tenaciously to the preconceived notion which has ever since, or at least until quite recently, been the prevailing though erroneous opinion of a vast majority of the people of the United States, that Alaska was, and is, a barren, desolate region of perpetual snow and ice, where nothing in the shape of agricultural or horticultural products can be grown, and in which the most useful of domestic animals can not be kept. To Mr. Washburn and those who joined with him in his opposition to the consummation of the treaty of cession, Alaska was a great terra incognita, and such it still remains to the great mass of the American people, who have either been unable or have made no effort to divest themselves of a preconceived idea, nurtured in widespread ignorance of the subject to which it relates.

It has always been a mooted question why, on the one hand, Russia was willing to accept so small a consideration for the cession of her North American possessions to the United States, and, on the other hand, what the incentive that prompted the latter to conclude the purchase. It was believed, and was probably true, that the imperial government feared that, in the event of a war with Great Britain, Alaska would fall an easy prey to that aggrandizing power, or at least could only be successfully defended through the instrumentality of an immense naval armament

provided at tremendous cost to the imperial treasury. It was but natural that Great Britain should desire to possess herself of so vast a territory contiguous to her American colonies, and that she was patiently awaiting to seize upon Alaska admits of scarcely a doubt. On the other hand, it has been urged, and is still quite generally believed, that the government of the United States was prompted solely by feelings of gratitude because of the friendly attitude maintained by Russia towards this country during the great civil war but then just ended, to relieve the Czar of his white elephant in America upon almost any terms he might be pleased to dictate. Others ascribed the purchase to the political sagacity and wise statesmanship of Mr. Seward, and that view of the matter is undoubtedly the true one, though the project did not originate in the brain of that great statesman. To him, however, is due the credit of having added to the national domain a vast region, the incomparable natural resources of which are as yet in the incipiency of their development.

Prior to the convention which resulted in the cession of Alaska to the United States, the matter had been agitated by Senator Gwinn, of California, in the interest of certain shrewd, energetic business men of San Francisco, who afterwards proved to be the moving spirit behind Mr.

Seward in his negotiations, though it is proper to say that that gentleman was wholly unaware of the fact, and was prompted by none save the most unselfish and patriotic motives. The glory and peaceful aggrandizement of his country was his sole aim and object; self-aggrandizement was the hope and purpose of those who, having suggested the purchase, kept well under cover until, the treaty having been ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by the President, they came at once to the front and were most lavish of their means in a successful effort to secure from the House of Representatives the appropriation necessary to carry it into effect. It is a fact, not generally remembered after the lapse of nearly thirty years, that though the treaty of cession was signed on the 30th of March, 1867, ratified by the Senate May 28th, proclaimed by the President June 20th, and formal and actual possession of the country taken October 18th of the same year, payment of the purchase price of $7,200,000 was delayed for nearly a year thereafter, owing to the failure of the House of Representatives to make the necessary appropriation. The appropriation was strenuously opposed by Messrs. C. C. and E. B. Washburn, Blaine, Logan, Cullom, Butler, Delano, Morrell and other prominent leaders of the party then dominant in Congress, and many members who voted for it did so under protest,

alleging that the prerogative of Congress had been usurped by the President and Senate in negotiating and proclaiming a treaty without question as to the action of the House in the matter of providing the means to carry it into effect.

Mr. Banks, of Masachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, led the debate in favor of the appropriation, and in a glowing speech described the country as one possessed of great and practically inexhaustible natural resources, though it must be confessed that when pressed for the authority upon which he based a statement so altogether extravagant, he could only reply that he was "not bound to rely exclusively upon the testimony of men," and other proofs he had none that were not vague and better calculated to weaken than add strength to his argument. On the other hand, Mr. Washburn advanced five propositions as the basis of his argument against the appropriation, the fourth and principal one being "that the country is absolutely without value," and in his closing speech characterized the treaty as "an outrage on the rights of the American people." He defied "any living man on the face of the earth to produce any evidence that an ounce of gold was ever extracted from the Territory of Alaska," and was not "compelled to go out hunting for

adventures from which to manufacture testimony to prove that Alaska is a vile country; no, sir, I quote official documents." It is to be regretted that Mr. Washburn did not live long enough to discover his error and to know, as he now would if living, that a single mine, embracing barely forty acres in that "vile country," has paid to its owners more gold coin than was embraced in the appropriation bill he so vigorously and persistently opposed.

Whether or not the men who were instrumental, through the means of a strong and influential lobby, in securing the favorable action of Congress profited largely by the purchase may be inferred from the fact that they were the original incorporators of a powerful corporation which is still in existence, and carrying on an extensive business in Alaska, and which for a period of more than twenty years subsequent to the transfer was almost as completely and absolutely the owner of all that part of the territory it cared to occupy as it could possibly have been if possessed of the title in fee simple.