50 RUSSIA - CREDIT 



We must add to this sum 178,047,604 roubles, being the bank's ini- 

 tial debt emanating from the agricultural banks. The total sum is there- 

 fore 1,513,760,548 roubles. 



During the year the bank issued new bonds at 5 per cent, for a sum of 

 987,300 roubles and at 4 V2 P^^ cent, for a sum of 31,836,650 roubles. The 

 initial debt emanating from the agricultural banks reached 4,449,405 rou- 

 bles. In addition bonds were repaid for a sum of 16,901,586 roubles, 

 1,260,750 roubles were paid to extinguish debts, and debts were bought 

 back for 420,000 roubles. The initial debt emanating from the agricultural 

 bank was repaid to the extent of 925,300 roubles. On i January 1916 the 

 sum of bonds was 1,533,468 roubles. 



The bank's capital on i January 1915 was as follows, in respect of 

 amount and kind : the bank's own capital — 10,200,064 roubles ; the re- 

 serve capital 28,212,236 roubles ; the capital of Emperor Nicholas II 

 3.859,700 roubles. 



During the year the bank's own capital did not change ; the reserve 

 capital reached 32,529,096 roubles ; and the capital of the Emperor Nicho- 

 las II was increased by 818,050 roubles, a sum representing sales of crown 

 property. The total capital was therefore 4,671,750 roubles on i January 

 1916. 



The closing of the financial year therefore provided the following fi- 

 gures : 



Receipts 24,164,141 roubles 



Expenditure 19,847,281 



which gave 4,316,860 " as a net ^profit. This sum passed 

 in its entirely to the reserve. 



In concluding our examination of the bank's activity in its third pe- 

 riod we should recognize that it was responsible for enabling land to pass 

 without disorder into the ownership of the peasants, that in pursuing its 

 aim of liquidating large property it was of real benefit to the peasants, but 

 that it cotdd not solve the whole agrarian problem. In this third period the 

 bank's objective changed. It no longer sought to accomplish only the 

 transference of lands but also worked for a great and methodical reform of 

 the agricultural masses. It could not attain to really positive results be- 

 cause above economic questions there is the political question involv^^d in 

 the tendency to reduce the mir — that traditional form of peasant property 

 — and this prevents certain reforms from being fully realized. 



