250 GOVERNING RUSSIA'S PROVINCES
China was liberalized by lowering export requirements. But free com-
petition could not be effectively secured in Siberia right away, because
there was a great dearth of capital, and no group could readily be
found to challenge the older merchants. No one, that is, except the
state. So that, on the other hand, the two governors used the administra-
tion to break the merchant monopolies. The government entered into
the trade of agricultural products directly through the state granaries.
State stores and state granaries had been established long before Pestel
and Treskin; they supplied the troops and officials. But at the end of
the 18th century the stores were usually kept filled by levying taxes in
kind on the population and - most important - by sub-contracting grain
deliveries with merchants. Peste! and Treskin reduced the private
contracts and favored direct purchase from the peasants by government
agents. To hit the merchant monopolies more effectively, these direct
purchases were made on generous terms, the government paying directly
in cash (whereas the merchant often paid by lending money or giving
goods in exchange). A simiiar policy was adopted to supply the state
distilleries. It was not always cheapest for the government, but Treskin
thought that the state ought to shoulder the extra cost for the sake of
fostering freer trade and more competition.
Without entering into the question whether this policy was desirable
from the point of view of economic theory, it can be argued that it had
some merit and did recommend itself under Siberian conditions of the
time. Sooner or later, the state would have had to take a hand in break-
ing the monopolies, as the Ancien Regime had done in France and
on the Continent. The major difficulty with Treskin's and Pestel's
course was their method. Not only did they believe in state participat-
ion and guidance of economic activity, they also implemented their
belief in the worst traditions of despotism and bureaucratic tyranny. In
a sense, Pestel and Treskin were disciples of Paul I; they had some
good intentions, but negated them by their absolute disregard of the
means by which they could be achieved. We have referred to Treskin's
minute supervision of the details of town trade. Another example is
provided by his decision to rebuild Irkutsk and some other towns. The
towns were truly in need of improvement, but Treskin proceeded by
evicting inhabitants at short notice, by razing buildings and erecting
new structures with impressed labor from the local population, and
covered the cost of the work by levying extra taxes. Obviously, these
methods created much resentment. Adding insult to injury, Treskin
ferociously repressed any sign of discontent by an effective police terror.
His subordinates followed his example with equal severity and ruthless-