The Bazaar Controversy of 1911–1913

A Struggle for Economic Survival in Khashchevatoye

In the early twentieth century, the shtetl of Khashchevatoye in Podolia Province became the site of a classic conflict between the private interests of a wealthy Christian landowner and the collective survival of its Jewish and peasant inhabitants. The dispute ostensibly concerned public sanitation and town beautification; in reality, it was a struggle for control over the shtetl's economic lifeblood. The controversy escalated through multiple levels of government—from the Gaysin District Committee to the Provincial Zemstvo Assembly, and ultimately to the Imperial Senate in St. Petersburg, before reaching its final resolution in 1913.

A.F. Karel: The Landowner

The name Aleksander Filippovich Karel appears across multiple administrative documents from Khashchevatoye, revealing his central role as a dominant landowner whose decisions shaped both the economic and religious life of the Jewish community.

Karel controlled substantial property on which the Jewish community depended for both commerce and worship. Jewish merchants rented his central plots for their bazaar shops; Jewish families held chinshevaya tenure (a form of long-term rental common in Imperial Russia) on his land for their homes; and Jewish prayer houses stood on ground he legally owned. Under this arrangement, the land legally belonged to Karel while Jewish tenants held permanent tenure rights, owned their buildings, and could pass these rights to heirs, but could not sell the land itself and required the landowner's implicit consent for major transactions.

This arrangement was typical of the complex, often precarious position of Jewish communities in the Pale of Settlement. While Jews could build prosperous businesses and vibrant religious institutions, they frequently did so on land they could never fully own, subject to the decisions of landowners like Karel.

Karel's Petition (1911)

In 1911, Karel petitioned the Gaysin District authorities to relocate Khashchevatoye's bazaar from the town center to its outskirts. His stated justifications were sanitary: the twice - weekly markets caused severe crowding, streets blocked with carts and livestock, and accumulations of manure that he claimed caused epidemics.

Karel also noted that at the end of the previous year, the peasant communities of Khashchevatoye and neighboring villages had decided to erect a monument to Emperor Alexander II in memory of the emancipation of peasants from serfdom. Since there was no suitable location, Karel donated part of his land in front of the Volost Administration building, where the monument was consecrated on February 19, 1911. The livestock and horse market now took place on that same square, with animals crowding around the monument and polluting the ground with manure. Karel could not proceed with his plan to create a public park around the monument at his own expense. He therefore agreed to allocate land on the outskirts for a new bazaar square and proposed to build shelters and wells there.

The Jewish Community Responds

The Gaysin District Committee reviewed Karel's petition and found it possible to approve, provided that the new bazaar square be no less than three desyatinas* and include at least three wells.

Five authorized representatives of the Jewish community: Nakhman Chechelnitzky, Mendel Lerner, Yos Myaskovsky, Yos Postolov, and Lipa Verbovitzky filed a formal complaint against the District Committee's decision. In their petition to the Provincial Administration, they declared:

"Khashchevatoye is populated exclusively by small craftsmen and traders who distribute goods of primary necessity for peasant life. Thanks to the fact that the shtetl is located on the Bug River and has convenient wells in the center (built at the expense of the townspeople's society) it is willingly visited on bazaar days by the surrounding population, who have a convenient place to stop with water access for selling their products and purchasing necessary goods for themselves."

The complainants explained that recently, hoping for approval of an earlier petition to allow bi - weekly bazaars in Khashchevatoye, the local population had leased plots from Karel at very high prices in the town center and built shops meeting modern requirements. With the transfer of the bazaar to the outskirts, to land where Karel proposed to move it, where there was no water supply and wells could barely reach water at ten sazhens* depth, those coming to the bazaar would have no way to water their livestock and would have to travel more than two versts* from the bazaar site to the Bug River.

They warned that such conditions would naturally cause dissatisfaction among the surrounding population, who would prefer to visit other, closer bazaars and this would completely undermine the commercial interests of Khashchevatoye's population, leaving the shtetl in an extremely critical position. Karel, they noted, would certainly not lose out, for there would always be people willing to buy land from him on the new bazaar square to build shops.

A separate petition arrived from twenty-eight other residents of Khashchevatoye, who stated:

"We find the Gaisin Zemstvo Administration's decision to relocate the bazaar from the center of Khashchevatoye to the hill beyond the shtetl to be incorrect and subject to reversal for the following reasons: (1) the absence of water at the new bazaar square, which is fatal for people and animals, there is no water supply, and even if the landowner builds one or two wells, the question arises whether the water will be fit for consumption, while the existing wells in the center supply abundant excellent water; (2) the distance from the proposed bazaar square to the trading shops and wholesale warehouses excessively burdens buyers and sellers, and the losses will be borne precisely by the peasants who bring goods for trade; (3) the adjacency of peasant plowed lands to the landowner's land threatens us with undoubtedly large losses, and the landowner deliberately sought approval for moving the bazaar beyond the shtetl — inevitably, cattle driven to the bazaar will end up on the landowner's land, and then there will be claims for damages, courts and reckonings. In winter, during frost or blizzard, one will have to leave carts, sleighs, and cattle with goods to the mercy of fate and run to the shtetl to warm up and shelter from snow and rain, even thunderstorms; the harm from moving the bazaar beyond the shtetl is obvious to everyone, therefore we have limited ourselves to the indicated reasons; one cannot list everything."

The Provincial Decision (January 1912)

The Provincial Administration, agreeing with the Gaysin District Committee's conclusion, found that the relocation of the bazaar square in Khashchevatoye to the outskirts was genuinely necessary for improving the sanitary condition of the shtetl. The protests from local Jewish residents and others were, in the Administration's opinion, unfounded, motivated mainly by the petitioners' desire to have bazaar - goers make all their purchases in the shops located in their homes and nearby, the value and profitability of which would obviously decline significantly with the bazaar's relocation.

On January 15, 1912, the Podolian Provincial Zemstvo Assembly officially approved the relocation of the bazaar square in Khashchevatoye, Gaysin District, from the center to the outskirts, with the condition that landowner A.F. Karel allocate a new bazaar square of no less than three desyatinas and construct no fewer than three wells in various parts of the square.

The Peasants Join the Fight (May 1912)

The opposition to Karel's petition was not limited to the Jewish community. On May 1, 1912, the Khashchevatoye village assembly convened to address the matter. The assembly noted that the existing bazaar square was located in the center of the shtetl, which was quite convenient for the peasant population of the Khashchevatoye volost in terms of trade, given the abundance of shops, warehouses, and water sources. They further noted that the proposed new bazaar square had no water supply, and wells would be expensive to build. The peasant assembly resolved to oppose the relocation of the old bazaar square to the new location and to file their protest. For this purpose, they authorized two peasants from the village of Khashchevatoye, Vasily Ozeransky and Georgy Petrov, to represent them in this matter, instructing them to petition wherever necessary and to follow through on the appeal.

The resolution was signed by the Elder Yefim Ridchuk, with the official seal of the Khashchevatoye Volost Administration. The fact that both Jewish merchants and peasant farmers formally opposed the relocation underscores how broadly Karel's petition threatened the community's interests, this was not merely a conflict between a Christian landowner and Jewish traders, but a dispute that united the shtetl's diverse population against a common threat to their livelihoods.

The New Bazaar Square (July 1912)

While the appeals wound through the bureaucracy, Karel proceeded with construction. On July 9, 1912, a member of the Gaysin Zemstvo Administration arrived in Khashchevatoye to inspect and formally accept the newly allocated bazaar square.

The inspection revealed that the new square was located on the outskirts of the shtetl, measuring 122 sazhens in length and 97 sazhens in width, a total of over four desyatinas and 2,234 square sazhens, exceeding the required minimum. The land surrounding the square belonged to Karel. The terrain was level, with black-earth soil.

In the center of the square, three wells had been constructed, spaced 35 sazhens apart from each other. The wells were approximately four sazhens deep (about 8.5 meters), built of stone with oak above-ground frames, equipped with rollers for drawing water and troughs, each trough three sazhens long. A special sheltered structure had been built for the public scales. The official scales had not yet been installed.

Present at the inspection on behalf of Aleksandr Filippovich Karel was his representative, Reserve Guards Lieutenant Vilgelm Aleksandrovich Gmelin. The official act was signed by the Gaysin Zemstvo Administration member G. Baranovsky and Karel's representative Gmelin.

Appeal to the Imperial Senate (September 1912)

Despite the construction already underway, the peasant representatives Ozeryansky and Petrov pursued their appeal. On September 2, 1912, the Podolian Governor forwarded their complaint (Report № 3500) to the First Department of the Governing Senate in St. Petersburg, where it was registered on September 27, 1912.

The case was heard on November 15, 1912. By decree of His Imperial Majesty, the Governing Senate considered the case concerning the complaint of the authorized representatives of the peasants of Khashchevatoye volost, Gaysin District — Vasily Ozeryansky and Georgy Petrov — against the resolution of the Podolian Provincial Zemstvo Assembly of January 15, 1912, regarding the relocation of the bazaar square in the shtetl of Khashchevatoye from the center to the outskirts.

The Senate's Verdict (November 1912)

The Senate ruled decisively against the peasants. Having examined the case and taking into consideration that, on the precise basis of Point 5 of Article 63 of the Zemstvo Regulations of 1892 and Point 5 of Article 82 of the Provisions of 1906, the relocation of trade and bazaars from one place to another, as well as changes to the internal arrangement of such bazaars and markets within the areas designated for them, was entrusted, with the Governor's approval, to the authority of the Provincial Zemstvo Assembly.

The Governing Senate found the appealed resolution of the Podolian Provincial Zemstvo Assembly regarding the relocation in the shtetl of Khashchevatoye to the new location, a resolution confirmed by the Podolian Governor, to be in no way contrary to current legal provisions.

The Senate therefore ordered: the complaint of Ozeryansky and Petrov to be left without consequences.

The petitioners were to be notified, and in resolution of the Governor's report of September 2, 1912, № 3500, the Podolian Governor was to be sent a decree. The original was signed by the Governing Senate. The decree was sent for execution on January 30, 1913, and was executed on March 27, 1913, under № 4433.

Final Confirmation (1913)

On May 13, 1913, the Podolian Vice-Governor submitted a report to the Governing Senate confirming that the Senate's decree of March 27, 1913, № 4433, had been executed on April 18 of that year. The matter was closed.

Historical Significance

These documents illuminate a classic conflict of early twentieth - century Podolia: the private interests of a large landowner (a Christian nobleman) striving to redistribute commercial space in his favor under the guise of sanitary and landscaping arguments, versus the public interests of the shtetl population (peasants and townspeople, primarily the Jewish merchant and artisan class) for whom the central market was the basis of their economic existence.

Formally, the dispute was presented as a matter of sanitation and order. In essence, it was a struggle for control over the shtetl's economy, trade flows, and income — and a vivid illustration of how private land ownership in Podolia province directly conflicted with the interests of the local community.

The case demonstrates how limited the community's recourse was when provincial and imperial authorities sided with property owners over tenants, regardless of the commercial and practical arguments presented. A single landowner's petition could reshape the economic foundation of an entire community. Both the Jewish merchants and the peasant farmers united in opposition, carried their fight to the highest court in the land — and lost.

The bazaar was relocated to Karel's land on the outskirts, where he built the required wells and infrastructure as promised. Whether the dire predictions of the complainants came true or whether trade declined, whether the shtetl suffered economically, whether the wells provided adequate water — the archival record does not say. What it does preserve is the voice of a community fighting for its survival, and the bureaucratic machinery that ultimately silenced it.

Timeline of Events

February 19, 1911: Monument to Emperor Alexander II erected on land donated by Karel

1911: Karel petitions to relocate the bazaar; Gaysin District Committee approves with conditions

1911: Jewish representatives (Chechelnitzky, Lerner, Myaskovsky, Postolov, Verbovitzky) file complaint

1911: Twenty-eight additional Khashchevatayoye residents file separate complaint

January 15, 1912: Podolian Provincial Zemstvo Assembly approves relocation

May 1, 1912: Khashchevatoye peasant assembly authorizes Ozeryansky and Petrov to appeal

July 9, 1912: New bazaar square inspected; Karel has fulfilled all conditions

September 2, 1912: Podolian Governor forwards peasant appeal to Senate (Report № 3500)

September 27, 1912: Appeal registered at First Department of the Senate

November 15, 1912: Governing Senate rejects the appeal

January 30, 1913: Senate decree sent for execution

March 27, 1913: Decree executed (№ 4433)

April 18, 1913: Podolian Governor confirms compliance

May 13, 1913: Vice-Governor submits final confirmation to Senate

Named Individuals

The Landowner:

Aleksandr Filippovitch Karel — landowner of Khashchevatoye

Vilgelm Aleksandrovitch Gmelin — Reserve Guards Lieutenant, Karel's representative

Jewish Community Representatives:

Nakhman Chechelnitzky

Mendel Lerner

Yos Myaskovsky

Yos Postolov

Lipa Verbovityky

Peasant Representatives:

Vasily Ozeryansky — authorized peasant representative

Georgy Petrov — authorized peasant representative

Yefim Ridchuk — Elder of Khashchevatoye Volost

Officials:

G. Baranovsky — Member of the Gaysin Zemstvo Administration 

Note on Russian Imperial Measurements

The original documents use Imperial Russian units of measurement. Below are their approximate modern equivalents:

Sazhen (сажень)

= 2.13 meters = 7 feet

Desyatina (десятина)

= 1.09 hectares = 2.7 acres

Verst (верста)

= 1.07 kilometers = 0.66 miles

Square sazhen

= 4.55 square meters = 49 square feet

Examples from the documents:

• Wells "at 10 sazhens depth" ≈ 21 meters (69 feet)

• "More than 2 versts to the Bug River" ≈ 2.1 km (1.3 miles)

• "At least 3 desyatinas" ≈ 3.3 hectares (8.1 acres)

• New square: 122 × 97 sazhens ≈ 260 × 207 meters (853 × 679 feet)

• Wells "4 sazhens deep" ≈ 8.5 meters (28 feet)

• Troughs "3 sazhens long" ≈ 6.4 meters (21 feet)

Archival Source

Russian State Historical Archive (РГИА)

Ф. 1341 Оп. 409 Д. 414

Fond: First Department of the Senate (Первый департамент Сената)

Title: On the report of the Podolian Governor No. 3500 with a complaint from authorized representatives of the peasants of Khashchevatoye volost—Ozeryansky and Petrov—regarding the resolution of the Podolian Provincial Zemstvo Assembly about relocating the bazaar in the town of Khashchevatoye to a new location.

Date: September 27, 1912

Permanent link: https://fgurgia.ru/object/2517999738

The Complete Khashchevatoye Election Saga (1913-1915)

Over a century has passed since the tumultuous elections of 1913-1915 in Khashchevatoye, and I share this story purely as a fascinating glimpse into our shtetl's history. The names that appear in these documents belong to a different era, and I want to emphasize that these events have no connection to families bearing these surnames today. My intention is simply to document what life was like in our ancestral village during this period.

However, if any descendants have family stories or memories passed down about these elections, I would be delighted to hear them! Such personal recollections could add valuable context and depth to this historical account. Please feel free to reach out if you have anything to share. 

Overview: A Two-Year Battle for Local Power

What began as a simple municipal election in the small township of Khashchevatoye in January 1913 turned into a two-year legal and political battle that would require multiple re-elections, police investigations, and provincial interventions. This remarkable case offers a detailed window into the challenges of early democratic processes in pre-Revolutionary Russia.

Location: Khashchevatoye Township, Gaysin County, Podolia Province (now Ukraine).

Timeline: January 1913 - March 1915.

Key Positions: Town Elder (Starosta), Town Board Members, Tax Collector Elder.

Act I: The Original Fraud (January 9, 1913) 

The Election Setup

The election used a ball-voting system where:

·       91 total voters participated

·   Voters received balls to drop into boxes for each candidate

·       Regular voters got 9 balls; candidates got 8 balls (couldn't vote for themselves in one category)

·       Should have been 813 total balls in circulation

The Impossible Results

When votes were counted, the numbers defied mathematics:

·       Yos Myaskovsky (incumbent Jewish board member): 105 balls total (68 valid, 37 invalid) - 14 more than there were voters

·       Anton Lopushansky (town elder): 93 balls - 2 more than there were voters

·       Shmul Lipovetsky (challenger): 90 balls (52 valid, 38 invalid)

·   Yos Pekar: Only 86 balls - fewer than the number of voters

·       Total balls found: 821 (8 more than should exist)

Competing Accusations

Myaskovsky's supporters claimed: Lipovetsky's party introduced extra invalid balls to delegitimize the election, but since Myaskovsky received fewer invalid balls (37 vs 38), he should still win.

Lipovetsky's supporters sccused Myaskovsky of: Using his position as tax collector to withhold public funds for months, using these retained funds to bribe voters, benefiting from "invisible spirits" who cast extra votes, working with election officials who gave him extra balls.

The Police Investigation

The District Police Officer concluded that Lipovetsky's minority faction (about 23 people) orchestrated an elaborate fraud:

·       They secretly dropped extra balls into Myaskovsky's box while pretending to vote for others

·       They obtained extra sets of 8 balls through deception

·   They hid extra balls under their pinky fingers during voting

·   The exact number of extra balls (8) proved it was systematic fraud, not random error

The Police Recommendation 

Despite the fraud, the elections should be considered valid since the manipulation was designed to invalidate them.

Act II: Provincial Intervention (1913) 

Sacred Oath Problem

In addition to the ballot irregularities, provincial authorities discovered a crucial procedural violation: Jewish voters had been administered the oath by Klaus Kremenchugsky, a member of the prayer board, rather than by a rabbi as required by law.

The Provincial Decision

The Podolia Provincial Assembly for Zemstvo and Municipal Affairs ruled the January 1913 elections completely invalid due to:

1.   The improper administration of oaths to Jewish voters

2.   The mathematical impossibility of the ballot counts

3.   Substantial violations of electoral law

Resolution:

Complete annulment of the 1913 elections, requiring new elections to be held.

Act III: The February 1914 Re-Election 

New Elections, New Problems

On February 5, 1914, new elections were held, but fresh controversies immediately emerged:

Issue #1: Ineligible Voter Participation

·   Isidor Yankovsky participated and was even elected as a candidate for elder

·       However, he was only recorded as a member of the community "for accounting purposes" 

·       Under Articles 564-566 of the law, such people cannot vote or hold office

Issue #2: Confusing Ballot Rounds Due to insufficient voting balls, three separate rounds were conducted:

·       Round 1: Yos Myaskovsky elected as board member by majority

·       Round 2: Khuna-Moshko Smolyar, Hertz Protector, and Yos Shaposhnik were balloted

·       Confusion: Was Smolyar running as a candidate or as a full member? Since Myaskovsky was already elected, Smolyar should only have been eligible as a candidate

The Character Assassination Campaign

Opponents of Khuna-Moshko Smolyar filed a petition claiming he was unfit for office, alleging: he had assaulted the spiritual rabbi with a knife, stolen sacks were found in his attic and he had filed complaints against local magistrates.

The Defense Testimony

Rabbi Levi Kutsenogiy testified: "I have always had good relations with Huna-Moshko Smolyar... As for the claim that Smolyar attacked my father and beat him - such an incident never took place."

Srul Zelinsky testified: "I have known him for over 30 years... To me, he is known as a good person. As for the theft of sacks allegedly discovered in Smolyar's attic, I do not remember such an event."

Smolyar himself explained: "I am the authorized representative of the local Jewish community and indeed contacted the Minister of Justice by telegraph with a request to suspend the collection of rent by the landowner... This complaint was not of a compromising nature toward me."

Act IV: The Competing Claims (February-March 1914) 

Team Myaskovsky's Position

They argued that Myaskovsky received the majority in the first round (53 vs 58 balls) and that the election should be invalidated due to Yankovsky's illegal participation. If anyone should be confirmed, it should be Myaskovsky from the first round.

Team Smolyar's Counterargument

They claimed that:  Smolyar legitimately won with 58 balls vs Myaskovsky's 53, that Myaskovsky was "a homeless and poor man, burdened with a large family" and that Myaskovsky was manipulating relatives (the Feinbergs and Dormans) to file complaints. They also claimed that Smolyar owned houses worth 3,000 rubles and represented greater reliability.

 The February 5, 1914, election was conducted properly in the presence of district officers.

Act V: The Administrative Crisis (1914-1915) 

The Tax Collection Breakdown

With elections in constant dispute, Ben Moshkovitch Kravetz was appointed as temporary Tax Collector Elder in December 1914. His report to provincial authorities revealed the consequences of the ongoing political chaos:

·       He managed to collect only 8 rubles and 50 kopecks in three months

·   Residents refused to pay, saying "We will not pay, and no one can do anything to us"

·       Even community deputies owed back taxes

·       Some residents had accumulated debts over several years

·       Police couldn't help because they lacked authority to seize property

Kravetz' desperate plea: "Under such circumstances, collection is impossible... I most humbly request that an order be issued to the police permitting the seizure and collection from the movable property of non-payers."

Yet Another Election (January 1915)

By January 1915, another election was held, but this too faced immediate challenges:

The January 11, 1915, Election was held at 8:00 PM in the evening (unusual timing).

Only 50 voters participated (below the legal minimum)

·   Itzko Leizerov Samovol (over 60 years old) was elected Tax Collector Elder

·      Samovol had previously been removed from this same position in February 1914

Immediate Objections: 

Residents petitioned that the election was invalid due to:

·   The advanced age of the elected official

·       The evening timing of the election

·   Insufficient number of participants

The Broader Historical Context - What This Saga Reveals

About Early Democratic Processes:

·   Vulnerability of ball-voting systems to manipulation

·       Importance of proper procedural compliance (oath administration)

·   Challenges of maintaining electoral integrity in small communities

About Jewish Community Politics:

·   Internal divisions within the Jewish community

·   Competing factions with different economic interests

·       The role of religious authority in secular elections

·   Economic factors (tax collection, property ownership) influencing political power

About Imperial Russian Administration:

·       Multiple layers of oversight (local, district, provincial)

·   Formal complaint processes with revenue stamp requirements

·       The tension between local autonomy and central authority

·   Bureaucratic procedures that could take years to resolve

The Key Players' Motivations

. Yos Myaskovsky: The incumbent trying to maintain power, possibly using his tax collection position for political advantage.

. Shmul Lipovetsky: The challenger with a criminal past, leading a minority faction.

. Khuna-Moshko Smolyar: The property owner representing stability and economic reliability.

. The Dorman and Feinberg Families: Persistent political actors appearing in multiple petitions across the two-year period.

. Ben Kravetz: The pragmatic administrator trying to make the system work while politicians fought.

Conclusion: A Microcosm of Democratic Challenges

The Khashchevatoye election saga demonstrates that many challenges facing democratic systems today - voter fraud allegations, procedural disputes, character assassination campaigns, and administrative paralysis - are not new phenomena. This small township's struggles reveal the universal difficulties of establishing legitimate, trusted electoral processes.

The story also illustrates how personal economic interests, family networks, and community divisions can transform simple administrative elections into complex political battles that paralyze local governance for years. Whether any of these elections were ever definitively resolved remains unclear from the available documents, suggesting that some democratic conflicts resist easy resolution regardless of the era or system of government.