Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

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_ from the signature of the present convention, the vessels of the two powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast, for the purposes of fishing and of trading with the natives”; and also that “the port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce and vessels of British subjects for the space of _ten years_ from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention.”[12] 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 hindrance whatever all the rivers and streams which in their course towards the Pacific Ocean may cross the line of demarcation.”[13] 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 concluded at St. Petersburg on the 16/28th February, 1825, continues in force.”[14] 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.[15]

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 boundaries between the two powers. But whatever its terms or its origin, it is obvious that it is nothing but a declaration of public law, as always expounded by the United States, and now recognized on the continent of Europe. While pleading with Great Britain, in 1826, for the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, Mr. Clay, then 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.”[16] During the same year, Mr. Gallatin, our minister in London, when negotiating with Great Britain for the adjustment of 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 such branches and of the main stream should be perpetually free and common to the people of both nations.”[17] 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 of force by a stronger society against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind.”[18] 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 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 were “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 notice, which equitably the United States may give, so as to take effect on the 12th of 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 are 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 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.

* * * * *

1. _Advantages to the Pacific Coast._--Foremost in order, if not in importance, I put the desires of our fellow-citizens on the Pacific coast, and the special advantages 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 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 Kadiak, 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 for the Hudson’s 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 1788, recounts a meeting with Gray, the Boston navigator, whom he found “very sanguine in the superior advantages which his countrymen from New England might reap from this track of trade, and big with many mighty projects.”[19] He closes his volumes with an essay entitled “Some Account of the Trade between the Northwest Coast of America and China, &c.,” in the course of which[20] he dwells on the “great and very valuable source of commerce” offered by China as “forming a chain of trade between Hudson’s Bay, Canada, and the Northwest Coast”; and then he exhibits on the American side the costly furs of the sea-otter, still so much prized in China,--“mines which are known to lie between the latitudes of 40° and 60° north,”--and also ginseng “in inexhaustible plenty,” for which there is still such demand in China, that even Minnesota, at the head-waters of the Mississippi, supplies her contribution. His catalogue might be extended now.

As a practical illustration of this idea, it may be mentioned, that, for a long time, most, if not all, the sea-otter skins of this coast found their way to China. China was the best customer, and therefore Englishmen and Americans followed the Russian Company in carrying these furs to her market, so that Pennant, the English naturalist, impressed by the peculiar advantages of the coast, exclaimed, “What a profitable trade [with China] might not a colony carry on, was it possible to penetrate to these parts of North America by means of the rivers and lakes!”[21] Under the present treaty this coast is ours.

The absence of harbors belonging to the United States on the Pacific limits the outlets of the country. On that whole extent, from Panama to Puget 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 when the English navigator recorded his voyage. 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 communicating readily with the Atlantic and with Europe. This cannot be 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.

* * * * *

2. _Extension of Dominion._--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 territory. The discoverer who had planted the flag of his sovereign on a distant coast has been received as a conqueror. The ingratitude exhibited to Columbus during his later days was compensated by the epitaph, that he had “found a new world for Castile and Leon.”[22] 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.

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 dollars. In 1819, Florida was acquired from Spain for about three million dollars. In 1845, Texas was annexed without purchase, but subsequently, under the compromises of 1850, an allowance of twelve and three fourth million dollars was made to her. 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 dollars. And now it is proposed to acquire Russian America.

The passion for acquisition, 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 annexion has become a habit. One is Russia, which from the time of Peter 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 annexionist is Great Britain, which from time to time adds another province to her Indian empire. 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 speak of Anglo-Saxons as among all people remarkable for “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, perhaps, 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 increased size on the map there is increased consciousness of strength, and the heart of the citizen throbs anew as he traces the extending line.

* * * * *

3. _Extension of Republican Institutions._--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 cynical austerity the early Cato said that kings were “carnivorous animals,” and probably at his instance it was decreed by the Roman Senate 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 Defence of the American Constitutions, 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: “Thirteen governments,” he says plainly, “thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and _which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe_, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”[23] Thus, according to the 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 help 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 the Union; but this obligation, which is applicable only 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 sceptre 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. We dismiss one other monarch from the continent. One by one they have retired,--first France, then Spain, then France again, and now Russia,--all giving way to the absorbing Unity declared in the national motto, _E pluribus unum_.

* * * * *

4. _Anticipation of Great Britain._--Another motive to this acquisition may be found in the desire to anticipate imagined schemes or necessities of Great Britain. With regard to all these I confess doubt; and yet, if we credit report, it would seem as if there were 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’s Bay Company, declared, that, without the strip on the coast underlet to them by the Russian Company, the interior would be “comparatively useless to England.”[24] Here, then, is 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 through the Russian possessions, who openly declare their purpose of driving the Russians out of this region. I refer to the “Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Kunde von Russland,”[25] edited at Berlin as late as 1863, by A. Erman, and undoubtedly the leading authority on Russian questions. At the same time it presents a curious passage bearing directly on British policy, purporting to be taken from the “British Colonist,” a newspaper of Victoria, on Vancouver’s Island. As this was regarded of sufficient importance to be translated into German for the instruction of scientific readers, I am justified in laying it before you, restored from German to English.

“The information which we daily publish from the Stikine
River very naturally excites public attention in a high
degree. Whether the territory through which the river flows
be regarded from a political, commercial, or industrial point
of view, it promises within a short time to awaken a still
more general interest. Not only will the intervention of the
royal jurisdiction be demanded in order to give it a complete
form of government, but, if the land proves as rich as there
is now reason to believe it to be, it is not improbable that
it will result in negotiations between England and Russia
for the cession of the sea-coast to the British Crown. It is
not to be supposed that a stream like the Stikine, which is
navigable for steamers from one hundred and seventy to one
hundred and ninety miles, which waters a territory so rich in
gold that it will attract myriads of men,--that the commerce
upon such a road can always pass through a Russian gateway of
thirty miles from the sea-coast to the interior. The English
population which occupies the interior cannot be so easily
managed by the Russians as the Stikine Indians of the coast
manage the Indians of the interior. Our business must be in
British hands. Our resources, our energies, our spirit of
enterprise cannot be employed in building up a Russian emporium
at the mouth of the Stikine. We must have for our merchandise a
depot over which the British flag waves. By the treaty of 1825
the navigation of the river is secured to us. The navigation
of the Mississippi was also open to the United States before
the Louisiana purchase; but the growing strength of the North
made the acquisition of that territory, either by purchase or
by force of arms, an inevitable necessity. We look upon the
sea-coast of the Stikine region in the same light. The strip
of land which stretches along from Portland Canal to Mount St.
Elias, with a breadth of thirty miles, and which, according
to the treaty of 1825, forms a part of Russian America, _must
eventually become the property of Great Britain_, either as the
direct result of the gold discoveries, or from causes as yet
not fully developed, but whose operation is certain. For can we
reasonably suppose that the strip, three hundred miles long and
thirty miles wide, which is used by the Russians solely for the
collection of furs and walrus-teeth, will forever control the
entrance to our immense northern territory? It is a principle
of England to acquire territory only for purposes of defence.
Canada, Nova Scotia, Malta, the Cape of Good Hope, and the
greater part of our Indian possessions were all acquired for
purposes of defence. In Africa, India, and China the same rule
is followed by the Government to-day. With a power like Russia
it would perhaps be more difficult to arrange matters; but
if we need the sea-coast in order to protect and maintain our
commerce with an interior rich in precious metals, then we must
have it. The United States needed Florida and Louisiana, and
took them. We need the coast of New Norfolk and New Cornwall.

“It is just as much the destiny of our Anglo-Norman race to
possess the whole of Russian America, however desolate and
inhospitable it may be, as it has been that of the Russian
Northmen to possess themselves of Northern Europe and Asia. As
the Wandering Jew and his phantom, so will the Anglo-Norman and
the Russian yet gaze at each other from the opposite sides of
Behring Strait. Between the two races the northern halves of
the Old and New World must be divided. America must be ours.

“The recent discovery of the precious metals in our hyperborean
Eldorado will most probably hasten the annexation of the
territory in question. It can hardly be doubted that the gold
region of the Stikine extends away to the western affluents of
the Mackenzie. In this case the increase of the business and
of the population will exceed our most sanguine expectations.
Who shall reap the profit of this? The mouths of rivers, both
before and since the time of railroads, have controlled the
business of the interior. To our national pride the thought,
however, is intolerable, that the Russian griffin should
possess a point which is indebted to the British lion for its
importance. The mouth of the Stikine must be ours,--or at least
a harbor of export must be established on British soil from
which our steamers can pass the Russian belt. Fort Simpson,
Dundas Island, Portland Canal, or some other convenient point,
might be selected for this purpose. The necessity of speedy
measures, in order to secure the control of the Stikine, is
manifest. If we let slip the opportunity, we shall live to see
a Russian city arise at the gates of a British colony.”

Thus, if we credit this colonial ejaculation, caught up and preserved by German science, the Russian possessions were destined to round and complete the domain of Great Britain on this continent. The Russian “griffin” was to give way to the British “lion.” The Anglo-Norman was to be master as far as Behring Strait, across which he might survey his Russian neighbor. How this was to be accomplished is not precisely explained. The promises of gold on the Stikine failed, and it is not improbable that this colonial plan was as unsubstantial. Colonists become excited easily. This is not the first time that Russian America has been menaced in a similar way. During the Crimean War there seemed to be in Canada a spirit not unlike that of the Vancouver journalist, unless we are misled by the able pamphlet[26] of Mr. A. K. Roche, of Quebec, where, after describing Russian America as “richer in resources and capabilities than it has hitherto been allowed to be, either by the English, who shamefully gave it up, or by the Russians, who cunningly obtained it,” the author urges an expedition for its conquest and annexion. His proposition fell on the happy termination of the war, but it exists as a warning, with notice also of a former English title, “shamefully” abandoned.

This region is distant enough from Great Britain; but there is an incident of past history which shows that distance from the metropolitan government has not excluded the idea of war. Great Britain could hardly be more jealous of Russia on these coasts than was Spain in a former day, if we listen to the report of Humboldt. I refer again to his authoritative work, “Essai Politique sur la Nouvelle-Espagne,”[27] where it is recorded, that, as early as 1788, even while peace was still unbroken, the Spaniards could not bear the idea of Russians in this region, and when, in 1799, the Emperor Paul declared war on Spain, the hardy project was formed of an expedition from the Mexican ports of Monterey and San Blas against the Russian colonies; on which the philosophic traveller remarks, in words which are recalled by the Vancouver manifesto, that, “if this project had been executed, the world would have witnessed two nations in conflict, which, occupying the opposite extremities of Europe, found themselves neighbors in the other hemisphere on the eastern and western boundaries of their vast empires.” Thus, notwithstanding an intervening circuit of half the globe, two great powers were about to encounter each other on these coasts. But I hesitate to believe that the British of our day, in any considerable numbers, have adopted the early Spanish disquietude at the presence of Russia on this continent.

* * * * *

5. _Amity of Russia._--There is still another consideration concerning this treaty not to be disregarded. It attests and assures the amity of Russia. Even if you doubt the value of these possessions, the treaty is a sign of friendship. It is a new expression of that _entente cordiale_ between the two powers which is a phenomenon of history. Though unlike in institutions, they are not unlike in recent experience. Sharers of common glory in a great act of Emancipation, they also share together the opposition or antipathy of other nations. Perhaps this experience has not been without effect in bringing them together. At all events, no coldness or unkindness has interfered at any time with their good relations.

The archives of the State Department show an uninterrupted cordiality between the two Governments, dating far back in our history. More than once Russia has proffered her good offices between the United States and Great Britain; once also she was a recognized arbitrator. She offered her mediation to terminate the War of 1812; and under her arbitration questions with Great Britain arising under the Treaty of Ghent were amicably settled in 1822. But it was during our recent troubles that we felt more than ever her friendly sentiments, although it is not improbable that the accident of position and of distance had influence in preserving these undisturbed. The Rebellion, which tempted so many other powers into its embrace, could not draw Russia from her habitual good-will. Her solicitude for the Union was early declared. She made no unjustifiable concession of _ocean belligerence_, with all its immunities and powers, to Rebels in arms against the Union. She furnished no hospitality to Rebel cruisers, nor was any Rebel agent ever received, entertained, or encouraged at St. Petersburg,--while, on the other hand, there was an understanding that the United States should be at liberty to carry prizes into Russian ports. So natural and easy were the relations between the two Governments, that such complaints as incidentally arose on either side were amicably adjusted by verbal explanations without written controversy.

Positive acts occurred to strengthen these relations. As early as 1861, the two Governments agreed to act together for the establishment of a connection between San Francisco and St. Petersburg by an inter-oceanic telegraph across Behring Strait; and this agreement was subsequently sanctioned by Congress.[28] Meanwhile occurred the visit of the Russian fleet in the winter of 1863, intended by the Emperor, and accepted by the United States, as a friendly demonstration. This was followed by a communication of the Secretary of State, dated 26th December, 1864, inviting the Archduke Constantine to visit the United States, where it was suggested that such a visit “would be beneficial to us and by no means unprofitable to Russia,” but “forbearing to specify reasons,” and assuring him, that, coming as a national guest, he “would receive a cordial and most demonstrative welcome.”[29] Affairs in Russia prevented the acceptance of this invitation. Afterwards, in the spring of 1866, Congress by solemn resolution declared the sympathies of the United States with the Emperor on his escape from the madness of an assassin,[30] and Mr. Fox, at the time Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was appointed to take the resolution of Congress to the Emperor, and, in discharge of this trust, to declare the friendly sentiments of our country for Russia. He was conveyed to Cronstadt in the monitor Miantonomoh, the most formidable ship of our navy, and thus this agent of war became a messenger of peace. The monitor and the minister were received in Russia with unbounded hospitality.

In relations such as I have described, the cession of territory seems a natural transaction, entirely in harmony with the past. It remains to hope that it may be a new link in an amity which, without effort, has overcome differences of institutions and intervening space on the globe.

SHALL THE TREATY BE RATIFIED?

Such are obvious considerations of a general character. The interests of the Pacific States, the extension of the national domain, the extension of republican institutions, the foreclosure of adverse British possession, and the amity of Russia,--these are the points we have passed in review. Most of these, if not all, are calculated to impress the public mind; but I can readily understand a difference of opinion with regard to the urgency of negotiation at this hour. Some may think that the purchase-money and the annual outlay that must follow might have been postponed another decade, while Russia continued in possession as trustee for our benefit; and yet some of the reasons for the treaty do not seem to allow delay.

At all events, now that the treaty has been signed by plenipotentiaries on each side duly empowered, it is difficult to see how we can refuse to complete the purchase without putting to hazard the friendly relations which happily subsist between the United States and Russia. The overtures originally proceeded from us. After a delay of years, and other intervening propositions, the bargain was at length concluded. It is with nations as with individuals. A bargain once made must be kept. Even if still open to consideration, it must not be lightly abandoned. I am satisfied that the dishonoring of this treaty, after what has passed, would be a serious responsibility for our country. As an international question, it would be tried by the public opinion of the world; and there are many who, not appreciating the requirement of our Constitution by which a treaty must have “the advice and consent of the Senate,” would regard its rejection as bad faith. There would be jeers at us, and jeers at Russia also: at us for levity in making overtures, and at Russia for levity in yielding to them. Had the Senate been consulted in advance, before the treaty was signed or either power publicly committed, as is often done on important occasions, it would be under less constraint. On such a consultation there would have been opportunity for all possible objections, and a large latitude for reasonable discretion. Let me add, that, while forbearing objection now, I hope that this treaty may not be drawn into a precedent, at least in the independent manner of its negotiation. I would save to the Senate an important power justly belonging to it.

A CAVEAT.

There is one other point on which I file my _caveat_. This treaty must not be a precedent for a system of indiscriminate and costly annexion. Sincerely believing that republican institutions under the primacy of the United States must embrace this whole continent, I cannot adopt the sentiment of Jefferson, who, while confessing satisfaction in settlements on the Pacific coast, saw there in the future nothing but “free and independent Americans,” bound to the United States only by “ties of blood and interest,” without political unity,[31]--or of Webster, who in the same spirit said of settlers there, “They will raise a standard for themselves, and they ought to do it.”[32] Nor am I willing to restrict myself to the principle so tersely expressed by Andrew Jackson, in his letter to President Monroe: “Concentrate our population, confine our frontier to proper limits, until our country, to those limits, is filled with a dense population.”[33] But I cannot disguise my anxiety that every stage in our predestined future shall be by natural processes, without war, and I would add even without purchase. There is no territorial aggrandizement worth the price of blood. Only under peculiar circumstances can it become the subject of pecuniary contract. Our triumph should be by growth and organic expansion in obedience to “preëstablished harmony,” recognizing always the will of those who are to become our fellow-citizens. All this must be easy, if we are only true to ourselves. Our motto may be that of Goethe: “Without haste, without rest.” Let the Republic be assured in tranquil liberty, with all equal before the law, and it will conquer by its sublime example. More happy than Austria, who acquired possessions by marriage, we shall acquire them by the attraction of republican institutions.

“Bella gerant alii; tu, felix Austria, nube;
Nam quæ Mars aliis, dat tibi regna Venus.”[34]

The famous epigram will be just as applicable to us, inasmuch as our acquisitions will be under the sanction of wedlock to the Republic. There may be wedlock of a people as well as of a prince. Meanwhile our first care should be to improve and elevate the Republic, whose sway will be so comprehensive. Plant it with schools; cover it with churches; fill it with libraries; make it abundant with comfort, so that poverty shall disappear; keep it constant in the assertion of Human Rights. And here we may fitly recall those words of Antiquity, which Cicero quoted from the Greek, and Webster in our day quoted from Cicero: “You have a Sparta; adorn it.”[35]

SOURCES OF INFORMATION UPON RUSSIAN AMERICA.

I am now brought to consider the character of these possessions and their probable value. Here I am obliged to confess a dearth of authentic information easily accessible. Few among us read Russian, so that works in this language are locked up from us. One of these, in two large and showy volumes, is now before me, entitled “An Historical Survey of the Formation of the Russian-American Company, and its Progress to the Present Time, by P. Teshmeneff, St. Petersburg.” The first volume appeared in 1860, and the second in 1863. Here, among other things, is a tempting engraving of Sitka, wrapt in mists, with the sea before and the snow-capped mountains darkened with forest behind. Judging from the table of contents, which has been translated for me by a Russian, the book ought to be instructive. There is also another Russian work of an official character, which appeared in 1861 at St. Petersburg, in the “Morskoi Sbornik,” or Naval Review, and is entitled “Materials for the History of the Russian Colonies on the Coasts of the Pacific.” The report of Captain-Lieutenant Golowin, made to the Grand Duke Constantine in 1861, with which we have become acquainted through a scientific German journal, appeared originally in the same review. These are recent productions. After the early voyages of Behring, first ordered by Peter and supervised by the Imperial Academy, the spirit of geographical research seems to have subsided at St. Petersburg. Other enterprises absorbed attention. And yet I would not do injustice to the voyages of Billings, recounted by Sauer, or of Lisiansky, or of Kotzebue, all under the auspices of Russia, the last of which may compare with any as a contribution to science. I may add Lütke also; but Kotzebue was a worthy successor to Behring and Cook.

Beside these official contributions, most of them by no means fresh, are materials derived from casual navigators, who, scudding these seas, rested in the harbors as the water-fowl on its flight,--from whalemen, who were there merely as Nimrods of the ocean, or from adventurers in quest of the rich furs it furnished. There are also the gazetteers and geographies; but they are less instructive on this head than usual, being founded on information now many years old.

Perhaps no region of equal extent on the globe, unless we except the interior of Africa or possibly Greenland, is so little known. Here I do not speak for myself alone. A learned German, whom I have already quoted, after saying that the explorations have been limited to the coast, testifies that “the interior, not only of the continent, but even of the island of Sitka, is to this day unexplored, and is in every respect _terra incognita_.”[36] The same has been repeated of the other islands. Admiral Lütke, whose circumnavigation of the globe began in 1826, and whose work bears date 1835-36, says of the Aleutian Archipelago, that, although frequented for more than a century by Russian vessels and those of other nations, it is to-day almost as little known as in the time of Cook. Another writer of authority, the compiler of the official work on the People of Russia, published as late as 1862, speaks of the interior as “a mystery.” And yet another says that our ignorance with regard to this region would make it a proper scene for a chapter of Gulliver’s Travels.

Where so little was known, invention found scope. Imagination was made to supply the place of knowledge, and poetry pictured the savage desolation in much admired verse. Campbell, in the “Pleasures of Hope,” while exploring “Earth’s loneliest bounds and Ocean’s wildest shore,” reaches this region, which he portrays:--

“Lo! to the wintry winds the pilot yields
His bark careering o’er unfathomed fields.
…
Now far he sweeps, where scarce a summer smiles,
On Behring’s rocks or Greenland’s naked isles;
Cold on his midnight watch the breezes blow
From wastes that slumber in eternal snow,
And waft across the waves’ tumultuous roar
_The wolf’s long howl from Oonalaska’s shore_.”

All of which, so far at least as it describes this region, is inconsistent with truth. The poet ignores the isothermal line, which plays such a conspicuous part on the Pacific coast. Here the evidence is positive. Portlock, the navigator, who was there toward the close of the last century, after describing Cook’s Inlet, which is several degrees north of Oonalaska, records his belief “that the climate here is not so severe as has been generally supposed; for, in the course of our traffic with the natives, they frequently brought berries of several sorts, and in particular blackberries, equally fine with those met with in England.”[37] Kotzebue, who was here later, says that he found “the weather pretty warm at Oonalaska.”[38] South of the Aleutians the climate is warmer still. The poet ignores natural history also, as regards the distribution of animals. Curiously enough, it does not appear that “wolves” exist on any of the Fox Islands. Coxe, in his work on Russian Discoveries,[39] records that “reindeer, bears, _wolves_, ice-foxes, are not to be found on these islands.” But he was never there. Meares, who was in those seas, says, “_The only animals_ on these islands are foxes, some of which are black.”[40] Cook, who visited Oonalaska twice, and once made a prolonged stay, expressly says, “Foxes and weasels were _the only quadrupeds_ we saw; but they told us that they had hares also, and marmottas.”[41] But quadrupeds like these hardly sustain the exciting picture. The same experienced navigator furnishes a glimpse of the inhabitants, as they appeared to him, which would make us tremble, if the “wolves” of the poet were numerous. He says, “To all appearance, they are the most peaceable, inoffensive people I ever met with”; and Cook had been at Otaheite. “No such thing as an offensive or even defensive weapon was seen amongst the natives of Oonalaska.”[42] Then, at least, the inhabitants did not share the ferocity of the “wolves” and of the climate. Another navigator fascinates us by a description of the boats, which struck him “with amazement beyond expression”; and he explains: “If perfect symmetry, smoothness, and proportion constitute beauty, they are beautiful; to me they appeared so beyond anything that I ever beheld. I have seen some of them as transparent as oiled paper.”[43] But these are the very boats that buffet “the waves’ tumultuous roar,” while “the breezes” waft “the wolf’s long howl.” The same reporter introduces another feature. According to him, the sojourning Russians “seem to have no desire to leave this place, where they enjoy that indolence so pleasing to their minds.”[44] The lotus-eaters of Homer were no better off. The picture is completed by another touch from Lütke. Admitting the want of trees, the Admiral suggests that their place is supplied not only by luxuriant grass, but by wood thrown upon the coast, including trunks of camphor from Chinese and Japanese waters, and “a tree which gives forth the odor of the rose.”[45] Such is a small portion of the testimony, most of it in print before the poet sang.[46]

Nothing has been written about this region, whether the coast or the islands, more authentic or interesting than the narrative of Captain Cook on his third and last voyage. He saw with intelligence, and his editor has imparted to the description a clearness almost elegant. The record of Captain Portlock’s voyage from London to the Northwest Coast, in 1785-8, seems honest, and is instructive. Captain Meares, whose voyage was contemporaneous, saw and exposed the importance of trade between the Northwest Coast and China. Vancouver, who came a little later, has described some parts of the coast. La Pérouse, the unfortunate French navigator, has afforded another picture of it, painted with French colors. Before him was Maurelle, an officer in the Spanish expedition of 1779, a portion of whose journal is preserved in the Introduction to the volumes of La Pérouse. After him was Marchand, who, during a circumnavigation of the globe, stopped here in 1791. The Voyage of the latter, published in three quartos, is accompanied by an Historical Introduction, which is a mine of information on all the voyages to this coast. Then came the successive Russian voyages already mentioned, and in 1804-6 the “Voyage to the North Pacific” of Captain John D’Wolf, one of our own enterprising countrymen. Later came the “Voyage round the World” by Captain Sir Edward Belcher, with a familiar sketch of life at Sitka, where he stopped in 1837, and an engraving of the arsenal and light-house there. Then followed the “Overland Journey round the World,” in 1841-2, by Sir George Simpson, Governor-in-chief of the Hudson’s Bay Company, with an account of a visit to Sitka and the hospitality of its governor. To these I add the “Nautical Magazine” for 1849, Volume XVIII., which contains some excellent pages about Sitka; the “Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London” for 1841, Volume XI., and for 1852, Volume XXII., where this region is treated under the heads of “Observations on the Indigenous Tribes of the Northwest Coast of America,” and “Notes on the Distribution of Animals available as Food in the Arctic Regions”; Burney’s “Northeastern Voyages”; the magnificent work entitled “Description Ethnographique des Peuples de la Russie,” which appeared at St. Petersburg in 1862, on the tenth centennial anniversary of the foundation of the Russian Empire; the very recent work of Murray on the “Geographical Distribution of Mammals”; the work of Sir John Richardson, “Fauna Boreali-Americana”; Latham on “The Nationalities of Europe,” in the chapters on the population of Russian America; the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” and the admirable “Physical Atlas” of Alexander Keith Johnston. I mention also an elaborate article by Holmberg, in the Transactions of the Finland Society of Sciences at Helsingfors, replete with information on the Ethnography of the Northwest Coast.[47]

Doubtless the most precise and valuable information has been contributed by Germany. The Germans are the best of geographers; besides, many Russian contributions are in German. Müller, who recorded the discoveries of Behring, was a German. Nothing more important on this subject has ever appeared than the German work of the Russian Admiral Von Wrangell, “Statistische und Ethnographische Nachrichten über die Russischen Besitzungen an der Nordwestküste von Amerika,” first published by Baer in his “Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Russischen Reiches,” in 1839. There is also the “Verhandlungen der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft zu St. Petersburg,” 1848 and 1849, which contains an elaborate article, in itself a volume, on the Orography and Geology of the Northwest Coast and the adjoining islands, at the end of which is a bibliographical list of works and materials illustrating the discovery and history of the western half of North America and the neighboring seas. I also refer generally to the “Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Kunde von Russland,” edited by Erman, but especially the volume for 1863, containing the abstract of Golowin’s report on the Russian Colonies in North America, as it appeared originally in the “Morskoi Sbornik.” Besides these, there are Wappäus, “Handbuch der Geographie und Statistik von Nord-Amerika,” published at Leipsic in 1855; Petermann, in his “Mittheilungen über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie,” for 1856, p. 486, for 1859, p. 41, and for 1863, pp. 70, 237, 277; Kittlitz, “Denkwürdigkeiten einer Reise nach dem Russischen Amerika, nach Mikronesien und durch Kamtschatka,” published at Gotha in 1858; also, by the same author, “The Vegetation of the Coasts and Islands of the Pacific,” translated from the German, and published at London in 1861.

Much recent information has been derived from the great companies possessing the monopoly of trade. Latterly there has been an unexpected purveyor in the Russian American Telegraph Company, under the direction of Captain Charles S. Bulkley; and here our own countrymen help us. To this expedition we are indebted for authentic evidence with regard to the character of the region, and the great rivers which traverse it. The Smithsonian Institution and the Chicago Academy of Sciences coöperated with the Telegraph Company in the investigation of the natural history. Major Kennicott, a young naturalist, originally in the service of the Institution, and Director of the Museum of the Chicago Academy, was the enterprising chief of the Yukon division of the expedition. While in the midst of his valuable labors, he died suddenly, in the month of May last, at Nulato, on the banks of the great river, the Kwichpak, which may be called the Mississippi of the North, far away in the interior, and on the confines of the Arctic Circle, where the sun was visible all night. Even after death he was still an explorer. From this remote outpost, his remains, after descending the unknown river in an Esquimaux boat of seal-skins, steered by the faithful companion of his labors, were transported by way of Panama to his home at Chicago, where he now lies buried. Such an incident cannot be forgotten, and his name will always remind us of courageous enterprise, before which distance and difficulty disappeared. He was not a beginner, when he entered into the service of the Telegraph Company. Already he had visited the Yukon country by the way of the Mackenzie River, and contributed to the Smithsonian Institution important information with regard to its geography and natural history, some of which is found in their Reports. Nature in novel forms was open to him. The birds here maintained their kingdom. All about him was the mysterious breeding-place of the canvas-back duck, whose eggs, never before seen by naturalist, covered acres.

If we look to maps for information, here again we are disappointed. Latterly the coast is outlined and described with reasonable completeness; so also are the islands. This is the contribution of navigators and of recent Russian charts. But the interior is little more than a blank, calling to mind “the unhabitable downs,” where, according to Swift, the old geographers “place elephants for want of towns.” I have already referred to what purports to be a “General Map of the Russian Empire,” published by the Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg in 1776, and republished at London in 1780, where Russian America does not appear. I might mention also that Captain Cook complained in his day of the Russian maps as “singularly erroneous.” On the return of the expedition, English maps recorded his explorations and the names he assigned to different parts of the coast. These were reproduced in St. Petersburg, and the Russian copy was then reproduced in London, so that geographical knowledge was very little advanced. Some of the best maps of this region are by Germans, who excel in maps. I mention an excellent one of the Aleutian Islands and the neighboring coasts, especially to illustrate their orography and geology, which will be found at the end of the volume of Transactions of the Imperial Mineralogical Society at St. Petersburg to which I have already referred.

Late maps attest the tardiness of information. Here, for instance, is an excellent map of North America, purporting to be published by the Geographical Institute of Weimar as late as 1859, on which we have the Yukon pictured, very much like the Niger in Africa, as a large river meandering in the interior with no outlet to the sea. Here also is a Russian map of this very region, as late as 1861, where the course of the Yukon is left in doubt. On other maps, as in the Physical Atlas of Keith Johnston, it is presented, under another name, entering into the Frozen Ocean. But the secret is penetrated at last. Recent discovery, by the enterprise of our citizens in the service of the Telegraph Company, fixes that this river is an affluent of the Kwichpak, as the Missouri is an affluent of the Mississippi, and enters into Behring Sea by many mouths, between the parallels of 62° and 63°. After the death of Major Kennicott, a division of his party, with nothing but a skin boat, ascended the river to Fort Yukon, where it bifurcates, and descended it again to Nulato, thus establishing the entire course from its sources in the Rocky Mountains for a distance exceeding a thousand miles. I have before me now an outline map just prepared by our Coast Survey, where this correction is made. But this is only a harbinger of the maturer labors of our accomplished bureau, when the coasts of this region are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In closing this abstract of authorities, being the chief sources of original information, I cannot forbear expressing my satisfaction, that, with the exception of a single work, all these are found in the Congressional Library, now so happily enriched by the rare collection of the Smithsonian Institution. Sometimes individuals are like libraries; and this seems to be illustrated in the case of Professor Baird, of the Smithsonian Institution, who is thoroughly informed on all questions connected with the natural history of Russian America, and also of George Gibbs, Esq., now of Washington, who is the depositary of valuable knowledge, the result of his own personal studies and observations, with regard to the native races.

CHARACTER AND VALUE OF RUSSIAN AMERICA.