<<
>>

§ 4. Is standard-legal fastening of struggle against bribery on a boundary of the XIX-XX-th centuries.

In Nikolay's board II the new Criminal code has been definitively prepared. In this certificate legal responsibility for bribery was not allocated in the separate chapter, and has been fixed in the chapter of thirty seventh “About criminal actions on service state and public”.

In new Ulozhenii we find essential deviations from the conventional beginnings of the criminal liability for the bribery, criminal in Penal code criminal and corrective 1845. Concepts of bribery and lihoimstva have found the definitive differentiation in the Explanatory note to the Criminal code of 1903. “Both these acts, speaks Objasn. Zap., constitute kinds of illegal capture of property or criminal enrichment by means of abusing on service, but raznstvujut that lihoimstvo there is a property reception naturally, and bribery constitutes reception of any property“ obviously irregularly ”.” [374]

Under the social danger the least harm the graft representing acceptance of a bribe for execution of action which is included into its official duties [375], as before, admitted. New Ulozhenie allocated the simple and qualified grafts differing on time of acceptance of a bribe - to or after fulfilment by the official of the actions put under the law. In this case it was a question of graft-payoff and graft-compensation. Article 656 Ulozhenija defined various measures of punishments for the simple and qualified grafts: for simple graft - an imprisonment for term not from above
Six months, for qualified - “an imprisonment.” [376] imperfection of legislative technics was showed that for fulfilment of graft-compensation the sanction was otnositelnoyoopredelennoj with fixing of the top limit (“for term not over six months”). But at fulfilment of graft-payoff the measure of legal responsibility had the most indistinct outlines (“it is punished by an imprisonment”) that spoke about possibility of appointment of the punitive measure at the discretion of the judge.

Same article fixed positions about lihoimstve, i.e. situations when the bribe was accepted to actions which concerned duties of the official [377 [378] by the employee. It is necessary to notice at once, that responsibility for it was the most severe - the conclusion for the term up to three years in a reformatory. The given norm illustrates characteristic for Ulozhenija lack of general rules and repetitions which should lead probelnosti legislations. So, punishing lihoimstvo-payoff and graft-compensation, lihoimstvo-compensation remains without 378 attention of the legislator.

In article 657 the criminal liability for different kinds of extortion of a bribe, including for fulfilment of the actions entering into the list of duties of the employee, for criminal act fulfilment, for a bribe which was extorted by threats or oppressions on service [379] has been fixed. And again we face blank presence - the legislator has not paid attention to possibility of extortion of a bribe by means of oppression on service or threat of it for fulfilment of office offence or criminal action.

For the specified kinds of extortion of a bribe, depending on legality or illegality made as a result of acceptance of a bribe of action and presence or absence of oppression on service punishment varied from three months of imprisonment in prison to the conclusion in a reformatory for uncertain term.

Sanctions in all three cases did not differ definiteness. Only in one case the top limit (the conclusion for the term up to three years in reformatories when the employee demanded a bribe for fulfilment of criminal action or office offence) has been defined. In other two - extortion under the threat of oppression and extortion for action fulfilment on service - the sanction was uncertain.

In general, bribe extortion as the legal formulation, was exposed to the sharp criticism from jurists of the end of XIX century. For example, in the objections presented by the Petrograd legal society we we find following arguments in this occasion: “the concept acquired by composers“ bribe extortion ”not obemlet cases of extortion office ; a bribe gift or the gift promise admits; bribery - acceptance voluntary lihodatelem darimogo; such bribe cannot be extorted; if it be extorted, that, obviously, it not gift. The bribery esteems reception of property benefit for office actions, correct or wrong; there is, thus, an exchange of services. The concept of extortion includes such exchange; to difficultly itself to present the made employee who oppression threat would extort money that it will break the official duties or that it will make on service duties.” [380]

Norms about lihoimstvennyh gathering were fixed in article 658 Ulozhenija. They were understood as an establishment or collection by employee to own advantage illegal requisitions. According to V.N.Shiryaev, at

lihoimstvennom gathering the official does not try to receive any illegal compensation for the actions, and levies nothing regulated requisitions ostensibly for their reference in the state or public cash desk or under the pretext of the following to it under the law of receipts - “the act comprising signs of mercenary excess of authority.” [381]

Of the analysis of article 658 Ulozhenija we do a conclusion, that the corpus delicti could be formal - it was enough simple findings of fact of fulfilment of illegal requisitions without approach of socially dangerous consequences. The aggravating circumstance at lihoimstvennyh gathering was their extortion by means of oppression on service or threat of it. Extortion different ways were not considered, that once again proves lack of general rules and presence of weight of blanks in prepared Ulozhenii 1903.

Punishment for lihoimstvennye gathering without aggravating circumstances was defined as "imprisonment" for the term from three months and above (article 658). If there were extortion signs under threat or by means of oppression on service the conclusion in a reformatory for uncertain term in the law followed.

In separate structure the bribery of jurymen (article 659) has been allocated, for what as punishment the conclusion till three years in reformatories [382] followed. Interest represents that only the bribery-payoff in this case took place, but not bribery - compensation.

Article 661 which fixed positions when the employee had certainly, important value also: 1) appropriated the gift given with a view of
Transfers to other official or under this pretext; 2) accepted, for the purpose of assignment, a bribe under the pretext of other employee.

In this case the bribery and swindle merged in uniform indivisible structure. Punishment for a similar crime was the conclusion for the term up to three years in reformatories.

Ulozhenie 1903 has put the problem to solve the main problem of standard regulation of responsibility for bribery of last years - legislative definition of the subject of reception of a bribe. The approach offered by the Penal code criminal and corrective at definition of the subject of malfeasance (the recognition subjects of crimes on a post or persons directly specified in the law, or the persons equated to them owing to duties executed by them) was will reject vigorously by preparation Ulozhenija of 1903. Has been decided to give the accurate, is standard established concept of the official promoting correct qualification of malfeasances and in particular of bribery. The part of fourth article 636 of chapter 37 Ulozhenija said, that the employee is any person which performs duties or executes time commissions on the state or public service “as the official, or police or other guard or the attendant, or the person rural or 383 petty-bourgeois managements”.

The given definition did not contain the signs delimiting officials which were subjects of crimes on a post from other persons allocated with administrative functions. S.V.poznyshev has truly specified, that definition is illogical, as under serving the official is meant, thereby the concept reveals through a synonym that is not correct. Also it is illogical to use in definition

Additional transfers of some officials as in it there is no necessity [383].

From our point of view, fixed Ulozheniem 1903 the concept of "official" was far not such made as it would be desirable, but, nevertheless, in comparison with the Penal code criminal and corrective which in general ignored the maintenance of concept of "official", it was a step forward.

Helpers in bribery fulfilment on new Ulozheniju “the employees guilty admitted rendering obviously assistance made bribery, articles 656-659 provided, peredacheju bribes, acceptance eja under the name or other intermediary only.” [384]

Separate attention consideration of a question on attempt at bribery on Ulozheniju deserves 1903. The problem consisted that the certificate specified in punishability of attempt on extortion bribes (article 657) and lihoimstvennye gathering (article 658), but ignored possibility of attempt at graft and lihoimstvo without aggravating circumstances, that, certainly, was an essential blank in the novel.

The legal destiny of the gift accepted as a result of bribery was defined in article 662 Ulozhenija of 1903 as follows: “At condemnation for acts, articles 656-661 provided, arrived to guilty gift from it is selected, and at its absence on the person cost of this is collected. If the bribe consists in right gift on property such gift is nullified.” [385] thus, those questions which have received earlier the most generalised decision have been in more details settled.

In the first quarter of the XX-th century there was a necessity of refusal of a principle nenakazuemosti for bribery. The contemporary so wrote about it: “Extreme abusings during the Russian-Japanese war, their development and during an epoch of great European war have induced the legislator to refuse the beginning of impunity acquired by the Russian legislation lihodatelej.” [386 [387] It is divided as well B.V.Volzhenkina's point of view concerning that necessity of introduction of responsibility for lihodatelstvo has in many respects arisen because of bribery growth at transactions with the real estate, the basis of new co-operative societies, reception for operation of the ground areas with minerals and others 388

Transactions in the XX-th century beginning.

On April, 14th, 1911 Minister of Justice I.G.ShCheglovitov has submitted for consideration in a legislature the bill of responsibility for lihodatelstvo. This project which was starting with definition of bribery as an independent crime, breaking a principle of gratuitousness of office actions, has not been approved. However positions of this project were realised in the law from January, 31st, 1916.

Under this law lihodatelstvo appeared certainly punishable. Under the new certificate responsibility for lihodatelstvo - payoff for performance or default of office action without infringement by the official of statutory duties, and also for lihodatelstvo-payoff and lihodatelstvo-compensation for act or omission of the official, connected with abuse of authority was provided. It was punished also lihodatelstvo-payoff of a member of class or public meeting and the person, entered the list on certain term, and equally a part complete set of the juryman.

The circumstance qualifying lihodatelstvo, riot by its gang admitted. “The law from January, 31st, 1916 did not recognise as a crime delivery of a gift to the official as it should be gratitude without the preliminary arrangement on that for perfect act without infringement by the official of official duties. However reception by employee-mzdoimtsem of such gift still was considered as a crime. Any bases of clearing lihodatelja from responsibility the law from January, 31st 1916г., did not provide.” [388 [389]

In the press discussions about necessity of acceptance of the similar certificate were developed. In 1895, long before acceptance of these positions, I.Beljaev specified, that “... People not angels, and the temptation is great. Honesty - the basic condition of office activity, but firm character not to everyone

390

It is peculiar. ”

In 1916 a number of critical remarks on this question have been stated N.Rabinovich on pages of the weekly newspaper "is right" [390]. In particular concepts of bribery and lihodatelstva on the basis of available theories about bribes were analyzed. In a science of the beginning of the XX-th century the bribery was considered from two basic points of view - as corruptibility for the sake of riot of irregular act and as infringement of a principle of gratuitousness of office actions. “If we address now to that has given us the novel concerning prosecution of primordial scourges of Russian statehood - bribery and lihodatelstva we, first of all, will see full inconsistency of definitions concerning each of these crimes. It speaks very simply: strengthening of punishments for graft and lihoimstvo is made on the basis of the out-of-date and imperfect street About nak., while articles about
Punishability lihodatelstva are reproduction of the project of the Minister of Justice from April, 19th, 1911, - the project created in the consent with the newest legislative reforms and scientific currents. ”[391] supporting indisputable toughening of the sanction for bribe acceptance, N.Rabinovich believed, that reform should be spent on the basis of a basic change of all statement of definitions of bribery.

“Passing now to analysis of articles concerning punishability lihodatelstva, we should tell, that in this area value of the novel hugely, - is huge not only owing to advantages of coming under articles, but mainly because till now this important crime remains unforeseen and unpunished.” [392] - the author underlined. Really, as it has already been specified, in 60th of XIX century responsibility for lihodatelstvo has been definitively cancelled. Proving malignancy of bribery, practice tried to fill absence of legal responsibility for lihodatelstvo, bringing cases of the offer of a bribe under concept of the insult of the official. “But, as correctly specified Beljaev (About lihodatelstve, the Judicial newspaper, 1895 №10), application of item 286 of item 2 resolved a question only from the point of view of the offended vanity of the official, while from lihodatelstva suffer also (and even - mainly), the state and public interests.” [393]

Denying understanding lihodatelstva as instigations to a crime, the unequivocal treatment of bribery as separate structure has been accepted. It was offered to add Penal code article 272 with following norms:

1) if guilty of bribery has inclined the employee to performance or abstention from performance of office action, without infringement of statutory duties it is exposed to the prison
To the conclusion for the term from two about four months. In addition to it the fine equal to the price of a gift and if cost cannot be defined - to the fine not over one thousand roubles is imposed on it;

2) if guilty of bribery has inclined the official to default of a statutory duty or abusing the power given by the law it should undergo deprivation of all especial rights and return in corrective branches for the term from ones and a half till three years or to imprisonment from eight months till one year and four months. In this case the penalty in the size meant above also relied:

3) the list on certain session should undergo to the same punishment and guilty “in payoff of a member of class or public meeting or entered, and equally a part complete set of the juryman, on purpose to incline to voting in advantage either against any decision or to abstention from voting, and is equal and to other abusing duties of the rank (as already it has been told above, in same article is provided also the bribery of all these persons)” [394]. Aggravating circumstances have been recognised fulfilment of these crimes “specially constituted for this purpose by gang” and if the bribery has been made on affairs about army and fleet supply, or in general on state defence, and also during war concerning railway service.

Specific line of attraction of officials to responsibility for bribes up to revolution of 1917 were system of the administrative guarantee which essence was reduced to that criminal prosecution of the official was carried out only with the consent of its chief.

As a whole existence of separate justice for officials caused set of censures. I.Blinov in 1905 specified, that existence

Separate administrative justice causes the sharp criticism of some scientists, and, resulting the statement of one of its most talented opponents, spoke: “the administrative justice, as though it well not was is organised, time only it is not a part of the general justice, there is an establishment imperfect, because from it the country, owning two

396

Justices, risks sometimes not to find any. ”

While “abroad the new colony of original emigrants - the former bribe takers which ran already has had time to be formed, having felt at the collar the proerased hand of the auditor” [395 [396], in Russia the XX-th century beginnings interest to problems of bribery from the point of view of a criminal law science that has caused occurrence of weight of publications on various questions in this sphere has sharply increased.

V.N.Shiryaev approved, that all criminal actions of officials occupy the special state of emergency among other groups of criminal actions. Underlining, that each criminal action is to some extent socially dangerous, the author declared, that special danger to a society the whole is represented by malfeasance. “If mass display of the general criminality is capable to cause and generate public alarm development and multiplication of malfeasances can be considered as public disaster.” [397]

Proving higher social danger of malfeasances in comparison with the general criminal actions, the researcher came to conclusion about negative influence of prevalence of bribery on public sense of justice, or on “feeling of legality

399

Broad masses. ”, since belittling trust to officials, the bribery kills trust and to the law. It is impossible to disagree in it with the researcher.

397

398

As we already mentioned above, on the foreground there was a necessity of introduction of accurate and unequivocal definition of "official", and for this direction certain successes have been reached. Also, as it was found out, domestic jurists were engaged in a substantiation of division of concepts "bribery" and "lihoimstvo". In jurisprudence sharp discussions in this occasion were developed. For example, by N.A.nekljudova's definition the bribery represented the way of reception of property forbidden legislatively in the form of a voluntary and unessential bribe, and lihoimstvo was bribe reception, ostensibly

400

The lawful.

According to V.N.Shirjaeva, the point of view stated by its colleague concerning bribery was uzkonapravlennoj as at such definition of bribery the public element of this act consisting in infringement of a principle of gratuitousness of office actions (by the way was weakened, this principle and has been taken as a principle definitions of a being of bribery and lihoimstva A.Lohvitskim, V.N.Shiryaev and other researchers).

Besides, in the XX-th century beginning the first steps in definition of quantitative structure of civil servants in Russian empire have been made. Owing to absence of exact data, it is possible to speak only about their approximate quantity: “on 1 city it is necessary an average on 315,1 officials (300 m. of the item and 15,1 zh.p.). However, this figure rather considerably increases thanks to such official nest, as Petersburg where in 1897 it has been counted 33.653 official, including 30.260 muzhesk. And 3.493 wives. But exclude this number from the general number

400 See: nekljudov N.A.decree. soch. - С.1.
City officials and nevertheless other Russia, on the average it is necessary on 280,8 rank. On each city, except for Petersburg. ”[398]

As noticed Rubakin N.A., “misters officials do not know, how many in Russia officials, and anyway have not taken care of making calculation of own army. In“ the General Arch ”results of census officials are carried under columns in such a way, so were mixed and have mixed up with people of other trades what to separate them from these last it is not represented to any possibility. ' ak, for example, everyone knows, that at us the good few of doctors and engineers belongs to officials, and many scientists stand on service as professors and academicians” [399].

Bribery, not looking at all measures are taken, nevertheless took place, including in a province. On October, 15th, 1913 to Nizhniy Novgorod governor V.M.Borzenko it is sent donoshenie on pismovoditelja zemskogo the chief of 2nd site of Makarevsky district, the petty bourgeois of the city of Makareva Feodor Kukleva who “using slabostiju Mr. Corvin - Krjukovskogo, dares to take bribes with tjazhushchihsja persons at lawsuits at what has the big influence on a course and the decision of lawsuits” ”[400]. ' akie denunciations were available and on the volost clerks of Makarevsky district having in the hands judgement affairs, and also on pismovoditelja the Police officer 2­го a camp of the named district of Peter Aleksandrovicha Binovicha. On October, 30th, 1913 office-work audit is charged“ to Its Vysokorodiju I.K. ' rutnevu, to adviser Gub. Boards ”[401], however, about results of the spent investigation of data are not present.

It is necessary to tell, that false denunciations about bribery also were rather widespread phenomenon of that time. Publicity was received also by business “about distribution by the peasant of Balahninsky district, village Golovina Feodor Kuprijanovichem Ganichevym of false rumours about reception of bribes from peasants allocated from a community land surveyor Alenkovym” 405 at a rate of 25 roubles. From explanations convicted necessary, that “Feodor Ganichev has explained, that Representative Novozhilov and the land surveyor did not convict, that About bribes speak women... To Name though also one of them it has refused.” 406

On December, 2nd, 1912 the policeman urjadnik has made inquiry and has found out, that Feodor Ganichev at a descent in village Golovina “expressed words, as if Vasily Novozhilov as the representative from village Golovina at cutting of a site of the earth allocated on otrubnom a site to peasants der. To Golovina Vasily Jakovlevichu Ganichevu, took with allocated Ganicheva a bribe of 5 roubles, on the Land surveyor who has been sent for cutting of site Alenkov, took 25 roubles and allocated Ganichevu the site where he, Ganichev, wanted” 407 that has been confirmed by indications of witnesses - Kuzma Mefodevicha Solodova408 and Zinovija JAkovlevicha Домникова409 is cut.

But then Ganichev has specified, that to anybody of bribes and gifts not давал410, for what has undergone to arrest at police for 2 weeks because of distribution false about activity of the official of the data initiating hostile to them отношение411.

In detail investigating legislative base of struggle against bribes, it was impossible to disregard as well the reasons of this destructive phenomenon. Owing to imperfection of the legislation of XIX century about public service, disastrous financial condition of the majority of officials of Russian empire became the important reason of distribution of bribery during this period of time. “Behind a small exception all officials are financially a little provided: if the writing attendant of its insignificant maintenance does not suffice for a life it is not enough of it both to the chief of branch, and the head of a desk, and bookkeepers, which, as well as copyists, in most cases hardly make ends meet also which on a case of an old age are deprived in the same measure of sufficient maintenance” [402 [403].

405

406

TSANO, ф.2, оп.1, a unit hr. 1174, л.1.

In the same place, л.2об.

407 TSANO, ф.2, оп.1, a unit hr.

408 In the same place, l. 6.

1174, ll.4-5.

409

In the same place, l.

7.

410 In the same place, л.5об.

411 In the same place, л.11.

Speaking about a payment of officials of the top echelon, of course, it is necessary to note their material security at rather worthy level. However the difference between the size of wages of officials of the lowest (average) class and the higher was incommensurably great. Scientist N.Rubakinym as a result of the researches spent by it had been received following facts: there were cases, that the official received in a month seven roubles, at cost of bread 4 copeck, beef pound - 10 copeck, ten eggs -

413

40 copeck.

The housing question for the majority of officials XIX-XX dared centuries in favour of demountable apartments. In Petersburg which it is possible to name safely, the bureaucratic centre of Russian empire, the price for habitation were really fantastic. “.splosh yes nearby officials Quite often pay for apartment half, and quite often and moreover the budget which have” [404], - one of contemporaries wrote.

Quality of premises did not leave any doubts in their full unfitness. According to N.Benediktova, “officials it is obedient put on a loop kindly tightened on their neck by house owners and, lodging in crude and dark cellars, exorbitant prices paid for premises,
Absolutely not suitable for habitation ”[405 [406]. Basically the apartments consisting of four, five, six and more rooms were offered, in each of which should take places on neskolku the person. If apartments from one, two, three rooms," came across... Such apartments are located either in a cellar, or on attics - dark, crude, without necessary hygienic adaptations and nevertheless under the quotation not accessible for

416

Officials ’.

Also according to one of researchers “among the numerous reasons which have led to such position Russian officials, the most essential needs to consider those formal animosities which within the whole centuries are artificial took root to officials by infinite quantity of ranks and the ranks, put one from another in dependence and submission ’ [407 [408]. It is impossible to disagree With this statement, since servility became the basic line of the state and political system of Russian empire.

Seamy side of a life of officials was prohibition by it from the government of the introduction into societies and visiting uvesitelnyz and entertaining actions.

The moral downtroddenness became result of similar mistrust and the official relation “and That unattractive need, that continuous neediness, which steels constant companions of the official

418

Lives ’.

As we see, domestic authors XIX-XX have been assured centuries that financial condition of officials was one of the basic reasons of blossoming of bribery in Russian empire. But, we will notice, that bribes took not only the officials leading semibeggarly

Existence, but also venerable most outstanding dignitaries. Hence, the bribery reasons followed search more deeply, rather than only in absence of material welfare of officials of Russian empire. State system lacks, connivance

pravitelstvujushchih persons in the circumstances and even psychology of the population which have got used to a bribe as to “old obyklosti”, played a considerable role. However, humiliating poverty and utter darkness of a life for the majority of the lowest and average officials also cannot be written-off, speaking about the bribery reasons in Russian empire XIX-has begun the XX-th centuries.

In our opinion, during the specified period it is possible to carry to the reasons of similar prevalence of bribes besides all aforesaid, also influence of following factors:

1. The got rid system of feedings has made the big impact on consciousness official a layer perceiving the service as a source of the income;

2. Position of employees shaky and dependent on the heads;

3. Excessive tsentralizovannost the authorities;

4. A lack of the juridical education at officials, in particular, at the persons working in the judiciary.

Unfortunately, in the end the XIX-beginning of the XX-th centuries the established reasons of bribery have not been eliminated, that deprived all legal and other state measures of counteraction to bribery of due efficiency.

Summing up to research of the given stage of history of development of the legislation on bribery, it is necessary to tell, that the measures offered by the government XIX-has begun XX centuries essentially differed from a policy of XVIII century in sphere of struggle against bribes. In particular, cardinal change was undergone by an essence of the criminal sanction for bribery - there was no death penalty. Also processing has been carried out and
Completion of the legislative guidelines, concerning bribery that allows to speak about creation though also not irreproachable, but nevertheless enough the progressive legal base in the given area. At last, Senate decisions began to be lead up to data of citizens on application of norms of the law on bribery that comprised important enough preventive function at inconsistency of laws and an abundance in them of some blanks not only acts as was earlier, but also.

However, despite use by the government of similar package approach, bribery it has not been eradicated. Revolution of 1917 has begun essentially new epoch of the Russian history and the Russian legislation in the field of counteraction to the bribery, deserving separate research.

<< | >>
A source: Bychkova Svetlana Borisovna. state-LEGAL MEASURES of COUNTERACTION to BRIBERY In Russia (XV - the BEGINNING of XX CENTURIES). The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Nizhni Novgorod - 2015. 2015

More on topic § 4. Is standard-legal fastening of struggle against bribery on a boundary of the XIX-XX-th centuries.:

  1. Chapter 1. Boundary bodies of Russia in the state mechanism On a boundary XIX - the XX-th centuries
  2. CHAPTER 3. State-legal measures of counteraction to bribery in Russian empire in XIX - the beginning of XX centuries
  3. §1. Criminally-legal counteraction to bribery in the first quarter of XIX century.
  4. 1.1 Phenomena of bribery and necessity of criminally-legal struggle against it means application of operatively-search actions.
  5. institute of legal responsibility of civil servants of civil department as a conceptual basis of struggle against bribery and lihoimstvom on public service
  6. §3. Struggle against bribery in Russia in poreformennyj the period.
  7. CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATION-LEGAL FORMS OF MANAGEMENT IN TAJIKISTAN ON THE BOUNDARY OF CENTURIES
  8. § 3. Struggle against bribery in the Russian state at Catherine II.
  9. Ways of perfection of possibilities of law enforcement bodies to struggle against bribery against application OPM
  10. § 3. Legislative fastening of struggle against bribes on Cathedral Ulozheniju 1649.
  11. the internal reasons of transformation usually-legal system of Dagestan in first half XIX centuries. The Caucasian war. Imamat
  12. 2.3. The bourgeois approach to legal regulation of distribution of the earths in agrarian reforms (second half XIX - the beginning of XX centuries)
  13. § 1. The is social-legal reasons of reforming of notarial activity in second half XIX centuries
  14. CHAPTER 2. THE TRANSFORMATION REASONS USUALLY-LEGAL SYSTEM OF DAGESTAN IN FIRST HALF XIX CENTURIES