from the possession of too much territory, dwelt particularly upon the fact that the traditional policy of the United States was to purchase and acquire only contiguous territory. But the Pacific States are several thousand miles distant from the rest of the country.

Now, I point with great pride to the patriotism of the people of the Pacific States, to their love for your flag, for their flag, for our flag, to their love for the Union, in which feeling they, though distant, have been as earnest as any others can be. In referring to the remarks of the learned gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] I desire to refer to the fact that the greatest of modern nations, the most powerful now among the kingdoms of the world, gains her power and her greatness, in my judg ment, from the territory which she owns and controls and governs, that is not contiguous to the mother country; by means of her foreign possessions, and the fact that her flag is on every sea, and her drum-beat can be heard from sun rise to sun rise all around the world. This shows that it is true that nations can achieve greatness by the possession of lands not contiguous to her own shores. I wish also to refer to the fact that if we would have our Government over the whole of North America, and we can acquire it by purchase instead of by war, we would act wisely and well and humanely by establishing the precedent in this case of acquiring territory by purchase rather than by conquest.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HIGBY. I will yield four or five minutes more to my colleague, if he desires it.

Mr. AXTELL. My colleague [Mr. HIGBY] is very kind in giving me any of his time in which to speak at all on this question. I desire only to finish the thought I was endeavoring to express.

The very learned and able gentleman who has the charge of this bill, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, [Mr. BANKS,] in speaking of the Pacific States and the Pacific ocean, has said what must have occurred to all who heard it as being not only very able and eloquent, but as announcing a truth which thrilled all hearers; a truth which, although lying on the surface, has attracted but little of the attention of the thinkers of our day. And that is that we have reached a point in the history of the world when the Pacific ocean is to be the great theater of the world's greatness from this time forward. I recollect that years ago, about the time of the acquisition of Caliifornia, the attention of Congress was called, by eloquent men here, to the fact that the race had circled the world, and, making that circle, had come back to the shores of the Pacific, and that henceforth the theater of labor, the theater of improvement and conquest lay out there on the Pacific coast.

We acquire foothold there on the Pacific by treaty and by purchase. And allow me to say to this House that that ocean is a steam ocean. It has not the winds necessary to carry by sail the commerce of the world. It has that grandeur of distance and extent, requiring more rapid communication than by sailing vessels; and the race were not ready for that ocean until they had attained something like perfection in the use of machinery. That ocean is quiet. It is the steam ocean of the world. When we have, as we shall have in our time, three lines of railroad communication with the Pacific coast and a great ship-canal across the isthmus, we shall then find that the Pacific ocean is the great theater for the activity of our citizens; we shall then rejoice that we have extinguished, by purchase, any other national flag upon that coast; that we have given to our commerce harbors there; that we have opened up the means of holding and controlling, as it is our destiny to hold and control, not only all North America, but the great commerce of the Pacific. /

Mr. Speaker, thanking my colleague [Mr. HIGBY] for the time he has so kindly granted me, I now return to him the floor.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask that

by unanimous consent it be ordered that when the gentleman from California [Mr. HIGBY] shall conclude his remarks speeches on this subject be limited to thirty minutes.

Mr. SPALDING. I object.

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Chairman, before referring to the merits of this question, I wish to say a few words with reference to an amendment which was presented a few days ago by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ELIOT.] While with him and others in this House I am ready to express what we together understand as the power and right of this House with respect to questions of this kind, I do not feel willing to incorporate that expression in this bill, because I am satisfied that the Senate will never assent to the passage of the bill in that shape. But in a separate expression by this House I will join with the gentleman from Massachusetts and other gentlemen.

Mr. ELIOT. Will the gentleman yield to me for an inquiry?

Mr. HIGBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ELIOT. I understand the gentleman to say that he thinks the principle involved in my amendment is correct?

Mr. HIGBY. I do not speak as to the precise form of the amendment; but in a speech which I made here on a former occasion I held precisely the same principle asserted in that amendment; but I also maintained that this case stood in a peculiar attitude so as to be beyond our reach.

Mr. ELIOT. Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the gentleman this question: if the principle asserted in my amendment commends itself to his judgment, as of course it does if some time ago he made a speech in behalf of it, why should he object to asserting that principle in this bill simply because of an apprehension that the Senate may not think it wise to have such a declaration there?

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Chairman, I have no apprehension whatever, because, according to the feeling and opinion of the great body of this House, the Senate took a step that they ought not to have taken. That is the view taken here; and the Senate is not going to take back its own doings.

Mr. ELIOT. My friend mistakes the amend

ment.

Mr. HIGBY. I cannot yield any further time for the discussion of that amendment. Mr. ELIOT. My amendment applies to the future.

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to notice two points with reference to the Pacific

coast.

One is the climatic condition; the other is a physical condition.

I say, sir, that all foreign nations have the right under the Constitution to take the word of the President and the Senate as to a proposition of this character. Under the law of nations they need not stop to inquire whether there has been consultation or not with this body as to whether the President and Senate had done wrong or not. If a treaty be made by the President and the Senate, and this House refuses to make appropriation to carry it out, then this House takes the risk of war. would be the position assumed.

That

When the emergency shall be of sufficient magnitude to justify the House in such intervention, let it be taken promptly and firmly; and with equal step let the national defenses be so strengthened as to resist successfully any hostile attempt from without. Let us see for a moment. What may be the law of the land is not the law for the nations of the earth; but what is assented to as the law of nations is something separate and distinct. This Republic has a national character among the nations of the earth, and no position could be more humiliating for this nation than bickerings among the different branches of the Government; and by this House withholding money to carry out a treaty we should give occasion for war according to international law. But, sir, I leave this part of the subject.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there are two conditions, one climatic and the other the physical features of the earth upon the Pacific coast. There is no gentleman within the hearing of my voice who has made a voyage from New York to San Francisco by way of Panama but will bear me witness to the truth of what I am about to say. When we have doubled the southernmost point of New Granada and take our course in a southwesterly direction on the Pacific we find a chain of mountains from that point until we get to San Francisco. I know of but one significant exception, and it is in the State of Tehuantepec, in the republic of Mexico, upon the isthmus, where the land is low and level for some twenty or thirty miles inland from the Pacific shore. With this exception it is a mountainous chain, and for most of the way it comes to the water's edge, and there is no man who would make a voyage upon that coast for the first time but would be impressed with the idea, without further information than what his eyes gave him, that there were no inducements held out to make any point upon the coast a dwelling-place. To the northern extremity of our territory on the Pacific this same mountain chain, bordering the ocean, continues. I have no doubt, sir, from the information I have received, that all along the British and Russian possessions it is nothing but a mountainous chain. There are high mountains, covered with ice and snow. Well, sir, where there are mountains there must be valleys. As you go along the coast of California you find precipitous mountains, but when you go beyond those mountains you find a valley stretching four hundred miles uninterrupted by mountains. This territory of Alaska may be the same; who can say it is not, and that valleys will be found in Alaska capable, under good tillage, of producing many articles of food for man in great abundance? I believe it will so prove on thorough explora

Mr. Chairman, before speaking of these two conditions, however, I will speak of another subject; and that is with reference to the treaty-making power. I have no doubt but it was intended by the framers of the Constitution that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should constitute the treaty-making power. But when we come to the question of appropriating money there is this involved, not as the right of this House to dictate what the President and the Senate may do, but this House can refuse, whatever may have been done, to make appropriation. If we believe any great principles have been violated, or the rights of the people put in jeopardy, the House will assume its responsibility if it intervenes. It takes upon itself the consequences when it assumes that position.clared, that our winters on the Pacific coast are If there be a treaty made with a foreign Power, as in this case, and the House intervenes, feeling it to be its duty to do so, then it must do so in the face of the fact that war may be the result. It must at the time feel it is better for this Government and better for the people of this country to have war than that a treaty of this kind should be consummated. That is the position this House must assume.

tion.

I do not know whether the people of the East yet believe what has been so often de

nearly as mild as our summers. And yet such is the fact. In my own little village, situated over fourteen hundred feet above the level of the ocean, I have seen a plant growing in the earth green through all the months from Octo ber to April. It is not always so; that is an exception; but yet such was the fact. I have seen the wild honeysuckle in bloom on the north bank of the Yuba, in latitude 39°, in the month of January, and I have seen other plants in blossom in the same month. These

I know, sir, it has been argued here if this House should refuse to make this appropriation it is no cause of war between this Gov-are facts, account for them as you will. ernment and Russia. I beg to differ with the gentlemen who take that side of the question.

The prevailing winds on the Pacific coast for about six months in the year are north and

northwest, embracing the entire summer. During the rest of the year the prevailing winds are south and southwest, including the winter season. Now, it is well known that when south winds prevail here in the East for several days in mid-winter, when we have deep snows and ice, the sun melts away the snow and ice until we have great freshets. Should the south winds prevail much longer the green grass would appear and vegetation would spring up; and should these continue through the winter you would have a summer climate instead of a winter one. Such is one of the causes which, together with the ocean currents, modifies the climate on the Pacific coast. With me it accounts for the moderate climate which is reported to exist in Alaska. It must be that the south winds have the effect to mollify the climate so as to make the mean temperature moderate in comparison to what it is on the Atlantic coast in the same latitude, more particularly in the interior where the ocean winds do not reach. The river Yukon, that empties into Behring sea in latitude 65°, which is navigable more than a thousand miles inland, is clear of ice by middle to 25th May, and from that time for some five months is navigable. Point me to a condition of things like that on the Atlantic side.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman name the authority from which he derives that information in regard to the river Yukon being navigable a thousand miles from its mouth? What civilized man has ever seen it?

Mr. BANKS. Lieutenant Pease.

Mr. HIGBY. I have it here. Major Kenni cutt explored it, and died several hundred miles from the mouth of this river upon one of its banks, and Lieutenant Pease took his remains down the river in a small open boat, commencing his trip down the river in the latter part of May.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. He ascended only some three or four hundred miles.

Mr. BANKS. Major Kennicutt died five hundred miles from the mouth, and his body was carried down by Lieutenant Pease, who himself had traveled inland through the whole of that country.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. He did not undertake to say he traveled down the Yukon his exploration was up the river about four or five hundred miles. That is all we have.

Mr. HIGBY. I find the gentleman from Pennsylvania is about as stubborn upon this matter as is the member from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN.] He is unwilling to derive any favorable information.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I want authority.

Mr. HIGBY. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] is entirely incredulous about the discovery of gold there. And yet, as early as 1858-I may as well digress here we had a great hegira from California of about twenty-five thousand miners, who went up to the Frazer river in search of gold. At one time we feared the State would be nearly depopulated. These miners traveled some three or four hundred miles north in British Columbia, lying east and adjoining Alaska, adjoining the British territory, and there found gold. My own neighbors went there, and I get information from them.

On the river Stikine, which is the most southern rivers in Alaska, miners are now taking out gold. And yet gentlemen insist there is no gold to be found there.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I would ask the gentleman how much of the river Stikine is within this territory? Is there more than thirty miles of it?

Mr. HIGBY. Well, about thirty-five miles. Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Has any of this gold been found within that distance?

Mr. HIGBY. Well, it would be unfortunate if there had been. But that is a very small point for a great man to dwell upon, and I consider him one of the greatest in the House.

I never knew him to dwell upon so small a point before. I have none the less respect for him for it, but I am a little surprised.

Mr. Chairman, I have dwelt, on a former occasion, on what I conceive to be the value of this country to our Government, and I propose now more particularly to answer some of the points that have been raised by gentlemen on the opposite side of this question. The member from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN,] who makes the most vigorous fight against this appropriation, has been reading authorities to the House. I have examined several of them, and I find that he has been very particular to select those points that bear most heavily against this purchase. I have known lawyers in a small way, before ignorant justices of the peace, to select certain portions of law to suit their cases, and if an intelligent lawyer is on the opposite side he is quite sure to discover the strategy of his opponent and to defeat his end and purpose.

Now, sir, the information that has been presented on this subject lies upon the desk of every member of this House, and the investigations and explorations that have been priuted for the reading of members controvert every position that has been taken by the gentleman on this question. I do not feel disposed to take up the books and read them, for the reason that every member has them for his own examination and perusal. The gentleman was careful in all he read to the House to read only those portions that made against the country. He read to us from the report which comes to us with the authority of the Russian Government how barren the whole country is, but he did not read the further statement that there are no Russians there of any consequence, that there are nothing there but Indians, and that the Indians want no land system. And yet, sir, the Indians of that country are raising some of our vegetables, and from three to four hundred barrels of potatoes are shipped from the Island of Kodiak to Sitka every year; there is an evidence of the power of the soil to produce. Good potatoes are raised also at Prince of Wales Island. So says Mr. Pearce, whose letter I published in my former speech, and who was on that coast continuously for three years, and is pretty good authority. He also says that copper is found at the north end of the Prince of Wales Island. And yet the member from Wisconsin says that no evidence has been produced of the fact that minerals are found in this territory.

I had a letter a few days since from a gentleman of the name of Crosby, an old Nantucket whaler, who has passed eight summers off that coast in the whaling business, and he says that from the southern extremity of Oonalaska along the Behring sea north for three hundred miles, at any time along the coast they could stop the ship and in a few hours' time cover the deck with the finest cod he ever saw. That is new testimony. This gentleman was in command of one of the fourteen vessels which, just near the close of the war, the Shenandoah got among in Behring sea and destroyed every one of the ships except his. He says that this nation ought to own that country, that it will be of vast importance to us and a great acquisition for us.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not comment more at length upon this subject. I would inquire how much time I have left?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has thirteen minutes left.

Mr. HIGBY. I was entitled to an hour, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was entitled to an hour; he yielded ten minutes to his colleague, [Mr. AXTELL,] and has fourteen minutes now left, speaking more accurately.

Mr. HIGBY. I supposed I had more time. However I will hurry on. My friend from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] made a speech here a few days ago. He is another gentleman than whom

respect none other more highly. But he is very warm and earnest when he comes to debate, and sometimes he may run ahead of

facts, and must then review what he says and be careful what he prints. Here are two things which do not go very well in juxtaposition. This is what he says:

"And yet we stand here doubting whether we have the financial ability to expend a few thousand dollars for the purpose of giving uninterrupted navigation through two thousand miles, the grandest river on the globe, forming the boundary for twelve States of this Union, each of them large enough for an empire, a river having capacity enough to bear upon its bosom the commerce of many nations. Gentlemen who doubt our ability to do that are to-day ready to vote $10,000,000 to pay for the icebergs of Alaska.

"There are from fifty to seventy thousand Indians in Alaska, and from ten to twelve thousand white people of some kind.”

Now, icebergs are very poor material on which to feed so many people. The three hundred days of rain each year of which the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] spoke must come with lightning speed, and melt these icebergs in the twinkling of an eye.

Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman point out any statement which I made and which is not corect?

Mr. HIGBY. The gentleman spoke of the sixty or seventy thousand people who live on these icebergs.

Mr. PRICE. I did not say they lived on icebergs. I will state what I said.

Mr. HIGBY. When I am summing up a case I never allow a witness to get up and explain his testimony.

Mr. PRICE. I do not wish to explain anything I have said. Take it as it is.

Mr. HIGBY. I let the witness do the swearing only, and then I do the talking. Mr. Chairman, I noticed when the river and harbor bill was under consideration he supported it, as did also the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN] and I noticed another thing, that when the other day we passed a bill appropriating $10,000 for the botanical garden my friend from lowa [Mr. PRICE] sat as calm as a summer morning and allowed that item to pass without his objection. Now, I think we could get along without a botanical garden, espe cially when the poor soldier has not got all his pay.

The distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] made a most extraordinary speech the other day. He said that it was a historical fact that those ancient nations which were compact and solid had been the most enduring, while those which had the most extended territory lasted the least space of time. Now, I agree with the gentleman that that is true. But it must be recollected that they had not the great agents and civilizers of the present day, steamboats, railroads, and telegraphs. By means of the latter the Atlantic kisses the Pacific morning, noon, and night.

Now, will any gentleman tell us of the Pacific, of Oregon, California, Washington Territory, and the furthest extreme of our Republic, that our people have shown less loyalty to this Government in its trying hour of need than the people right here and near by? If any member of this House dare cite that this rebellion was in the extremity of this nation he cites that which is not the fact. Sir, right in sight of this Capitol is one State, not now represented in this Hall, which was engaged in a rebellion founded upon an institution that has gone out of existence.

Now, do not tell me that by extending west and north we can gain any territory that will weaken us. I tell you that it gives us strength. It was said of California that it had no valuable land. I was there three years before the people began to find out that their land was cultivable. They were all for gold, as the Russian fur com panies have all been for furs. They did not look for anything else. When the people came to look around a little they found that farming would be as profitable as gold hunting, and that there were millions of acres of as good land as any in the world, and genial seasons to bring forth the productions. The same might be said of Washington Territory and of all that

country there is something about them which quickens, vitalizes, and energizes it. No gold there? So it was said about California. And yet from six to eight hundred million dollars in the twenty years that Americans have held California have been exported from that State alone. Under Mexican rule it would have cut no figure in the history of the world. Under Russian rule, such as there can be upon a distaut coast like that of Alaska, with an ocean and five thousand miles of wilderness intervening, Alaska has been useful only to a fur company, a company that does not desire that there shall be any improvements of the character I have indicated. Let American enter prise go there, and as if by electricity all that country will waken into life and possess value. I regret that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] is not in his seat. I should hope that so fine an intellect and so fine spirited a man would review such an argument as he made here and find that he had labored under a very great mistake.

The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] questioned the truthfulness of the dispatch that General Halleck sent from the West with reference to the feelings of the people on the Pacific in regard to this acquisition. Notwithstanding the gentleman assumes here in this Hall to charge General Halleck and Professor Davidson with falsehood, I say to him, and all other members of the House, that there is no subject so vital to that people as this; and, sir, the whole population there, men, women, and children, without distinction of party, are in favor of this acquisition.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the little opposition which has been exhibited here to this proposition will melt away, and that the Republican side of this House will give us a solid front in favor of this appropriation, and let this question be disposed of. Let the American go to that country and follow the different pursuits of life with which he is familiar. Let him go and hunt for gold, copper, iron, coal. I venture the assertion that in less than one year's time, that within one season after this question is settled, there will be developments in that territory that will show to the American people its great value, and that the acquisition was one which this Government ought to make. Mr. McCARTHY obtained the floor, and yielded three minutes to

Mr. PRICE, who said: Mr. Chairman, I am allowed three minutes to reply to my friend from California in reference to the comparative value of Alaska and the Mississippi valley. Mr. HIGBY. I said nothing about the Mississippi valley.

Mr. PRICE. I only desire to reiterate what I said the other day, that while some members of this House have doubted and hesitated as to the propriety and financial policy of an appropriation by this Government of a few thousand dollars to remove the obstructions in the Mississippi river, the grandest river upon the globe, and inhabited by a loyal, intelligent, and energetic people, the same gentlemen who thus hesitate and object are ready to vote $10,000,000 out of the Treasury for the purchase of the icebergs of Alaska.

Now, sir, if there is anything incorrect, if there is anything in that statement not consistent with the strictest truth, then I ask any gentleman upon this floor to show where the inaccuracy is. I did not say that the people of Alaska lived upon ice and snow. If they did it would have been a more desirable country. I say now as I said then, that the inhabitants of that territory consisted of about sixty or seventy thousand Indians and some eight or ten thousand white men of some sort. now as I said then, that it would have been better for us to have voted this $7,200,000 for the purpose of removing obstructions in the Mississippi river, thus improving navigation and commerce, and enabling breadstuffs to be transported cheaply from the West to the seaboard, than to have purchased this remote and sterile territory of Alaska. In my judgment, looking at the acquisition of the territory of

I say

tiguous. Napoleon said the time would come when all Europe would become Cossack or

Alaska as I do, occupying the stand-point I do, it is better, instead of paying this money for Alaska, to expend it in opening up and improv-republican. ing the great channels of commerce in which all of our people are interested. I believe it is better to improve the country we have than to buy new territory we do not want.

Mr. McCARTHY. I desire, sir, to give a few reasons for opposing this appropriation for the payment of Alaska. I understand the treaty-making power of this country exists in the executive and the Senate branches, and while I concede that I have yet to convince myself that those two powers of the Government can override a coördinate branch. As a Representative in this House I am called upon to vote an appropriation for the payment of money to fulfill a treaty in which I have not been consulted, in which my power or judgment has been completely ignored.

I ask the question here whether these two branches of the Government, by an agreement with the head of a foreign Power, can override this House in its action and destroy our constitutional obligation? We are sent here to perform legislative acts, and one of these under the Constitution is to vote upon all the appropriations of money. I am compelled to ask what makes the necessity for this appropriation? admitting that these gentlemen composing the two branches of the Government had the power to make the treaty. What was the pressing necessity for carrying out the treaty at that time by taking possession of the territory? The whole difficulty of this question now rests with the Secretary of State, and it is impossible that an officer in this Government, simply a Cabinet officer, can put us in a false position with Russia or with other nations, by which under the law of nations we are compelled to pay money or go to war. It is not a question as to the fulfillment of a treaty, because I believe a majority of this House, no matter how they vote, agree with me that Baron Stoeckl and Secretary Seward forced this matter along and took possession of Alaska for the purpose of putting this House into the position in which it now stands, an apparent necessity to vote the money. How so? The Secretary of State said it was not the business of members of the House to discuss this question; that they had nothing to do but to vote the money; in other words, mere machines without responsibility.

Look

Look again at this matter. Russia had held possession of Alaska for a long period of time. It had never been profitable to her; it had always been a bill of expense. She was glad, therefore, of the opportunity to transfer it to another Power. It gave her no power or influence over the commerce of the Pacific ocean. No nation on the earth needed an addition to the number of her harbors and ports more than Russia herself for commercial and naval use; and yet she disposes of this vast extent of coast, this perfect Eldorado in imagination, for a pitiful sum, if only a hundredth part of what is said be true.

It appears by some of the reports that every foot of the soil of Alaska is frozen from five to six feet in depth, and only during a few summer months, in some portion of the country on the coast, the soil thaws out to the depth of ten or fifteen inches, and bears some poor vegetation.

It also appears that few minerals had been discovered there up to the time of the purchase by this Government, and that no coal had been found suitable for supplying vessels. I believe that all these telegrams and newspaper items which have come to us within the last few weeks are canards to help on the passage of this bill. And I believe that as soon as this is completed you will see other purchases and additions coming into light. We see by the papers that Denmark is ready to accept Seward's proposition for the sale of St. Thomas. And when she has settled a little difficulty now under negotiation between herself and France she will sell us St. Croix. Then you will hear that Greenland and iceland are in the market; and I know not where this acquisition of territory will stop.

Now, while I am in favor of an absorption of territory, I want that absorption to be contiguous, in accordance with the policy of RasSia. We have now a thousand million acres of unoccupied land, far surpassing anything pictured by the vivid fancy of the chairman of the committee. In my own State we have from fifty to seventy-five miles square of land, and though we have a population of about four million that tract of land is almost entirely uninhabited. It is not frozen territory like Alaska. It has a heavy growth of forest, it contains numerous lakes and streams, and is capable of cultivation for some kinds of grain. Yet the people pass it by and seek more productive fields in other sections of the country.

Now, sir, I say the time has not come when we need Alaska; but that time may come when we shall have absorbed Canada and all the territory of Great Britain contiguous to our own. Then, and not till then, do we need Alaska. Then we can take it at a sum far less than $7,200,000. I have the assurance of a friend of the Secretary of State that Alaska could have been had for $5,000,000 at the time the treaty was made if the Secretary had shown a little Yankee shrewdness. Now, while I am not opposed to absorption when duty and necessity demands it, I am opposed to acquiring territory not contiguous, of little or no value, frozen and barren, utterly useless to Russia. It must be to us entailing the control and care of thousands of savage Indians under a great expense at a time when we cannot afford it, our burdens now being heavy and onerous.

I hear gentlemen say it puts us in a position of honor in regard to Russia, that Russia is a friendly Power. I ask this House where this friendship comes from? It comes from selfinterest. She is the absorbing Power of the Eastern continent, and she recognizes us as the absorbing Power of the Western continent, and through friendship with us she desires to override and over-balance the Governments of Europe which lay between her and us. at the principles of the two Governments. Hers the one-man power, a despotism; ours a republican Government, a Government of the people. Can there be real friendship, cau there be true interest here. Not at all; only that kind of interest upon which to depend is to depend upon a broken reed. We are not obliged to court, much less to buy, the friendship of Russia or any other Government. Let us be just to humanity and freedom, and ever the enemy of oppression and despotism. No man can look at Poland, poor, decapitated, wiped out Poland, without remerabering the struggles of her sons and daughters for national existence. No man can forget the persecutions of that people, now suffering persecutions that disgrace the Christian religion and civiliza-protesting is mere child's play. Let us now

tion.

And here I am obliged to depart a little from my regular argument and ask, what use had Russia for this territory? Already she owned five sixths of the frozen territory of the eastern continent, more than she could use or make profitable. Her policy is absorption not of distant but of contiguous territory. She is rapidly adding to her possession, without justice or mercy, nation after nation lying con

We have got to settle the question of the power of this House over appropriations of inoney under treaties. Voting the money and

establish a precedent that for all time will compel a recognition of our voice in the treatymaking power upon all questions when the Constitution demands it, and we shall have added security to the future welfare of our country.

Mr. LOAN. Mr. Chairman, that Alaska was created for some wise purpose I have just as little doubt as I have had since the rebellion of the necessity of the infernal regions. With

to a citizen eight hundred thousand acres of the finest agricultural lands the sun ever shone upon; and now the Senate has under consider ation another treaty by which it is proposed to give to a railroad company, said to be insolv ent, nearly nine million acres more of similar lands, all situate in the flourishing State of Kansas-in the very heart of the Republic. Why the necessity of buying lands in the frozen regions of Alaska when we are almost daily giving away the best lands of the world? Let him answer who can.

Idaho, Montana, and Dakota. There within our own territory are ample fields for our explorers for the next one thousand years. But a stronger reason advanced by this advocate of Alaska is the "republican government, which, looking to a long future, will be organized there, with schools free to all." Would it not be just as well to wait for the establishment of free schools in Alaska for the Aleutes and Esquimaux until we have provided such institutions at home for the benefit of the children of the Republic? There is at present no necessity for us to purchase at great expense the frozen regions of Alaska for the humane purpose of establishing free schools there. Ample opportunity for our benevolence in that direction sufficient to exhaust our present ability meets us at every step.

[Here the hammer fell.]

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Here the committee rose informally, and the Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr. HOPKINS, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills and joint resolutions of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

But, as I said before, the purchase-money for Alaska is the smallest consideration connected with its purchase. If the purchase is consummated we must provide laws for its government; we will have to have a Governor and secretary, and other territorial officers; a territorial Legislature and judges of courts; a member in Congress, with his mileage, to look after the interest of the Territory; and we must have a coast survey and a geological survey and a mineralogical survey; we must have forts erected and soldiers sent there to guard our possessions; and we will require naval stations on that coast and harbors for our fishing fleet. The sum total of all of which will at first require us to draw from the pockets of our over-taxed constituents not more than twenty-five or, fifty million dollars per annum. But when we have been there long enough to provoke a war with the Indians-and I see by the papers that it is said they are already showing signs of hostility-and our present managers of Indian wars on the plains have finished the business there, and have transferred themselves with their experience to those distant and new fields of operation, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they can very readily swell the costs of our possessions in Alaska to more than one hundred million dol-gineers. lars per annum.

An act (H. R. No. 366) to incorporate the National Hotel Company of Washington city; An act (H. R. No. 869) prescribing an oath of office to be taken by persons from whom legal disabilities shall have been removed;

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 324) to extend the time for the completion of the West Wisconsin railroad; and

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 154) in relation to the settlement of the accounts of certain officers and agents who have disbursed public money under the direction of the chief of en

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

And we to incur this A message in writing from the President of enormous what are meast for any mates the United States was presented by his Private rial benefit of our people-not for one dollar's Secretary, Mr. W. G. MOORE, who also anreturn to the Treasury. One of our most emi-nounced that the President had approved and nent statesmen, and one of the most eloquent signed bills and joint resolutions of the followadvocates of this purchase who has yet spoken ing titles: in its favor, in a closely-printed double-column pamphlet of forty-eight pages, sums up as the strongest reasons for this purpose the follow ing:

An object of immediate practical interest will be the survey of the extended and indented coast by our own officers, bringing it all within the domain of science and assuring to navigation much-needed assistance, while the Republic is honored by a continuation of national charts, where execution vies with science, and the art of engraving is the beautiful handmaid. Associated with this survey, and scarcely inferior in value, will be the examination of the country by scientific explorers, so that its geological structure may become known with its various products, vegetable and mineral. But your best work and most important endowment will be the republican government, which, looking to a long future, you will organize, with schools free to all and with equal laws, before which every citizen will stand erect in the consciousness of manhood. Here will be a motive power, without which coal itself will be insufficient. Here will be a source of wealth more inexhaustible than any fisheries. Bestew such a government, and you will bestow what is better than all you can receive, whether quintals of fish, sands of gold, choicest fur, or most beautiful ivory."

Observe what our country is to gain by the acquisition of this territory. The privilege of making a "survey of the extended and indented coast by our own officers, bringing it all within the domain of science and assuring to navigation much needed assistance." Who wishes to navigate those inhospitable regions? "While the Republic is honored"-mark the words-is honored at a cost of at least $100,000,000 per annum "by a continuation of national charts, where execution vies with science and the art of engraving is the beautiful handmaid ;" and then we will also acquire the right to make an "examination of the country by scientific explorers, so that its geological structure may become known with its various products, vegetable and mineral."

Why not wait to make such examinations until something is known of these matters in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 239.

On July 3, 1868,

An act (H. R. No. 347) for holding terms of the district court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois at the city of Cairo in said State;

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 312) relative to the pay of the Assistant Librarian of the House;

An act (H. R. No. 411) for the relief of Almira Wyeth;

An act (H. R. No. 523) granting a pension to James S. Todd;

An act (H. R. No. 671) granting a pension to the widow of Henry Kaneday;

An act (H. R. No. 775) granting a pension to Rebecca Jane Kinsel;

An act (H. R. No. 780) for the relief of Martha M. Jones, administratrix of Samuel T. Jones;

An act (H. R. No. 1129) for the relief of the widow and children of Colonel James A. Mulligan, deceased; and

An act (H. R. No. 236) granting a pension to John Q. A. Keck, late a private in the third Missouri cavalry.

On July 6, 1868,

EVENING SESSION DISPENSED WITH. The SPEAKER. The Chair is informed that there is no member who desires to speak at the night session this evening, but, if the session can be extended until half-past five o'clock, probably all those who desire to speak to-day on this question can make their speeches before that time. If there is no objection, therefore, the order for a night session will be in session until such time as they see fit to dispensed with, and the committee will remain rise. The Chair hears no objection, and the evening session will be dispensed with.

PURCHASE OF ALASKA.

The Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union then resumed its session.

Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity some months ago of giving to the House and the country my views in regard to the law which governs cases of this kind under the Constitution of the United States. I agree with the minority of the committee most fully in their opinion that this House has a constitutional right to judge in regard to the expediency of any treaty which brings into action any constitutional power that is devolved upon Congress, as the power of appropriating money is one confessedly.

I need say nothing further upon that branch of the subject except to say that the resolu tion which I now read and a copy of which I once introduced for the action of this House, and which is now in fact in Committee of the Whole for consideration, I should be glad to see adopted here by this Congress :

That when a treaty stipulates regulations on any subject submitted by the Constitution to Congress, it must depend for its execution as to such stipulations on a law or laws to be passed by Congress, and that it is the constitutional right and duty of the House of Representatives in all such cases to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of carrying such treaty into effect, and to determine and act thereon as in their judgment may be most conducive to the public good.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment to ask him a question?

Mr. SPALDING. No, sir; not for a moment. Now, sir, in the face of that admission, which I give to the gentleman to its fullest extent, I say that I am prepared to vote for the appropriation of $7,200,000 to pay for the acquisition of the Russian empire in America. I should be prepared to do so, sir, if this question was now in its inception. If we were just now negotiating a treaty of that sort, I would be prepared to say that even under all the present embarrassments of our Treasury I would vote the appropriation of $7,200,000 to acquire a property so valuable to our nation as I believe Alaska to be.

Notwithstanding all the sneers that have been cast on this country, I maintain that if that property were now susceptible of being turned into an article of merchandise, individuals would take it off our hands and pay us two or three million dollars for the bargain. I believe that if the Government once paid for this country, and could give a lease of it for twenty-five years to individuals to go and take from it the profits that might be derived from its minerals, from its forests, from its furs, and from its fisheries, they would not only pay to us the purchase-money and millions more, but would pay us interest on the purchase-money from year to year. I have no question of that. But I say again that, were the Russian possessions in America made up of icebergs, and those icebergs covered with walruses, I would still give the purchase price of that country under present circumstances; for I think I can show that the honor and dignity of this great nation are now involved in carrying out this treaty by paying the purchase price.

Sir, last November the honorable member from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] introduced into this House a resolution of warning to our negotiators against making any more treaties of acquisition which should call for appropria tions from the Treasury of the United States in order to carry them into effect, and his reso.