Almost all the Iakuts, as well as many of the Russian farm peasants who live along the Lena River, and even those who live as far away as the Irkutsk and Ilimsk uezds [districts], have been ruined by the Kamchatka Expedition. 

l. Every year Russian peasants are required to transport provisions over a distance of 2,000 to 3,000 versts [obsolete Russian unit of length equal to 1.07 kilometers] to the town of Iakutsk for this expedition. If there are not enough persons who have been exiled into hard labor, others have to transport provisions even farther, all the way to the mouth of the Main River. Consequently, many of the peasants are away from their homes for as long as three years at a time. When they return they have to live on charity or by hiring themselves out. 

Likewise the lakuts are required to send several hundred fully equipped horses to lakutsk in the spring, plus one man to care for every five horses. These horses are used to transport provisions and supplies overland to Okhotsk. Because the land between Iakutsk and Okhotsk is marshy and barren steppe, very few of the horses come back. The officials who are sent out to requisition these horses burden the lakuts in every possible way in order to enrich themselves. They * * * reject many good horses so that the Iakuts will have to give them twice or three times the value in livestock or goods. Furthermore, the officials do not look only to the wealthier lakuts for the necessary number of horses, but levy the same requirement on each lakut. One lakut may own 50 or 100 horses [and thus be able to supply the required number], while another [may be so poor he] cannot buy either horse or wife; in order to fulfill his iasak requirement he has to become a servant to the Russians or to other lakuts. To buy one horse he has to pay an amount which is usually equal to the value of his iasak assessment. 

* * *

2. [A] new policy of iasak [levy] collection must be adopted for the lakutsk Tungus and others. When they are stricken with smallpox they die like flies. Nine years ago I saw one nomadic settlement where only two out of ten men survived; the survivors had to pay the arrears for all those who had died, and not just for an entire uezd or district of some collector, but also for their relatives. I personally knew several wealthy lakuts who had to pay for four or five of their dead relatives. They were so impoverished that before I left they had had to forfeit all their livestock and horses, and sometimes pawn their wives and children [to Russian officials]. Some of them hang or drown themselves. This is a natural consequence because a local native works very hard in the forest all through the winter and suffers hunger and cold until he traps enough to pay his iasak and make a gift [of furs] to the iasak collector and his assistants. If in addition to this he is forced to pay the iasak for those who have died or who have run off, first he loses all his livestock, then his wives and children. He cannot hunt without horses, so he commits suicide or runs off. Then the collectors find his relatives and force them to pay. The collectors take everything, until the natives are destitute. 

* * *

3. The third principal reason the local natives are ruined is that from the time they first came under Russian control they have been forced to pay tribute. Some have paid in sables, others in red foxes, still others in cash. At first there were plenty of furbearing animals there, but now there are no sables and not many foxes in those lakut lands, from the shores of the [Arctic] ocean all the way south to the great Lena River. Moreover, almost half the natives cannot hunt because they have no horses. The instructions to the collectors always imply that they are to collect for the Treasury on the basis of the [original] assessment of one sable from each person on whom one sable was originally levied, and one fox from each person on whom one fox was levied. But the collectors know ahead of time that the natives do not have these furs and so they bring out from town a number of sable and fox pelts to sell [to the natives]. Then, even if the natives manage to trap sables and foxes before the collectors arrive, the collectors do not accept them, but force the natives to purchase the furs they have brought out, paying double or treble the value. * * * The collector profits, the native loses, and there is no profit at all for the Imperial Treasury. 

Twice during my eleven-year stay there, deputations of natives went to town with a petition to be allowed to pay their iasak obligations in squirrels and wolverines instead of sables and foxes. On the basis of their petition the office issued an ukaz [imperial order] that collectors were to accept 100 squirrels or 40 wolverines in place of one fox or sable. In that particular year the natives achieved some reduction of their burden, but the next year their suffering began again because the new official had to act on the basis of the original instructions unless the natives could obtain a new ukaz for relief in that year. As a result, these people experience great hardship. 

It would be possible to halt all native complaints if Her Imperial Majesty would graciously order a stipulation [allowing the iasak to be paid with wolverines or squirrels] * * * [T]he Treasury would not lose and the natives would have a great reprieve. If Her Imperial Majesty were to allow the collectors to accept the substitution for sables and foxes to be paid into the Treasury, they would still make a considerable profit, which they justly deserve, because they are sent into designated places at their own expense. 

* * *

4. The fourth factor that completely ruins poor natives and burdens all others is that every year a new official or collector is sent out to each ostrog or district with a scribe, an interpreter, a tselovalnik [sworn men] and four to eight servitors. Each of these expects a gift. The gift to the official often equals the iasak due the Treasury. * * * When the official takes his share before the others do, it often happens that the poor natives cannot satisfy the other servitors, who then take the natives' wives and grown children to work for them. They also take the nets, axes, tools, boats, bows and arrows. Sometimes they take the clothes right off the backs of the natives, and beat and torture them secretly in their iurts. 

Finally, I do not know of any [other] land where native inhabitants live without any protection and representation. When the voevodas [count or duke] dispense justice in town, then although the natives have some satisfaction for their complaints, nevertheless it often happens that they do not obtain whatever it is they seek. * * * 

Furthermore, no native can petition [a Russian official] in town until he has secured a town interpreter, who is nearly always related to the official, or at least is of one mind with him. Consequently, instead of reporting their grievances, the interpreter will upbraid the natives viciously and threaten to beat them. Sometimes he actually does flog them and sends them back. And if the voevoda is a greedy scoundrel, he mistreats them even more viciously.