expression in their laws. In Bu
garia, for instance, the man who work
as common laborer for ten consecr
tive wears on farm becomes tpSo fact
the owner of a certain portion thereo
for which reason Bulgarian farmer
never of course do employ sabna
ten consecutive years. All the sam'
the idea is there. "We belong to til
seigneur, but the land belongs to u
) the cultivators," was the old Russia
peasants conception of serfdom, an
il was no doubt the conception of I'll
law. So intense was this feeling tn;
if the landlords had got their way, an
the serfs had been appropriated an
, made into mere tenants at will, thel
: would almost certainly have ensued
servile insurrection of unexamplt
magnitude. =, The Government, as
have said, took middle course al
, gave the peasants some land. yet n
enough to enable them to keep the VIC
from the door. The consequences
this mistaken policy have been disa
trous in the extreme.-Cor. San Fra
cisco Chronicle.