The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1886-10-13
A RUSSIAN PRoaLE EN-.
EAs I.asA Ossstle~ - II Pssssss Nssas d
the CxAr's Do0iaiene.

ne Laa1 Question - 10 Presents NsssSia
the CxAr's Dentniess-
twenty-five years ago the Russian
Government did the biggest thing in
che way Of agraian reform on record.
It emancipated the serfs VINO hereto
tore had been the involuntary tillers of
their masters soil. Nevertheless these
serfs were neither landless men northe
mere chattels of their owners. They
we're settled in villages, and each COM
mune had the use Of as much land As
sutiiced for the support Of its memberA
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 Gull
tvate 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 tillaSe OF
the land and prevented the creation OF
. proletariat, a class with no other re-
source than their labor. who. II they do
not work this week, must starve the
next, for the cOmmunes were bound to
support their own poor, and the mas
tiers would, in their own interest. see
to it that their serfs did not lack food.
But the Emancipation act changed all
this, and in great measure changed
"a IL DthAv xunrda
emancipation. in itself = great moral
good, was SO mismanaged that its ma
terial results as touching those for
whose benefit it was DIES gned have
been nothing less than ruinous. This
was, of course, not intended; tho Gov
eminent had no doubt sincere desire
to insure the prosperity of the class
which is the main support OF the state.
But they attempted to perform the i'm
possible, and create at the same time a
landed aristocracy and territorial
democracy. For fear Of hurting the
mobiles and out of Difference to their
wishes they did not allot the peasants
as much land as would enable them to
live and pay the heavy taxes demand
ed from them by the state.
1t may be as we'll to mention here
that the traditional Russian conception
of land tenure entirely differs from that
which prevails among English-speaking
peoples. Russian peasants hold that
land, having been made by nobody.
and being an article of universal need.
ought to be nobody's peculium, its
produce should belong only to him who
tilIs it, and when he ceases to till it.,
the land should revert to the commu-
nifty. A Russian peasant never by any
chance speaks Of my land" 1t is al
ways "our land" and the Russian lam
guage has no word which expresses the
idea Of a private ownership in part OF
| the earth's surface. This theory is held
more or less by the Slavonic race. 1t
finds expression in their laws. In Bull
garia. for instance, the man who works
as a common laborer for ten consecu-
tive years on farm becomes ipso tact0
the owner of certain portion thereof,
for which reason Bulgarian farmers
never Of course do employ sabnar
ten consecutive years. All the same,
the idea is there "We belong to the
seigneur. but the land belongs to us,
the cultivatOrs," was the old Russian
peasants conception of serfdoul. and
IL was no doubt the conception of the
law. So intense was this feeling that
If the landlords had got their way, and
the serfs had been appropriated and
made into mere tenants at will. there
would almost certainly have cnsued 8
servile Instruction Of unexamplet
magnitude. The Government, as
have said, took middle course ant
gave the peasants some land, yet no
enough to enable them to keep the vol
from the door. The consequences o
this mistaken policy have been disas
trous in the extreme. San Fran
cisco Chronicle.