no other people in the world are so thoroughly loyal to their chief ruler as they, and this is largely due to the influence of the clergy.

In its governmental system Russia seeks to administer the affairs of its vast empire from a single head. Its territory is not divided into either tributary or self-governing dependencies, but is a compact and largely homogeneous state. The central power connects itself directly with each part down to the peasant village. It allows and in fact derives great advantage from the democratic mirs, which in effect reduce the number of units with which it has to deal from that of the individuals to that of the mirs or volosts. Local self-government over limited areas aids autocracy. The force of the volost, made up of unlettered peasants, is insufficient to endanger or interfere with the central authority. The recently established zemstvos, if permitted to consult and combine with one another, might check arbitrary power, but such combinations are jealously prohibited, and the zemstvo is not sustained or invigorated by that inherited strength, which the primitive village has brought down from antiquity. Its powers are more strictly limited and its functions not generally comprehended.

The system of laws which prevails exhibits peculiarities due to the manner of its development. Although it cannot be said that all its laws are an indigenous growth, and that none have been borrowed from other nations, the system is distinctly Russian. It is in main a product of local customs, peculiar to Russia, which furnish the laws of the peasant communities, and of edicts of the Czars. There never has been an adoption of the legal system of any other state or people. From time to time the Czar has issued his ukase, covering any subject he had in mind in his own way, without regard to anything which his predecessors had done. Russian Czars have frequently been bold innovators. As a reformer the Czar has ideal conditions for action. He makes the law as he wills. The emperors have for many generations realized the necessity of governing in accordance with declared principles, but they have been unwilling to part with their judicial

power, or speaking more accurately, with the power to set aside and disregard their own rules wherever deemed expedient. The laws therefore have been only for the guidance of subordinates, and then only so far as seemed consistent with the policy of the bureaucracy. There have been various compilations of the laws of the empire, beginning with that of Iaroslav in the tenth century and ending with that of Speransky in the reign of Nicholas I. This last compilation fills forty-five quarto volumes, containing the laws of the empire arranged in chronological order. These laws have been condensed into a code, Svod, classified by subjects, and included in fifteen volumes, containing over sixty thousand articles in fifteen hundred chapters. This vast mass of legislation would seem to be sufficient to afford fixed rules for most cases, but as a matter of fact there is much contradiction and inconsistency in the ukases of the various Czars, issued at different times and acting under varying impulses. To the subject these laws have afforded no safe rule of conduct or protection of property rights, because of the system of administration. Trials in the courts of both civil and criminal causes until 1864 were secret, the evidence being taken down in writing. A system of appeals from one court to another has long prevailed, but this adds little to the suitor's security and causes much delay and expense. Lawyers were not advocates but merely intercessors with the judges. That best of all guarantees for the integrity of judges, trials in the presence of the public and of the professional lawyers, whose business it is to extract the truth from parties and witnesses and apply the law to the facts, was not given till the reforms of Alexander II. While long steps in the right direction have been made in the reformation of the judiciary, there is still much to be desired in the way of independence and fearlessness on the bench. This may be said with truth of every other land, as well as Russia. There it is the Ministers whose influence is regarded as most baneful, elsewhere it is mainly the rich and powerful. The principal complaints urged against the Russian system are for arbitrary arrests and punishments; lack of security for the citizen against the malice of police officers; cruelty and bru

tality in the manner of executing sentences; insecurity in the home against searches, seizures and arrests, and police interference with the private life of the citizen. To this is added a charge of general and all pervading corruption among public officials, courts, police officers, governors and even ministers. Just how far this sweeping charge is justified by the facts it is impossible to state, but the want of that effective check, accountability to the people for whom and on whom authority is exercised, renders it probably true that the charge is well sustained. The Czar and the ministers seek to keep informed of all that is doing through the secret police and spies, but of the integrity of these they have no better guaranty than of the officials they are sent to watch. The fundamental difficulty, which no autocratic government has ever permanently overcome, is that the number of matters to be investigated is too great and the scene of action is too far away for any set of men at the capital to be able to learn the facts and act intelligently on them. To conduct the affairs of so vast an empire safely and intelligently much must be referred to the people of each district, who alone can be relied on to bring to account their local oppressors or incompetent public servants. With every step forward in civilization an accession of mental and moral force in the governing head is required, which no one man or small clique of men can possibly furnish. The knowledge, virtue and power of the great multitude must be drawn from in order to move forward safely and rapidly. The purest and best part of the administration of Russian affairs will generally be found to be that under the immediate supervision of the Czar himself and that directly managed by the people in their local concerns.

On March 15, 1917, the Czar abdicated and the Romanof dynasty, under which the boundaries of the empire had been extended over all eastern Europe and northern Asia, came to an end after three centuries of power. As the war progressed and the fundamental issue between the parties became more clearly defined the incongruity in the alliance of autocratic Russia with democratic France, Great Britain and Italy, for

the overthrow of militarism in Germany became more and more apparent. The Russian autocracy was in theory a more absolute military despotism than that of the Kaiser. The war demonstrated its lack of efficiency. The ideals of the ministry and their subalterns were essentially the same as those of the military nobility of Prussia. But at the base of the governmental system were the democratic mirs, the artels and other associations of the proletariat, filled with longings for liberty in an unalloyed democracy. A little progress had been made in the construction of a representative government through the zemstvos and the Duma, but the vast illiterate multitude knew almost nothing concerning the principles of organization which are essential to the security, welfare and efficiency of a great democratic nation. The number of educated people of moderate means was relatively much less than in the western nations. The proletariat were distrustful of the bourgeoisie as well as of the ruling classes. The war stimulated the activities and increased the importance of the zemstvos, through which a large part of the supplies of food, clothing and munitions were furnished the soldiers. The inefficiency of the ministry became more and more apparent as the strain of the struggle increased. The Germans had been seeking a separate peace with Russia, and Boris Stürmer, who was both Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs, was charged with German affiliations. The hostility of the Duma caused him to resign on November 24th, 1916, and Mr. Alexander Trepoff was appointed as his successor. On December 15th the Duma unanimously voted to entertain no peace proposals. The Czarina was of German birth and regarded as strongly pro-German in her sympathies. She fell under the influence of the monkish impostor, Rasputin, to whose supernatural aid she attributed the improved health of her son. The murder of Rasputin on January 29, 1917, was followed by the dismissal of Trepoff and the other liberal ministers, who showed no disposition to punish the slayers of Rasputin, and the appointment of Prince Golitzin, a reactionary, opposed to all the reforms demanded by the liberals, as Premier, and a cabinet in accord with him. The Duma continued to manifest a disposition to exercise

local customs. The rod however may only be used on the strong who are able to bear it. Of petty matters their jurisdiction is extensive, covering those concerning communal rights, inheritances and other matters growing out of the peculiar organization of rural communities. Appeals are allowed to the assembly of cantonal rural chiefs in civil cases, where imprisonment or corporal punishment is imposed. By the reforms of Alexander II justices of the peace elected by the district zemstvos had jurisdiction over all minor civil cases involving five hundred roubles or less and criminal cases punishable by one year's imprisonment or three hundred roubles fine, but by the ukase of 1889 these, except in the great cities, were abolished and in lieu of them the office of rural chief was created for each volost with substantially the same jurisdiction, and also various administrative duties. These chiefs must be landowners, belong to the local nobility, and are paid a salary by the state. They are nominated by the governor of the province on consultation with the marshal of the nobility of the district and confirmed by the Minister of the Interior. The chief has supervision of the financial and police affairs of the commune and nominates the members of the peasants' volost court. From the decisions of the chief an appeal lies to the district assembly of canton chiefs. They receive in rural districts 2,200 roubles per year. The district courts, which are given general original jurisdiction in both civil and criminal causes, have three judges and a jury. The judicial reforms of Alexander II, which unfortunately have not been steadily carried into effect, contemplated the complete separation of judicial from administrative powers and public trials on the oaths of witnesses with the aid of advocates, following the most advanced models of western nations.

Of these district tribunals there were in European Russia about sixty, and over them nine appelate courts located at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Saratof, Kharakof, Odessa, Kief, Smolensk, and Vilna. In trials by jury the court answers to the law and the jury only as to the facts. The unexpected acquittal of Vera Zassulich for the murder of General Trepof resulted in subsequent denial of jury trial in simi