The Moscow City Duma and private entrepreneurship at the beginning of the XX century: metro construction projects

Popovich Nikita Denisovich ORCID: 0000-0002-4288-7151 Assistant at the Department of History, Bauman Moscow State Technical University 5c1 2nd baumanskaya str., Moscow, 105005, Russia niketa2011@mail.ru Other publications by this author

         Introduction. The Moscow City Government periodically cooperates with representatives of private capital. Such cooperation has a positive impact on the development of the city. For example, entrepreneurs can help with the construction of hospitals, kindergartens or other important institutions. A similar interaction was also carried out in the Russian Empire, which was not surprising, because among the members of the City Duma there were also many merchants, industrialists and other entrepreneurs from famous dynasties (Bakhrushins, Morozovs, Guchkovs, etc.). Nevertheless, conflicts could arise between representatives of private capital and the Duma on certain issues. An example of this is the Moscow metro construction project, which was planned back in the pre–revolutionary period. The reason for the disagreement was the question – who will carry out the construction: the city or entrepreneurs? From our point of view, this conflict may partially explain why the metro in Moscow was never built in the pre-revolutionary period. The materials of this study are intended to determine what were the causes of the conflict and whether there could have been any other circumstances that forced the Duma not to rush to implement the Moscow metro project. The source base of the work is based on documents from the Central State Archive of Moscow related to the foundation "Moscow City Duma and Council (1870-1917)". Among the materials we have selected, case No. 322 "Verbatim reports on the meetings of the Moscow City Duma for the month of June 1913" is of particular importance ^[4]. This case, which has not been introduced into scientific circulation before and has not yet been investigated by anyone, contains a coy discussion by members of the Duma on the issue of the construction of the Moscow metro. 

Prior to the publication of this work, many studies were published on the Moscow Duma, private entrepreneurs or the Moscow metro. Among the Soviet studies on the City Duma, we can single out the works of Valeria Antoninovna Nardova, for example, a work on the urban administration of the Russian Empire in the post-reform period ^[12]. Among the already modern studies, a great contribution to the study of the Moscow City Duma itself was made by Lyubov Fyodorovna Pisarkova's monograph "Moscow City Duma, 1863-1917" ^[16], as well as an even later work "Urban Reforms in Russia and the Moscow Duma" ^[15]. In his research, the author sets the task of recreating a complete picture of the life of urban public administration and paying attention to such important aspects as the organization of the Duma, budget sources, the main directions of its activities and many others ^{[16, p. 5]}. In addition to these studies, there are also works that focus on the activities of the vowels of the Moscow Duma, for example, the work of Sergei Evgenievich Vdovin ^[9]. In comparison with these studies, our article focuses on the links between the Duma and entrepreneurs. 

One of the earliest works on the topic of Moscow entrepreneurship is the publication of Pavel Afanasyevich Buryshkin, devoted primarily to merchants ^[8]. Among the more recent studies, we can mention the collective monograph "Capital Protection: the experience of the Russian business elite of the XIX-early XX century" edited by historians Yuri Alexandrovich Petrov and Galina Nikolaevna Ulyanova ^[10]. This work includes an analysis of many details from the life of Russian entrepreneurs: from the specifics of their education and business to public life and public detail. In addition to it, we also want to highlight a study that affects both Moscow entrepreneurship and the City Duma – this is the work of Yu.A. Petrov "The Moscow bourgeoisie at the beginning of the XX century" ^[14], which, among other things, pays attention to the work of Moscow entrepreneurs in city government bodies. On the other hand, this work also covers a number of other issues and places more emphasis on the political activities of entrepreneurs, unlike our study. 

As for the works directly devoted to the Moscow metro, they are expressed primarily by publications of the Soviet period, for example, the work of Katzen Ilya Efremovich "Moscow Metro: To the 800th anniversary of Moscow. 1147-1947» ^[11]. On the other hand, among modern studies we can single out the publication of the German researcher Dietmar Neutatz "The Moscow Metro: from the first plans to the great construction of Stalinism (1897-1935)" ^[13]. This work analyzes in detail the history of metro construction, including also the period studied in this study. Meanwhile, unlike the work of D. Neutatz, our article does not consider the Moscow metro project itself, but the conflict around it between the City Duma and entrepreneurs. This conflict is also mentioned in the work of D. Neutatz, but it is considered superficially, among other topics, while we will try to analyze this problem in more depth.       

The progress of the work. At the beginning of the 20th century, the urban transport system in Moscow was actively developing. First of all, this was expressed in the active construction of electric railways in order to replace horse traction. In the City Duma, this issue was one of the main ones and it was discussed at many meetings, for example, at a meeting on May 23, 1906. where the issue of building a railway through Lefortovo and other important areas was decided ^{[5, l. 47ob.]}. Meanwhile, in addition to plans for the development of aboveground transport, there were also projects of the Moscow metro. One of them was rejected in 1903. The reason for this was the petition of the Moscow City Duma to the government. As noted by Dietmar Neutadts, this project contradicted the interests of the city government, because it received large revenues from the tram network operating in Moscow. The new project threatened to transfer control over it to a private foreign company and deprive the city of one of its sources of income ^{[13, p. 49]}. In our opinion, this fear was not groundless, because, according to the city regulation of 1892, the Duma could no longer collect fees from railways, as well as buildings and structures serving them ^{[1, p. 452]}. Based on this, it can be understood why it was more profitable for the city budget to continue developing the tram network instead of building a subway. The importance of this network for the Duma is confirmed by the fact that it could hardly give permission to private companies to build separate sections of the tram line.  An example of this is the meeting on August 8, 1900, at which the vowels of the city administration considered a proposal from the joint-stock company "Shukkert and K". It was about the construction of a tramway from the Pokrovsky Bridge to the border of the land of the Specific Department behind the Semenovskaya outpost. The company was ready to take over the construction of part of this line, while no payments were required from the city, and the Duma retained the indefinite right to buy the specified road ^{[3, l. 15]}. In the end, the proposal was accepted, but some vowels were opposed, for example, Mikhail Vasilyevich Borodulin, an elector from the Moscow bourgeoisie, who, in particular, noted that if the specified tram line were in the hands of both the city and entrepreneurs, it would not bring any benefit to both sides. On the contrary, in his opinion, such a situation would only create additional difficulties for residents of Moscow, who, when traveling along this branch, would have to make a transfer on the segment that belonged to the joint-stock company ^{[3, l. 16]}. Despite this argument and many others, the majority of the vowels voted "yes" with minor amendments, since the proposal was financially beneficial. Based on this case, it could be concluded that the city administration was primarily concerned about profit, but we do not agree with this. In our opinion, income generation was not the only reason for the Duma's actions, and among its vowels, many really tried to proceed from the interests of the residents of Moscow. 

Confirmation of our assumption can be found in the documents of the City Duma for the meeting on March 18, 1909. During the meeting, the Duma discussed several proposals. One of them is to lay a new tram line through Kuznetskaya Street to connect the city center with Zamoskvorechye. Due to the large population of the Zamoskvoretsky suburb, equal in density to the average provincial city, the creation of this line promised a large influx of funds into the city treasury and therefore was beneficial for the Duma ^{[6, l. 81ob.]}, however, despite the expected benefits, it was decided to postpone this project in order to pay attention to more important areas, for example, Tagansky ^{[6, L. 92]}. From this example, it can be concluded that when working on the Moscow transport network, the City Duma did not always prioritize earnings, although this also does not mean that the issue of profitability of tram lines was completely excluded. 

The next attempt to create a metro in Moscow took place in 1911-1914. There were several projects in total. One of them from the City Duma itself is to build an underground tram tunnel under Lubyansky Passage, Ilyinka and Red Square in order to relieve traffic in the city center. Despite the fact that it was primarily about the development of the tram network, these tunnels were also supposed to be used for future metro trains ^{[13, p. 51]}. In addition to the Duma project, the projects of railway engineer K.K. Ruin and Professor E.K. Knorre were also developed ^{[13, p. 52]}. It is important to note that at the final stages of development, the project of E.K. Knorre and Duma were almost identical and differed only in the methods of construction ^{[13, p. 53]}. Meanwhile, the question of who exactly would be involved in the construction of the subway remained key and, in our opinion, it was he who slowed down the whole process.

Why was the Moscow City Duma afraid to entrust the construction of the metro to private capital and government departments? The answer to this can be found in the documents on its meetings, in particular, in the verbatim reports of 1913. One of the longest discussions on the construction of the metro took place on June 4 at a joint meeting of the Financial and Railway Commission, as well as the City Council with the participation of lawyers on general issues. The official reason for the meeting was the creation of an Interdepartmental commission to further discuss the metro project. Meanwhile, during their speeches, many vowels expressed different positions regarding the future fate of the project. For example, the vowel Sergei Pavlovich Patrikeev (from the ancient family of merchants Patrikeev) advocated that the city should take the construction of the subway into its own hands ^{[4, l. 15]}. The same position was held by lawyer Alexey Semenovich Shmakov, who believed that the Ministry of Railways and Communications, together with private concessionaires, tried to challenge the city's position on this issue, and therefore it should be shown that "it is our exclusive right to build a subway ..., there is no one but us to be the master" ^{[4, l. 15ob.]}. As It becomes clear from further speeches that one of the main reasons for this was the unwillingness to miss out on potential benefits. Many vowels considered the subway to be a profitable enterprise that could bring its owner a large profit. Hence the reluctance to put this project in the hands of private capital.

Another, no less important reason for the construction of the metro by the city was, in our opinion, the problem of management. In the pre-revolutionary period, the Moscow City Duma could not freely manage the transport network, because a number of railways were in private hands, for example, the Moscow-Vindava-Rybinsk Railway. Interaction with railway companies caused additional difficulties for the City Duma. As confirmation, we can cite the materials of the meeting dated January 26, 1899. At the meeting, the issue of choosing a location for the Moscow station on the then-under construction Moscow-Vindavo Rybinsk railway was discussed. For the construction of the station, it was required that the Duma agree to allocate a plot of land to the owners of the road. Duma deputies were in no hurry to give their consent, believing that a private company might in the future violate the agreement and fail to fulfill its obligations during the construction of the station, as was the case in a similar case with the "Society of the Moscow-Kursk Railway ^{[2, l. 53]}. In addition, it was necessary to protect the rights of a private company to own the Naprudnaya River. In the future, the Duma was going to carry it through the drain, however, if the land were in the hands of the "Society of the Moscow-Vindava-Rybinsk Railway", it could prevent the Duma from carrying out the drain

^{[2, l. 53ob.Thus, we see that due to the fact that a number of railways belonged to private organizations, the Duma had to manage the city with an eye on them, which complicated its activities. If private entrepreneurs had received the rights to construct and operate the metro, the situation of the Duma would have become even more complicated. The very first alternative presented earlier was to build a subway by the city itself, if not in 1913, then sometime later. Some vowels supported just such a statement, but not everyone fully agreed with them. Alexander Alekseevich Kotletsov, a sworn attorney of the Moscow District Chamber, believed that the project could indeed be implemented in ten years, but not necessarily by the city. In his opinion, private entrepreneurs could do it cheaper because they were not strongly bound by bureaucracy like city governments: "Everyone knows that the most unprofitable and unprofitable buildings are states, then cities and then private entrepreneurs…In urban management enterprises, bureaucracy is an unavoidable element..." [4, l. 16]}. It is worth noting that in 1913, the construction of the metro at the expense of the city was considered ruinous. Unlike private companies, the Duma could not freely spend the funds that had already been allocated for other tasks. An exception could be expenses related to a single goal. An example of this is the decision at the meeting of the city administration on November 4, 1906 to purchase a plot to expand Taganskaya Street. They agreed to allocate money for this task from funds for the construction of a tram. The justification was the fact that it was for tram tracks that a new section was purchased on Taganskaya Street ^{[7, l. 502ob.]}. This case was, in our opinion, rather an exception to the rules. It was impossible to do the same during the construction of the subway and allocate funds for this from the money going to expand sewers, build night shelters or other purposes.

In our opinion, the lack of funds has indeed become one of the main reasons why the creation of the subway has been delayed for so long. This was also pointed out by I.E. Katzen in his 1947 work, although we cannot fully agree with his assessment: "The city administration did not have the necessary funds to build such a large structure on its own; for the implementation of the subway, it could only dream of a foreign concession ^{[11, p. 14]}. Contrary to the author's statement that foreign capital was engaged in the construction of tramways, power plants, and many other key facilities of the city, the City Administration acted no less actively and tried to keep private entrepreneurs out of the issues that were under its jurisdiction. In other words, despite the fact that the Moscow City Duma did not have enough funds to build the subway on its own, it also could not allow private capital to carry out its construction.

Some vowels admitted that if the Moscow Duma had decided to build a subway, all its expenses would have been compensated by the future huge profits from this transport network.  Meanwhile, not everyone shared this optimistic point of view. For example, A. A. Kotletsov stated that in practice the subway brought only a small income. As confirmation, vowel referred to the metro in Paris and Berlin: "these roads are being built because they are needed, not because they are profitable" ^{[4, l. 16]}. In other words, A.A. Kotletsov most likely meant that even if the Duma had spent money on the construction of the metro in Moscow, the income from it would not have been able to cover the losses.           

We would like to note that, probably, this statement was more subjective, because in his speech A. A. Kotletsov opposed the construction of the metro at all: at least in the near future. The main argument of the vowel was the fear that the metro lines would take part of the population outside the city. According to A. A. Kotletsov's remark, a huge amount of land was empty in the center of Moscow, and its population was, therefore, small: "If you build a subway and if you can get to the center in 30 versts in half an hour, then you will take a huge part out of the city" ^{[4, l. 16ob.]}. In our opinion, this argument is quite controversial, given that at the beginning of the 20th century Moscow was experiencing an acute housing crisis. In particular, the authors of the monograph "Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs of Russia from the origins to the beginning of the XX century" write about this. According to this work, in 1898, one fifth of the population of Moscow (about 200 thousand people) lived in so-called "bunk apartments": "The inhabitants of the Moscow "bottom" lived in damp, semi-basement rooms, where an unaccustomed person could not stay for a minute because of the stench" ^{[17, p. 124]}. We would like to add to this that nowadays a significant part of the population does not live in the city center, but on the outskirts, where housing is cheaper, and sometimes even outside Moscow. Without an established transport network, it would be difficult for the specified population to get to the main part of the city. There is a possibility that A. A. Kotletsov was more afraid of an increase in the city's visiting poor population, which often caused a negative reaction from the indigenous residents of Moscow. A good example is a statement from residents of the Tagansky district of the Rogozhsky part protesting against the construction of a new lodging house for visiting people: "The City Duma wants to be a mother to all poor people flowing to Moscow from all over, among whom there are many parasites and drunkards, who, of course, do not bear any city duties, but are a burden for the city..." ^{[4, l. 29ob.]}. It is worth noting that this application was considered on the same day as the issue of the construction of the metro. In other words, the problem of overpopulation in Moscow and transport were closely linked, which could also affect the issue of building a subway in the city.

         Conclusion. Thus, the conflict between the Duma and entrepreneurship around the issue of metro construction turned out to be deeper and more complicated than, for example, presented in the work of D. Neudatz. On the one hand, the main reason was, indeed, money. On the other hand, as already noted, the subway at the beginning of the 20th century did not bring much income and in other countries it was built more for necessity. In addition, we have demonstrated that the City Duma was not always chasing profit and tried to act in the interests of the residents of Moscow. Meanwhile, there were other reasons not to concede the metro to entrepreneurs. Firstly, the transfer of the project to private capital could lead to a reduction in the scope of activity of the Moscow Duma. She would have to negotiate with the owners of the subway on every issue related to it, as well as with the owners of private railways. Secondly, there was a separate problem related to the increase in the population in Moscow. The construction of the metro threatened to reduce the number of residents in the city center, as more people would be able to settle on the outskirts (although we have already noted that we find this problem questionable). Nevertheless, all this complex of reasons, along with many others, led to the fact that the construction of the Moscow metro was never implemented until the height of the First World War and the revolution that followed, which made this issue irrelevant for almost two decades.