USA > Alaska > History of Alaska : 1730-1885 > Part 57
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74
ploy, the lake on Wood Island alone could furnish 30,000 tons a year. Tikh- menef, Istor. Obos., ii. 198.
41 Among the principal sources of information as to the affairs of the Rus- sian American Company, may be mentioned first the Doklad Komiteta ob Ustroistva Russkikh Amerikanskikh Koloni, or Report of the Committee on the Reorganization of the Russian American Colonies, St Petersburg, 1863- 4, 2 vols. The question of what was to be done with the Russian possessions in America at the expiration of the absolute control of the Russian American Company was referred to a mixed committee of fourteen, composed of gov- ernment officials, men of science, and members of the company. This com- mittee presented an elaborate report based upon the information they had gathered from the works of Khlebnikof, Tikhmenef, and others, and from private individuals, which was published in the present work, together with the following additional documents: 1. A separate opinion of Act- ual State Counsellor Kostlivtzof, a member of the committee; 2. Expla- nations as to the conclusions of the committee by the general administra- tion of the Russian American Company; 3. A letter of a member of the general administration, Admiral Etholin; 4. A communication from the gen- eral administration on the financial condition of the company; 5. Report of an inspection of the Russian American colonies in 1860 and 1861 by Kost- livtzof; 6. Report on the same subject by Captain Golovnin; 7. Remarks of the general administration on Kostlivtzof's report; 8. Reply of the company to the opinion of the minister of marine concerning its privileges; 9. Letter on the same subject by Adjutant General Wrangell, member of the privy council; 10. Letter of Furuhilm on the mining interests of the Russian American colonies; 11. Letter of Captain Wehrman on the condition of the Russian American Company and the trade with the arctic regions; 12. Ex- tracts from a communication of the company to the committee on the organ- ization of the Russian American colonies. The work has few historical data not contained in the work of Tikhmenef, but throws light on the circum- stances which led to the sale of Alaska to the United States, and is probably inore reliable in matters of detail.
At the time when the third term of the exclusive privileges granted to the Russian American Company was about to expire, the subject of renewing or revoking its charter was generally discussed, both in commercial and govern- ment circles. Tikhmenef undertook the task of compiling a complete history of the colonies and of the company, and as he was afforded every facility by the directors, the different departments of the government, and the holy synod, he succeeded admirably. The work covers a period of 75 years, and is enriched with a large number of verbal copies of original documents and let- ters by Baranof, Shelikof, Ioassaff, Rezanof, and others who played a prom- inent part in the development of the Russian colonies in America. The various imperial edicts and charters of the company are also given in full, as well as comprehensive statistics of population, commerce, and industries. The vol- umes are handsomely printed, and adorned with excellent charts, steel en- gravings, and autographs of Shelikof, Baranof, and Rezanof. It is entitled Istoricheskoie Obosrenie Obrazovania Rossiysko Amerikanskoi Kompani, or Historical Review of the Origin of the Russian American Company (2 vols., St Petersburg, 1861). Of the Materialui dlia Istori Russkikh Zasseleni, or Material for the History of the Russian Settlements, mention has before been made.
The Kratkoie Istoricheskoie Obozrenie Obrazovania i deistry Rossiisko-Amer- ikanskoi Kompani s'samago Nachala Uchrezdenia Onoi i do Nastoiastehavo I'remeni, or Short Historical Account of the Establishment and Operations of the Russian American Company from its First Beginning down to
589
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
of a bibliograhical nature on authorities for annals of the company.
the Present Time, by Lieutenant General Politoffsky (St Petersburg, 1861), covers only the ground occupied by Tikhmenef and others, but in a later edition contains the negotiations between the company and the imperial gov- ernment, not to be found in any of the authors quoted in this volume. The above authorities together with Khlebnikof, Veniaminof, and Zavalishin are the principal sources of information concerning the Russian American Com- pany, apart from the Sitka and Alaska archives, though many items of inter- "est may be gleaned from Markof, Davidof, Lisiansky, Wrangell, Belcher, Simpson, and from the manuscripts quoted in this volume.
Worthy of mention also is the Khronologicheskaïa Istoria Otkrytia Aleut- skikh Ostrovov ili Podvigi Rossiyskago Kupechestva ss Prisovokupleniem Isto- richeskago Izvestia o Miakhovoi Torgovla, or Chronological History of the Dis- covery of the Aleutian Islands or the Achievements of the Russian Merchants, with an additional Historical Review of the Fur Trade. (Gretsch Printing Office, St Petersburg, 1823.) The author of this work, who is not named on the title-page, is Vassili Berg, and the volume is dedicated to the vice- admiral and chief of the naval staff of his imperial Majesty, Anton Vassil- ievitch Von Moller. The writer, who was a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, has collected with great care and arranged chronologi- cally the accounts of all voyages of Russian fur traders and hunters from Okhotsk and Kamchatka to the islands and coasts of Bering Sea, between 1743 and 1805, as found in the original journals and archives of Siberian towns.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY. .
1867-1883.
MOTIVES FOR THE TRANSFER BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT-NEGOTIA- TIONS COMMENCED-SENATOR COLE'S EFFORTS-THE TREATY SIGNED AND RATIFIED-REASONS FOR AND AGAINST THE PURCHASE-THE TER- RITORY AS AN INVESTMENT-ITS FORMAL CESSION-INFLUX OF AMER- ICAN ADVENTURERS-MEASURES IN CONGRESS-A COUNTRY WITHOUT LAW OR PROTECTION-EVIL EFFECT OF THE MILITARY OCCUPATION- AN ÉMEUTE AT SITKA-FURTHER TROUBLES WITH THE NATIVES-THEIR CAUSE-HOOTCHENOO OR MOLASSES-RUM-REVENUE-SUGGESTIONS FOR A CIVIL GOVERNMENT-WANT OF MAIL FACILITIES-SURVEYS AND EX- PLORATIONS.
FROM the day on which the term of the Russian American Company's third charter expired, the great monopoly ceased to enjoy, except on sufferance, any rights or privileges other than those common to all Russian subjects. It retained, of course, its personal property and the real estate actually in use, but after the company refused to accept the terms of the im- perial government, operations were continued only pending the disposition of its effects and the winding- up of its affairs. Expenses were curtailed, some of the trading posts abandoned, and the control of the colonies placed in charge of an officer appointed by the company.
But Russia had no desire to retain control of this territory, separated as it was from the seat of govern- ment by a wide tract of tempestuous ocean and by the breadth of her vast empire. Long before the Crimean war, the question had been mooted of plac-
( 590 )
591
RUSSIA HAS NO USE FOR ALASKA.
ing Alaska under imperial rule, but it was decided that the expense of protecting this vast territory, and of maintaining there the costly machinery of a colo- nial government, was not justified by the prospect of an adequate return. The bombardment of Petropav- lovsk and other incidents of the war had confirmed this impression, and the day seemed not far distant when the long-threatened struggle would begin with England for supremacy in central Asia. In such an event Russia would need all her resources. Already her railroads had been built and her wars conducted mainly with borrowed capital. In case of another war with the greatest moneyed power and the great- est maritime power in the world, neither men, ships, nor money could be spared for the protection of Rus- sian America. Moreover, Russia had never occu- pied, and had never wished to occupy, this territory. For two thirds of a century she had been represented there, as we have seen, almost entirely by a fur and trading company under the protection of government. In a measure it had controlled, or endeavored to con- rol, the affairs of that company, and among its stock- holders were several members of the royal family; but Alaska had been originally granted to the Rus- sian American Company by imperial oukaz, and by imperial oukaz the charter had been twice renewed. Now that the company had declined to accept a fourth charter on the terms proposed, something must be done with the territory, and Russia would lose no actual portion of her empire in ceding it to a republic with which she was on friendly terms, and whose do- main seemed destined to spread over the entire conti- nent.
The exact date at which negotiations were com- menced for the transfer is difficult to determine; but we know that at Kadiak it was regarded almost as a cer- tainty not later than 1861,1 and that at Washington
1 According to Chichinof, Adventures, MS., 48, the manager of this dis- trict declared that arrangements with the United States were almost com.
592
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY.
it was discussed at least as early as 1859. In Decem- ber of the latter year, during Buchanan's administra- tion, Mr Gwin, then senator for California, held sev- eral interviews with the Russian minister, in the course of which he stated, though not officially, that the United States would be willing to pay five million dollars for Alaska. The assistant secretary of state also affirmed that the president was in favor of the purchase, and that if a favorable answer were returned by the Russian government, he would lay the matter before the cabinet. A few months later a despatch was received from Prince Gortschakof stating that the sum offered was entirely inadequate; but that the minister of finance was about to inquire into the condi- tion of the territory, after which Russia would be in a condition to treat.2
On the 1st of January, 1860, the company's capital was estimated at about four million four hundred thou- sand dollars,3 but it was represented almost entirely by furs, goods, real estate, improvements, and sea-going vessels, which would realize, of course, but a small part of the value placed on them. In view of this fact, and of the uncertainty as to the renewal of the charter, it is not improbable that a positive offer of five million dollars might have been accepted, but for the outbreak of the civil war, which for several years put an end to further negotiations.
Among those who most desired the transfer were the people of Washington Territory, many of whom had been employed in the fisheries of the British provinces, and wished for right of fishery among the rich salmon, cod, and halibut grounds of the Alaskan coast.4 In the winter of 1866 a memorial was adopted
pleted, but nothing more was heard of the matter at Kadiak until a few weeks before the transfer occurred.
2 Sumner's Speech, Cess. Russ. Amer., S (Washington, 1867). Sumner re- marks that Buchanan employed as his intermediary a known sympathizer with slavery, and one who afterward became a rebel.
3 Politoffsky, Istor. Obos. Ross. Amer. Kom., 162, gives it at 5,907,859.08 roubles, silver.
$ In Rept. Com. For. Aff. in House Com. Rept. 40th cong. 2d sess., No. 37,
593
NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURCHASE.
by the legislature of this territory, "in reference to the cod and other fisheries,"5 and after being presented to the president, was delivered to the Russian minis- ter, with some comments on the necessity of an ar- rangement that would avoid difficulties between the two powers.
A few weeks later other influences were brought to bear. The lease of territory which, it will be re- membered, had been granted by the Russian Ameri- can Company to the Hudson's Bay Company in 1837, and several times renewed, would expire in June 1868. Could not the control of this valuable slip of earth be obtained for a trading company to be or- ganized on the Pacific coast, together with a license to gather furs in portions of the Russian territory ? Mr Cole, senator for California, sought to obtain these privileges on behalf of certain parties in that state, and thus, as Sumner remarks, "the mighty Hud- son's Bay Company, with its headquarters in Lon- don, was to give way to an American company, with its headquarters in California." The minister of the United States at St Petersburg was addressed on the subject, but replied that the Russian American Com- pany was then in correspondence with the Hudson's Bay Company as to the renewal of their lease, and that no action could be taken until some definite answer were received. Meanwhile the Russian min- ister at Washington,6 with whom Cole had held sev- eral interviews, returned to St Petersburg on leave of absence, promising to do his best to maintain friendly relations between the two powers.
If at this juncture a prompt and satisfactory an-
p. 11, it is stated that the people of Washington Territory 'entered into compe- tition unsuccessfully with the subjects of Great Britain and Russia, who had obtained from their respective governments a virtual monopoly of the seas and coast above the parallel of 49° north latitude.' The committee did not seem to be aware that the Russians made little use of their fisheries except for local consumption, and that even the whale-fisheries were mainly in the hands of Americans.
5 A copy of it is given in Sumner's Speech, 8-9.
6 Baron Edward de Stoeckl.
HIST. ALASKA. 38
594
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY.
swer had been returned by the Hudson's Bay Com- pany, Alaska might at this day have been one of the numerous colonies of Great Britain, instead of being, as in fact it became for a time, the only colony belong- ing to the United States. But no answer came, or none that was acceptable; nor at the beginning of 1867 had any agreement been made by the Russian American Company with the imperial government as to the renewal of its charter.
In February of this year, when the Russian minis- ter was about to return to Washington, the archduke Constantine gave him power to treat for the sale of the territory. On his arrival, negotiations were at once opened for this purpose. On the 23d of March he received a note from the secretary of state offering to add, subject to the president's approval, two hundred thousand dollars to the sum of seven million dollars before proposed, on condition that the cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or any other."7 Two days later an answer was re- turned, stating that the minister believed himself au- thorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final in- structions were received by cable from St Petersburg. On the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or negotiation. In May the treaty was rati- fied,8 and on June 20, 1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of the United States.
7 William H. Seward's Letter to Edward de Stoeckl, in Rept., ut supra, 52. 8 On May 27th, or according to the Russian calendar, on May 15th, Seward received from Stoeckl, who was then at New York, a despatch, stating that the treaty had been ratified at St Petersburg. On the 28th Stoeckl was in Washington, and on the same day the treaty was ratified by the govern- ment of the United States. Rept., ut supra, 53.
595
TREATY OF CESSION.
Such in brief is the history of this treaty, which for years was published and republished, discussed and rediscussed, throughout the United States.9 As there is no principle involved, nor any interesting information connected therewith, it is not neces- sary here to enter upon an analysis or elucidation of these discussions. The circumstances which led to the transfer are still supposed by many to be enshrouded in mystery, but I can assure the reader that there is no mystery about it. In diplomatic circles, even so simple a transaction as buying a piece of ground must not be allowed consummation without the usual wise winks, whisperings, and circumlocution.
Some of the reasons which probably induced Russia to cede her American possessions have already been mentioned. The motives which led the United States government to purchase them are thus stated in a report of the committee on foreign affairs, published May 18, 1868: "They were, first, the laudable desire of citizens of the Pacific coast to share in the prolific fisheries of the oceans, seas, bays, and rivers of the western world; the refusal of Russia to renew the charter of the Russian American Fur Company in 1866; the friendship of Russia for the United States; the necessity of preventing the transfer, by any possi- ble chance, of the north-west coast of America to an unfriendly power;10 the creation of new industrial in- terests on the Pacific necessary to the supremacy of our empire on the sea and land; and finally, to facili- tate and secure the advantages of an unlimited Amer- ican commerce with the friendly powers of Japan and China."
Here we have probably a fair statement of the case in favor of the purchase question, howsoever senseless
9 Copies of it are to be found in Mess. and Doc. Dept. State, I., 40th cong. 2d sess. 388-90, in Dall's Alaska, 360-2, among other works, and in count- less newspapers and periodicals.
10 In Sumner's Speech, 10-11, is a clear and logical discussion on the relation of former treaties between England and Russia as to the transfer of Alaska; and in Hansard, Deb. cexv. 1487-8, and cexvi. 1157 (1867), are some remarks made in the British House of Commons on this point.
596
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY.
and illogical some of the reasons cited may appear. On the other side, we have some cogent arguments in theminority report, whereitisremarked that "a contract is entered into by the president, acting through the sec- retary of state, to purchase of the Russian government the territory of Alaska. The contract contained stip- ulations which were well understood by Baron Stoeckl, the agent of the Russian government. Those stipu- lations were such as the negotiators could not enforce, but which were necessary to be complied with before the treaty could become valid or binding. The stip- ulations were, first, that the treaty should be ratified by the senate; and second, that the legislative power should vote the necessary appropriation. The first stipulation was complied with, and the second is the one now being considered. Each stipulation was inde- pendent of the other, and required independent pow- ers to carry it into execution. The treaty-making power can no more bind congress to pass a law than congress can bind it to make a treaty. They are independent departments, and were designed to act as checks rather than be subservient to each other.
"As was well said by Judge McLean, ... 'a treaty is the supreme law of the land only when the treaty- making power can carry it into effect. A treaty which stipulates for the payment of moneys under- takes to do that which the treaty-making power can- not do; therefore, the treaty is not the supreme law of the land. A foreign government may be presumed to know that the power of appropriating money be- longs to congress.'"
The unseemly haste with which the treaty was con- summated, and the reluctance with which the purchase money was afterward voted by congress, add to the pertinence of these remarks; and the mistrust as to the expenditure of public funds was not dispelled by
11 In the minority report it is complained that in answer to a resolution that all correspondence and information in possession of the executive be laid before the house of representatives, 360 pages mainly of irrelevant matter were produced.
597
A GOOD BARGAIN.
the report of the committee on public expenditure published at Washington in February 1869.12 More- over, it was well known to all American citizens that the president of the United States, or his representa- tive, had no more right to use the public money for the purchase of Alaska without a vote of congress, than had the queen of England to demand from her people the price of her daily breakfast without the consent of parliament.
Nevertheless, experience has proved that the terri- tory was well worth the sum paid for it, though at first it was believed to be almost valueless. And this is the real reason of the purchase; it was thought to be a good bargain, and so it was bought, though cash on hand was not over plentiful at the time. A special agent of the treasury, in a report dated November 30, 1869, estimates the compounded interest of the pur- chase money for twenty-five years at $23,701,792.14, and adds to this sum $12,500,000 as the probable ex- pense, caused by the transfer, to the army and navy departments for the same period, thus making the total cost, including the principal, $43,401,792.14 for the first quarter of a century. He is of opinion, how- ever, that $75,000 to $100,000 a year might be derived from what he terms the 'seal-fisheries,' and perhaps $5,000 to $10,000 from customs. "As a financial measure," he remarks, "it might not be the worst
12 In this report we have a copy of the treasury warrant delivered to Stoeckl, and of his receipt. From the statements of all the witnesses, no evi- dence of bribery was elicited when the facts were sifted from rumor and hear- say, unless the offer by the Russian minister of $3,000 in gold to the principal proprietor of the Washington Daily Chronicle, and the payment of $1,000 in greenbacks to a representative of the California press, be so regarded. The fees paid to counsel were very moderate. William H. Seward, one of the wit- nesses, denied most emphatically 'all knowledge whatever of any payments or distribution of any part of said money other than to the representative of the Russian government, or of any payments other than trifling sums for printing, purchasing, and distributing documents by and from the state department pertaining to Alaska.' Such a statement, however, proves noth- ing, as there were doubtless several thousand others, at Washington and elsewhere, who knew of no bribery or corruption in the matter. In the Bancroft Library Scraps, and in Honcharenko's Scrap Book, i. passim, there are some amusing discussions and comments on the disposition of the purchase money.
598
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY.
policy to abandon the territory for the present."13 The agent appears to have been- somewhat astray in his estimates, for between 1871 and 1883 about $5,000,000 were paid into the United States treasury as rent of the Prybilof Islands and tax on seal- skins alone. It is true that the military occupa- tion, while it lasted, was somewhat expensive, and that buildings which cost many thousands of dol- lars were afterward sold for a few hundreds; but, as we shall see, troops were not needed in Alaska, and the cost of maintaining the single war-vessel which was occasionally stationed at Sitka after their with- drawal cannot have been excessive.
Seward, who visited Alaska a short time before the agent's report was published,14 and who delivered a speech at Sitka in August 1869, remarks: “Mr Sumner, in his elaborate and magnificent oration, al- though he spake only from historical accounts, has not exaggerated-no man can exaggerate-the marine treasures of the territory. Besides the whale, which everywhere and at all times is seen enjoying his ro- bust exercise, and the sea-otter, the fur-seal, the hair- seal, and the walrus found in the waters which im- bosom the western islands, those waters, as well as the seas of the eastern archipelago, are found teeming with the salmon, cod, and other fishes adapted to the support of human and animal life. Indeed, what I have seen here has almost made me a convert to the theory of some naturalists, that the waters of the globe are filled with stores for the sustenance of ani-
13 McIntyre's Rept. in Sen. Ex. Doc., 41st cong. 2d sess., No. 32, p. 34. He states that the entire number of voters in the territory does not exceed 125, and reports against the establishment of a territorial government.
14 He arrived at Sitka on board the Active on July 30, 1869, and witnessed the eclipse that occurred a few days later near Davidson's camp on the Chilkat. Seward was on his way up the river when the eclipse occurred. The day was cloudy, and the sun was first observed by an Indian, who re- marked that it 'was very sick and wanted to go to sleep.' The Indians refused to row any farther, and the party went ashore and lighted a fire in a dell near the river bank. In the evening Seward's party reached the pro- fessor's camp, to which they had been invited. Honcharenko's Scrap Book, i. 72.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.