CODIFYING Rl,JSSIAloI LAW 339
incorporation, rather than a codification in the technical sense. 1 In
doubtful cases, therefore, when the Digest seemed unclear or incomplete,
should the judges (or government officials) not go back to the Complete
Collection of Laws for the original text of the statute on which the
relevant paragraphs of the Digest were based? To this Nicholas I
answered in the negative, for he believed that the Complete Collection
had only historical value. Speransky also - for the reasons just men-
tioned - wanted the Digest to stand as the final authority. But he felt
that it might prove useful to have the Digest first checked and tested by
experience. He therefore suggested that for a few years the Digest'S
authority should be qualified by reference to the original acts; but
once all the necessary amendments had been made in the light of
experience, the Digest should stand as the only authoritative text. It
was to be then, as it became in fact, the official interpretation of
Russian law.
The matter was discussed at a session of the Council of State in
- The Minister of Justice, Prince Dashkov, argued for the exclusive
authority of the Digest, Speransky for a transitional testing period,
while some others felt that the old law texts should be preserved as the
final authority in cases of doubt. The vote was nineteen to thirteen in
favor of the compromise, trial period solution; and Nicholas I con-
curred with the majority. The Emperor, however, worded his final
decision in such a way as to leave no doubt that from January 1,
1835, the Digest alone would have the force of final authority in all
cases. As a result, the status of the Complete Collection became that of
a handy compilation that might be kept on the shelves of historical
libraries. 2 And it also meant that the Digest played the role of the
full code that Speransky had suggested, but which Nicholas I had not
wanted.
This decision raised some complex legal technical problems into
which we cannot enter ·here. The problems obviously arose because of
the basic features of the Digest: its legal innovations, the careless
presentation of some concepts and laws, and the difficulty of checking
back to the original sources. Some jurists, like Pobedonostsev, went so
far as tc? maintain that a conscientious judge, to arrive at an equitable
decision in line with the spirit of Russian law, would have to do the
entire work of codification himself in every important and complex
1 Korkunov, "Znachenie Svoda Zakonov," Sbornik statei N. M. Korkunova 1877-
1897 (St. Pbg. 1898), p. 77.
!l Blosfel'dt, "Zakolillaia" sUa Svoda Zak01zov. pp. 33, 34, 51-53, 54-57. The text
of the Imperial manifesto, 31 January 1833 (2d PSZ, No. 5947), is cited by
Blosfel'dt on pp. 67-68. For a scholarly juridical discussion of the implications of
the problem, see Korkullov, "Znachenie Svoda Zakonov," loco cit.
