banks known to navigators to exist along the Pacific
coast from the Cortes bank to Behring straits, and
as in duty bound your memorialists will ever pray.
Passed the House of Representatives January 10,
1866.
EDWARD ELDRIDGE,
Speaker House of Representatives.
Passed the Council January 13, 1866.

HARVEY K. HINES,
President of the Council.

This memorial on its presentation to the President in February, 1866, was referred to the Secretary of State, by whom it was communicated to Mr. de Stoeckl, the Russian minister, with remarks on the importance of some early and comprehensive arrangement between the two Powers in order to prevent the growth of difficulties, especially from the fisheries in that region.

Shortly afterwards another influence was felt. Mr. Cole, who had been recently elected to the Senate from Californie, acting in behalf of certain persons in that State, sought to obtain from the Russian Government a license or franchise to gather furs in a portion of its American possessions. The charter of the Russian American Company was about to expire. This company had already underlet to the Hudson Bay Company all its franchise on the main land between 54° 40′ and Mount St. Elias; and now it was proposed that an American company, holding direct from the Russian Government, should be substituted for the latter. The mighty Hudson Bay Company, with its headquarters in London, was to give way to an American Company with its headquarters in California. Among the letters on this subject addressed to Mr. Cole and now before me is one dated at San Francisco, April 10, 1866, in which this scheme is developed as follows:

*

**

"There is at the present time a good chance to organize a fur trading company to trade between the United States and the Russian possessions in America, and as the charter formerly granted to the Hudson Bay Company has expired this would be the opportune moment to start in." "I should think that by a little management this charter could be obtained from the Russian Government for ourselves, as I do not think they are very willing to renew the charter of the Hudson Bay Company, and I think they would give the preference to an American company, especially if the company should pay to the Russian Government five per cent. on the gross proceeds of their transactions, and also aid in civilizing and ameliorating the condition of the Indians by employing missionaries, if required by the Russian Government. For the faithful performance of the above we ask a charter for the term of twenty-five years, to be renewed for the same length of time, if the Russian Government finds the company deserving. The charter to invest us with the right of trading in all the country between the British American line and the Russian archipelago." * "Remember, we wish for the same charter as was formerly granted to the Hudson Bay Company, and we offer in return more than they did."

*

*

*

was not authorized to act, and the latter, after conference with the Department of State, was induced to address Mr. Clay, minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, who laid the application before the Russian Government. This was an important step. A letter from Mr. Clay, dated at St. Petersburg as late as 1st February, 1867, makes the following revelation:

"The Russian Government has already ceded away its rights in Russian America for a term of years, and the Russo-American Company has also ceded the same to the Hudson Bay Company. This lease expires in June next, and the president of the RussoAmerican Company tells me that they have been in correspondence with the Hudson Bay Company about a renewal of the lease for another term of twenty-five or thirty years. Until he receives a definite answer he cannot enter into negotiations with us or your California company. My opinion is that if he can get off with the Hudson Bay Company he will do so, when we can make some arrangements with the Russo-American Company."

Some time had elapsed since the original attempt of Mr. Gwin, also a Senator from California, and it is probable that the Russian Government had obtained information which enabled it to see its way more clearly. It will be remembered that Prince Gortschakow had promised an inquiry, and it is known that in 1861 Captain Lieutenant Golowin, of the Russian navy, made a detailed report on these possessions. Mr. Cole had the advantage of his predecessor. There is reason to believe, also, that the administration of the fur company had not been entirely satisfactory, so that there were well-founded hesitations with regard to the renewal of its franchise. Meanwhile, in October, 1866, Mr. de Stoeckl, who had long been the Russian minister at Washington, and enjoyed in a high degree the confidence of our Government, returned home on a leave of absence, promising his best exertions to promote good relations between the two countries. While he was at St. Petersburg the applications from the United States were under consideration; but the Russian Government was disinclined to any minor arrangement of the character proposed. Obviously something like a crisis was at hand with regard to these possessions. The existing government was not adequate. The franchises granted there were about to terminate. Something must be done. As Mr. de Stoeckl was leaving in February to return to his post the Archduke Constantine, the brother and chief adviser of the emperor, handed him a map with the lines in our Treaty marked upon it, and told him he might treat for this cession. The minister arrived in Wash

ington early in March. A negotiation was opened at once with our Government. Final instructions were received by the Atlantic cable from St. Petersburg on the 29th March, and at four o'clock on the morning of the 30th March this important Treaty was signed by Mr. Seward on the part of the United States and by Mr. de Stoeckl on the part of Russia.

Few treaties have been conceived, initiated, prosecuted, and completed in so simple a manner without protocols or dispatches. The

whole negotiation will be seen in its result, unless we accept two brief notes, which constitute all that passed between the negotiators. These have an interest general and special, and I conclude the history of this transaction by reading them:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, March 23, 1867. SIR: With reference to the proposed convention between our respective Governments for a cession by Russia of her American territory to the United States, I have the honor to acquaint you that I must insist upon that clause in the sixth article of the draft which declares the cession to be free and unin

cumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or any other, &c., and must regard it as an ultimatum. With the President's approval, however, I will add $200,000 to the consideration money on that account. I avail myself of this occasion to offer to you a renewed assurance of my most distinguished consideration. WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. EDWARD DE STOECKL, &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

WASHINGTON, March 17 | 29, 1867. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor to inform you that by a telegram dated 16 | 28th of this month from St. Petersburg, Prince Gortchakow informs me that his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias gives his consent to the cession of the Russian possessions on the American continent to the United States for the stipulated sum of $7,200,000 in gold, and that his Majesty the Emperor invests me with full powers to negotiate and sign the treaty. Please accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurance of my very high consideration. STOECKL. To Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State of the United States.

THE TREATY.

The Treaty begins with the declaration that "the United States of America and his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, being desirous of strengthening, if possible, the good understanding which exists between them," have appointed plenipotentiaries, who have proceeded to sign articles, wherein it is stipulated on behalf of Russia that "his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth;" and it is stipulated on behalf of the United States that "in consideration of the cession aforesaid the United States agree to pay at the Treasury in Washington, within ten months after the ratification of this convention, to the diplomatic representative or other agent of his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias duly authorized to receive the same, $7,200,000 in gold." The ratifications are to be exchanged within three || months from the date of the Treaty, or sooner, if possible.

Beyond the consideration founded on the desire of "strengthening the good understanding" between the two countries, there is the pecuniary consideration already mentioned, which underwent a change in the progress of the negotiation. The sum of seven millions

was originally agreed upon; but when it was understood that there was a fur company and also an ice company enjoying monopolies under the existing government, it was thought best that these should be extinguished, in consideration of which our Government added $200,000 to the purchase money, and the Russian Government in formal terms declared "the cession of territory and dominion to be free and unincumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions, by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, or by any parties, except merely private individual property-holders." Thus the Uni

ted States receive this cession free of all incumbrances, so far at least as Russia is in a condition to make it. The Treaty proceeds to say, that "the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion and appurtenances thereto.' In other words, Russia conveys all that she has to convey.

QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE TREATY.

There are questions not unworthy of attention, which arise under the treaty between Russia and Great Britain, fixing the eastern limits of these possessions, and conceding certain privileges to the latter Power. By this treaty, signed at St. Petersburg 28th February, 1825, after fixing the boundaries between the Russian and British possessions, it is provided that "for the space of ten years the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hinderance whatever, all the inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives;

and also that "for the space of ten years the port of Sitka or Novo Archangelsk shall be open to the commerce and vessels of British subjects." (Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, vol. 2, p 365.) In the same Treaty it is also provided that "the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navigating freely and without any hinderance whatever all the rivers and streams which in their course toward the Pacific ocean may cross the line of demarcation." (Ibid.) Afterwards a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Russia and Great Britain was signed at St. Petersburg 11th January, 1843, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the expiration of ten years, in which it is provided that "in regard to commerce and navigation in the Russian possessions on the northwest coast of America the convention of 28th February, 1825, continues in force." (Ibid., vol. 6, p. 767.) Then ensued the Crimean war between Russia and Great Britain, effacing or suspending treaties. Afterwards another Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was signed at St. Petersburg 12th January, 1859, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the

expiration of ten years, which repeats the last provision. (Ibid., vol. 10, p 1063.)

Thus we have three different stipulations on the part of Russia; one opening seas, gulfs, and havens on the Russian coast to British subjects for fishing and trading with the natives; the second making Sitka a free port to British subjects; and the third making British rivers which flow through the Russian possessions forever free to British navigation. Do the United States succeed to these stipulations?

Among these I make a distinction in favor of the last, which by its language is declared to be "forever," and may have been in the nature of an equivalent at the settlement of the boundaries between the two Powers. But whatever may be its terms or its origin it is obvious that it is nothing but a declaration of public law as it has always been expounded by the United States and is now recognized on the continent of Europe. While pleading with Great Britain in 1826 for the free navigation of the St. Lawrence Mr. Clay, who was at the time Secretary of State, said that "the American Government did not mean to contend for any principle the benefit of which, in analogous circumstances, it would deny to Great Britain." (Wheaton's Elements of International Law, part 2, cap. 4.) During the same year Mr. Gallatin, our minister in London, when negotiating with Great Britain for the adjustment of our boundaries on the Pacific, proposed that "if the line should cross any of the branches of the Columbia at points from which they are navigable by boats to the main stream the navigation of both branches and of the main stream should be perpetually free and common to the people of both nations." At an earlier day the United States made the same claim with regard to the Mississippi, and asserted as a general principle that "if the right of the upper inhabitants to descend the stream was in any case obstructed it was an act by a stronger society against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind." (Ibid.) By these admissions our country is estopped, even if the public law of the European continent, first declared at Vienna with regard to the Rhine, did not offer an example which we cannot afford to reject. I rejoice to believe that on this occasion we shall apply to Great Britain the generous rule which from the beginning we have claimed for ourselves.

The two other stipulations are different in character. They are not declared to be "forever,' ," and do not stand on any principle of public law. Even if subsisting now they cannot be onerous. I doubt much if they are subsisting now. In succeeding to the Russian possessions it does not follow that the United States succeed to ancient obligations assumed by Russia, as if, according to a phrase of the common law, they are "covenants running with the land." If these stipulations are in the nature of servitudes they depend for their duration on the sovereignty of Russia, and are

personal or national rather than territorial. So at least I am inclined to believe. But it is hardly profitable to speculate on a point of so little practical value. Even if "running with the land" these servitudes can be terminated at the expiration of ten years from the last treaty by a notice, which equitably the United States may give, so as to take effect on the 12th January, 1869. Meanwhile, during this brief period, it will be easy by act of Congress in advance to limit importations at Sitka, so that this "free port" shall not be made the channel or doorway by which British goods may be introduced into the United States free of duty.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE TREATY.

From this survey of the Treaty, as seen in its origin and the questions under it, I might pass at once to a survey of the possessions which have been conveyed; but there are other matters of a more general character which present themselves at this stage and challenge the judgment. These concern nothing less than the unity, power, and grandeur of the Republic, with the extension of its dominion and its institutions. Such considerations, where not entirely inapplicable, are apt to be controlling. I do not doubt that they will in a great measure determine the fate of this treaty with the American people. They are patent, and do not depend on research or statistics. To state them is enough.

Advantages to the Pacific Coast.

(1.) Foremost in order, if not in importance, I put the desires of our fellow-citizens on the Pacific coast, and the special advantages which they will derive from this enlargement of boundary. They were the first to ask for it, and will be the first to profit by it. While others knew the Russian possessions only on the map they knew them practically in their resources. While others were still indifferent they were planning how to appropriate Russian peltries and fisheries. This is attested by the resolutions of the Legislature of Washington Territory; also by the exertions at different times of two Senators from California, who, differing in political sentiments and in party relations, took the initial steps which ended in this Treaty.

These well-known desires were founded, of course, on supposed advantages; and here experience and neighborhood were prompters. Since 1854 the people of California have received their ice from the fresh-water lakes in the island of Kodiak, not far westward from Mount St. Elias. Later still their fishermen have searched the waters about the Aleutians and the Shumagins, commencing a promising fishery. Others have proposed to substitute themselves to the Hudson Bay Company in their franchise on the coast. But all are looking to the Orient, as in the time of Columbus, although like him they sail to the West. To them China and Japan, those ancient realms

of fabulous wealth, are the Indies. To draw this commerce to the Pacific coast is no new idea. It haunted the early navigators. Meares, the Englishman, whose voyage in the intervening seas was in 1789, closes his volumes with an essay, entitled "The trade between the northwest coast of America and China," in the course of which he dwells on the "great and very valuable source of commerce" afforded by China as "forming a chain of trade between Hudson bay, Canada, and the northwest coast,' and then he exhibits on the American side the costly furs of the sea otter, which are still so much prized in China; 'mines which are

known to lie between the latitudes 40° and 60° north;" and also an "inexhaustible supply" of ginseng, for which there is still such a demand in China that even Minnesota, at the headwaters of the Mississippi, supplies her contribution. His catalogue might be extended

now.

when the English navigator recorded his voy. age. Of course whatever helps this result is an advantage. The Pacific railroad is such an advantage, for, though running westward, it will be, when completed, a new highway to the East. This Treaty is another advantage, for nothing can be clearer than that the western coast must exercise an attraction which will be felt in China and Japan just in proportion as it is occupied by a commercial people com municating readily with the Atlantic and with Europe. This cannot be done without consequences not less important politically than commercially. Owing so much to the Union, the people there will be bound to it anew, and the national unity will receive another confirmation. Thus the whole country will be a gainer. So are we knit together that the advantages to the Pacific coast will contribute to the general welfare.

Extension of Dominion.

(2.) The extension of dominion is another consideration, calculated to captivate the public mind. Few are so cold or philosophical as to regard with insensibility a widening of the bounds of country. Wars have been regarded as successful when they have given a new ter

ours.

The absence of harbors at present belong ing to the United States on the Pacific limits the outlets of the country. On that whole extent, from Panama to Puget's sound, the only harbor of any considerable value is San Francisco. Further north the harbors are abundant, and they are all nearer to the great marts of Japan and China. But San Francisco itself will be nearer by the way of the Aleutians than by Honolulu. The projection of maps is not always calculated to present an accurate idea of distances. From measurement on a globe it appears that a voyage from San Francisco to Hong Kong by the common way of the Sandwich islands is 7,140 miles, but by way of the Aleutian islands it is only 6,060 miles, being a saving of more than one thousand miles, with the enormous additional advantage of being obliged to carry much less coal. Of course a voyage from Sitka, or from Puget sound, the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, would be shorter still.

The advantages to the Pacific coast have two aspects, one domestic and the other foreign. Not only does the Treaty extend the coasting trade of California, Oregon, and Washington Territory northward, but it also extends the base of commerce with China and Japan.

To unite the east of Asia with the west of America is the aspiration of commerce now as

flag of his sovereign on a distant coast has been received as a conqueror. The ingratitude which was shown to Columbus during his later days was compensated by the epitaph that he had given a new world to Castile and Leon. His discoveries were continued by other navigators, and Spain girdled the earth with her possessions. Portugal, France, Holland, England, each followed the example of Spain and rejoiced in extended empire.

Our territorial acquisitions are among the landmarks of our history. In 1803 Louisiana, embracing the valley of the Mississippi, was acquired from France for fifteen million dol lars. In 1819 Florida was acquired from Spain for three million dollars. In 1845 Texas was annexed without any purchase, but subsequently her debt was assumed to the amount of seven and a half million dollars. In 1848 California, New Mexico, and Utah were acquired from Mexico after war, and on payment of fifteen million dollars. In 1854 Arizona was acquired from Mexico for ten million dol lars. And now it is proposed to acquire Russian America.

The passion for acquisition, which is so strong in the individual, is not less strong in the community. A nation seeks an outlying territory, as an individual seeks an outlying farm. The passion shows itself constantly. France, passing into Africa, has annexed Algeria. Spain set her face in the same direction, but without the same success. There are two great Powers with which annexation has be come a habit. One is Russia, which from the time of Peter the Great has been moving her flag forward in every direction, so that on every

side her limits have been extended. Even now the report comes that she is lifting her southern landmarks in Asia, so as to carry her boundary to India. The other annexationist is Great Britain, which from time to time adds another province to her Indian dominion. If the United States have from time to time added to their dominion they have only yielded to the universal passion, although I do not forget that the late Theodore Parker was accustomed to say that among all people the Anglo-Saxons were remarkable for "a greed of land." It was land, not gold, that aroused the Anglo-Saxon phlegm. I doubt, however, if this passion be stronger with us than with others, except, per-|| haps, that in a community where all participate in government the national sentiments are more active. It is common to the human family. There are few anywhere who could hear of a considerable accession of territory, obtained peacefully and honestly, without a pride of country, even if at certain moments the judgment hesitated. With an increased size on the map there is an increased consciousness of strength, and the citizen throbs anew as he traces the extending line.

Extension of Republican Institutions.

(3.) More than the extension of dominion is the extension of republican institutions, which is a traditional aspiration. It was in this spirit that Independence was achieved. In the name of Human Rights our fathers overthrew the kingly power, whose representative was George the Third. They set themselves openly against this form of government. They were against it for themselves, and offered their example to mankind. They were Roman in character, and turned to Roman lessons. With a cynical austerity the early Cato said that kings were "carnivorous animals," and at his instance the Roman Senate decreed that no king should be allowed within the gates of the city. A kindred sentiment, with less austerity of form, has been received from our fathers; but our city can be nothing less than the North American continent with its gates on all the surrounding seas.

John Adams, in the preface to his Defense of the American Constitution, written in London, where he resided at the time as minister, and dated January 1,1787, at Grosvenor Square, the central seat of aristocratic fashion, after exposing the fabulous origin of the kingly power in contrast with the simple origin of our republican constitutions, thus for a moment lifts the curtain of the future: "Thirteen governments," he says plainly, "thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, and without any pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, is a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." (John Adams's Works, vol. 4, p. 293.) Thus, according to this prophetic minister, even at that early day was the

destiny of the Republic manifest. It was to spread over the northern part of the American quarter of the globe; and it was to be a support to the rights of mankind.

By the text of our Constitution the United States are bound to guaranty a "republican form of government" to every State in this Union; but this obligation, which is only applicable at home, is an unquestionable indication of the national aspiration everywhere. The Republic is something more than a local policy; it is a general principle, not to be forgotten at any time, especially when the opportunity is presented of bringing an immense region within its influence. Elsewhere it has for the present failed; but on this account our example is more important. Who can forget the generous lament of Lord Byron, whose passion for freedom was not mitigated by his rank as an hereditary legislator of England, when he exclaims in memorable verse:

"The name of commonwealth is past and gone O'er the three fractions of the groaning globe!" Who can forget the salutation which the poet sends to the " one great clime," which, nursed in freedom, enjoys what he calls "the proud distinction" of not being confounded with other lands,

"Whose sons must bow them at a monarch's motion, As if his senseless scepter were a wand!"

The present Treaty is a visible step in the occupation of the whole North American continent. As such it will be recognized by the world and accepted by the American people. But the Treaty involves something more. By it we dismiss one more monarch from this continent. One by one they have retired; first France; then Spain; then France again; and now Russia; all giving way to that absorbing Unity which is declared in the national motto, E pluribus unum.

Anticipation of Great Britain.

(4.) Another motive to this acquisition may be found in a desire to anticipate the imagined schemes or necessities of Great Britain. With regard to all these I confess my doubts, and yet, if we may credit report, it would seem as if there was already a British movement in this direction. Sometimes it is said that Great Britain desires to buy if Russia will sell. Sir George Simpson, governor-in-chief of the Hudson Bay Company, declared that without the strip on the coast underlet to the former by the Russian Company the interior would be "comparatively useless to England." Here, then, is a provocation to buy. Sometimes report assumes a graver character. A German scientific journal, in an elaborate paper entitled "The Russian Colonies on the Northwest Coast of America," after referring to the constant "pressure" upon Russia, proceeds to say that there are already crowds of adventurers from British Columbia and California now at the gold mines on the Stikine, which flows from British territory