Untitled - OUDL Home

Speransky was right in laying special emphasis on thenecessity for some such separation of powers. In allcountries the line between legislative, administrative, andjudicial functions is difficult enough to draw, but inno country has the failure to draw such a line beenresponsible for more confusion, tyranny, and irresponsibilitythan in Russia. The overriding claims of thestate as against the individual had always obstructed orridden roughshod over civil, let alone political, liberties,and officials had always been to a greater or lesser extentprivileged persons. Despite the attempts of Peter theGreat, Catherine the Great, and Speransky the courtscontinued to be confounded with or subservient to thebureaucracy until the great legal reforms of 1864. Bothcourts and procedure, "the mere recollection of whichmakes one's hair stand on end and one's blood freeze,"had been based on antiquated European models. Theywere characterized by extreme complexity, endless referencesto higher courts, great venality and great delays,secrecy and inquisitorial methods, reliance solely onwritten depositions, and almost total lack of adequateredress against officials.The reforms of 1864, elaborately and admirablyprepared, swept away the old system and replaced it byan original combination of French and English practice.A simple and effective series of new courts was set up;judges were made virtually irremovable; elected justicesof the peace, somewhat on the English model, were setup in the country districts. Oral evidence and trial byjury for criminal and certain other cases (including evenfor a time political trials) were introduced. Above all,administrative and judicial functions, with certain exceptions,were no longer to be performed by one and thesame body of persons, and all proceedings were to beheld in public. These judicial reforms were a veryremarkable achievement and had very beneficial consequences,and they resulted in the rapid growth of anexceptionally capable legal profession.On the other hand, like the other reforms of thesixties, they soon suffered from the general effect ofpolitical reaction (cf. p. 77). Any cases "the public111