THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911

he deputizer on the part of the Area A dminis trative Office, no district court could undertake the corroboration of a similar document, all the more because the Area Administrative Office also persistently denied the passports on which the district court bases its judgments. Finally, Claassen, enclosing a three-ruble bill for the passport fee, requested that the honorable president kindly limit the arbitrariness of the Area Administrative Office, and urge the same to issue the necessary passports for him, Claassen, and the brethren who wished to travel to the Crimea to inspect the land, as well as issuing the necessary certification for the corroboration of the deputization in the district court. "Regrettably, all those petitions, complaints and demands, as well as the manifold orders of the higher ministries have to date been unable to elicit either an answer or explanation on the part of the Supervisory Commission, and although the silence of the commission must serve as proof of the unconstitutionality of the procedure in the case, to the colonial administration, this state of affairs only condemns the oppressed brotherhood to further harsh persecution and final ruin.” §160 5. Cause and Consequences of this Petition. The Council of Church Leaders. According to A. Klaus, Our Colonies, page 265 (Russian original, page 179): a) "... In the attempt to suppress the new church, as occasion per- mitted, and in the need to support such an intention, a few of the most determined ecclesiastical elders began to refer to the 1851 resolution of the Council of Church Leaders [cf. below #160(2)] and thus revealed the existence of this document[!?]. The majority of the Mennonite brotherhood was not a little agitated by this their unexpected subservience to the Council of Church Leaders . . . and amongst them even one or two of the elders found that the Council constituted a governing body that was incompatible with the spirit and essence of the teachings of Menno Simons; and yet these people submitted to the majority and were silent [not really!]. Others recognized, without grumbling, the accomplished fact in the hope that, with the assistance of the Council, the former peace could be reestablished in the district. [In retrospect, Klaus seems to have confused the events of the 40s and the Documentary Supplements 355 60s]. Yet, those against whom the real centralization of the ecclesiastical power was directed were neither silenced nor made submissive. In the hands of this group of inhabitants the act of April 7, 1851, only became a new, and indeed a very effective measure. . . Page 266: [quotes the act of Jan. 6, 1860] . . The power of the Council was declared [by the secessionists] to be illegal and they declared their own goal, under the leadership of their own elder and their own ministers, to be— to defend the true teaching of Menno Simons in all its strictness and simplicity. The Council responde