1. This statute gave tsarist officials wide authority over duma policies, which could be vetoed on the grounds of illegality or “inexpediency.” It also restricted the franchise to a tiny minority of homeowners and prosperous merchants and manufacturers. In cities with populations greater than 100, 000, homeowners with valuations of 1, 500 rubles or more could vote. Assessments were usually based on income potential of the property (dokhodnost’), were often arbitrary, and were almost always far below the real market value of the property. Nearly all renters were disenfranchised, and in general, only about 1 percent of the urban population could vote after 1892.

2. Den’ (St. Petersburg), November 1, 1912. The paper reported with sarcasm the duma's “historic call” not to drink unboiled water and said it was indicative of city government inaction. St. Petersburg actually had its own statute, issued in 1903, which gave some renters the right to vote, but the performance of the duma did not improve. Of the major city dumas, Moscow and Riga won reputations for relatively high levels of energy and performance.

3. J Bater, ames H., St. Petersburg: Industrialization and Change (Montreal, 1976), p. 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the essays of Hamm, Michael F. and Skinner, Frederick in Hamm, Michael F., ed., The City in Russian History (Lexington, 1976)Google Scholar for similar points of view

4. Most local duma journals simply published data from the various budgetary accounts. These new journals discussed local problems and often reprinted articles from Gorodskoe delo and Izvestiia Moskovskoi gorodskoi dumy. This enabled provincial city officials to maintain some familiarity with new municipal thought in Europe and America.

5. This lobby, and the broader coalition called the Progressive Bloc, worked out a major reform bill for Russian cities during World War I. But the issue of franchise extension split the Bloc, dividing Kadets from Octobrists. The latter wanted voting curiae if renters were given the vote. The issue stalled action on the entire bill, which otherwise seemed to have the approval of the Ministry of the Interior.

6. Diakin, V. S., Samoderzhavie burzhuaziia i dvorianstvo 1907-1911 gg. (Leningrad, 1978), p. 175–79.Google Scholar Diakin also claims that the publication of Gorodskoe delo in 1909 was inspired by the Kadets. The journal continued to be published until 1917.

7. See Robert William Thurston, “Urban Problems and Local Government in Late Imperial Russia: Moscow, 1906-1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1980). Thurston cites the reference to ‘

8. State Duma deputy A. I. Savenko was active in Kievan politics, where his Nationalists succeeded in injecting Polonophobia and anti-Semitism into the campaigns even though Poles had little influence in city politics and Jews could not vote at all. See Kievskaia mysl', October 5, 1910. For Kishinev, see Bessarabskaia zhizn', May 15, 1913. In his study of the Nationalist Party, Robert Edelman notes that it had its greatest influence in the western borderlands, and one may surmise that Nationalists were also active in Minsk and Vitebsk (see Robert, Edelman, “The Election to the Third Duma: The Roots of the Nationalist Party,” in Leopold H. Haimson, ed., The Politics of Rural Russia, 1905-1914 [Bloomington, 1979], especially pp. 103ff).Google Scholar

9. Kievskaia mysl’ said Kiev's Non-Party Group was “like the Octobrists politically” (see Kievskaia mysl', December 1, 1910). Iuzhnaia zaria (Ekaterinoslav) referred to the Non-Party Group in that city as Octobrists (see Iuzhnaia zaria, September 7, 1913). According to Gorodskoe delo, the 1909 duma in Kazan’ included thirty-five Kadets or Progressists, twenty-three Octobrists, five Rightists, and twentytwo unknown or unaffiliated. Few breakdowns of dumas by political party seem to exist, however (see Gorodskoe delo [St. Petersburg], 1909, no. 4, pp. 177-78).

10. Kievskaia mysl', October 12, 1910.

11. Ivanovskiilistok (Ivanovo-Voznesensk), February 27 and March 1, 1911. Laterbemoaningjn “unjust” attempt by the city to tax factories and clean up the river, the paper proclaimed that the city's leaders were “caught up in a democratic ferment” (see the editorial in ibid., April 4, 1914).

12. Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, February 11, 1910. Golos Moskvy on page 129, but in general ascribes little importance to the role of national parties in Moscow politics. There were two major parties in Moscow, the Progressives and the Right-Moderates. ‘ They differed little on most issues and both “worked to promote gradual social change and improvement in the city” (ibid., pp. 144-45).

13. Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 11-12, p. 832

14. Bessarabskaia zhizn’ provided excellent coverage of city affairs in Kishinev and opposed the rightist, pro-mayor faction supported by the newspaper Drug. Both papers were examined for the period April-June 1913. Besides being a valuable source for historians, the local press played an important role in city politics. According to one commentator, the voter saw local issues only insofar as the local press J illuminated them (see Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 12, pp. 984-85).

15. Gorozhanin, Riazan'skii vestnik, February 14, 1914.

16. In Minsk, where Russians outnumbered Poles two to one, Poles still dominated the electorate. The Russians talked about boycotting the election, and ultimately only ten ran, mainly nationalistic “dark people,” in the view of Kurjer Litewski. See Severo-zapadnaia zhizn’ (Minsk), March 19, April 2, and Apfil6, 1913.In Kiev, while only six of the eighty city councilors were Poles, the Nationalists accused some councilors of being “Polish hirelings.”

17. Bessarabskaia zhizn', May 15, 1913.

18. See Michael F., Hamm, “Riga's 1913 City Election: A Study in Baltic Urban Politics,” Russian Review, 39, no. 4 (October 1980): 442–61.Google Scholar

19. See Revel'skiia izvestiia, April 3, 1913, and Gorodskoe khoziaistvo Revel'ia, 1905-1915 (Revel', n.d.), pt. 1, pp. 82-84.

20. Zakavkazskaia rech’ (Tiflis), November 27 and 28, 1911. The paper said the election “bore a purely national” and even “chauvinistic” character.

21. Volzhskoe slovo (Samara), August 13, 1913.

22. Kostromskaia zhizn', April 18, 1913. The uprava managed the day-to-day administration of the city.

23. Staryi vladimirets (Vladimir), January 23 and 30, 1911. The paper carried a daily column on life in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, whose local paper, Ivanovskii listok, said little about local government other than to worry about “Kadets and Social Democrats” in its ranks (see the March 1, 1914 edition). Regarding the reference to Manchester, an article in Gorodskoe delo noted that after sampling the filth of Ivanovo-Voznesensk, the English might take offense at such a comparison (see Gorodskoe delo, 1912, no. 24, p. 1552). The city's factories paid few local taxes and reassessment of property by the city had not been carried out for eighteen years.

24. Staryi vladimirets, January 30, 1911. According to Gorodskoe delo, the reform movement was led by small homeowners (see Gorodskoe delo, 1912, no. 24, p. 1550).

25. Saratovskii vestnik, March 9 and 19, 1913. I was unable to learn whether the Old Believers carried out this pledge or how they voted.

26. For the 1817 figure, see the excellent history of Khar'kov by D. I., Bagalei and D. I., Miller, Istoriia goroda Khar'kova za 250 let ego sushchestvovaniia s 1655 do 1905 g., vol. 2 (Khar'kov, 1905), p. 114.Google Scholar For the other years, see Glavnye itogi perepisi goroda Khar'kova 8 dek. 1912 goda (Khar'kov, 1914), p. 39. In 1873, 45 percent of the city's population came from other guberniias; by 1897 about twothirds. Kursk guberniia was by far the leading supplier of migrants both years.

27. Bagalei and Miller, Istoriia goroda Khar'kova, p. 121. Bagalei was a member of the Khar'kov city duma and a well-known historian at Khar'kov University.

28. Golos Samary and Gorodskoi vestnik (Samara) both carried interesting discussions about Chelyshov on June 7, 1911. city duma and a well-known historian at Khar'kov University.

28. Golos Samary and Gorodskoi vestnik (Samara) both carried interesting discussions about Chelyshov on June 7, 1911. 29. Of the remaining 10 percent of the homeowners, about half were Jews, the rest Poles and Ger mans. These calculations are based on the tax assessment rolls for Khar'kov found in the Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Leningrad), fond 1288, opis’ 25, delo 77, list 71 (1913) (hereafter cited as TsGIA). In 1912-13 Khar'kov had 9, 180 homeowners on the tax rolls, 3, 434 assessed at 1, 500 rubles or more, which enabled them to vote. Often 20 percent or more of a city's homeowners could not vote because they owed back taxes.

30. Pogorelko's career is summarized in Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 3, pp. 176-77. During Pogo- relko's mayoral terms, the city also took over the electric and water utilities, giving the city important new sources of income. j

31. I could not find data for the incidence of disease in Khar'kov. In 1909 the city had six major epidemics, with eight thousand cases of typhus and fifteen hundred recurrences (see Iuzhnyi krai [Khar'- kov], February 14, 1910). Khar'kov had the reputation of being a center of typhus epidemics, as did St. Petersburg, where more died from typhus in 1907 than in all German cities combined. See Z. Frenkel's survey in Gorodskoe delo, 1910, no. 5, pp. 279-80. |

32. Iuzhnyi krai, February 14, 1910. j

33. Voters could vote for eighty candidates from the various lists. Names had to be clearly written on the ballot or they could be voided. “Wild” lists were often made up by independent candidates who placed themselves on lists with popular candidates from the major parties, often without authorization ; from the latter. A voter could vote for an entire list or split his ticket. Of the 1, 038 votes cast in the 1910 election, the leading vote-getter received 877 votes. Mayor Pogorelko, running on four lists, received 724, good for sixth place; 255 candidates received fewer than ten votes; 139 received one vote. About three hundred seventy-five votes were needed to win a seat in this election. See luzhnyi krai, February 20, 1910 and May 2, 1914.

34. The reference to Odessa underlines the fact that Black Hundred terrorism was openly tolerated in that city. Rech’ (St. Petersburg) carried a column entitled “Odessa morals in Khar'kov” after Black Hundred thugs severely beat and nearly blinded luzhnyi krai correspondent Iu. Volin. The incident apparently had nothing to do with the election (see Rech', January 28, 1910). While the Rightists clearly occupied the far right of the local political spectrum, it is unclear how many actually belonged to the Black Hundreds, and the exact occupational breakdown of their list is unknown. Merchants and artisans were often said to be the major supporters of the Right, although as business people and property owners, some feared the disruption and violence that Rightist demagoguery was capable of inciting.

35. Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, February 7, 13, and 14, 1910. This paperserved as the major organof Khar'kov's Right, and Progressives assumed that it received government subsidies.

36. luzhnyi krai, February 5 and 14, 1910.

37. Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, February 14, 1910.

38. Iuzhnyi krai, February 13 and 14, 1910.

39. Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, February 16, 1910.

40. According to Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, the Progressives received about half of their votes from voters who supported the entire ticket, or nearly all of it. The rest of the votes were garnered by Progressive candidates who appeared on other lists (see ibid., February 17, 1910).

41. The moderate press claimed that the election had been conducted with the utmost concern for legality, and officials took almost two weeks to count the ballots. May was selected for the second election because the government assumed many voters would be out of the city.

42. This warning was made clear in advance of the election. See Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 11-12, p. 833.

43. Poltavskii golos, January 6, 1913, and V. V., Khizhniakov, “Gorodskie vybory,” in Gorodskoe delo, 1909, no. 12, pp. 580–81.Google Scholar Tolmachev was the current gradonachaVnik in Odessa.

44. See Spravochnik po gorodskomu obshchestvennomu upravleniiu (Khar'kov, 1913), pp. 96-101.

45. By class, the 1910 duma contained twenty hereditary and twenty-three personal nobles, nineteen merchants, nine meshchane (artisans and lower middle class citizens), five hereditary grazhdane, two members of guilds (tsekhovye) and two peasants. By religion, seventy-one were Orthodox, five Catholic, two Lutheran, and one was a Karaite.

46. Kovalevskii, N. N. in Utro (Khar'kov), January 26, 1912.Google Scholar

47. Khar'kovskiia vedomosti, January 11, 1912.

48. Utro, January 15, 1912. In general, government officials discouraged the press from discussing the case.

49. TsGIA, f. 1288, op. 5, d. 126 (1912), 1. 10. The letter is dated April 3, 1913.

50. Guberniia officials had veto power over such appointments and could not agree with the duma on a suitable replacement. By law, a replacement could not be named during the final year of a duma's term. The mayor had substantial authority, for he could determine the agenda at duma meetings.

51. Gorodskoe delo, 1911, no. 19, pp. 1384-86.

52. See ibid., 1910, no. 19, pp. 1333-34.

53. Iuzhnyi krai, April 23, 1914and Utro, April9, 1914. In accordance with the law ofMay 3, 1908, Khar'kov received state subsidies for teachers’ salaries because its plan for introducing universal elementary education had been approved by the Ministry of Education. Only 16 percent of Russian cities had similar plans approved by 1913 (see Gorodskoi vestnik, September 18, 1913). Expenditures on education in 1913 ranged from 31 percent of the city budget in Saratov, reflecting probably an abnormally high level of capital construction that year, to 5 percent in Vil'na and Kostroma. Most guberniia cities, including Moscow, Riga, Khar'kov, Kishinev, and St. Petersburg, spent about 10 percent. Thanks to the 1908 law, Khar'kov's spending for education jumped by 140 percent between 1909 and 1913. Of the major cities, only Saratov and Samara had higher rates of increase during these years.

54. Among reformers, Kiev was notorious for its “obsolete” philosophy of city management; in 1913 private concessionaires still held the tram and nearly all of the utilities. Only 10 percent of Kiev's budget came from city-run enterprises, compared to 50 percent in Chernigov and about 20 percent in Moscow (see Kievskaia mysl', May 31, 1912). Warsaw, for example, received two million rubles per year of income from its water system, Kiev nothing. See also Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 3, pp. 152-53. Revenue generated from city enterprises did hold down local property taxes, but the city consumer was still probably better off with municipalization. This generalization probably holds true for most urban consumers, including the working classes, although 1 know of no studies dealing with the fairness of utility rates, streetcar fares, and similar charges levied by city governments at this time.

55. Fiscal reasons were also cited for rejecting part of the loan. See TsGIA, f. 1288, op. 7, d. 38 (1913), 11. 1-2. The letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs is dated January 20, 1913. Though tsarist officials spoke of a “Kadet majority,” I found no specific breakdown of the political affiliations of Khar'kov's city councilors. Quite probably, Kadets were active at least in leadership roles in the duma, although, given the Kadet Party's advocacy of this cause at the national level, it is also possible that the officials used the word “Kadet” to refer to any outspoken proponent of municipal reform. Khar'kov's press did not refer to city councilors by their national political affiliation. Gorodskoe delo carried one vague reference to the presence of “democrats and socialists” in the duma's ranks (see Gorodskoe delo, 1911, no. 19, p. 1385).

56. Iuzhnyi krai, March 8, April 21, May 17, and May 18, 1911; Gorodskoi vestnik, June 3, 1911; and Gorodskoe delo, 1911, no. 23, p. 1661.

57. TsGIA, f. 1288, op. 25, d. Ill (1912), 11. 1-8. The letter is dated June 5, 1912.

58. Reassessment was supposed to be carried out every ten years, although data published in 1911 indicate that some cities had not revalued property since the 1880s. Kursk, Kostroma, and Vladimir were among these cities. See Doklad Penzenskoi gorodskoi upravy po voprosu o pereotsenke gorodskikh nedvizhimykh imushcheslve gorodskoi Penzi (Penza, 1911), pp. 32-51, for a survey of city assessment procedures. Khar'kov's new rates were to be in effect for five years. Assessment was particularly controversial at this time because of rising public irritation with state and zemstvo tax increases levied against city real estate. The average increase resulting from city reassessment at this time is unknown.

59. TsGIA, f. 1288, op.5, d. 155b(1914), 1.264. See also Cfro, January 13, 1912. Two general statistical surveys made in 1904 and 1910 were published, but the absence of detailed data for Russian cities at this time is surprising.

60. Utro, May 14, 1914.

61. Cited in the Penzenskii gorodskoi vestnik, 1911, no. 19-20, p. 35. Hundreds of residents of Khar'kov's peripheral districts petitioned the Ministry of Internal Affairs to lower the franchise property qualification so that they could vote, but to no avail.

62. Gorodskoe deb, 1912, no. 10, p. 652. ;

63. Gorodskoe delo reported a mortality figure of forty per thousand in an outer district of Khar'kov (see ibid., 1914, no. 9, p. 553). Volzhskoe slovo noted that in Samara the poor suffered from epidemic mortality at a rate at least five times higher than in the central city (see Volzhskoe slovo, August 29, 1913). In Baku, residents of the city's squalid outskirts organized against “those who stand in servile dependence before the duma bigwigs for the right to live continuously in dirt, to live a hellish existence, perishing from epidemics” (see Baku, February 13, 1911). Kaspiia (Baku) called Baku typical of “the Tiflis school of polemics” (see Kaspiia, April 14, 1911).

64. luzhnyi krai, May 3, 1914. The allegation came from A. S. Viazigin, a Rightist candidate for mayor.

65. Volzhskoe slovo, August 29, 1913.

66. See the editorial in Rannoe utro (Moscow), December 4, 1912.

67. See N. M. Kishkin in Gorodskoe delo, 1913, no. 6, p. 357. See also D'iakonov, A., Zhilishchnyi vopros i popytki ego razresheniia (Kostroma, 1912)Google Scholar for a survey of city housing problems.

68. Based on data from Poiasniiel'naia zapiska k proektu pravil proizvodstva otsenok nedvizhimykh imushchestv g. Khar'kove (Khar'kov, 1912), p. 1. See also Iuzhnyi krai, May 15, 1914.

69. Spravochnik po gorodskomu obshchestvennomu upravleniiu, pp. 80-83. About 9 percent of Khar'kov's apartments were in basements in 1911.

70. The availability of apartments fluctuated from year to year. In 1914, many buildings were for sale, allegedly because of high taxes and mortgage payments. Iuzhnyi krai worried that a “homeowners' crisis” was imminent (see Iuzhnyi krai, June 3, 1914). There are no data indicating number of inhabitants per room in Khar'kov, but the city did publish data indicating that the amount of living space per person in the central districts was higher than in certain of the outer neighborhoods. This could indicate crowding in the poorer outlying districts or the fact that barracks housing prevailed there.

71. Volzhskoe slovo, September 1, 1913.

72. Iuzhnyi krai, May 22, 1911.

73. Gorodskoe delo, 1914, no. 11-12, p. 739. According to my calculations, the average yearly increase of Kiev's population was about twenty-one thousand between 1897 and 1910. This estimate is based on data found in TsGIA, f. 1288, op. 25, d. 29, 11. 5-11, 25-50.

74. Iuzhnyi krai, June 8, 1911. It is not clear whether this was a reference to settlements within the outer city districts or outside the city limits and hence beyond city jurisdiction. In Vladimir, Kostroma, and other heavily industrial guberniias, many factory workers lived outside of the major guberniia cities. In Khar'kov guberniia in 1913, only 11, 236 of the 67, 161 factory workers lived inside the city. Another 15, 000 lived in Khar'kov uezd. Only 141 oftheguberniia's 1, 537 factories were located in the city, another 135 in the surrounding uezd. See Obzor Khar'kovskoi gubernii za 1913 god, TsGIA, f. 1284, op. 194, d. 52, 1. 27.

75. Gorodskoe deb, 1914, no. 9, p. 554. Khar'kov's codes applied only to sidewalks, cesspools, and fireproof stairs. Riga, Kiev, and Odessa had more comprehensive codes.

76. See especially Iuzhnyi krai, April 28-May 9, 1914. The third major list, the Independents, differed little from the Right, and the fourth represented the outskirts. Iuzhnyi krai believed the Right was united mainly against the Progressives and would break apart after the election. Vegner became nationally known as an advocate of separating the large cities from the zemstvo, for in most cases the zemstvo provided few services for urban residents but levied controversial taxes against city real estate. See p. 31 of this article.

77. Utro noted that the Rightist list was mainly merchant, but the Right did not seem to orient its campaign toward the merchants or any particular social or occupational group (see Utro, April 22 and May 3, 1914).

78. Iuzhnyi krai, May 2, 1914.

79. This unsigned report appeared in Gorodskoe delo, 1914, no. 9, p. 558. The city faced a staggering thirty million ruble repair bill for its streets, to be financed through loans. The Right also attacked the Progressives for not having a general city plan, although comprehensive planning was rare in Russia at this time, and the Right gave no indication that it intended to develop a general city plan.

80. Utro, April 3, 1914. “Class” here no doubt refers to the property-owning voters who opposed developmental projects because of fear of higher property taxes.

81. The imperial law of June 6, 1910 went into effect in 1912. This law was intended mainly to standardize state assessment rates at 6 percent of net income from property, but it had the effect of raising state taxes nearly everywhere and by 56 percent between 1911 and 1912 in Khar'kov. City officials said the law made it even more difficult to raise city property taxes and claimed it also resulted in rent increases. Kievskaiamysl’ (September 11, 1913) noted that by September 1913, 143 cities had petitioned to have it altered or annuled! See Gorodskoi vestnik (September 14, 1913) and Penzenskii gorodskoi vestnik (1911, no. 22, pp. 1-8) for surveys of its impact.

82. Izvesliia Khar'kovskoi gorodskoi dumy, 1913, no. 10, p. 195. Khar'kov's earliest petition for separation from the zemstvo came in 1882.

83. My calculations are based on data published in Materialy po voprosu o vydeleniig. Khar'kova v samostoiatel'nuiu zemskuiu edinitsu (Khar'kov, 1913), p. 86. See also Spravochnik po gorodskomu obshchestvennomu upravleniiu, p. 90. City officials seemed to have a valid point, although the impact of a city the size of Khar'kov on the local zemstvo budgets has yet to be studied. Incidentally, I found no evidence to indicate that zemstvo officials ran for office in Khar'kov, but in Kostroma, several prominent zemtsy lost, and Kostromskaia zhizn’ spoke of voter antagonism toward zemtsy in city elections (see Kostromskaia zhizn', April 23, 1913).

84. Mis'ki selyshcha USRR (Khar'kov, 1929), p. 152, lists the city's population as 352, 354 in 1916. It is not clear how many were new workers, how many soldiers or refugees.

85. Zaural'skii krai (Ekaterinburg), March 3 and 4, 1914. This paper was apparently a supporter of the local Kadets. For Kherson, see Rech', March 17, 1913. Hans Roggernotes that the Union of Russian I People, founded in October 1905, was intended to be an all-class party of the right which retained “a popular aspect by the studied coarseness of its language and conduct, by its anti-intellectualism, and its willingness to employ social demagogy” (see Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber, eds., The European Right [Berkeley, 1966], pp. 487-99).

86. See the editorial in Volga (Saratov), March 29, 1913.

87. Based on data published in Izvestiia Khar'kovskoi gorodskoi dumy, 1914, no. 1, pp. 315-16. Russian cities were considered bad risks in international financial circles. In 1912 Moscow became the first Russian city to publish a brochure attesting to its financial solvency.

88. Khar'kov ran a detskii sad during the summer for 466 children, ages one through twelve, of the poorest of the city's population. Some of the children arrived at 5 AM and did not leave until 9 PM. This facility was opened in 1904; it was possibly the first city-run center of its kind in Russia (see Izvestiia Moskovskoi gorodskoi dumy, 1912, no. 11, p. 25).

89. Iuzhnyi krai, June 29, 1914. Jack London spent several weeks in Whitechapel, an East End London slum, in 1902, writing about his experiences in The People of the Abyss (1903). Khar'kov's doss house, originally built for the purpose of earning income for the city, had become permanent quarters for some residents. In 1914, it housed 50 percent more men than its official capacity. The reporter spent the night at the doss house, finding it foul and dirty, though less crowded than he expected, since during the summer many slept outdoors. Incidentally, Warsaw provided free coffins and burial service for at least some of its poor, and although one city councilor suggested Khar'kov do the same, I found no evidence that this measure was ever given serious thought.

90. The average for guberniia cities was 36 kopecks per capita in 1913. Moscow and Nizhnii Novgorod ranked highest, each spending about 1.5 rubles (see B. Veselovskii in Gorodskoe delo, 1914, no. 11 -12, p. 694). Khar'kov's largest budgetary expenditures went for debt repayment (16 percent) and medical-sanitary work (13 percent). See Material)/po voprosu, p. 77, for a complete breakdown

91. Iuzhnaia zaria, September 21, 1913. In Ekaterinoslav an informal alliance of Progressives and “Non-Party Octobrists” upset a coalition between “Nationalists” and members of the Union of Russian People, giving the duma eight teachers or professors, seven doctors, four accountants, two veterinarians, and only seventeen merchants. Forty-two had studied in institutions of higher education, but very few represented the outer districts of the city.

92. Saratovskii listok, March 10, 1913. About sixty of the eighty city councilors in Saratov's duma had studied in institutions of higher learning. Kostroma was another city in which professional people came to dominate the duma after the triumph of the local Progressives. According to Kostromskaia zhizn’ (April 20, 1913), the new duma included nineteen lawyers, eleven doctors, eleven engineers, and five teachers. Sixty percent of the city councilors had studied at institutions of higher learning.

93. Similarly, in the zemstvos at this time, the terms “left” and “progressive” referred to activist promoters of zemstvo cultural and economic services. As in the cities, their “conservative” opponents saw them as purveyors of higher taxes. See Ruth Delia MacNaughton and Roberta Thompson Manning, “The Crisis of the Third of June System and Political Trends in the Zemstvos, 1907-14,” in Haimson, Politics of Rural Russia, pp. 190 and 194. Manning points out that the liberals never regained their influence in the zemstvos after they were repudiated in the elections of 1906-7 because of Kadet support in the State Duma for expropriation of private lands (see Roberta Manning, “Zemstvo and Revolution: The Onset of the Gentry Reaction, 1905-1907,” in Haimson, Politics of Rural Russia, especially pp. 49-50).

94. Helsinki Spent about three times more per capita, Riga twice as much as Khar'kov. Finnish cities had a more liberal municipal statute which provided greater access to revenue. By reputation the quality of urban life there was the highest in the empire. Riga's duma, dominated by local Germans, got an early start in municipalizing utilities and services, and Riga also acquired a reputation for a relatively high quality of urban life; for some, it was “indeed a German city” (see Hamm, , “Riga's 1913 City Election,” and Gorodskoe delo, 1912, no. 8, pp. 521–23Google Scholar, for a survey of Finnish cities).