the delicate condition of our foreign relations he should continue in the management of these affairs. His most important act during Johnson's term was the purchase of Alaska from Russia, which reflects much credit upon his diplomatic skill and his wise foresight as a statesman. The steps which led up to the purchase may be briefly stated. The first suggestion of the acquisition appears to have been made during Polk's administration. We have authority of a member of the Cabinet, Mr. R. J. Walker, for the statement that Russia indicated a willingness to give us its American possessions if we would adhere to the claim of 54° 40′ on the Pacific, and thus exclude Great Britain from that ocean on the American continent.1 The subject was revived in 1859 when Senator Gwin, of California, and Assistant Secretary of State Appleton had conferences with the Russian minister in Washington on the subject of cession, and $5,000,000 was unofficially suggested as the price; but the election of 1860, and the Civil War, suspended the negotiations. In 1866 the legislature of Washington Territory sent a petition to the Secretary of State, asking for better facilities for American fishing vessels in Russian-American waters.3 About this time a company was organized in San Francisco to secure the privileges in the fur trade of the RussianAmerican Company, and also of the lease about to expire by the Hudson Bay Company of the strip of land on the coast north of 54° 40'. In their interest 1 Dip. Cor. 1867, p. 390. 2 H. Ex. Doc. 177, 40th Cong. 2d Sess. p. 132. 8 Ib. 4. Senator Cole of California had several conferences with the Russian minister in Washington, and also communicated with Mr. Clay, our minister in St. Petersburg, on the subject.1 Another event of the same year (1866) had an important influence on the cession of Alaska. In April an attempt upon the life of the emperor was made, and it brought forth from the Congress of the United States a warm resolution of congratulation on his escape. It was determined to have the resolution carried to St. Petersburg in one of our ironclad men-of-war, and Mr. Fox, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was detailed to deliver it to the emperor. This action was taken in reciprocation of the visit of the Russian fleet to our country in the midst of our Civil War, made as an exhibition of the friendliness of that government at a time when most of the nations of Europe were sympathizing with the Confederacy, thus manifesting the prevailing sentiment voiced in the poem of Dr. Holmes: "Who was our friend when the world was our foe." 3 1 Ib. 133. 2 Dip. Cor. 1866, p. 413, 414. 8 Dr. O. W. Holmes's poem was sung to the Russian national air, in Music Hall, Boston, by the public school children, December, 6, 1871, on the occasion of the visit of the Grand Duke Alexis. The verse from which the above extract is taken is as follows: Bleak are our shores with the blasts of December, Holmes's Poems (ed. 1880), 256. The mission of Mr. Fox created throughout Russia intense interest and gratitude.1 2 A few months afterwards Baron Stoeckl, the Russian minister in Washington, made a visit to St. Petersburg, and conferred with his government respecting the cession. He returned to Washington in March, 1867, with authority to negotiate for the transfer. On March 30 the treaty was signed with Secretary Seward. It is related that the Russian minister, late in the evening of March 29, went to the residence of Mr. Seward, where he found the secretary playing whist with some members of his family, and informed him that he had received a cablegram from his government authorizing him to make the treaty, and added: "Tomorrow, if you like, I will come to the department, and we can enter upon the treaty." "Why wait till to-mor row, Mr. Stoeckl? Let us make the treaty to-night," said Mr. Seward. "But your department is closed. You have no clerks, and my secretaries are scattered about town." "Never mind that," responded Seward, "if you can muster your legation before midnight, you will find me awaiting you at the department, which will be open and ready for business." And thus by four o'clock, on the morning of the 30th, the treaty was engrossed, signed, sealed, and ready for transmission to the Senate. The haste was occasioned by the expected early adjournment of that body. The treaty was promptly 1 For official reports of Mr. Fox's mission, Dip. Cor. 1866, pp. 416 459. 2 3 Life of Seward, 348. ratified by the Senate, by a vote of 37 to 2, with little discussion, except a long and carefully prepared speech by Mr. Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in which he gave a detailed report of the history, resources, and prospective advantages to the United States of the territory. It was the first acquisition of non-contiguous territory made by our government, but this fact does not seem to have created opposition to the measure in the Senate. The transfer of possession was made October 18, 1867, but the appropriation of the purchase-money was not made until July, 1868. The friendly disposition and confidence of Russia is shown in the fact that it did not make this payment a condition precedent to the transfer. Although the treaty was acted upon by the Senate with little opposition, the appropriation awakened a lengthy debate in the House, it being contended that the territory, because of absence of resources, would prove of no value to the United States. It was further argued that the treaty could have no effect until acted upon by the House, although it had been proclaimed by the President and the territory transferred to the United States. This was the same question that was raised as to the treaty-making power when the Jay treaty of 1794 was before Congress for the execution of its provisions.2 After weeks of debate the House passed a bill reciting that it was "necessary that the consent of Congress shall be given to the said treaty before the same shall have full force and effect," and enacted "that the assent 1 H. Ex. Doc. 177, cited p. 124. 2 Supra, p. 167. of Congress is hereby given to the stipulations of said treaty." This was rejected by the Senate, and in conference committee a new bill was agreed to, in which the terms of the treaty are recited in the preamble and the statement made that "said stipulations cannot be carried into full force and effect except by legislation to which the consent of both Houses of Congress is necessary;" and the act simply appropriates the purchase-money "to fulfill stipulations contained in Article 6." This action was not, therefore, an assertion that the House has the prerogative of affirming or rejecting a treaty, as implied in the bill as originally passed by that body.2 Senator Sumner said of the negotiations: "Few treaties have been conceived, initiated, prosecuted, and completed in so simple a manner, without protocols or dispatches." The motive of Russia in making the cession has been the subject of discussion. Sumner referred in his speech to the motive assigned by Napoleon for the cession of Louisiana, "to give England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride," and intimated that Russia was influenced by similar consider ations. Mr. Clay, our minister in St. Petersburg, in referring to the causes which had brought the negotiations to success, wrote Secretary Seward that the Russians preferred to have the United States rather than England as their neighbors, and that they entertained the hope that the cession might ultimately lead to the 1 15 Stat. at Large, 198. 2 For debate in Congress, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong. 2d Sess. |