221 part of a program of economy stated that, “since auditing is no less important than economizing, and (since) it exists here only in name, but in fact there has never been any control of the accounts, and fromthis follov/s that up until now there has been no complete information about revenues, expenditures, and surpluses; therefore the revizion-kollegiia is to be set up on such a secure footing that the annual accounts are completely put in order.” The decision to reestablish the revizion-kollegiia was motivated, significantly enough, by the argument that salary payments to officers and civil servants would thereby become more reliable.^'*^ The present account of the founding and the activities of the revizionkollegiia has demonstrated that the college was originally set up as a copy of the kammarrevisionen in Sweden. We have seen that the Russian college was unsuccessful in its attempts to establish regular auditing activities in accordance with the principles observed by its Swedish prototype. According to Pavel Miliukov, the auditing of the accounts proved a failure for a purely administrative reason: the incorrect auditing activities must, above all, reveal the inconvenience of having two central administrative systems, the one formally subordinate to the other, but with the two in fact competing with one another. In the Swedish system, the correct development of the state economy was the responsibility of the fiscal collleges; in the Russian system, this was a major responsibility of the Senate, and it continued to be the Senate’s duty even after the setting up of the colleges. Miliukov’s argument, therefore, was that the existence of the Senate kept the revizion-kollegiia from developing according to the Swedish pattern. It should be pointed out, however, that the explanation for the ineffectiveness of the revizion-kollegiia should be sought primarily in the character of the whole Russian fiscal reform. In the sections on the kamerkollegiia and on the shtats-kontor-kollegiia, we have seen that the reform of the Russian fiscal administration followed the structure of the Swedish model very closely. An analysis of the instructions for these colleges has shown that the authors of the Russian legislation copied the organizational structure and functions of the Swedish colleges and made only relatively minor alterations in them. Our study of the practices of the Russian fiscal administration has shown, in addition, that the cameral routines of the Swedish system could not take root in Russia. The principal reason for this was that the local administration required for the activities of the Swedish colleges did not exist in Russia. Although the decision was reached to reform the Russian local admlnis350 PSZ, VII, no. 5,017, p. 750; see, too, SIRIO, LXIII, 143, and Sbornik otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovcsnosti Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk fSt. Petersburg, 1S72), IX, 97. 349 350 Miliukov, 448.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=