IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 1.25 lliW2» 12.5 m 112.0 1.8 U. 11 1.6 7] olfe / '/ /A VV'^^^ 5b-. -^J5, '^ 'ib ts CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical l\/licroreproduction8 institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e D D D D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have be^n omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans !e texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentalres: L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materic Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ |~~| Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. El 10X This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6ro8it6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity avec ies conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont fiimds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par ie second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autrss exempiaires originaux sont fiim6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —•^' (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir da Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 „. ^'^ • 6 ■ iMimrt* .mm'i*iW>iM- . wbiMMbu ':^^J »ti VV^ . 4 i« f*» I ■KJ Iia w >i*!.***-^m V ' ^ - «Mi»«M(fW»>>«i>;;«^M ..A* ^^V: i.''^,. 4.f-T M ^-i^+i^'i^^'-^n*'**--- . . 'ft' v» ,,,...^<'.j^,rHi;'-' •1' s. ■■ f- • s «V -^ .y. v.:i> ' , ■,nC' "S. .jvw:- . > •^ ■';■•* 1,%: ^. 1" ■ i ■5 .H'- :^ . rf'. ■ <'^ ' .,-, .viJ-w**-*" • j,!l.lt'»P ^-•k;^-' ';*«!■■ V V*^-V'-.')i!K-;**:'-i-.'TL.:a,.., .■f^','^ . ,..^, ..-..*«.■ jw*^*''** ■■■.J ■; -■. ,1,,, ....... .",.:; i- '1--^ . 1 ■fc^r^^ ^. I itPi-V'- r. ) ^'9 H*/' ^^„ -t- r.,1,:. ■ '^.':^ \A NA ;^. .^.K"!' li - 'ii., *:■' ■as ^:2k '}. \\ "^ ',) ■ ... "^' ft '■'. V e A J »^"t; J^ '>'l'R!lOl>Hlf.ilir,i P«vTil.ilH B«."a e, ' OF THE UNITKD STATES ^./■■fmr>^».rft^, !>•>• u-,isi-S'' l»>ntii!--.,,.. ■; (■ .»nMi ' ■ r^ va t»0mii*ini \ » • :■ --»»«i^*«_i"*- ••*^-#. n^i.-^^^^Ar-tvi f' II /j-'^ uwv}/: \ '*-, •4 .'■^ ,;l 1 , .,Wf # •ei ,< ■'"1 ■f ! x' '^ ,w:^ '^ -i''.--; a ■# i "^^ ■ i f^"Tin'i' i iiri'i i 'i'i1 i i '~i TT"'nir"YnVirir'-iV-MTi ''''TV iil Vn^ i l('' r ffff I'l','.,' .b<««*»Vi..i4i-.t /^a A THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE AND OUR TITLE WEST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, WITH ........,| i^r'^1 A REVIEW OF ANNEXATION BY THE UNITED STATES. BY BINGER HERMANN, COMMISSIONER OK THK GENERAL LAND OFiacE. WASHINGTON: GOVBRNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1898. V <% 4". 1 SYNOPSIS :« 1 P.TRf. TIIH I.oriSIANA PURCHAvSK 1 1 Urror in United States map 1 1 What was the orij^inal Louisiana ? 12 LaSalle's descent of the Mississippi 12 LaSalle takes possession in name of Louis XIV 12 IJeTonty's narrative of the discovery 12 Iherville's exploration of the mouth of the Mississipjji .... i-^ Settlement at Bilo.vi i -^ Spanish claim to territory along Gulf east of Mi.s.sissippi 13 De Soto at Tampa Hay i •^ rirst .settlement of New Orleans i^ The j^rant to Crozat 14 Moll's map 1 1; Bowen's map of North America ig Jefferson's letter to Mellish ig rVanquelin's map i ^, 16 * Crozat's colony abandoned 16 Fr.\nce Ckdks to Spain 17 Treaty between I'Vance and Spain 17 Louisiana a troublesome and expensive province iS De Ulloa's arrival at New Orleans iS His expulsion 1 g Spanish fleet appears before New Orleans 20 Spain Cedk.s Florida to Great Britain 20 Confu.sing treaties 20 The family compact 21 Talleyrand's explanation 21 The FloRida.s Retroceued to Spain 23 The Uniteij States and .Spain 2^ Southern boundary defined 2^ American settlements 2", The navigation of the Mississippi 2^ Popular discontent 25 Attempts to secure commercial privileges 2g 3paIN RETROCEDES to FR.A.NCE 26 The treaty of San Ildefonso, 1800 26 Depredations upon our commerce by France 26 Preparations to resent such depredations 26 Dismissal of our envoys 26 3 Y. 4 SYNOPSIS. Spain Rktkocedks to I'-ranck— Continued. Pagr.. Liviiigijton's remarks afr ThreateiiL'd war bL'twecn I'Vancc and I"^n>{land 27 Moiiroi' noiiiiiiaU'd for an fxlraordiiiary mission to France 27 Nf w ( )rlfans and I'loritla are demanded 28' Napoleon offers to cede all of Lonisiana 28. Two prominent aciors 2u 'W Thomas Jefferson 2q Marejuis de Marbois 29 The American nejjoliators yi Robert R. Livingston 3<)> James Jlonroe 30 I,<)fISIANA CkDIU) To THK UNITKU STATHS 32 Indefinite boundaries 32 Ratifications exchanged 33 Possession taken 34 A rivalry for honor 35 Livingston's letter 35, The magnitude of the purchase 36 Its population in 1890 36 Statistics 36. Kariy opposition to annexation 36 Speeches in Congress adverse to cession 37 A striking contrast 38- Value and Resoitrcics oi- Loi'isiana Pi-rchask 38 Colorado; Its gold, silver and cattle 38 Wytmiing: Its cattle and sheep 38 Montana: Its silver, copper, cattle and sheep 3S; South Dakota: Its gold and wheat " 39 North Dakota: Its wheat 39. Oklahoma: Its wheat and cotton '. Its wonderful development The Lewis and Ci^arke Expedition Jefferson's object was to secure trade relations The Florida Boundaries Uncertain The United States dispossesses Spain The Florida wars The Florida treaty Our Western Limit ok Louisiana La Salle's settlement The Annexation of Texas Its value and resources Cotton and live stock Our Nation Ci.aims Beyond the Rockies The claims of England The claims of Spain England's claim contested Russia's Claim Acknowledged Russia sells Alaska to the United States 39' 39 1 39' 4. 42 45. 47 47 : 4« 1 48. 4 48, i 48 1 49 >f 49 i 49 :i 50- ^J 5' .^ 5' 1 52: 'I SYNOPSIS. Page.. n 38. 3U 29 29. .v 3"' 30- 32 32 33 34 35 35'. 36 36 36- 36 37- 38- 38 38 3» 39 39' 39' 39 39' 4' 42 45. 47 47 4.S. 48 48 48 49 49 49 50- 51 51 52: I I I ■:> Rt'.ssi.v's Ci.AtM ACKN(nvi.ici)C.i;i)— Continued. I'hki- ( )p])()siti(iii to the i)urchast' 52 Speeches in Con^^re.s.s adverse thereto 52 The vahie and re.sources of Alaska ,Sjl Us >f()ld |)roduclion 5;, The fish of Alaska 54 The fur .seals 54 Joint Occri'.v.N'cv .vnd Nicc.otiation 55 The British ultiniatiini 55 Tlie mystery of the forty-ninth parallel 55 No evidence adoptinjj the forty-ninth iiarallel 56 Hall J. Kelley's iininiKration scheme 60 The Wilkes Ivxplorinj; I';xpe- westward of the Rocky Mountains and now embracincr Orejron, Washington, Idaho and portions of Montana and Wyo- ming to have been acquired by the United States by or through the Louisiana Purchase, the correction to be made in the republication of that map by the Department ; and in connection with such recommendation I respectfully submit various conclusions which I have reached relating to this subject, including a review of the various annexations by the United States, which I hope will meet your approval. Very respectfully, Binger Hermann, Com m issioiier. Hon. Cornelius N. Bliss, .Secretary 0/ the Interior. Department of the Interior, Washington, July 'the United States hx or throucrh the Louisiana Purchase. You also submit in connection therewith a very care- fully prepared paper upon the matter of the Louisiana Purchase, and upon the various annexations made by the United States, and recommend that the error in question be corrected upon the next map of the United States to be published bv the Department. Upon careful consideration of the matter, as so al)lv presented by >on ^•our recommendations in the premises meet with my approval, and the correction' will be made upon the next map of the United States to be issued by the Department Very respectfully, C. N. BLI.S.S, tr n T^ Secretary. Hon. Binger Hermann, Commissioner of the General Land Office. n > ' I J 1 i I I ->'S THE LOUISIANA FIRCHASE AND OUR TITLE WEST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS. WITH A RBVIHW OF AXXHXATION BY THli UMTin) STATHS. By RiNOKK Hermann, Commissiotier of the Cencml Laud Office. Of all distino;uishin^ events in the glorious career of this country, aside frouT its triumphs for liberty and for union, none shine forth with such imperishable luster as the acquisition of that splendid empire west of the Mississippi River; ;uk1 when the impartial historian shall write up the gre.it men and the great measures of our nation he will place at the top of the rolls lipomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. The importance, then, of this subject deserves that it shall be accurately as well as impartially reviewed. I am induced to enter upon this matter because of an error which I conceive exists upon the map of the United States as published under the direction of my predecessor, and which goes forth with the official indorsement of the Depart- ment. The error to which I refer is in the representation that the cession of Louisiana from France in 1803 conii:)rised territory west of the Rocky Mountains, now known as Oregon, Washington, Idaho and portions of IMontana and Wyo- ming. Relieving that such domain was derived by the United States based on the right of discovery, exploration and occupancy by our own people, together with the cession from Spain, by treaty of February 22, 1819, of such adverse rights as that nation claimed to possess, I have assumed the liberty of represent- ing these facts on the new edition of the United States map soon to be published by the Department. In support of this position I submit the conclusions to which I have arrived, together with the views of eminent historians, diplomats, statesmen and writers on both sides of this interesting and famous contention. In subsequent pages I shall refer to the value of this acquisition and to the advantages which have followed our other annexations to the public domain. II 12 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL LOUISIANA? First, it may be asked, what was oris^inally understood to be the Louisiana territory? It is essential that wc know the extent of this domain as it was understood by the men who discovered, explored and named it, and then described it to the world. La Salle was the first to descend the Mississippi from its navigable northern waters to its mouth, and from the Gulf inward again. His discovery was not a mere accident, nor was it left unwritten and in doubt. His journey was under- taken for purposes of discovery, and every important observation was carefully noted and reported by him. He was a man of education and received a patent of nobility. His expeditions were under the authority of the French Government, and he early won the confidence and admiration of that nation's monarch, Louis XIV. The Chevalier Henry de Tonty, Fathers Hennepin and Membre and other well-known explorers were his companions in many expeditions, and a few years before, over much of the same ground, Marquette and Joliet had opened the way among the Indian tribes. The result of his researches was made known in France, and efforts were at once made by the government to colonize the country and extend exploration. La vSalle, standing with Tonty, Dautray and other companions on the banks of the most western channel of the Mississippi, about 3 leagues from its mouth, on April 9, 1682, took possession of the coinitry in the name of Louis XI\', and setting up a cohnnn, or, as Dr. KoM insists, "a cross with arms of the King," buried a plate, unfurled the flag of i^Yance, sung a Te Deum and naming the country "Louisiana" in a loud voice, proclaimed its extent to be "from the mouth of the great river St. Louis, on the eastern side, otherwise called Ohio, Alighin, Sipore, or Chiskagona, and this with tlie cmsent of the Chaonanons, Chikachas and other people dwelling therein with whom we have made alliance, as also along the river Colbert, or Mississippi and rivers which discharge iliemselves therein, from its source be>'ond the Kious or Nadonessions, and this with their con.sent, and with the consent of the Motanties, Illinois, Mesigameus, ''latches, Koroas, which are the most considerable nations dwelling therein, with whom also we have made alliance * * * as far as its mouth at the .sea or Gulf of Mexico * * * and also to the mouth of the river Palms, upon the assurance which we have received from all these nations that we are the first Europeans who have descended ;| or ascended the .said river Colbert." S He also named the Mississippi ' ' Colbert," in honor of his friend and patron, M. # Colbert, the colonial minister under Louis XIV, and upon whose report the King conferred upon La Salle the rank of esquire, with power to acquire knighthood. De Tonty, La Salle's companion, who has written a detailed narrative of the discovery, describes the countries at the heads of the various tributaries of the Mississippi, all of which were included under the name of "Louisiana," and it is remarkable how accuratelv he estimates the distance of one river from another u t ■A .•^ sr^ MAP OF FRANOUELIN 1684. THE LOrivSIANA PURCHASE. 13 i '.uid the leii^^h ot each. The Falls of St. Anthony seem to have been known, as Hennepin was sent by La Salle to that point, and the Missouri from its sonrce is mentioned and described at different points. A map prepared by De Tonty, as he states, accompanied his report and exhibited the j^feneral scope of conntr\- embraced witliin lyonisiana. Unfortnnately nothinj; more is known of this map. No refer- ence, however, was ever made to any conntry westward of the highlands which are the sonrces of the rivers flowing fron the west into the Mississippi; and Lonisiana was never nnderstood as extendin<^ beyond those highlands by any of these explorers. This is fnrther corroborated by F'ranqnelin, a yonng French engineer, who was in Qnebec when La Salle retnrned from his discovery, and who learned from him the extent of the same, and then crudely majjped the country on what has since been known as Franquelin's Great Map of 1684, on which is shown Louisiana with the western boundary- on the head waters of the Mississippi. On March 2, 1699, Iberville, a daring French explorer, entered the mouth of the I,i..,jissippi and ascended 100 leagues, and on descending passed through the river Iberville, named for him, and thence through lakes Maurepas and Pontchar- train into the Gulf. The last-named lake was named by Iberville in honor of the Count de Pontchartrain, who was minister of marine under Louis XIV. The former lake was named after Coinit Maurepas, minister under Louis XV and Louis XVI, and who died with the ill-fated King. The land westward of these waterways and eastward of the Mississippi from the island of New Orleans, being a part of the French discoveries, is properly included in Louisiana. In 1721 F'rench immigrants arrived at Mobile Bay and at Biloxi, and previous to this the French C; idian, Du Tissenet, with an escort, went from Dauphine Island by way of Mobile river ' Quebec. The first colony was settled at Riloxi in 1699. It was for some time the chief settlement of Louisiana, and contained a fort. To the east of the Mississippi, F'ranqtielin has shown Florida with a dotted bound irv which was then much as it is at present, except that for some distance east of the Mississippi the country then was included in Louisiana. The map is also evidence of the presence of the Spaniards, and La Salle in his memorials presented to the King his scheme of erecting fortifications near the mouths of the Mississippi and then of driving out the neighboring Spanish colonists. Here we have at the very outset material for the subsequent disputes as to West Florida, and the uncertainty as to whether it was French in the Louisiana claim or Florida under prior Spanish discovery. .\t this point it may be as well to inquire into the claim of the Spaniards as to that territory along the Gulf east of the Mississippi. Commencing with Ponce de Leon, who reached the coast of Florida near the present site of St. Augustine March 27, 1512, we next find Miruelo. who arrived from Cuba in 1516 ; tlien De CordoVa, who arrived in 1517 with an expedition of Spaniards who were seeking gold ; and he was followed by Alaminos with several ships for the same purpose. In 1539 we find Hernando de Soto landing witli a large company of Spaniards at Tampa Bay, and from there he went to Tallahassee;. 14 THK LOUISIANA PURCHASE. thence he moved to the Savannah River behiw the i)resent site of AnjLjnsta, and then toward the head of Mobile Hay, and then to the Mississippi, whieh lie dis- covered near the month of the Arkansas. After his death, near the month of Red river, his snccessor, Lnis de Moscoso, took the command, nnmberinjif about 300, down the MisMssippi to the (Vnlf, July 18, 1543. Ill 1528 De Narvaez led a larj^e force of Spaniards and landed in Clear Water Bay, followinj^ alon.i>; the (inlf shore on the west. A portion returned to Cuba, while the jj^reater portion were destroyed. None made settlement. Still further east on the Florida coast French colonies were founded, but these were driven out in 1563 by Menendez with Spanish troops, who then erected forts from vSt. .Xnj^us- tine northward as far as Carolina. This possession was maintained to the time when La Salle claimed Louisiana for France. It may be said of the Si)aniards, however, that they made no .ittempt to gain a foothold far in the interior, ard this explains the narrow limit of their possession north from the (iulf Bienville was appointed governor of Louisiana in 171 7, and one of his first acts in that year was to select a principal establishment for the French colony, which he did by choosing the site which is now the city of New Orleans. It was then covered by a dense forest, the sT)il being swampy. A detachment of soldiers was left there for the double purpose of clearing the ground and of protecting the colonists. This was the origin of New Orleans, named in honor of the Duke of Orleans, the then regent of France. In 1723 the seat of government was definitely removed to that place, which then contained 300 population. It is worthy of notice at this point that in this year the French (Government considered the importance of securing deeper water at the entrance to the Mississippi, and that the official engineer — Pauger — had recommended a plan of improvement which was in principle based largely on the modern jetty system. On September 14, 1712, a grant was made by Louis XIV to Antoine de Crozat, a rich merchant of Paris, for trading purposes. The King in this grant says: * * * we dirt in the year 1683 give our orders to undertake a discovery of the countries and lands whicli are situated in the northern part of America, between '^Tew I'rance and New Mexico: and the Sieur de hi Salle, to whom we connnitted that enterprise, having had success enoujjh to confirm a belief that coninuinication might be settled from New France to the Gulf of Mexico, by means of large rivers; this obliged us, immediately after the peace of Ryswick, to give orders for the estab- lishing of a colony there, and maintaining a garrison, which has kept and preserved the possession we had taken in the very year i6cS3, of the lands, coasts, and islands, which are situated in the Gulf of Mexico, between Carolina on the east, and Old and New Mexico on the west. *' * And whereas, upon the infonnation we have received, concerning the disposition and situation of the .ssiid countries, known at present by the name of the province of Louisiana, we are of opinion that there niaj- be established therein a considerable commerce * * * we have resolved to grant the com- merce of the country of Louisiana to the sieur Anthony Crozat. The further language of this grant sheds more light in identifying the limits of this province in these words: and do appoint the said sieur Crozat, solely to carry on a trade in all the lands, possessed by us, and bounded by New Mexico, and by the lands of the English Carolina, * * * the river of J- -■• ,/ ■\'/-. A \\' /. \ V. WW i„.u s'A<.vv\o Vi r - ;V', i ,iio\K V. KUv^":iV\ X .-\ ^^■v^ -\'o tj f\ '.N\ 0\\^ 7^A:sV 'i'-'X "sViO'ttK V\C.UiV\0\ A\ C>:X vv ^ vAa;>H jToi m I'* {4f^ l>/ / ^; ,v Mi / S i iJson|s .'.uiiW i^' y j« 111 ifi '// ;W rAl^ ^. -V kJ/ n - // ■• '^•JSv \ y .;.u:il« i^\l^ ^v'vSrx* ir- viand .?^^ M \ ■w^Vty'" — 1 r - + — .cor'' "-<-^y'r.,Kr^-^J ^-^,^0"^"^ V^^ ^— 4*^:* v'kecward ; «K-'"^*'T' ^^' rioRTH Sea | r^;v.v,^Ji ^' Thb Great SouTH\ Sea Cocos^ ^'fi< ■ rnay C«f^ f-'r/tncfSCO-z.f t..B;.K .;. : ., ;...^,ja;juy» = . 1 i>.j1,.^4r.>Vff^^j..ii..,;i'i, r,v,..v.ij.,;..a^l^^,j-i^..i.., .■iJ,.-.u:.aiv^.-,v. ^t,. S{oveniment of Louisiana, which shall lie de]H.MideMt upon the j{eneral government of New I'rance, » * » * A map publisht'd about 1710 l)y Moll, the ICnj^lish jreoirrapher, rei)re.scnt.s Louisiana to he a.s Koui.s XI\' describes it. To the east ami aloujj the Gulf coast the country contaiuinjj the Carolinas is marked as British Empire. On the west, as a bouudary, is New Mexico and Old .Mexico, while on the no-th is New Krancc, Lake Huron, and Upper Lake (vSu])erior). A portion of the western boundar\ is sliown as the "North River" (Del Norte iver). The more north- western boundaries are represented by the highlands at the sources of the Missis- sippi and the Missouri, marked on the map, respectively, as the rivers St. Louis and St. IMiilip. Nothinjij west of the Rocky Moinitains is desi}.jnated as Louisiana, and all north of California is marked as "Unknown Parts." In a later map, and before 1762, published by Thomas Howen, entitled "An accurate map of North America from the best authorities," the country north of Cape Blanco (on the Orej^on coast) is marked as "Unknown," while that east of the Rio del Norte and the Rocky Mountains, and the country drained by the waters of the Mi.ssouri and Mississippi and as far east as the " Apalachan Mountains" is marked as Louisiana, while Florida, tieor^ia, Carolina, Virj^^inia and Penn.syl- vania, to the east of these mountains, are all excluded from the boundaries of Louisiana. This map will be found in Brooks's (kizetteer, ist edition, 1762. As .showinjf Jefferson's knowledjje as to what con.stituted Louisiana, his letter to Mellish, the geographer, is submitted, as follows: MoNTiCKi.i.o, /h'cnnhri- J/, /S/6. To Mr. Mkm.ish. Sir, Your favor of November 23(1, after a very long passage, i.s received, and with it the map which you have been so kind as to .send me, for which I return you many thanks. It is handsomely executed, and on a well chosen scale; giving a luminous view of the comparative po.ssession of differ ent powers in our .Vmerica. It is on account of the value I set on it, that I will make some suggestions. Hy the charter of Louis XIV. all the country comprehending the waters which flow into the Mi.s.sissi])pi, was made a part of Louisiana. Consetpiently its northern boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern waters ri.se. Hut by the Xth Art. of the Treaty of Utrecht, France and I';nglanustine settlements and discoveries; and France claimed the country drained by the river and bay of ]\Iobile, and the }>reater country drained by the Mississippi, on like grounds. Much confusion exists in the popular mind as to the treaties between the Great Powers in 1762 and 1763. First in order was the single and complete ces- sion of " the whole country known by the name of Louisiana," by and on the part of the King of France to the King of Spain. This was Noveml)er 3, 1762, and is known in history as the " F\imily Compact," and so known because of the agreement between the two monarchs that they would defend each other in their dominions throughout the world, and would regard as a common enemy any nation which should antagonize either. Second in order was the treaty — about three months later — between the Kings of Great Britain, Portugal, Spain and France, which was concluded February 10, 1763, known as the Treaty of Paris and in which the King of France cedes " everything of which he possesses on the left side of the river Mississippi " to Great Britain. Since, in all the claims of France previously made, the country of Louisiana was understood to embrace territory on the left side of the Mississippi, as well as on the right side, as shown in the grant to Antoine de Crozat, September 14, 1712, by Louis XIV, which was "bounded hy the English Carol inas" and designated as a part of "the country of Louisiana," and so described on the early French maps and by French explorers and French writers, it naturally excites surprise that in the face of the cession to Spain of the "whole country known as Louisiana," there should also be ceded a part of that same Louisiana to Great Britain a few months later. It may be said that the treaty of November 3, 1762, was well named the " Secret Treaty." The surprise is the greater when it is known that the preliminaries of this second treaty were actually signed on the same day as that ceding "all of Louisiana to Spain." TALLEYRAND'S EXPLANATION. That we may also have before us the justification of France and Spain for such evident inconsistency, if not deception, it may be of interest to read the letter from Talleyrand to General Armstrong after the cession, and thus we have both sides of the controversy fairly presented, and for this purpose the letter follows : r American State Papers (foreiRii relations), vol.2, p. 635. Letter from M.Talleyrand to General Armstrong.] Pari.s, December 21, rSof. Sir: I had the honor, in Rniniaire last, to inform Mr. Living.ston that I would .submit to the inspection of Ilis Imperial Majesty the letters he ad(lres.se(fs on his part to retrocede to tlu- I'ri'ni-li Kcpulilic ■* * * the colony or provincf of I.onisiana with thi' same <.'Xteiit it now has in tlu' hands of S|)ain, and that it ha;arrisons in Jamaica and the Windward Islands, required but little reflection for an astute mind like that of Xapoleon to snjj^jrest tlie most disastrous con.seqnences if immediate action by him should not be adopted as to Louisiana. He was not lonj; in arrivinjf at a conclusion. Summoning two of his counsellors to him, and in a very imi)assioned manner, he disclosed to them his purp(jse with rej^ard to Louisiana. He said : They (the Ivnglish) slmll not have the Mississippi, which they covet. * * * The conquest of Loiiisiiina would hv easy if they only took the troulile to make a (lescont thire. I have not a moment to lose in puttinj{ it out of their reach. * * * i think of ceding; it to the I'nited .States. "* * * They only ask of me one town in Louisiana, but I already consider the colony as entirely lost; and it appears to me that in the hands of this jjrowinj; power it will he more useful to the policy, and even to the commerce, of I'rance, than if I should attempt to keep it. NAPOLKON OKKKR.S TO CKDK AM, OF LOl'ISIANA. The two counsellors disajrreed, one approvinf^ the course proposed and the other decidedly opposinjj^ it. To the first one Napoleon communicated his final resolution, sayinj^^ : It is not only New Orleans that I will cede, it is the whole colony without any reservation. * * * To attempt to retain it would be folly. I direct you to ne).(Otiate this offer with the envoys of the United States. * * * i will be moderate in consideration of the necessity in which I am of niakin>{ a sale. But keep this to yourself. It was Napoleon's belief that Monroe was clothed with instructions more extensive than the assumed authorization of Congress would warrant, both as to territory and as to price. In this he was mistaken. The instructions to our envoys were to "procure * * * ^ cession to the United States of New Orleans and of West and East Florida, or as much thereof as the actual proprietor can be prevailed on to part with." It was also required that ' ' the navigation of the river Mississippi, in its whole breadth from its source to the ocean and in all its passages to and from the same, shall be equally free and common to citizens of the United States and of the French Republic." It was suggested that if France declined to cede to us the whole of the island of Orleans then a part should be sought for, if no more than space enough upon which to establish a large commercial town on the bank of the river; or if unable to procure a complete jurisdiction over any convenient spot Thomas Jefferson in 1803, *t thp age of eo. By permission of McClure's Magazine Barbe Marbois. By pe-miss.on of Ihe Cosmopolitan Magajmo, THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 29 whatever, the envoys were instructed to secure a right of deposit with the privilege of holding real estate for commercial purposes. If the F'loridas could not be secured the envoys were to seek for suitable deposits at the mouths of the rivers passing from the United States through the Ploridas, as well as their free navigation. TWO PROMIXHNT ACTOR.S. There are two eminent persons in history to whose utterances at this distant day we can refer with confidence for authoritative information as to the details of the negotiations for, and as to what was included in, the Louisiana cession, and these are Marbois and Jefferson — the one of France, the other of America ; the one, who was Napoleon's negotiator, in selling; the other, who was our President, in buying lyouisiana. These men, as the noted representatives of the two countries in this transaction, may well be depended on to convey to us the most accurate information touching the cession in all its phases. Marquis de Marbois had a most intimate personal knowledge of our country and had contributed valuable aid in our revolutionary struggle. He was also a diplomat of wide experience, having served in 1769 as secretar\- of the French legation to the diet of the Empire, which held its sittings at Ratisbon ; later he served in the same character at Dresden, and was charge d'affaires at Bavaria, and was afterwards elected counsellor of the parliament of IMetz. In 1779 he was made secretary of the French legation and while here married an American, a resident of Philadelphia ; at all times he was a most devoted friend of our Republic. On his return to France his active temperament soon brought him in contact with the varying changes of government at that time. He suffered imprisonment, ostracism, and exile at some periods, while at others he enjoyed the most distinguished honors. During the reign of terror he was imprisoned, and recovered his liberty only with the fall of Robespierre. When Napoleon became First Consul he treated Marbois with marked favor, and in 1801 made him minister of the public treasury. During the negotiations for the cession of the Louisiana territory he was selected by Napoleon as plenipotentiary on the part of the French Republic. So grave a matter should properly have been intrusted to Talleyrand, but Mr. Monroe, in his memoirs tells us that Napoleon, addressing Marbois, said, "That being an affair of the treasury, I will commit it to you." It is, however, asserted that this wu.: not the real motive for intrusting this negotiation to Marbois, but was done because Napoleon had greater confidence in his integrity than he had in Talleyrand's. The following extract from a letter from Livingston to Madison, of April 13, 1803, may here be of interest, as it refers to M. Marbois, who related to Livingston an interview that he had with the First Consul : He ( Marbois ) then took occasion to mention his sorrow that any cause of difference sliould exist between our countries. The Consul told him, in reply, "Well, you have the charge of the treasury; let them give you one hundred million of Francs, and pay their own claims, and take the whole country." Seeing by my looks that I was surprised at .so extravagant a demand, he added that he con- sidered the demand as exorbitant, and had told the First Consul that the thing was impossible; that 30 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. we had not the means of raisinjtf that. The Consul told him we might borrow it. I now plainly saw the whole business: first, the Consul was disposed to sell; next, he distrusted Talleyrand, on account of the business of the supposed intention to bribe, and meant to put the negotiation into the hands of Marbois, whose character for integrity is established. (See American State Papers, I'oreitrn Rela- tions, vol. 2, p. 55,^. ) Whether this be true or otherwise, it is certain that our negotiators had great admiration for Marbois, as Monroe, in referring to the success obtained, says: I add with pleasure that the conduct of M. Marbois, in every stage of the negotiations, was liberal, candid and fair, indicating a very friendly feeling for the United States and a strong desire to preserve the most amicable relations between the two couiitries. THE A.MERICAN NEGOTIATORS. At this time Robert R. Livingston was the American minister to Paris. He had been judge of the admiralty court, a justice of the New York supreme court, and a memljer of the stamp act Congress in 1765. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress, where he was chosen one of a committee of five to draft the Declaration of Independence. He was appointed the first chancellor of New York and as such administered the oath of office to (xeorge Washington on his inauguration as first President of the United States. He was Secretary of P\)reigu Affairs for the United States from 1781 to 1783. In 1801 he resigned the chan- cellorship and accepted the mission to France. James Monroe, as before mentioned, was also appointed to aid in the negotia- tions, and was named as minister extraordinary. His life had been an eventful one. H(. joined the army in the revolution at the headqiuirters of Washington in New York as a lieutenant ; was with the troops at Harlem, White Plains and Trenton ; he also took part in the battles of Brand\wine, Germautown and Monmouth. He was a Representative in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Congresses of the Confederation; was elected a United States Senator from \'irginia in 1790, and held the office for four )-ears, when he was sent as envoy to France. He was governor of Virginia from 1799 to 1802. After Jefferson's election to the Presi- dencv he was returned to the French mission from which a few years before he had been recalled. From Paris he went to London as the accredited representa- tive of the United States to the Court of St. James. After his return he was chosen for the second time governor of Virginia, and afterwards became Secretary of State under President Madison. In 1814-15 he acted as ^Secretary of War. In 1816, at the age of 59, he was elected President of the United States, and was reelected in 182 1 with almost complete unanimity. Under his administration much important legislation was enacted ; he became conspicuous in his resist- ance to foreign interference in American affairs, and his name has become associated with the policy ever since known as the Monroe Doctrine, which now has the force of international law. His appointment to Paris at this particular time was a very popular one, especially in view of the well-known record he had made in advocacy of the American claim to the free navigation of the Mississippi Robert R. Livingston. ,i 1 I President Monroe. By permission of the Cosmopolitan Magazine. THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 31 river. Much was expected of him, and well this confidence was repaid as tlie result testified. His splendid service in the achievement accomplished was in aftrr years remembered, when he was elected to the Chief Ma;ed and when made a part t)f the final treaty the clause was as follows : Art. I. Whereas by the article the third of the treaty concluded at vSt. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendd- miaire, an. 9 (ist October, iSfw, ) between the I'irst Consul of the I'reneh Re])ublie and his catholic majesty, it was aj^reed as follows; " His catholic majesty jiromises an;ston asked Talleyrand for the descri])tion contained in the instructions jj^iven by his nation previously to Laussat, and which contained a definition of the cession. "What are the eastern bounds of Louis- iana?" asked Livingston. "I do not know," replied Talleyrand. "You must take it as we received it." "Hut what did you mean to take?" said Livingston. "I do not know," replied Talleyrand. "Then you mean that we shall construe it our own way?" said Livingston again, to which Talleyrand made final reply, "I can give you no direction. You have made a noble bargain for yourselves, and I suppose you will make the most of it." Our envoys did not worry long over this vexed problem. They were as eager as the F'rench to close the bargain and take the chances and, if need be, rely on future treaty stipulations for more certainty as to boundaries. It is evident that careful attention was not given to the agreement as an entirety, as many omissions were subsequently observed, which, if more care had been taken in its preparation would never have occurred, but as Livingston wrote to Madison: "I was willing to take it under any form. " The price agreed upon was finally fixed at 6o,uou,ooo francs, in the form of United States 6 per cent bonds, in value #11,250,000; and in addition to this our Government assumed the payment of certain debts due to our own citizens valued at 2o,ji tained by Livingston, but entered upon his conference the next day with zeal. | However this may be, Livingston richly merits our everlasting gratitude, and his \ name will go down with honor with those of Monroe and Jefferson. 36 THE LOUISIANA PURCHAvSE. THE MAGNITUDK OK THK PURCHASE. The entire area comprised in the Louisiana Purchase covers 883,072 square miles, and contains 565, 166,080 acres. This exchxdes the area west of the Rocky Mountains, and also tliat east of the. Mississippi, which latter by other treaties is counted as a portion of the Florida cession, and that frosn Oreat Britain. The original "Louisiana" contained appro .ximately 571,873,920 acres, and covered 89^,553 square miles. The area as given in the "Public Domain" and General Land Office Reports is 756, 961, 280 acres, or 1,182,752 square miles. This errone- ously includes the Oregon country. The Louisiana Purchase proper em'oraces the entire States of Arkan.sas, Mis- souri, Iowa, Nebraska, North and vSouth Dakota, parts of the States of Minnessota, Kansas, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana, all of the Indian Territory, and part of Oklahoma Territory. Its area is more than seven times that of Great Britain and Ireland; more than four times that of the German Empire, or of the Austrian Empire, or of France; more than three times that of Spain and Portugal; more than seven times the size of Italy and twice that of Egypt; nearly ten times that of Turkey and Greece; nearly three times that of Sweden and Norway, and nearly six times that of the Japanese Empire. It is also larger than Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy combined. It is about one-fourth less than the area of the thirteen original States. According to the census of 1890 it had then a population of 11,232,439. It produced in 1896, according to the reports of the Department of Agricul- ture, 1,145,137,081 bushels of corn, valued at 1191,812,676; 151,395,786 bushels of wheat, valued at 1111,488,251; and 260,822,175 bushels of oats, valued at $41,660,266. The value of real and personal property in 1890 was $3,190,456,461. The area of public lands disposed of to 1897 amounted to 510,858 square miles, while the public lands remaining unsnrveyed aggregated 125,192 square miles. The area unappropriated and .subject to entry equals 188,300 square miles. EARLY OPPOSITION TO ANNEXATION. In the face of every effort on the part of our Government to acquire valuable foreign territory, there have always been those high in authority and influential in the nation who predicted disaster, belittled the present or prospective value of the proposed acquisition, and discouraged the policy or disputed the constitu- tional authority for such additions to our domain, whether such extensions were by purchase or voluntary offering without price. It is, however, equally true, and a significant answer, that, without a single exception in our history, every such acquisition has proven immensely valuable, and while it enlarged it also .strength- ened and enriched our common country. In reviewing the industrial develop- THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 37 ment of the United States and their capacity for the absorption and support of the millions of population which we have invdted from other countries, it has been the wonder of the j^rcarest thinkers that, in our numerous acquisitions of such vast areas, we should not have added much more waste and worthless domain to our i^ossessions. With our present knowledge and appreciation of the Louisiana cession, it may be of interest, at this time, to reproduce the exact language used ninety-five years ago by many in this country in severe condemnation of this cession. Jefferson himself suffered bitter detraction and personal ridicule. I append various extracts from speeches in the Senate and House of Representa- tives in relation to that cession, viz: Senator Pickering, of Massachusctls, November 3, 1803, said: It is declared in the third article (of the treaty ) that "the inhabiUinls of the ceded territory shall he incorporated in the Union of the United States." But neither the President and Senate, nor the President and Conjjress, are competent to such an act of incorporation. He believed the assent of each individual State to he necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union. Senator Tracy, of Connecticut, said: We can hold territory; but to admit the iidiabitants into the Union, to make citizens of them, and States, by treaty, we can not constitutionally do; and no subsequent act of legislation, or even ordinary amendment to our Constitution can legalize such measures. If done at all, they must be done by universal consent of all the States or partners to our political association. Representative Griswold, of Connecticut, October 25, 1803, said: It is noi. consistent with the spirit of a republican governmetit that its territory should be exceedingly l-irge; for, as you extend your limits you increase the difficulties arising from a want of that similarity af customs, habits and niatuiers so essential for its support. It will not be found eitlie in the report of the secret comtnittee which has recently been published, or in any document or debate, that any individual entertained the least wi.sh to obtain the province of Louisiana; our views were then confineril /_?, iSoS. To Mr. John Jacob Astor. Sir, — I have regretted the delay of this answer to your letter of I-'ebruary 27th, but it has pro- ceeded from circumstances which did not depend on me. I learn with great satisfaction the disposition 42 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. of our merchants to form into companies for undertaking the Indian trade within our own territories. I have been taught to believe it an advantageous one for the individual adventurers, and I consider it as highly desirable to have that trade centred in the hands of our own citizens. The field is immense, and would occupy a vast extent of capital by different companies engaging in different districts. All beyond the Mis,sis.sippi is ours exclusively, and it will be in our power to give our own traders great advantages over their foreign competitors on this side the Missis.sippi. You may be assured that in order to get the whole of this business passed into the hands of our own citizens, and to oust foreign traders, who so much abuse their privilege by endeavoring to excite the Indians to war on us, every reasonable patronage and facility in the power of the Executive will be afforded. I .salute you with respect. Whatever the motive may have been which prompted the Iyewi.s and Clarke expedition, it remains as the first exploration of the valley of the Columbia river, from its head to the sea, and forms a snbstantial link in the chain throngh which we deduced our rightful claim to that entire country later on. Lewis and Clarke arrived at the mouth of the Columbia river November 15, 1805, where they con- structed Fort Clatsop, and remained during the wit? er of 1805-1806. Upon the return of the expedition, Lewis was very approprii .dy sei ted as governor of Louisiana, while later his old associate, Captain Clarke, with equal propriety, was appointed by President Madison, in 1813, governor of the Missouri Territory. As a further evidence of the nation's gratitude mimificent grants of public lands were bestowed upon each of these men. THE FLORIDA BOUNDARIES UNCERTAIN. The cession of Louisiana from France being now complete, the previous uncertainty as to the western boundary of the Floridas became a prolific source of trouble and anxiety to several nations, and at one time pressed our country to the verge of war. When Talleyrand said to Livingston: " Do you want the whole of Louisiana?" Livingston replied, "No; only New Orleans and the Floridas." He was then of the opinion that France possessed the Floridas. Livingston also convinced Monroe that the Floridas were included in the Louisiana Purchase. President Jefferson was at one time in doubt upon this point. This may seem incredible, but when it is understood that the secret treaty of Paris of October i, 1800, retroceding Louisiana to France was not made public in full until 1820, when for the first time it appeared in the French and Spanish languages, it can be seen how erroneous impressions were then formed. Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Madison (then Secretary of State), a few months afLer the cession to us, is of interest on this line : M0NTICEI,I,0, August 2S, fSoj. Dear Sir,— Your two favors of the i8th and 20th were received on the 2 1st. * » * I suppose Monroe will touch on the limits of Louisiana only incidentally, inasmuch as its extension to Perdido curtails Florida, and renders it of less worth. I have used my spare moments to investigate, by the help of my books here, the subject of the limits of Louisiana. I am satisfied our right to the Perdido is substantial, and can be opposed by a quibble on form only; and our right westwardly to the Bay of St. Bernard, may be strongly maintained. I will use the first leisure to make a state- ment of the facts and principles on which this depends * ■» * THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 43 At the time of the retrocession to France it was understood and admitted by all parties that the Floridas were in the physical possession of Spain ; the language of the Louisiana sale to our nation reads: "Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France pos- sessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States" ; and as our negotiators understood that at one time the western part of the Floridas formed a portion of Louisiana, Livingston insisted that our purchase included the same. "What are the eastern bounds of Louisiana?" he asked of Talleyrand. "I do not know ; you must take it as we received it," was the reply. "But what do you mean to take?" asked Livingston. "I do not know," said Talleyrand. In the face of this attempted interpretation of the purchase by Livingston, there remained of record in the State Department at Washington his reply of the year before to the French minister, who inquired as to our meaning of the extent of Louisiana, and Livingston replied: " Since the possession of the Floridas by Britain and the treaty of 1763, I think there can be no doubt as to the precise meaning of the terms." He had also urged that Napoleon intercede with Spain for the Floridas. It is true that there was some plausibility in the other view. The French claimed the Iberville by discovery, and, under the rule, could well claim the country drained by it to the eastward. Following up the Mississippi river from the mouth of the Iberville, the same country along the east of the river was claimed by France and conceded later by Spain. Was it not natural that the eastern bank of the Iberville and the country drained by it should also belong to France? The first attempt to define boundaries was in the treaty of 1763, wherein France agrees with England that the confines between the two countries shall be a line "along the middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the river Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the sea ; and for this purpose, the most Christian King cedes in full right and guarantees to his Britannic Majesty, the river and port of Mobile, and everything which he possesses, or ought to possess, on the left side of the river Mississippi, except the town of New Orleans and the island in which it is situated," England in the same treaty became possessed of Florida from Spain, and hence the occasion for defining the lines between France and England. If West Florida belonged to France and was included in the cession by France to England " of everything which he possesses on the left side of the river Mississippi," and subsequently was included in the retrocession of F'lorida to Spain by England, might it not be claimed by Livingston as being included in the Louisiana Purchase under the terms " with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it?" Based on such reasoning, Livingston and Monroe wrote to Madison June 7, 1803: We consider ourselves so strongly founded in this conclusion that we are of opinion the United States should act on it in all the measures relative to Louisiana, in the same manner as if West Florida was comprised within the island of New Orleans; or, lay to the west of the river Iberville. (State Papers, ii, 564-5. ) 44 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. President Jefferson was even more radical than Livingston, as his letter to William Dnnbar explains, as follows: Washington, March 13, 1S04. To WiLUAM DrNnAR, Esq., Dear , Sir, — Your favor of January 28 has been duly received, * * * We were much indebted for your comnuinications on the subject of Louisiana The substance of what was received from you, as well as others, was digested together and printed, without letting it be seen from whom the partic- ulars came, as some were of a nature to excite ill-will. Of these publications I sent you a copy. On the .subject of the limits of Louisiana, nothing was said therein, becau.se we thought it be.st first to have explanations with Spain. In the first visit, after receiving the treaty, which I paid to Monticello, which was in Augu.st, I availed my.self of what I have there, to investigate the limits. While I was in Europe, I had purchased everything I could laj' tny hands on which related to any part of America, and particularly had a pretty full collection of the English, French and Spani.sh authors, on the suVjject of Louisiana. The information I got from the.se was entirely satisfactory, and I threw it into a shape which would easily take the form of a memorial. I now enclo.se you a copy of it. One single fact in it was taken from a publication in a newspaper, supposed to be written by Judge Bay, who had lived in West Florida. This asserted that the country from the Iberville to the Perdido was to this day called Louisiana, and a part of the government of Louisiana. I wrote to you to ascertain that fact, and received the information you were so kind as to send me; on the receipt of which I changed the form of the assertion, so as to adapt it to what I suppose to be the fact, and to reconcile the testimony I have received, to wit, that though the name and division of West Florida have been retained; and in strictness, that country is still called by that name ; yet it is also called Louisiana in common parlance, and even in some authentic public documents. The fact, however, is not of much importance. It would only liave been an ari^iiiitciitinn ad homincm. Although I would wish the paper enclosed never to be .seen bj' anybody but yourself, and that it should not even be mentioned that the facts and opinions therein .stated are founded in public authority, yet I have no objections to'their being freely advanced in conversation, and as private and individual opinion, believing it will be advantageous that the extent of our rights should be known to the inhabitants of the country; and that however we may compromise on our Western limits, we never shall on the Eastern. * '^ * That James Madison, the Secretary of State, also seriously considered this view may be inferred from his instructions to Monroe, of date July 29, 1803, in which he said: Your inquiries may also be directed to the question, whether any, and how much, of what passes for West Florida, be fairly included in the territory ceded to us by France? Later on Madison became more positive, and he wrote Monroe, April 15, 1804, that : . It is indispen-sable that the United States be not precluded from such a con.struction, [of the treaty] first, because they consider the right as well founded; secondly, and principallj-, because it is known that a great proportion of the most valuable lands between the Mississippi and the Perdido have been granted by Spanish officers since the cession was made by Spain. These illicit speculations can not otherwise be frustrated than by considering the territory as included in the cession made by Spain, Monroe received assurances that negotiation for Florida could be entertained for a money consideration, but he replied that our government having purchased that territory once he should not advise that it be bought a second time. Talley- rand had by this time taken a very decided stand against our claim, and now united with Spain for the Iberville and the Mississippi as the eastern boundary. THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 45 Pensacola at that time evidently marked the western limits of Florida as they understood it, as then the place was a fort, containing 300 Spaniards from Vera Crnz. Bancroft says in his history (Vol. Ill, p. 347): This prior occupation is the reason why afterwards Pensacola remained a part of Florida, and the dividing line between that province and Ivouisiana was drawn between the bays ol Pensacola and Mobile. This was on the Perdido river, to which President Jefferson again referred, and especially in his letter from Monticello to Mr. Ikeckenridgc: We have sojne claims, to extend on the sea coast westwardly to the Rio Nortt- or Bravo, and better, to go eastwardly to the Rio Perdido, between Mobile and Pensiicola, the ancient boundary of Louisiana. These claims will be a subject of negotiation with Spain, and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongly with one hand, holding out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Ploridas, and all in good time. As will be seen, Jefferson always insisted that Lonisiana properly extended as far eastward as the Perdido river, which is situated between Mobile river and Pensacola. Franquelin's map of 1684, made direct from La Salle's own descrij)- tion of his discovery at the time, gives reason for this position. Louis XIV also claimed all this portion of Florida in his grant to Crozat "in all the lands, pos- sessed by lis, and bounded by New Mexico, and by the lands of the English Carolina, all the establishments, ports, havens, rivers, and principally the port or I'.aven of the Isle Dauphine, heretofore called ]\Iassacre. " This island is west- ward of the mouth of Mobile Bay. There is also in evidence a letter from De Tonty addressed to La Salle, dated April 20, 1685. In this he expresses his great uneasiness in not having found him, and says: "Two canoes have exain- ined the coast thirty leagues toward Mexico and twenty-five toward Florida." (Falconer's Mississippi, 29.) This was eastward from the mouth of the Missis- sippi, taking in the coast and mouths of rivers claimed by Spain as West Florida. It also indicates that La Salle's men recognized the country known as Florida, but it was much further east than as claimed by Spain. THE UNITED STATE.S DISPOSSESSES SPAIN. After the cession of 1803 the United States insisted upon a more liberal construction as to boundaries, and attempted a negotiation with Spain at Madrid in 1804. It was contended that the country west of the Perdido river, and west and south to the river Bravo del Norte, with all the intermediate rivers and all the countries drained by them not previously acquired by the United States, should be included in the terms of the purchase of 1803 from France. The Spanish Government denied our rights to any country east and west of the Mississippi, except as to New Orleans with the country on the east immediately contiguous to it, together with the country bordering on the west bank of the Mississippi. It will be seen that as to the country directly east of the island of 46 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. New Orleans (which was what Spain previously claimed as West Florida) it was admitted tliat our nation was entitled to it. The attempt at negotiation, however, failed. Acting on the popular belief, Congress, in 1812, authorized the general assembly of Louisiana to include in its limits a portion of West Florida, in the face of the claims of Spain. Tlie people of Louisiana persistently claimed it as a part of the Louisiana Purchase. The people within the disputed territory likewise made the same claim, and insisted on separate recognition. On September 26, 1810, a declaration of independence from 8i)ain was made by the inhabitants of West Florida, and a copy sent to the President of the United States. The first public notice, given to the inhabitants of West F'lorida of the claim of tjie United States to the country, was the proclamation of President Monroe of October 27, 18 10, which was accompanied by a force that dispossessed the government o£ Spain. In this proclamation, the President declares that the question of title shoitld remain open for negotiation. Possession was taken by Governor Claibourne, December 7, 18 ro, and this was followed by the protest of Mr. Morier, British minister to Washington, against the acts of the President. The Congress of the United States, acting upon the opinion that the cession included the territory west of the Perdido river, on February 24, 1804 (2 Stat., 251), passed an act for laying and collecting duties in the disputed territor)-. By act of March 26, 1804 (2 Stat., 283), an act was passed erecting Louisiana into two territories, the Territory of Orleans to contain the disputed territory. In October, 1810, the President issued his proclamation directing the governor of Orleans Territory to take possession of the country as far east as the Perdido. April 14, 1812 (2 Stat., 708), an act was passed which enlarged the limits of the State of Louisiana, and described lines that include the lands in controversy. May 14, 1812 (2 Stat., 734), an act was passed annexing the residue of the country west of the Perdido to Mississippi Territory. March 3, 1817 (3 Stat., 371), Congress included a part of the disputed terri- tory in the Territory of Alabama. It will thus be seen that the political departments of the government have asserted the claina of the United States to such territory, and the judicial depart- ment followed in their footsteps. An excellent resum^ of the various treaties involving the lands in question will be found in the case of Foster v. Neilson (2 Peters, 253). The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in this case does not pass directly upon the construction of the treaty of 1803, but decides the case upon the ground that the question of ownership of the disputed territory had already been determined by the political department of the government. The court says, referring to the various acts of Congress and Executive orders: After these acts of sovereign power over the territory in dispute, asserting the American con- struction of the treaty by which the Government claims it, to maintain the opposite construction in its own courts would certainly be an anomaly in the history and practice of nations. If those depart- THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 47 ments which are intrusted with the foreijjn intercourse of the iiatioii wliicli assert and maintain its interests against foreiji^n powers have unequivocally asserted its rights of dominion over a country of which it is in possession, ani4 sheep, valued at $4,409,457, with iier annual crops of cereals and, fruits, and her rich commerce by land and water — who does not feel proud of the Texan annexation, and hold in veneration the memory of the farsij^hted and patriotic men who brouj^dit it about? OUR NATION CLAIMS BEYOND THE ROCKIES. While the expedition of lycwis and Clarke was not conceived ori<;inally for the purpose of attaininj^ political ends, yet the disclosures made as to the marvel- ous country traversed by these explorers aroused a lively interest throughout our nation. When finally, by the treaty of 18 19, we .secured the claims of Spain north of the forty-.second dej^ree of latitude, we more than ever valued Ciray's discovery of the mouth of the Columbia and the Astoria settlement, throujfh which alone we deduced an almost incontestable ri<;ht. At last a national interest had .so crystallized about this romantic rej^ion westward of the Rockies that soon it was to break forth in the war cry of "I'Mfty-four, Forty, or Fifrht." The restoration of the Astoria .settlement (or Fort (leorj^e), on the Columbia river, to the American.s, pursuant to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, was a most substantial confirmation b\' Great Hritain of the American claim ; it was also a .stinmlus for increased effort toward final recojijnition of our rights. Nejjo- tiations with Eni;land were resorted to by our nation, which was represented by Rush and Gallatin, while Enjjland was represented I)y Goulbnrn and Robinson. Our plenipotentiaries proposed that the line should be drawn from the north- western extremity of the Lake of the Woods, north or south, as the ca.se mi Roxo westwanl, to the de)^ree of longitude i(«) west from London and 2,^ from \Vashin>j;ton; then crossinji; the said Re/ y / ~7 7-77/ fi ' to W ''-,.••■ / 7-7 / X-7 / / 7-A/ ^-^ /' / / ■ -A- J / / / 7^-* /- / / 170 "7 ^ I6S° 160' 155' ISO ' ; , / ' I4i" 140 135 130' 125° 120 ' n ^ / V"' 7 ^"""^'d^/-^ ^w / 7 J t^wvr^--- ■ - • •- / ..:\ ■ V u^.>«-3%' -''**'^' LJr li**: 1 ' \ X ^i*! I •0 56" i 1 \ I -f-i r 160^ [4 ■44-4 -I r- -f-, I ! L:-t--- ALASKA C 1 Reported gold discoven&s. . [7~~~1 Cbfl'/ deposits . EliS Copper deposits. \ Q Z.a/7a' Offices. i i ZG/7cy district boundaries. 1— -_^ O Capita/, Surveyor General's Office \ j Routes to interior. Proposed Railroads- VKOii *-' ,-^—- r^ (^ 155" ISO" 145 140" us-^ 52 ^ i»^ii u, .:> ^ \ ^^^'x: \ *■»''». /./l^/., !/ ,ii' ■.■■'>■■»'■). >!i^- # u4-4 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 53 tnild clinidtu and fruitful soil of the l''nite(l States with its newsiiaptTs and churches, its railroads and commerce, its civilization and refinement, to surk a home ainon^j the Aleuts * * * is simply to suppose such person insane. Mr. Williams, of Pennsylvania, said: Have the people desired it? [The purchase of Alaska.] Not a sensible man amonj^ thetn had ever su>{>jested it. The whole country e.xclainie\>, but for the single reason that the contract has been made. Mr. Wasliburnc, of Illinoi.s, January 13, i86g (after the Territory had been purchased, speaking on the bill to provide a government for the same), said: The accounts which we receive froni that Territory of the sickness and sufferinjr of the people who are sent there show conclusively that it will never be inhabited to any considerable extent by white men. Mr. Ferriss, New York, speaking on the same bill, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: That the Presi 850, 000 Year. Amount. 1S89, 1890 1891 1S92 1S9.V 1S94 1S9.S 1S96 1897 5900. 000 762. UX) yoo, 000 I, 000. 0(X) I. 010, KX) 1, ll.v.S.SO l.ftlS, ,V*' 2, 055, 700 2, 4,(9, 000 ' 54 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. THE FISH OF ALASKA. In 1897 the fish product was vahied at $2,977,019. Not only salmon, but cod, halibut and herring abound. In 1897, 34 canneries and 14 salteries e.xported 1,086,650 cases and 15,888 barrels of fish. The tin alone con.siuued in these can- neries is valued at about half a million dollars. In response to an inquir\- addressed to the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, the honorable Commis- sioner replied with the following most interesting statement: Complying with your request for an approximate statement of the aggregate vahie of the Alaskan fisheries since the purchase of the Territory, I have based an estimate on the best figures available, although for many of the years only very nieager data are obtainable. The total value of these fish- eries, excluding the whale fishery prosecuted in Alaskan waters by vessels from San I'rancisco, appears to have been about )|t67,890,cxK). It is possible that this sum is as much as 10 per cent above or below the actual amount. This opportunity is taken to draw your attention to the remarkable productiveness of the Alaskan waters as regards salmon. During the fifteen years that have elapsed since the inauguration of wdmon canning, 7,065,422 cases of salmon, each containing 4.S one-pound cans, and I44,(xx) barrels of salt sjilmon have been prepared. The gross weight of the fish thus utilized was 610,995,640 pounds, and the market value of the output was about $30,000,000. THE ALASKAN FUR SEALS. The fur industry has long been a most lucrative traffic, and China for many years was the place of shipment and market. Captain Cook, in one of his voyages, touched at Unalaska in 1776, where he found the Russians even at that early day. In mentioning this circumstance, he says: There are Russians upon all the principal islands between Unala.ska and Kamschatka for the sole purpose of collecting furs. Their great object is the sea beaver and otter. The Alaska Commercial Company possessed a monopoly of the fur-seal indus- try under a twenty years' lease from our Government, and at its expiration, in 1890, the company had paid into the United States Treasury about $6,000,000. The fur sales by this one company are estimated to have equaled $33,000,000. The North American Commercial Company, under its twenty years' lease, beginning April i, 1890, paid $340,395, and there is claimed from said company the further sum of $1,134,553 on account of the same lease, for the privilege of taking fur-.seal skins on the Pribilof Islands. This one item of fur seals, then, represents a value inuring to the United States Treasury exceeding the entire price paid Russia for all of Alaska. UNITED STATES LAND DISTRICTS. Three land districts are now created there, with offices at Sitka, Circle, and Nulatto, and Congress has recently extended the public-land laws, with certain modifications, to that Territory. This, then, is the Alaskan domain, with an extreme length of 2,000 miles, and larger in area than the thirteen original States, and for this domain our government William H. Seward. THP: LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 55 paid 2 cents per acre. This is the Alaska for which the j^reat Secretary vSeward suffered innch criticism. He lived, however, to see substantial evidence of the value of his purchase, and confidently predicted that the future would demon- strate its exceedinj,' importance to our country. In his last days he fondly and often referred to this purchase. A friend at this time said to him: "Mr. Seward, what do you consider the most important measure of your political career?" "The purchase of Alaska," he .said, "but it will take the people a generation to find it out." JOINT OCCUPANCY AND NEGOTIATION. President Monroe, and after him President Adams, continued to call the attention of Congress to the necessity for military posts on the Pacific within our claim, and each time the discussions in Congress elicited more valuable informa- tion respecting the country, its productiveness, its climatic advantages and its future commercial importance to the nation. The ten-year period, provided for joint occupancy with Great Rritain on the Pacific, being about to expire, negotiations between our government and that nation were renewed, and both nations repeated their previous offers, with .some modifications by both parties. Mr. (iallatin insisted for the line of the fortv- ninth degree, while the British named the Columbia River, with the right of navigation, though they were also willing to add .some detached territory from Bullfinches Harbor to the Straits of Fuca, and from the Pacific to Hoods Channel. The British ultimatum was in the following language : The boundary line between the territories claimed by His Britinnic Majesty and those claimed by the United States to the west of the Rocky Mountains, shall be drawn due west alonjc the forty- ninth parallel of north latitude to the point where that parallel strikes the jjreat northeasternmost bninch of the Oregon or Columbia River— marked in the maps as McGillivrays River— thence down alonj; the middle of the Oregon or Columbia to its junction with the Pacific Ocean, the navigation of the whole channel being perpetually free to the subjects and citizens of both parties. THE MYSTERY OK THE FGRTY-XIXTH PARALLEL. It seems incomprehensible that our early statesmen should differ so radically as to the northern parallel claimed by us as a boundary from the Rocky Moun- tains to the Pacific, some claiming the fortv-ninth parallel and otlicrs claiming 54° 40'. The evidonces which I shall present impel me to the conclusion that our inconsistent claims result largely from a mistaken belief as to what occurred pursuant to the treaty of Utrecht. As has been seen by the reading of the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Mellish, he states that "France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle the boundary between their pos.sessions, " and that "those commissioners settled it at the forty-ninth degree of latitude." Hence he concludes that such parallel became the northern boundary of Louisiana, this territory being then a possession of France. 56 THK LOUISIANA I'l'RCIIASK. (i As tothcorij^inalcrnirand tlic evidences in explanation, I submit the following very interestin)^ data : (Kxtrni't friiiM ' I'liperx rmtierliiiK the iMiiiucl^irv i)f tlu- fmU-il Stairs, ilrlivrrril to l,oril Miirniwliy Sfiitciiilier 5, iSft4, '• by Mr. Monroi-. | Hy till' tfiith iirtioK- of tlu- troiity nf rtri'cht [171.^). it is !ij;rfi'il "tliat I'miice .shall ri'Slf)rf to Great Mritaiii llu' bay and straits of lliulsoti. tonrtluT with all lamls, .si'as. suacoa.sts, riviTs, and ])laci'.s situate in the said hay and .straits which Ik-Iouk thereto," ite. It is also a^reeil "that eotiiniissaries shall he forthwith a|)])ointeil liy eai'h I'ower to determine, within a year, the limits between the said bay of Hudson and the places ajiperlainin^; to the I'Veneh ; and also to describe and settle, in like manner, thi' lioundaries ln-'tween the other Mritish and I'Vench colonies in those parts." Commissaries were accordinjfly ap]Kiinted by each I'ower, who executed the stipulations of the treaty in estat)lishinK the boni*laries proposed by it. They fixed the northern boundary of Canada and Louisiana by a line beKinnin).; on the .\tlantic, at a cape or promontory in ,sS° v>' north latitude; thence, southwestwardly, to the lake Mislasin; thence, further southwest, to the latitude 49° north from the ecpiator, and alonj; that line indefinitely. At the time this treaty was formed I'rance ]H>s.sessed Canada and Louisiana, * » * By the fourth article of the treaty of 176^, I'rance ceded to Creat Hritain Canada, Nova Scotia, &c., in the north; and, by the seventh article, thi bay and i)ort of .Mobile, and all the territory which .she pos.sessed to the left of the Missis.sippi, except the town and island of New Orleans. Hy the seventh article it was al.so stipulated, that a line to be drawn alonj; the middle of the Mississi])pi, from its .source to the river Il)erville, and thence alou>; the middle of that river, and the lakes Maurepas and Tontchartrain, to the sea, should be the boundary between the British territory to the eastward, and Louisiana to the west. .\t that time it was understood, as it has been ever since, till very lately, that the Mi.ssis.si])pi took its .source in .some mountain at least as high north as the forty-ninth ;ree of north latitude. By the treaty of 17S3, l)etween the I'nited States and (ireat Britain the boundary Iietween * * * to the Lake of the Woocls, and throujjh that lake to the northwestern point thereof; thence, a due west course, to the Missis.sippi. * * * By joining, then, the western boundary of Canada to its northern in the Lake of the Woods, and closing both there, it follows that it was the obvious intention of the ministers who negotiated the treaty, and of their respective (iovernnieiits, that the rnite;ht, have followed the heiy;ht of land definin.tj the southern limits of the territory of the Hudson Ha\ Company as jjiven in the ()ri<;[inal charter. Jeffery\s map of 1762, showinj.j the southern boundary as described above, is reproduced in the " Report on the boundaries of Ottawa, 1873," a report of a spe- cial committee appointed by the Dominion Parliament to iiupiire into the disjMited boundaries of Ottawa and Manitoba. Relative to the statement in rejjard to the commis.saries under the treaty of Utrecht markinj; the forty-ninth parallel, I have since found the following- in the Notes ui)on the Foreijj^n Treaties of the United States, etc., by John H. Haswell, of the Department of State, January, iSSg, pa}j;e 1324: ThtTf i.s no evidence, either in the I'rench or Hritish archives, of the appointment of a boundary cotntnission under the treaty of I'trecht; and in a nieinorial of the Hudson Hay Cotn])any, niarkeil as received Aujjust 13, 1719, it is stated that "the r\innin){ of a line l)etwixt the I-lnj^lish and I'rench territories yet remained t» he done." (Mr. Hancroft to Mr. I'ish. Sept. 1, 1S73. MS. Dept. of State. ) This view is further confirmed by Mr. (ireenhow, who says: The conclusion wouUi be undeniable, if the i)remi.ses on which it is founded were correct. The tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht does certainly stipulate that coinmis.saries should be appointed by the j^overnments of Great Britain and I'rance, respectively, to tletennine the line of separation between their posses.sions in the northern part of .\nierica above specified ; and there is reason to believe that jK-rsons were commissioned for that object: /'/// ///ritish Hudson's Bay territories on the south. 58 THE LOUISIANA Pl'RCHASK. It is true that on sonic maps of northern America, puhlished ahont the middle of the hist century, a line drawn ah)njj the forty-ninth parallel does ap])ear as a part of the be .mlary between the French possessions and the Hudson Hay terri- tories, as settled accordinjj; to the treaty of Utrecht. Hut on other maps, which are deservedly held in higher estimation, n ilifftrciit lini\ Jollira'iuir the course of the hii^hlandi eneire/ini^ Hudson lia\\ is presented as the limit of the Hudson Hay territory, ajjreeable to the same treaty; and in other majis enjoyinj^ etiual if not ji;reater consideration published under the immediate direction of the British jjoverninent, no line sefinrotim; those liritish possessions front Louisiana or Canada is to he seen. In the other works, political, historical, and jjjeoj^rajiliical, which have been examined with reference to this question, nothiii}^ has been found calculated to sustain the belief///^// any line of separation xeas e:er settled or even proposed^ nor has any trace of such an ajjjreement been iliscovered in the archives of the (kjiart- iiieut of foreijjn affairs of France, which have been searched with the view of ascertaining the fact. When Monroe became President he still maintained his theory as to the forty- ninth parallel, and his Secretary of State, .Mr. .Vdams, coinmentin;^ on our claim, July 22, 1823, said: The right of the United Status from forty-.secoiul to forty-ninth dej^rees on the Pacific we consider as unquest'->nal)Ie. Aj^aiii, ill June, 1826, Mr. Clay, beinjf Secretary of vState for Mr. Monroe, instructed our minister that he was authorized to offer an extension of the line of 49° to the Hacific as a boundary. He said: Tliis is our ultiniutuin, and you may so announce it. We rnii consent to no line more favorable to Great Britain. The most pronounced declaration hostile to these repeated views was that enunciated by the Democratic National Convention in 184.^, which nominated Mr. Polk for the Presidency. It was unanimously resolved by that convention — That our title to the whole of Orejjon is clear and un(|uestionahIe; that no ixirtion of the s.inie oujjlit to he ceded to I^nKland or any other jM)wer. And it was urged against Mr. Clay that in 1826, while Secretary, in his instruc- tions to Mr. (iallatin, he first declared that (ireat Hritain had not, and could not make out "even a colorable atle to any portion of the northwest coast," yet in the same communication he had authorized Mr. (iallatin to "propo.se the annul- ment of the convention of 1818 ami the extension of the line on the parallel o( 49" from the eastern side of the 'Stony Mouniains' to the Pacific, together with the free navigation of the Columbia." Mr. Polk was pledged to retain the whole of the Oregon territory, but when he became President he, too, felt obliged to follow his predecessors, though not con- ceding to (ireat Hritain any right whatever. H»>, however, would not agree to THK LoriSIAXA PURCHASE. 59 allow the fn-e naviifatioii of the Cohunbia. Hr cousidcrid that all ofTcrs l)y our ncj^otiators of tin.- tbrty-ninth ])arallel could not, with any h(>])t' of success, be eiilarj^ed by him. Three separate attempts had l)een made nnder Presidents Monroe and Adams, in iSiK, 1S24, and 1826, and all on the line of the forty-ninth dey;ree, and Tyler repeated the offer in 1S43. Polk accepted this ])arallel as a boundary — not as a ri<^ht, but as a compromise. In his messaj^e to Conj^ress ii. 1S45 he sid)mitled such views. When the treaty of 1S46 was before the Senate for ratification Mr. Heuton expressed the view that the forty-ninth parallel was ours as a matter of ri^ht, as it was also a line of convenience between the two nations. Jle arjj;ued that it ])arled the two systems of water — those of the Columbia and those of the iMaser; that it also conformed to the actual discoveries and settlemenls of both ]>arties. There was not on the face of .lie earth, he .said, .so ionj^ and .so straij^ht a line or one .so adapted to the rijLjhts of the parties and the fcattires of the country. He insisted that the forty-ninth parallel had been agreed upon by the commissioners: This l)i>uiitlary was aaiiiiesi'cd in for a tiiiiiilri.'^i' of inconsistency. To tho.se who believed as did Mr. Henton on this line, and who also believed that the Louisiana I'urcha.se extended to the Pacific, this position was consistent; but to tho.se who claimecl that our title to the country westward of the Rocky Mountains was derived throuj,di discovery, or thron},di the reliiuiuishment of the Spanish claim, or both, the forty-ninth parallel cotild only be accepted as Mr. Polk held, as a com|)ronjise, but not as a fixed rij^ht, and such view is without any original authority to sustain it, so far as it may be derived throuji^h the treaty of Utrecht. If our ri}j[ht west of the Rocky Mountains was obtained thnrnj^h Captain (iray's discovery, and throuj^h the relin(|uishment of the vSi)anish claim, then, as aj^ainst (ireat Hritaiu, our line should have been 54° 40', and all reference to previous adju.stments east of the Rocky Mountains on the line of 49" for boundary between the I'n;.;h commissioners had .settled a boundary, as Mr. Monroe believed, their action could not have had in contemplation country not in po.s- session of I'Vance. CONTINl'Hl) NHCOTIATION. The second ueootiation on the line of the forty-ninth parallel, in whichMr. (iallatin appeared for the United States, projrres.se(l, and }.jreat interest was mani- fested by the people of l)oth nations. .\j;aiu the parties failed to aj^ree, and aj^ain another extension of time was allowed for joint occupancy, this time, however, for an indefinite peritul, either party beiuj^ at liberty to abrogate the extension by j.nvin).j one year's notice. The United States closed this second .ittempt by adherinj^ to the claim for all 6o THE LOUISIANA I'lRCHASK. the coiintn- from the forty-second to the forty-ninth dep^rees of north latitude. The del)ate attendinjj the conference was marked by a hij^h order of ability, the diplomatic skill, clear logic, and industrial research shown by Mr. Gallatin being especially conspicuous. The conference was followed by a long interval of time, during which little was said or done in Congress in reference to the disputed terri- tor\'. Among the people, however, much advance was quietly being made. Exploring parties, trading companies and missionaries were each year finding their way by water and by land to the country. Associations were formed in various States to emigrate to what now became more generally known as the "Oregon country." These people in turn opened u]) communication with those left behind, thereby adding nmch to the general knowledge of the country and creating renewed interest in that region; this renewal of interest brought addi- tional influence upon Congress from the more western vStates in the form of petitions from legislatures and public assemblages demanding action on the part of the government and a more aggressive assertion of our rights to the country claimed. HALL J. KELLEV'.S I.MMIOR.\TIO.\ SCHRMK.S. Perhaps no one at so early a date did so nmch to arouse public attention to Oregon as did Hall J. Kelley, a graduate of Harvard University, of pious yet sus- picious temper, and a lover of travel and exploration. He was peculiar in many characteristics, and was thought by many at the time to be a mere enthusiast and dreamer, yet he was a man of learning, undaunted courage, and inflexible deter- mination. His self-sacrifices and adventures read at the present time more like romance, as his observations and conclusions pointing to the future of the country seem like prophecy. As early as 1815 he became active in his attention to that disputed domain. He was constantly acquiring information from the trapper, the explorer, and the navigator. He proclaimed the supreme right of our country to that land, and believed it a duty to acquire it, not only for its value in a commercial sense and for expansion of American empire, but also for the humanitarian work of Christiani/ing the Indian. He organized a land expedition in 1828, which failed because of lack of confidence in the success of the undertaking. This was followed later by an attempt to fit out an expedition by sea, with a view of locating a colony on Pnget Sound. This also failed. In 1829 he incorporated a society for Oregon immigration. Lands were to be cultivated, towns built, ports established, trade opened by water to the islands and to the Orient, and schools and churches were to be encouraged. He lectured and printed much information on Oregon, and was the author of a variety of books and pamphlets on his favorite subject. A circular was published and distributed far and wide; it contained a description of the country and of the routes of travel, with a glowing outlook for the future. Con- gress was memorialized to aid his undertaking, and prominent men connected with the Government were importuned to cooperate with him in securing a grant of THE I.oriSIANA PURCHASE. 6l 25 square miles of laiul in the Columbia River Valley for colonial purposes. In 1834 he reached ()re<;on, after lony^ and most adventuresome travel, and there, in that promised land, suffered in ways which clouded the happiness of his after life, which continued until the ripe aj:[c of H5 years. On his return his published accounts of Orejj^on were remarkably accurate; and his su}j;}j^eslions for improving the entrance of the Columbia river, with information as to the shipbuildinjj^ facili- ties of Pufret Sound, and the timber, minerals, climate, and soils of Oregon, were all verified by closer observation in later years. Senators Linn and Henton, in their lou}^ stru}^<;le in the United States Senate for our title to Orej^on, had freipient occasion to consult Hall J. Kclley as an authority on that country. He induced many persons to j^o there, who in turn encourai^ed others, and substantial Ijcnefits followed, due directly and indirectly to his efforts. He lived to behold the j.;;r()wth of a mij^hty em])ire, and the formation of States and Territories, from what was a comparatively unexplored and unknown rejjjion when he first jJublLshed to the world a narrative of its then incredible resources, with a foresi}.(ht of its majjnifi- cent destiny. It may, indeed, be true, as was said ;eneral information obtained of the country and of the aborij^itud inhabitants, as well as of the IJritish fur- tradinjj^ companies, all of which, bein^ published officially and under the super- vision of the government, attracted j^reater attention to the publications. The reports covered a wide range of subjects, and being more in detail than the obser- vations by Lewis and Clarke, thirty-five years before, may be said to be the most valuable and reliable of any official information obtained of the Oregon country. Numerous books in various languages were the result of this expedition, though it should also be .said that other countries than ( )regon were included in Wilkes's expedition, and were described in his very interesting reports. President Tyler, in his mes.sage to Congress December 7, 1842, in referring to the Oregon question, assured that body he should "not delay to urge on (Ireat Britain the importance of its early settlement." Hills were introduced extending the laws of the United States over that country, conferring grants of lands upon settlers, and establishing a line of forts, with other protective assurances. ! I 62 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. AMKRICAN vSETTLEMENTS ENCOURAGED. jSIuch discussion arose in the consideration of these measures in Conjjress. Senator Renton, as before mentioned, based our right to Oregon on the Louisiana Purchase, arguing that it could be construed to establish the forty-ninth parallel as our northern boundary and hence to include this territory, as he asserted this boundary to have been fixed by commissaries appointed pursuant to the treaty of Utrecht. .Senator Benton, in that memorable speech, insisted that occupancy would accomplish, more than treaties. He said: I now K" for vin(licf our rights (>ii the Columliia, atid, as the first step toward it, passing this bill atid inakttix these grants of laud which will soon place thirty or forty thousand rifles lieyond the Rocky Mountains. The Senate in 1843 passed the bill, introduced in that body, containing the guaranties as to governmental protection, and land grants to individuals who should settle in that country, with assurances as to immediate occupation by the General Government. These inducements were sufficient. Without waiting for the enactment of this bill into law, large bodies of people commenced their march for Oregon and, uniting at a point in Missouri, in June, 1843, previously agreed upon, they traveled together across the continent. They comprised the first large body of American citizens to reach the disputed territory. To this movement, more than to any previous one, may we credit the first real promise for the perma- nent occupation of the country under the American flag, with the pledge of the nation to defend it at all hazards. The spirit of these daring men and pioneers, and their heroic courage in asserting our rights in the far-distant Oregon, produced for them a universal feeling of admiration throughout the country, and with it an expression of opinion that the moment had arrived when war should take the place of debate, and that further to delay the assertion of our rights would be national dishonor. " FIFTY- FOUR, FORTY, OR FIGHT." As President Jefferson, in 1803, was pres.sed on by the appeals from the planters on the banks of the Mississippi, and the eanicst demands of his impatient countrymen everywhere, so was President Tyler, in 1843, "loved to serve a final notice upon England that further negotiation must cease, and he earnestly recom- mended to Congress the immediate establishment of fortified places along the route to Oregon. In his annual message of December 5, 1843, he proclaimed it as the voice of the nation to defend all of the country north of latitude 42° and south of 54° 40' on the northwest coast. President Tyler evidently did not believe that the forty-ninth parallel had ever been established by any commission, or if so, he did not believe it should apply to the boundar>' west of the Rocky Mountains. This was at last a language which could not be mistaken, and it accelerated the final terms of the conference which had for the third and last time convened in ress. iana allcl this ty of ould K this 1(1 the r the who y the [g for larch greed large iiieiit, ernui- )f the iieers, Auced 1 it an placo tional m the latient a final reconi- ig the med it 2° and aelieve r if so, n tains, ted the :ned in James K. Polk. THK LOUISIANA PURCHASK. 63 nej^otiation of the '^)re}jf()n cuicstion. When President Polk soon afterward suc- ceeded President Tyler, he, while reiteratinj^j his former position as to onr ri}j[ht, indicated his intention to stand l)v the modified offer of the forty-ninth parallel purely as a comi)romise, and also amionnced the opinion that our nation should terminate the joint occni)ancy and y;ive Enj^land the necessary one year's notice. Demonstrations in approval of this determination to end the uncertainty were every- where heard. War now seemed inevitable and preparations followed. This evi- dence of i)opular feeling, foUowinjj^ the very decided tone of Tyler and Polk, was the best reminder to the British that no more concessions would be made by our jjoveniment. Finally the settlement came in the offer of Hritain to accept the forty-ninth parallel and the Straits of I'^ica for the northern boundary of our nation, and this beinj^ accepted the treaty was ratified June 15, iH^O. Thus ended one of the most memorable and long-continued negotiations, and one in which some of the most eminent statesmen of both countries participated. Our own nation selected such men as (iallatin, Wel)stcr, Calhoun and Buchanan. The arguments submitted by our negotiators evinced the greatest learning, ingenuity and patient research. OREGON ADMITTED AS A TERRITORY. President Polk, who was at all times the earnest friend of Oregon, and who was elected, as before stated, on a platform which firmly asserted the right of our nation to that entire region, was now extremely an.xious that a territorial form of government should be extended over it during his admini.stration. In his annual message to Congress in 1846, and in 1847, ^'^ strongly recom- mended this action. On May 29, 1S48, he submitted to both Houses of Congress a .special message again urging attention and reminding the nation's lawmakers of the memorials of .settlers in the Columbia river valley, of their exposed con- dition, and of the pressing necessity which required that mounted men should immediately be called into service. Even in his first message to Congress he expressed his solicitude for these expo.sed pioneers. He said: It is tiiuch to be roKretted that while under this act British sul)jects have enjoyed the protection of Hritish hiws and Hritish judicial trihunals tlirouj^luuit the whole of Orc^jon, .Xinerican citizens in the same territory have enjoyed no such protection from their j^overnment. .Vt the same time the result illustrates the character of our jieople and their institutions. In spite of this neglect they have multiplied, and their number is raj)idly increasing in that territory. They have made no apjjeal to arms, but have ])eaeefully fortified themselves in their new homes by the adoption of rejiublican insti- tutions for themselves, furnishing another example of the truth that self-government is inherent in the American breast .■md must jirevail. Bills were introduced in Congress providing a territorial form of government, and affording such other relief as had been recommended. Much delay ensued over the tpiestion, so common at that time in the admission of States and Terri- tfsries, as to whether slavery should or should not be prohibited. 64 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. The objectionable clause in the Orejjon bill to many was that which recognized and extended to the new territory the i)rincij)le of the ordinance of 1787 excluding slavery, which ordinance was also in harmony with the legislation of the provi- sional govenuuent of Oregon interdicting slavery. Tiiis clause in the bill was as follows: That the inliahitiuits of said Territory shall he entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privi- lejyjes, and advantages j^'ranterl and secnred to the i)eo]ile of the territory of the United States north- west of the river Ohio hy the articles of compact contained in the ordiiiance for the j^'overnnieiit of said Territory, on the 13th d ;d 3r 3r )n :h II- s- ;d ar er in Thomas H. Benton. TIIK LOUISIANA I'lkCIIA.SU. 65 THOMAS II. MK\T()\. He was for thirty years in tla- I'liitcd States Seiiatf from the State of Mis- souri, and was one of the stronj^^ and early advocates of the ( )re)^oii conntrv'. His inlha-nce all the way tliron<;li, and in tin- last tryinj^ onkal preeedinj^ the admission of Orej^on into the Union as a Territory, was most elTeetive. He was the earliest friend of a railroad to the Pacific, and was larjjely instrumental in secnrinji^ j^overn mental surveys with a view to ascertaining; the feasil)ility of rail- way construction to that remote land. He was always i)r()minent in f.\i)lora- tions in the far West, and in enconraj^inj; overland transit to the Pacific. His l)rediction as to the traffic which would meet at the mouth of the Columbia river — coming; and jj:oinjf between the Occident and the Orient — has been verified in a sur])risin<; dej^ree. As far back as 1820 he was the author of many valuable contributions to the jjublic jjress on the resources of the j.(reat West. He was at all times an ardent anne.\ationi.st, havinff taken an active part in reference to the annexation of Te.xas. His influence with President Polk had much to do in decidiu].; that distinjj^nished President's attitude in reference t(. the acceptance of the boundary line west of the Rocky Mountains on the parallel of the forty- ninth de}.free. His particijjation in all the discu.ssions attendinjr the acijnisition of the Mexican territory was active, and his aid invaluable. In the history of western development his name will live lonji^ as one of its most able and successful advocates. OKKC.ON I'KOVISION.M, C.OVKR.X.MKXT. The fiioncrrs of the West. — Oen. J()se])h Lane, of Mexican war fame, was appointed by President Polk jfovernor of the new Territory, and on the 3d day of March, 1849, he reached Orejron City, and there, unfurlinjr the Stars and Stri])esover that westerly confine of our Repul)lic, he a.s.sumed the duties of his office and pro- claimed the laws of the United States to be in force. ( rovernor Georffe Abernethy, who had .so wisely and so conscientiously served as provisional <;overnor for the four precediu}; years, cheerfully relinqui.shed his authority to the chosen representative of ourjjjreat nation. Durinjj those four years of an.xiety a thorouj^hly orjjanized jfov- ernment had been .successfully maintained, laws were enacted by an orderly elected leji^islative assembly and construed by a judicial tribunal carefully selected and composed of men of recognized ability and inte<;rity. Ta.xes were impo.sed and revenues collected without difficulty, while the strenj^th of the pioneer jj^overnment was severely tested by wars with the hostile Indians, when troops were raised, officers commissioned, discipline maintained, battles fouji^ht and victories won. Here was an independent State and a voluntary j>[overnment 3,000 miles remote from the capital of our nation, which had long been petitioned and implored for its protecting aegis. Our history has afforded no loftier illustration of the capacity of the American citizen for .self-government, because no other people on this con- tinent, for so long a period, suffered the same isolation, endured the same privations, 2239 5 ^^ 4^ ^^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4is 1.0 I.I 1^128 ■ 50 l"^^ us U li:0 1.25 1.4 m 1.6 m /^% ^J^ .^^ ^^y ^ y /A 3^ 66 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. or SO patiently and nncomplainingly faced the same responsibilities and so honor- ably and successfully fulfilled them, as these builders of American empire west of the Rocky Mountains. Their provisional government is as splendid a monument to their administrative ability as the example of their heroic struggles and patriotic devotion is an inspiration and a blessing to all who shall come after them. The annals of pioneer civilization may be searched in vain for names more honored or more worthy of remembrance by a grateful people than those of McLoughlin, Whitman, Abernethy, Lane, Thurston, Nesmith, Williams, Applegate and Deady. Some of them have ornamented the highest legislative councils of our nation, and some of them the judiciary ; some achieved fame on the battlefield or as self- denying missionaries, while still others filled the measure of their ambition in the provisional and territorial governments. Many, too, there were who liberally extended the hand of charity to the needy, and in the hour of danger heroically marched to the rescue of the belated, the wayworn, and the often imperiled emi- grant; but of them all the generous and knightly deeds of old John McLoughlin are of lasting and most precious memory. THE EXTENT OF THE OREGON COUNTRY. The Oregon country now embraces the States of Oregon, Idaho, Washington and parts of Montana and Wyoming. Its area is more than two and one-third times that of Great Britain and Ireland ; more than two and one-half times that of Italy; more than one-third larger than either France, the German or the Austrian Empire; one-quarter larger than Spain and Portugal; larger than the German Empire, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands combined; larger than Japan, the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands; four times larger than the New England States; more than two and one-half times larger than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- ware and Maryland combined; more than two and one-fifth times larger than Ohio, Indiana and Illinois; larger than the total area of Virginia, North and South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee; and larger than the States of Texas, or California and Nevada. The population is now in excess of 1,000,000. The value of real and personal property in 1890 amounted to $423,887,065. Since then it has increased a large per cent, while the agricultural, mining and lumber interests have grown to vast proportions. The public lands disposed of prior to 1897 equal an area of 80,118 square miles. Three great transcontinental railways now cross the lofty Rocky Mountain range and unite the upper Mississippi and the Great Lakes with the waters of the Columbia, while still another railway commencing at New Orleans, once the capital of the original Louisiana province, and reaching over the State of Louisiana around from the south through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, crosses the forty-second parallel of north latitude, passing through Oregon, until it finds THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 67 in he tal id he ds a terminus at the city of Portland on the tide waters of the Pacific Ocean. Flourishing cities, towns, and villages, well-cultivated farms, vineyards and orchards, and manufacturing, mining and commercial enterprises are found at frequent intervals, often in continuous lines, along those vast distances of travel ; and yet ihere are those still living who have seen that great expanse of country when it was comparatively unknown, the greater portion of which having been noted on the maps of our schoolboy days as "Desert" or "Unexplored." By many it was regarded as a worthless waste. So late as January, 1843, when our nation's claim to the Oregon country was still being considered, Mr. McDufiie, a distinguished Senator, in a speech delivered in the United States Senate, said : What is the nature of this country ? Why, as I understand it, 700 miles this side of the Rocky Mountains is uninhabitable; a region where rain seldom ever falls; a barren, sandj- soil; mountains totally impassable. Well, now, what are we going to do in this case? How are you going to apply steam? Have you made anything like an estimate of the cost of a railroad from here to the Columbia? Why, the wealth of the Indies would be insufficient. Of what use will this be for agricultural pur- poses? Why, I would not for that purpose give a pinch of snuff for the whole territory. I thank God for His mercy in placing the Rocky Mountains there. A vSPLENDID EMPIRE. Had such pessimistic statesmen prevailed we can now realize what would have been lost to our country in a failure to assert our rightful claim to this domain. I have adverted to the marvelous productions in agriculture, and other resources of the entire region west of the Rockies. It may be of interest to single out the individual States, which now form the group once embracing the Oregon country, and credit each with a few of the items which enter into its industrial development. The Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1897 enables us to verify some most interesting facts: Oregon^ the mother of the group, makes a magnificent industrial showing, and a few productions must illustrate for all. Her gold yield in 1897 is valued at $1,354,500, as estimated by the Director of the Mint, but as unofficially reported here is $3,000,000. The foreign and domestic exports in 1897, as shown by the customs reports, equaled about $7,016,368, while the free and dutiable imports amounted to $1,640,099. Her wool clip for the same year equaled 18,440,850 pounds; the sheep numbered 2,682,779, and were valued at $4,451,150, ranking her as third in number of sheep among the wool-grcwing Sta;^es and Territories. The oxen and other cattle were valued at $11,957,1,88, horses at $3,989,854, and milch cows at $2,689,449. The salmon fisheries and canneries reported a gross output for the same year valued at $1,231,591. The wheat yield in 1897 equaled 18,155,000 bushels, valued at $13,071,000, while the hay product was valued at $8,431,550. The Oregon timber, like that of Washington and California, is noted for its mammoth size and superior quality as well as for its quantity. In foui counties alone, along the coast, the standing timber is estimated to contain 56,000,000,000 feet, B. M. The bank clearings for Portland will best illustrate the commercial importance and marvelous growth of that metropolis of less than 100,000 inhabitants, and also indicate the progressive spirit which animates the 68 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. business communities tributary to this great shipping mart of the Pacific North- west. In 1897 these clearings amounted to $74,440,000, while the wholesale trade for the same year is shown to have equaled in value $75,000,000. (See holiday edition Orcgonian, January, 1898.) The lumber, coal, fruit, hop and numerous other products could be added to swell the grand total, and, when to this we further add the value of improved farm land, the value of the mines, forests and manufacturing plants, and the wealth of the towns and cities, we should call forth the departed shades of the old Senators to apologize for their sneering estimates of this wonderland for which they would not give a "pinch of snuff " in 1843. Washington, the second State of the group, is not far behind the first. The domestic and foreign exports of Pnget Sound, in Washington, which in 1883 amounted to $1,770,219, had increased in 1897 to $11,864,925, while the total free and dutiable imports for that year equaled $7,066,131. These exports exceed those from many of the great ports on the Atlantic, such as Charleston, Wilming- ton, IMobile and Pensacola. The bank clearings of the two leading cities will perhaps afford an excellent index of the industrial activity. In 1897 the clearings for Seattle represent $36,050,000, while those for Tacoma represent $28,910,000. The timber cut in the State of Washington, in 189^. for manufacturing pur- poses amounted to 1,440,135,000 feet, of which 275,000,000 was in laths and shingles. There was sold in that single year to Australia, Hawaii and South America 100,000,000 feet of lumber. That a proper conception may be formed of the productive forest area of Washington, it may be stated, on the authority of the Department of Agriculture, that the standing timber (mainly Douglas spruce) equals 410,000,000,000 feet and covers 23,500,000 acres. Dwelling still further upon this State, it may be said to rank eleventh among the wheat-growing States of the Union, having produced in 1897, 20,124,648 bushels, valued at $13,684,761. In the same year Washington had oxen and beef cattle valued at $5,436,952, milch cows valued at $3,109,677, horses valued at $4,163,817, and sheep valued at $1,622,446. The gold output in 1897 amounted to $449,600, and the silver production to $313,900. Idaho — the Gem of the Mountains — the latest of the northwest group, and which was admitted into the Union as a State so late as July 3, 1890, only eight years ago, also presents a most creditable showing. Her gold yield in 1897 was valued at $2,125,300, and her silver at $7,103,300, while her lead output was large, valued at $3,500,000, as per estimate of the Director of the Mint. The value of her oxen and other cattle in 1897 was $6,500,000, and the sheep $3,612,313. Her wheat yield in 1897 amounted to 2,707,672 bushels. OUR MEXICAN PURCHASE. A still further illustration of timely and profitable acquisition of territory is that represented through the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo with Mexico, Feb- ruar}' 2, 1848, following, and growing out of the Mexican war. THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 69 This brouj^lit to us 522,568 square miles, or 334,443,520 acres, to which should be added the Gadsdeu Purchase five years later, coveriug 45,535 square miles, and embracing an area of 29,142,400 acres. From these we have since formed five great political divisions, viz, the States of California, Nevada, Utah, the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona in part, and a small portion of what is now Colorado and Wyoming. Merely to mention Californi.\ is to emphasize the enormous value of the acquisition. She has contributed to the nation, and to the world's supply of gold, since 1848, an excess of $1,309,490,917, as shown by the United States Mint returns for successive years. In a single year (1853) her gold output was valued at $65,000,000. Her precious mineral product was the marvel of the world, and exercised a material influence in the relation of the money metals among the rations. With such an exhaustive and continuous outpour of her golden metal during fifty years of her status as an American comriiunity, she still maintains a bounteous offering, and though no longer the largest producer, her yield last year amounted to $15,871,000. The gold product of the United States, in 1897, reached a total of $59,210,795, more than one- fourth the entire gold production of the world, and placed our nation ahead of any other country in yield. We owe this proud eminence to our foresight and wise policy of annexation ; without it our land of gold would have continued to icmain the possessions of foreign powers. California has discovered also that her wealth is not alone in her minerals, but that agriculture, horticulture, and animal industry are within her capabilities, and her splendid showing attests this. Her 20,000,000 bushels of barley, worth $11,000,000, ranks her as first in barley production. This State is also first in citrous products. Her wheat product, in 1897, was 39,394,020 bushels, valued at $26,887,000, ranking her fifth in order among the wheat-growing States. Her hay product is valued at $24,444,000, and fourth in order. Her wheat value is now almost twice that of her gold yield. Her sheep are valued at $5,785,915 ; cattle, including milch cows, at $25,137,835, and her horses and mules at $14,246,765. Her wine product is 30,000,000 gal- lons, beet sugar 65,000,000 pounds, raisins 64,000,000 pounds, prunes 82,000,000 pounds, and oranges 10,250 carloads. The redwood along the coast range alone is estimated to contain 25,000,000,000 feet, B. M., and the mills manufacture enormous quantities of lumber and employ large numbers of her people. The remainder of our Mexica!T purchase also makes an excellent exhibit: Utah mined $1,805,988 of gold and $11,413,463 in silver last year. Her cattle and milch cows were valued at $7,056,000, while her sheep were valued at $4,144,863. The copper output in 1896 amounted to $376,500, and the lead output to about $2,000,000. Her wheat yield in 1897 was 3,190,740 bushels. Nevada had a gold yield in 1897 of $2,468,000, and a silver yield of $905,310. Her sheep were valued at $1,206,467, and the cattle and horses at $5,264,000. Neiv Mexico' s gold and silver yield did not exceed $681,239, but she makes her record at present in cattle, valued at $12,329,397, and her sheep, valued at $5,364,284. The wheat yield in 1897 '"^Jnounted to 4,282,848 bushels. 70 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. Arizona possesses a value in cattle of $7,807,000, and in sheep of $1,773,734 ; her gold yield amounted to 5^2,700,000, and her silver product to nearly as much. The output of copper for Arizona in 1896 amounted to $7,840,505. For all this splendid empire from Mexico, embracing three whole States, por- tions of two others, and almost two entire Territories, the purchase price was $15,000,000! TOTAL SILVER OUTPUT. Here it may be proper to add that the total silver production of the United States in 1896 was valued at $76,069,000, and of this 95 per cent was mined in six divisions: Colorado, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. This only emphasizes in another way the forcible manner in which we are reminded of the benefits which have accrued to our nation through the policy of annexation and territorial expansion. Americans now own this wealth, and an American — not a foreign — flag floats over this entire domain of precious metal output. TOTAL COST OF ANNEXATIONS. The grand total of the sums paid for our foreign acquisitions amounts to $52,200,000, a sum less than the value of one year's output of Montana's minerals, of Minnesota's annual wheat yield, or of the cattle and hay product of California for one year. IMPERFECT STATISTICS. In justice to the different States and Territories whose leading resources have been briefly mentioned, it should be said that the statistics quoted are in every instance believed to represent less than the actual quantities and values. The government's statistician makes record only of such data as he receives from reliable sources, while the fact still remains that much valuable and reliable data never reach him. This is largely due to our defective system of procuring authen- tic information in reference to our nation's annual productive capacity. Unofficial and yet most reliable information is before this ofiice showing very material increases over the reported yields of some of the States as collected by the statis- tical bureau. OREGON AND THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. Having digressed thus far to show the profitableness of our Oregon and Mexican acquisitions, I return to conclude the consideration of the American claim to the Oregon country so far as to prove that our title could not be deduced through the Louisiana Purchase. Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, in presenting the claims of the United States to the Oregon country, relied, he said, upon "our own proper claims and those we have derived from France and Spain. We ground the former as against Great THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 71 Britain on priority of discovery and priority of exploration and settlement." Referring to our claims derived from France under the Louisiana Purchase, he said: It also added much to the stre'.igth of our title to the region beyond the Rocky Mountains by restoring to us the important link of contiguity westward to the Pacific, which had been surrendered by the treaty of 1763. * * * It is therefore not at all surprising that France should claim the country west of the Rocky Mountains (as may be inferred from her maps) on the same principle that Great Britain had claimed and dispossessed her of the regions west of the Alleghany. * * * gut since then we have strengfthened our itle by adding to our proper claims and those of France the claims also of Spain by the treaty of Florida. The claims which we have acquired from her between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific rest on her priority of discovery. These extracts from Mr. Calhoun's argument exhibit in brief his reasoning for connecting the Louisiana cession with the country west of the Rocky Moun- tains. It will be observed that it is largely confined to the claim of contiguity. He does not pretend that the country was originally included in the cession, except as he refers to France having claimed that coimtry; and it will be noticed that he only infers this from French maps. The answer to this inference is that but very few French maps, as a matter of fact, ever showed that country as belonging to France, through Louisiana. The first French maps after La Salle's discovery and after the naming of Lo- isiana by him, excluded the country beyond the mountains from Louisiana. The fact that Mr. Calhoun was compelled to resort to inference to establish a claim is rather presixmptive of his own doubt, and when we notice his further admission that we "strengthened our title" by adding the claims of Spain west of the Rockies, his doubt is doubl)' shcm. He further sanctions the claims of Spain when he refers to the priority of Spanish discoveries in the Pacific, as he quotes from history, and cites the voyages of the Spanish navigator, Maldonado, in 1528, ending with those under Galiano and Voldes in 1792, all being under the authority of Spain and all fruitful in discovery upon the Pacific coast. He says — That they discovered and explored not only the entire coast of what is now the Oregon tjrritory, but still farther north, are facts too well established to be controverted at this day. He further mentions the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia prior to Captain Gray's discovery, and refers to it as the "incontestable claim to the dis- covery of the mouth of the river by Heceta." No facts are presented tending to show that Louisiana extended so far west. In his second argument, or reply, he again declares that the claim of the United States "rests in the first place on priority of discovery sustained by their own proper claims and those derived from Spain through the treaty of Florida." He makes his strong point against the British claim, and in favor of our own, when in his reply, he reminds the English negotiator of the latter's fatal admission in his argument, conceding that Heceta, August 15, 1775, was the first to discover the mouth of the Columbia River; he further reminds the Englishman "that Captain Gray was the first to pass its bar, enter its mouth, and sail up its stream." 72 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. Mr. Calhoun in this reply, while outlining somewhat more clearly what he means by "contijjnity " as a claim through the Louisiana cession, by coupling that claim with our purchase of Louisiana, admits that France never claimed Louisiana as extending beyond the Rockies, when, in referring to the French claim, he said the right of France to Louisiana extended " to the region drained by the Mississippi and its waters, on the ground of settlement and exploration." It is difficult to conceive how, on such a basis, France could deduce a claim, through contiguity, to a country so remote and separated b\' such physical obstacles as the great Rocky Mountain range. THK CLAIM OF CONTIGUITY. A claim west of the Rockies, through our purchase of Louisiana, by reason of contiguity is especially untenable, because the western limit of Louisiana was sufficiently definite, it being known that the highlands at the head of the Mississippi and its tributary waters constituted the boundary. The claim of con- tiguity most often arises where there is uncertainty as to limit. In the case of the discovery and exploration of a river it extends to the country drained by that river. This being determined as the accepted rule, what reasoning can justify a claim for an excess of territory on the ground of contiguity? Especially is it difficult to reconcile such claim with justice where such excess is adversely claimed, as in the case of Spain to the country west of the Rockies, based on quite good showing of long prior discovery and partial settlement. If contiguity is to be applied, then, on this basis Spain would be preferred, since her acknowledged pos- session and dominion of the California country brought the Oregon country to the north at least far more contiguous to her possessions than it was to the country occupied in the Louisiana cession. The nations of the earth very promptly repudi- ated Spain's claim to the whole of the western continent, based on her early dis- coveries of a small portion. England, France and Portugal were likewise denied recognition of claims to vast regions on the same ground. The British did not claim extension of territory from Hudson Bay on the ground of contiguity; they justified their extension by right of exploration and discovery; this claim, though denied by our nation, had much to do in the final adjustment of the British boundary, not only in the recognition by Russia of Britain's claim south of 54° 40', but by our own negotiators and countrymen in at last agreeing that the line between the British and American possessions should be along the forty-ninth parallel. Mr. Calhoun admits that the claim of Spain to the entire continent, on the ground of contiguity, by reason of discovery by Columbus, was not acquiesced in by other nations. He also admits that it is an abstract question how far a claim by contiguity can extend beyond the precise spot discovered or occupied, and that "it is siibject in each case to be influenced by avariety of considerations." Accept- ing this qualification, it may be submitted, then, that in the case of the westem boundary of the Louisiana cession, a very strong and conclusive consideration, pre- cluding any further contention, is the admitted fact that so well known a physical THK LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 73 obstruction as the ^^reat Rocky Mountain ranj^e stood as a barrier to the west, and forms the hij^hlands from which are drained the waters flowin<( into the Mississippi, tlic discovery of which constitutes the French claim to the country east of the Rocky Mountains. Can it not be said when a claim is based on discovery of the mouth of a river, that the further claim of contiguity from the precise spot dis- covered is limited to and fully met by including all the country drained by that river and its tributaries? That Mr. Calhoun did not attach much importance to his contiguity argument in his able presentation of our nation's claim, is evident from his reply to the Ikitish plenipotentiary, when he said : "The cession of Loui- siana gave us undisputed title west of the Mississippi, extending to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and .south, between that river and those mountains, to the possessions of Spain." Mr. Buchanan, as vSecretary of State, following Mr. Cal- houn, at the point left oflf by him, relied but little on the contiguity claim, as he announced that — The title of the United States to that portion of the Oregon territory l)etween the valley of the Columbia and the Russian line in 50° 40' north latitude is nrordcc/ in the Florida treaty. Under this treaty, dated on the 22d of Februarj-, 1819, Spain ceded to the I'nited States all her rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories west of the Rocky Mountains and north of the forty-second parallel of latitude. We contend that at the date of this ce.ssion Spain had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the whole Oregon territorj'. The view I here submit as to the doctrine of contiguity is approved in Lawrence's Principles of International Law, page 152, which holds that — In the absence of natural features, the boundary of the contiguous settlements of two States should be drawn midway between the last posts on either side. * * » But there can be no doubt that natural boundaries would be preferred to an imaginary line, in cases where they exist. The same authority admits that the rights of sovereignty gained by occupa- tion may extend beyond the actual place inhabited, but, it adds, "the reasonable doctrine of expansion must not be pushed to absurd lengths." Modern interna- tional law does not sanction IVIr. Calhoun's contiguity claim as he endeavored to extend it, nor have I found any authority that ever did. Pomeroy's International Law, page 105, declares that — It is evident that those natural boundaries which physical geography points out — the ranges of mountains, the great rivers draining large basins, the gulfs and bays, the prominent capes, and the trend of the coast line — nmst have great influence in determining the limits of national domain. A claim of contiguity is sufficiently met by conceding to the nation under whose flag the mouth of a river is discovered all the country drained by that river; otherwise a natioti would be restricted to the preci.se spot on which its people first landed or settled. To claim bey^ id the drainage of the river, on the theory of contiguity, would be as unjust and nreasonable as to limit possession by actual occupancy. These are two extremes. The contiguity claim of Calhoun in reference to the Louisiana Purchase was not approved by Monroe and Pinckney, the American negotiators at Madrid 74 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. in 1803-1805, where the question of territorial extent followinjj discovery was discussed. The>' contended that — When any European nation claims possession of any extent of seacoast, that possession is under- stood as extending into the interior country to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast, to all their branches, and the country they cover. The.se views constitute the recognized international doctrine of contiguity, and, as so held, Mr. Calhoun's attempt to claim Oregon through the Louisiana Purchase by virtue of contiguity can not be sustained. It has been asserted by some that the British claim to the Pacific Northwest was defended on the ground of contiguity, based upon the English right to the Hudson Bay country. Such, however, is not the fact. SIR ALEXANDER Mi:KENZIE'S EXPEDITION. The first exploration of the continent, and the first success in discovering a route by land from ocean to ocean, was that by Alexander McKenzie and party, and many of the names they gave to rivers and mountains along their memorable journey remain to-day to remind us of the intrepid men who achieved this great triumph. Two years after his voyage down the McKenzie river to its entrance into the Arctic Ocean, and on his return to Fort Chepewyan on Ithabasca Lake, McKenzie, on the loth day of October, 1792, started in a birch-bark canoe with a few fellow-voyagers on his search of a route to another remote point on the great Pacific Ocean. He followed up the Peace river as far as possible to a point in longitude 121°, and then crossing the summit of the mountains came upon the waters flowing toward the Pacific; which bethought to be the Columbia river, as Fraser also thought when he saw it thirteen years later, and to which he sub- sequently gave his name as it is now known, Fraser river, but which was then known by the natives as the Tacootche. Over rapids and through narrow and tortuous channels, the descending waters broadened and spread until they formed a large-sized river which McKenzie followed to a point near the junction of the Blackwater, or, as he names it on his map, the West Road River; and there he turned his course more directly to the west, and on the morning of the 20th of July, 1793, the great object of his journey being accomplished, he floated on the tide waters of the Pacific Ocean. Proceeding southwesterly he reached Point Menzes on the coast, .shown by Vancouver on his map, and then exploring the Burke and Dean canals he journeyed up the Cascade canal ; all o." which the British navigator had surveyed but two months before McKenzie reached his last point, and there, standing above the waves of the Pacific, he painted on a rocky cliff" overhanging the seashore, in memory of his great exploit, these words: " Alexander Mackenzie, from Canada by land the twenty-second of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three." This early claim the British united with their other claims by virtue of coast discoveries, and their much stronger claim through the Nootka Sound Convention THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 75 of 1790, wherein they claimed that Spain had acknowledged their right to joint occupancy and settlement ; and they relied on these rather than through con- tiguity to Hudson Bay. This Nootka claim was resisted by our negotiators, who insisted that this right was merely transient and did not interfere with Spain's exclusive sovereignty, and that, whatever that right was, it was annulled by the war between Spain and Britain in 1796. Yet, with all this, the claim was of great weight with the nego- tiators in conceding to Britain the territory lying north of the forty-ninth parallel. NO PROOF THAT OREGON WAS INCLUDED IN THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. It is noticeable in all the authorities asserting the Louisiana Purchase to extend beyond the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific that no substantial support is found for such assumption of fact. In the American additions to Chambers Encyclopedia the assertion is made that Idaho, Oregon and Washington were embraced within the Louisiana territory. No authority or reason is given for such statement. In Guthrie's Universal Geography, Volume I, the statement is made that the limits of Louisiana extended to the Pacific Ocean. No proof accompanies this assertion. Russell's History of the United States claims that the cession included "rot only Louisiana but the whole country from the Mississippi to the Pacific." It is satisfied with this mere assertion. Olney's History of the United States contains two sentences in reference to the same claim, ending with the bare assertion: "as it included all that part of the country west of the Mississippi, extending to Mexico and the Pacific Ocean." Other histories are equally deficient in proof where the same statement is made. OFFICIAL DECLARATION INCREASED POPULAR ERROR. Perhaps no publication in late years contributed so much in confirming such erroneous statements as did the official declaration made in the census reports of 1870. The report of that census contains a map which represents the present area of Oregon, Washington and Idaho as having been included in and acquired through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Coming with this official sanction of the government, it has been adopted by the public as a declaration to be relied on. Following that report was the publication of the Public Domain, prepared pursu- ant to acts of Congress approved March 3, 1879, and June 16, 1880. This contained a map on the plan of the census map, and was an acquiescence in the error of the census report as to this subject. Since then various historians have accepted the statement as an historic truth and it has been taught in the schools of the country. The present map, as published by the Interior Department, and which is to be y6 " THH LOUISIANA PURCHASE. corrected hi tluH respect in a new publication, is copied from and justified by the map wliich is made a part of the Ninth Census and by the "Public Domain." Thisoflfice merely followed that authority, (ien. F. A. Walker, the superintendent of that census, when called ui)on to justify his official representation, replied that, as he recalled the nejj^otiations, our jrovernment made claim to ( )rejfon by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase. Subsequently, when aj^ain asked by a leadinjr educator his reasons for representing the extension beycmd the Rocky Mountains, he answered: "I am free to confess that my individual views do not coincide there- with." Prof. John J. Anderson, Ph.D., a well-known author of many historical publications, and of a widely used school history of the United States, in an able contribution, entitled, " Did the Louisiana Purchase extend to the Pacific Ocean?" sums up his conclusions by saying: Nowhere have we seen any attempt whatever to prove that any part of the region west of the Rocky Mountains ever belonged to I'rance, or that France ever made any pretense of conveying it to the United States. It was no part of the Louisiana Purchase. McMaster's History of the people of the United States," [Volume 2, page 633] expresses substantially the same view in the following language: Never at any time did Oregon form part of Louisiana. Marbois denied it. Jefferson denied it. There is not a fragment of evidence in its behalf. Our claim to Oregon was derived, and derived solely from the Florida Treaty of 1819, the .settlement at Astoria, the explorations of Lewis and Clark, and the di.scovery of the Columbia river by Robert Gray. Commenting upon the same error in the present General Land Office map of the United States, Col. James O. Broadhead, of St. Louis, a distinguished Ameri- can statesman and scholar, in a recent lecture delivered before the Missouri His- torical Society, entitled, "The Louisiana Purchase : Extent of Territory Acquired by the Purchase," very critically reviews the leading authorities upon this subject, and expresses his own judgment by saying that all these sources of information "establish beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that by the treaty of 1803 the terri- tory ceded by France to the LTnited States embraced only the territory watered by the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their tributaries." JEFFERSON, MARBOIS, AND GREENHOW. If there were no other proofs as to the Louisiana cession not extending west- ward of the Rocky Mountains the declarations of three men alone should be con- clusive; they are those of Jefferson, the President of our Republic, who did so much to accomplish the cession ; Marbois, minister of France, who earnestly seconded Napoleon's desire to cede ; and Greenhow, the historian, who perhaps gave to the subject more exhaustive study than any other man. Greenhow was librarian of the State Department of the United States, and prepared a most com- prehensive report to Congress on the subject, and at a time when every contribu- tion relating to the discussion was closely read. He also published a history of California and Oregon, in which he reviews this subject of the Louisiana cession. THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. n President Jefferson's instructions thronj^h Mr. Madison, his Secretary of State, to Monroe and Pinckney, July 30, 1807, expressed and explained the terms on which they were directed to close the treaty, and contains this lanjjiiajje as to boundaries : This is in ud view whiiti-vur ncccssiiry, and can have little otluT c-fTuct than as an offensive iiiti- inatiun to Sjiaiii that onr claims extend to the Pacific Ocean. However reasonahle snch claims may lie compared with others, it is impolitic, especially at the present tnoment, to strengthen Spanish jeal- ousies of the United States, which it is prol)al)ly an object with tireat Hritain to excite by the clanse in question. Another statement from Mr. Jefferson — and four years earlier- is in his letter to Mr. Hreckenridge, which I subjoin in full, so far as it refers to the Louisiana boundaries : MONTICELW, August li, fSoj. To Mr. Hrkckknridok. I)H.\R Sir, — The enclosed letter, though directed to you, was intended to me also, and was left open with a request, that when forwarded, I would forwanl it to you. It gives me occasioti to write a word to you on the subject of Louisiana, which being a new one, an interchange of sentiments may produce correct ideas before we are to act on them. Our information as to the country is very incomplete; we have taken measures to obtain it full as to the .settled jiart, which I ho])e to receive in time for Congress. The boundaries, which I deem not admitting question, are the highlands on the western side of the Mississippi enclosing all its waters, the Missouri, of course, and terminating in the line drawn from the northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Jlissi.s.sippi, as lately settled between Cireat Britain and the United States. We have some claims to extend on the seacoa.st we.stwardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo, and better, to go eastwardly to the Rio Perdido, between Mobile and I'ensacola, the ancient boundary of Louisiana. These claims will be a .subject of negotiation with Spain, and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongh- with one hand, hokling out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Ploridas, and all in good time. * * * This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses. Another letter to General Gates, about the same time, is also in point: Washington,////)'// /Soj, To General Gates. Dear Generai,,— I accept with pleasure, and with pleasure reciprocate your congratulations on the acquisition of Louisiana; for it is a subject of mutual congratulation, as it interests every man of the nation. The territory acquired, as it includes all the waters of the Mi-ssouri and Mississippi, has more than doubled the area of the United States, and the new parts is not inferior to the old in soil, climate, productions and important communications. * * * Marbois, in his History of Louisiana, referring to the extent of the Louisiana cession, says: The shores of the western ocean were certainly not included in the cession, but the United States are already established there. (See p. 286. ) Marbois again says: The charter given by Louis XIV to Crozat included all the countries watered by the rivers which empty directly or indirectly into the Mississippi. Within this description comes the Missouri, a river that has its sources and many of its tributary streams at a little distance from the Rocky Mountains. The first article of the treaty of cession to the United States meant to convey nothing beyond them, but the settlement in the interior, which has resulted from it, and the one on the Pacific Ocean at the ■west have mutually strengthened each other. (See p. 291. ) H 78 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. Greenhow, in his History of California and Oregon, commenting on the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase, says: In the absence of more direct light on the subject from history we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature— namely, the highlands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific or the California Gulf —as the true western boundaries of the Louisiana ceded by France to Spain in 1762, retroceded to France in 1800, and transferred to the United States by France in 1803. France, at the time of the cession, did not claim any territory west of the Rocky Mountains, but did concede the dominion of Spain to that country, as Spain then, and before, claimed the same. In support of this assertion we have the official declaration of Talleyrand, the French minister, to the Spanish Govern- ment (August 31, 1804, Talleyrand to Gravine), as follows: In any case the Court of Madrid would have no ground for the fear it shows that the Unit d States ma}' make use of their possession of Louisiana in order to form possessions on the northwest coast of America. Whatever boundary may be agreed upon between Spain and the United States, the line will necessarily be so far removed from the western co ,L of America as to relieve the Court of Madrid from an.xiety on that score. These evidences from the highest and most authentic sources, and these expressions from men who lived in the times when this great question was most closely and critically examined, constitute the best authority, and should be finally and forever conclusive upon the controversy as to the extent of the Louisiana Purchase. Having reached this conclusion as to the western boundary of the cession from France history equally justifies us in our claim to the Oregon country to the westward of the cession, now embracing the States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, and portions of Montana and Wyoming as resting on and derived through — First. Discovery and entrance of the mouth of the Columbia River by Capt. Robert Gray in 1792. Second. Exploration by Lewis and Clarke in 1805. Third. Settlement and occupation by the Astoria party in 181 1. Fourth. Relinquishment of the rights of Spain by the treaty of 1819. Therefore the Cession Map of the United States should be made to conform to facts well established and long confirmed by history, with which, I respectfully submit, the position assumed in this review of the question is in complete accord. A REVIEW OF ANNEXATION BY THE UNITIH) STATES. EARLY OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXATION ANALYZED. Annexation and affiliation witliin the confines of the great American Republic have become the popular thought of the people inhabiting the countries adjoining or near our shores. There is a magnetism about the old flag which attracts these people to us. It means t^ them freedom and humanity. It means greater oppor- tunities. This was the feeling in Florida, in Texas, in California and in Oregon. Eighteen great States and four prosperous Territories and Districts, with Hawaii, comprise the domain acquired by annexation from foreign powers — vastly exceed- ing in area that wrested from our British ancestors by the Revolutionary war- — and all within the lifetime of many still living. There are in the present American Congress 24 Senators and 65 Representa- tives from States within the limits of the Louisiana Purchase ; from this, and our other foreign acquisitions, there are to-day in that Congress 40 Senators and 97 Representatives and Delegates. Though innumerable advantages have accrued to our nation by territorial expansion, and though we have become greater and stronger with each increase of our area and acquired population, yet every effort to expand our domain has been antagonized by many of our own people. Some very specious arguments, as hereinbefore shown, have been advanced in opposition, but the experience of our nation during many years enable us now to refute the different positions assumed. Remoteness. — The objection to cession of foreign territory especially because of remoteness has been urged in the past to all our accessions. That this has neither resulted to the injury of our union nor to our institutions we have evidences all around us. We observe that Hawaii is more accessible to the United States to- day than were the settled portions of Louisiana in Jefferson's time, or of Florida in that of Monroe, and indeed nearer, as well as more accessible, than was Oregon during Polk's administration. To the answer that these acquisitions were neither interrupted by foreign dominion, nor by oceans, we turn to Alaska. We find that District not only incontiguous, but separated by a foreign country. It is also a . fact that all communication with that distant people and with our civil gov- ernment there is by ocean; the distance from Seattle to Sitka by steamer or sailing vessel being 900 miles, and from Seattle to St. Michaels, at the moutli of the Yukon, it is 2,705 miles. Hawaii is nearer the American mainland than are some of our Aleutian Islands. California when admitted into thf» Union was far more inacces- 79 8o THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. sible than is Hawaii to-day. Gen. Joseph Lane, the first Territorial governor of Oregon, desired to reach that destination as early as possible, so as to proclaim the Federal authority over that Territory before the expiration of President Polk's term, on March 4, 1849. ^^ departed with his coninnssion from Indiana on August 27, 1848, and journeyed via Fort Leavenworth, vSanta Fe, El Paso, and thence to California, where at San Pedro Bay he took passage on a sailing vessel and was conveyed to San Francisco. Here, finding a ship bound for the Cohnnbia river, he was transported to Oregon, where he arrived on the ist of March following — the journey occupying about six months! President Polk, in a message to Congress, thought it might be practicable to establish an overland mail once a mouth, and so advised. Now, this distance is traversed in five days with comfort and safety, and for reasonable compensation. By our modern contrivances time, distance and danger are largely overcome in transportation from point to point. The wagon and the stage-coach are distanced and surpassed by the steam car ; the sail has for quick dispatch given way to steam ; the wooden vessel has been supplanted by the iron ship; and expedition in communication and correspondence between individuals is accomolished through the fast mail, the telegraph, and the telephone. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANNEXATION. The doubt entertained as to the right under the Constitution to acquire possession of foreign teiritory has been answered by the several acquisitions made since that of Louisiana, as well as by the judgments of the highest courts and in the opinions and writings of our most illustrious jurists. Chief Justice Marshall, rendering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The American Insurance Company v. Canter, said : The Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the power of making wars and making treaties, consequently the Government possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or treaty. Th'=' Supreme Court again, in another celebrated case. The Mormon Church v. The United States (136 U. S. R.), said: The power of acquiring territory is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare and carry on war. * * * The antecedents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. The further provision of the Constitution conferring on Congress the power to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare implies also the authority, when necessary, to acquire territory. It is a power inherent in the fundamental nature of government, and involves a principle of maintenance, of defense, of perpetuity. There have been many Executive interpretations of the Constitution in consonance with these views in treaties through which we acquired the larger :: THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. Si part of our domain, and in several other treaties negotiated for foreign territory, which were never consummated by ratification, such as Hawaii in 1854, Santo Domingo in 1870, Hawaii again in 1893, and still later in 1897. Congress has also giver its assent to the doctrine at different times in on history. Having thus the acceptance of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the government, it should now be regarded as an established right. ANNEXATION AN ELEMENT OF STRENGTH. To the argument used as to annexation being a source of weakness, our experi- ence has proven it to be an element of strength. As bases of supply in war time we have been taught that many of our accessions have been invaluable. Our great battle ships are propelled by steam, and coal for fuel is indispensable. Bases of supply must be had. Our warships crossing the ocean, or distant from the main- land, and with exhausted coal bunkers meeting the enemy will invite destruction. Stress of weather, disabled machinery, or other accidents produce delay. If relief is sotight in neutral ports they will be closed against the ship's necessities except under certain restrictions. Modern invention has given rise to this necessity for fuel supply. In former years our ships of war were propelled by wind and sail, and a distant base of supply was a matter of comparative indifference. Outlying points overlooking the mainland, or in the track of our commerce, afford means for defensive operations in time of need which no nation should disregard. Terri- torial defense, protection against military or naval attack, and avoidance of conflict with numerous adjoining powers are advantages which we have gained through annexation. The nations of the Old World are in frequent disputes and sometimes wars arising over boundary disputes, customs violations, and clash of jurisdictions, requiring large standing armies to resist invasion or to punish real or fancied wrongs. International complications rarely occur with us because of our immunity from such elements of discord and the legion of controversies which originate among close neighbors having rival interests. Our brief experience with Florida and with Louisiana when under Spanish control gave us an object lesson of the effect of undesirable neighbors. Territorial expansion may, therefore, be justified as a war measure as well as upon grounds of commercial necessity. HOMOGENEITY NOT A SERIOUS OBJECTION. To the further objection that the populations of annexed foreign territory are not homogeneous with our own, we have discovered from experience that this is no serious objection in the end. In all of our cessions we have had a mixture of races to contend with. With Florida we acquired a Spanish and Indian popula- tion; with Texas the Spaniard, the Mexican, and the Indian; with California the 2239 6 82 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. same; with Louisiana we had the Spaniard, the Frenchman, and the Indian, and with Alaska we had the Russian and the Eskimo. It has in all cases been demonstrated that the stronger races dominate. The American element proves in every contest for supremacy to be the stronger. It is a great colonizer and educates as it advances. Wherever it goes our institu- tions go with it. Before it the foreign element becomes Americanized in a brief period. It is a formidable missionary. A further check is provided against possible danger of racial conflict or lack of homogeneity in the population — so far as the purposes of our civil form of government may be perverted by the participation in its affairs of elements alien and antagonistic — in the exclusion of such elements from the exercise of governmental functions. They are never at the time of accession admitted or accepted as citizens with political rights. When they shall enjoy such privileges is a matter which is left entirely with Congress. In the meanwhile they are required to undergo a probation or pupilage which in the course of time will fit them to become the giiardians of republican institutions. A long period may intervene before they may be allowed to enjoy a territorial form of government, with its restricted privileges, and thereafter a still longer period may ensue before statehood will follow to confer the highest rights of citizenship. A perpetual check is thus provided by the Constitution against the incorporation into our political system of state or national government of l n element unfitted to con- trol. To argue that this restraint is insufficient or may be disregarded is to reflect upon the intelligence, the integrity, and the patriotism of the people's repre- sentatives in the Congress of all the States of our Union. Of this Congress is the best judge, and can always be depended upon when to admit these territorial accessions into the Union as States, and thus far this high trust has been discharged with eminent satisfaction and discretion. No Territory will be admitted into the Union until the people shall have demonstrated their capacity for statehood, and, even when admitted, Congress can legislate such limitations and restrictions as shall best conserve the public interests, as it can exclude and prohibit any undesir- able people from becoming residents of our country. ANNEX.\TION BY OTHER NATIONS AND THKIR FOREIGN ELEMENTS. The adoption of different racial elements in the body politic is the history of the ages. All nations have gone through this ordeal. Great Britain is an appropriate illustration. She has assimilated the most diverse beings, and from the most unfavorable conditions brought them under highly enlightened and Christianizing influences; she has made them as thoroughly British in senti- ment and industrial habits as the people of England themselves, and her colonial possessions are to-day the strength and glory of that great Empire. Like France, Holland and Portugal, England has more inhabitants in her colonial possessions than she has at home. At home she has 39,825,000, while in her colonies she has 322,000,000. At home France has 38,520,000, and in her colonies 44,290,000. Portugal has 5,050,000 at home and 10,215,000 in her colonies. The area of the THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. «3 German Empire proper is but one-fifth that of her colonial possessions, while the area of England's colonial possessions is eighty times as great as the home country. This mere statement necessarily im])lies the diverse character of the races which go to make up the population of the widel)- scattered possessions of these nations. Nor can it be said that these mighty powers have become enervated or denationalized in spirit or threatened in unity because of their annexations or distant colonial possessions. lie AN OBJECT LESSON IN ENGLAND'S ASSIMILATION OF RACES. An illustration as forcible as it was beauL'ful of the success in the cementing and assimilating of Britain's widely different colonial elements was witnessed in the city of London the past year at the Queen's Jubilee in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of her reign. There were assembled in the mighty concourse present representatives from each of the British colonies who came to do honor and to express their fealty to the great head of the consolidated Empire. As an object lesson of the strength of the several remote possessions, their military was most conspicuous in the magnificent cavalcade. Troops were there from Canada, India, New South Wales, Hongkong, Cape Colony, Jamaica, New Zealand, Aus- tralia, and other portions of the English domain — in all, the military of twenty- five colonies were in the march. The native troops were there. The black and the bronzed faces proclaimed their racial status. Some wore the fez, some the red cap, some the gay colored turban, .some the Chinese head covering, and so on, while the uniforms displayed were even more varied in style and color. There were exhibited the same proud tread in the movements and the same loyal devo- tion in the faces of the dragoons of Manitoba, the infantrymen of the West Indies, the hussars and lancers of New South Wales, and the North Borneo policemen, as were seen in the Royal Dragoons of London. As showing the wealth, strength and power which have come to Great Britain through annexation within Queen Victoria's reign, it will be of interest to read the recent comments of Gen. Nelson A. IMiles, of the United States Army (see McClure's Magazine for July, 1898), upon the secret of England's mighty prestige. He says: 111 1837, when Victoria was crowned, the entire white colonial population was only 1,250,000. To-tlay it is over 10,000,000. At that inie India was not yet a direct dependency of the Crown, but was .still under the rule of the East India Company. Hongkong had not been added as a military outpo.st, nor was nearly .so large a part of the Malay Peninsula under British control. In all Australia, in 1837, there were only about 100,000 British colonists -.scattered in Tasmania, New Zealand, and South .\u.stralia — and most of these were supposed to be felons and convicts. The interior of Australia was entirely unexplored. The resources were unknown, its future undreamed. To-day Australia is made up of .seven rich provinces and has a population of 4,o(X),ooo as loyal, intelligent, and progressive British subjects as exi.st on the globe. In South Africa sixtj' years ago the English domain was confined to the southern point of t4ie continent ; to-day it extends, with only one important break, from the Cape to the .sources of the Nile. When Victoria ascended the throne the British in North America were nearly all gathered in Ontario and Quebec, and the Hudson Bay Company occupied all the central and western provinces of what is 84 THE LOUISIANA PURCHAvSE. now known as the Canadian Dominion. Rritish Columbia was an unknown waste, only to be reached bj- a terrible sea voyage around Cape Horn. Yet to-day the Imperial Government is in force over all this va.st territory. London is now only ten days from Vancouver, and every year is seeing the devel- opment of new resources by a territory once believed to be useless except as a fur-producing country. OUR FURTHER DESTINY. When we pause to review the marveloii.s development and expansion of om- own country since the immortal proclamation of freedom was first announced from Independence Hall, Pliiladelphia, and realize that but little over a century measures the interval of time during which the colossal Republic has reached a limit of forty-five great States, with several important Territories and Districts, each one of which is comparable as an equal with some nation in the old world, and all of these magnificent civisions, including Hawaii, under one flag, one con- stitution, and one indissoluble and glorious union, may we not indulge in prophetic thought as to the wondrous revelations which the next few years of our history must unfold? We have already become the greatest agricultural, the greatest manufitcturing, and the greatest mining nation. According to Mulhall we are now the wealthiest of all the nations. We have become the second greatest commercial nation, and are rapidly approaching first place. As a military and naval power, we have made a history within the preset year, which has moved the American people to the front rank before the world. What shall be the further destiu\- of this nation? Grand and unprecedented as has been our past, we are now emerging upon an era still more resplendent, and far superior to anything that has gone before in our history. Our horizon has broadened and increased. That which before in many things was a mere interest has now become a necessitv. None can jjredict the mighty sweep of the present evolution. It is destiny. New domains, new responsibilities, and new demands are before us. Our possessions in the distant seas will call for such government and such international policy as was never before required in our affairs. For this reason we must rely in the future more upon our Navy. This realization has already been brought home to us and we are profiting by the lesson. Fifteen years ago we ranked twelfth in maritime strength among the nations while now we have become the fifth, if not the fourth naval power. We are also entering upon an age of competition. What protection shall our vast and growing foreign and domestic commerce receive? OUR INCREASING COMMERCE. • The Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department oflficially assures us that the exports of our country for the year ended June 30, 1898, exceed the enormous value of $1,200,000,000. No month since last August has fallen below 195,000,000, while the exports for May last amounted to $110,239,206. The imports for the same year exceed $600,000,000 in value. It can now be said that our exports are double in value to our imports. We are selling twice as much as we are buying — a most inspiring spectacle — and a result as commendable and significant in the affairs of a nation as in those of an individual. I have .^(' r>J| O.m) ''' ""iJTifi^ "*»«?» H.^ y / / •Mr Oi.if ^ I. ,1, »/. 1/ >Iy I.. V ( '■' I ; /I *v^*^■^••^^ ,.t •'M.H L -.^ " ^/.\\\]y. A.t l/>| • t( '■y. S, 9i'or- ^virj-.v > '■■' ' -^vsV,-, v)5 r;<^'^^^,f. Cry:,, \ 15- .V, * 'i.» tc <;/ «?., :i/ M: ^^Mf^^nm .n f'3! '■)(?• -.VS;...vVJv'%7-, ^f ^VJiwSB.luw * I I iiiii III Comp tied on d drann 6y £./?f/ouff>. 1 60 \vA v^v;.i:K-.:i.? '■.■^. Map of the HAWAIIAN IS Area. 6.040 Square 157" Map oF the IAN ISLANDS. 1.6.040 Square Miles. ["I '^lintiiwkipcc PHO'S uTrtimra Misf liners givfri aiv in .Statute . \Wcs. > i Wl»*M>l>— lltl W ill I * I •iff ;'^-; ■J .-*>■'- (tvK--^ '^' .,\ ,>»^ ■^iv: ..*-^' V-JS «»-* ■* X \ ^> o (I . ■'«• \ \ V 'S//- M \\ > \ -^ 11/:/// II If «M«<>,*u«. ^(•s^^ *;'' j' ■ -. ■-, \n ■• - Ui I •\ 'A «,w^- >v - V'. ■-. ^■c. Of ;.!'/>{ ^:.l' ^Vr ..j-^i- / r -' '..«.' :1. > n^ — K ^ U Wli I II H II ?2f '■^\ THK LOUISIANA PURCHASE. 85 found no other instance within the century where tlie exports of a nation have been double the imports. Indeed, it is said this record is without a parallel in the annals of the world! To maintain this splendid reputation and to excel this hij^h standard amon^ all nations, it is essential that we shall anticipate our further dcvelojMnent in the near future and wisely avail ourselves of such acquisition of territory, naval and coaling stations and such advantajj^cs by treaties and commer- cial aj^reements as shall enable us not only to enlarge the scope of our export traffic and further multiply the market places for our varied, wondrotis, and rapidly increasing productions, but also to protect and defend the trade which shall follow the flag. Is the imperial domain which is now the Republic to remain content with its present advance, or is it written for the future that accession and annexation shall still further progress until we shall secure the island approaches in the Atlantic which under foreign flags and rival nations still menace the way to the Gulf ports and to the great river which carries to the markets of the world the rich commerce of manv of the States of the Union? HAWAII. It is now already written that on the Pacific side of our Republic and along the track of our increasing and lucrative commerce with the Occident and the Orient, the islands which lie to the westward and face the California shores are ours. These aggregate in area 6,040 square miles — nearly the combined area of the States of Connecticut and Delaware. They contain the little republic which has long prospered under the stinnilus of American euterpri.se and capital, until at last 95 per cent of its property values represent the possessions of our own kindred. As an evidence of the present connnercial importance to the United States of the.se islands, it is of interest to note that of the #200,000,000 in value of exports since 1876, more than $180,000,000 in value came to this country; and of the $100,000,000 worth of imports by Hawaii from all countries during the same period about $70,000,000 worth were from the United States. In this present year the American exports to Hawaii will equal $6,000,000 as against about $r,ooo,ooo only twenty-two years ago. It is officially estimated that her exports to the United States this year will equal in value $15,000,000, while in 1876 — only twenty-two years ago — they did not much exceed $1,000,000 in value. So thoroughly Ameri- can has that traffic become that already go per cent of the entire shipments from Hawaii comes to this country. Were we not enjoined to acquire these islands as a defense to our traffic on the Pacific as it crosses and recrosses at all hours to the Asiatic shores? OUR ASIATIC TRADE. Our annual trade with the Orient amounts in value to over $56,000,000. Our exports to China in 1895 were only $3,603,840 in value, while they will reach a total this year of nearly $11,000,000. Our sales to that country the present year will show an increase over those of nine years ago of over 300 per cent! Our purchases 86 THK LOUISIANA PURCHASE. from the same country only show an increase of 35 per cent. Of our total exports to Asia we have made a >;ain this year more than (lonl)!^ that of 1890 and ten times greater than that of 1870. Across the Pacific we behold nearly one-half of the world's population. We are their nearest market, and, considerinj^ only our trade interests and merchant marine, should we not exercise the utmost vij^ilance, not only in maintaininjr and extendinj^ this valuable commerce, but also in providing sufficient safeguards for the future? THK .SANDWICH I.SLANIXS A .SAKKCIUARI). Our possession of the Sandwich Islands is a safeguard. Are they not indis- pensable to us as a military and naval outpost for the defense of our Pacific mainland as well as a resting place and depot of supply for our merchant ships and those of our Navy? Should not .such a strategic outpost long since have been added to our domain? Have we any reason to apprehend that Hawaii will add discredit tt our past record of successful annexation? The Hawaiian people as a whole are to-day further advanced educationally, industrially and commercially, than the people inhabiting any other country at the time of its ainiexation or cession to our domain. Their Republic has been governed in a wise, economic and statesmanlike manner. Their resources are abundant and varied, and fully justify the assurance that, with the added stimulus which annexation will give, Hawaii will eventually become the garden spot of the world, at the same time being a defensive point and a commercial aid to our country. All hail, then, this last acquisition to the Great Republic. What a glorious interval between Louisiana in 1803 and Hawaii in 1898. As the illustrious Thomas Jefferson, for his annexation of the empire west of the Mississippi, crowned his memory with imperishable fame, so President William McKinley has added to his renown, and forever endeared himself to his fellow-countrymen, for his safe counsels and his untiring and zealous aid in the annexation of Hawaii to our domain. Together we link the names of these two great Presidents and American annexationists — the one at the beginning of the century, the other at its close. The succeeding years will richly vindicate the present Executive in this splendid act, as the past has so gloriously verified the foresight of the sage of Monticello in his record of annexation. The year 1898 will be a precious memory to all patriotic Americans. The world will gaze upon its record in wonder and admi- ration. The part which Americans have acted in this year will go down the ages. It will read in the future more like fable than fact. In war and in peace our trophies are as many and as grand as they are marvelous and like revelation. THE NICARAGUA CANAL. The intelligent judgment of the American people, which has so often approved the past policy of our country in reference to the many splendid accessions to our domain, will not hesitate to secure still further advantages by the same wise THE LOUISIANA rURCHASK. S7 diplomacy. This lioiK- liaviuyj now hct-ti realized as to Hawaii, and the track of our ininieiise commerce aloti^ the oceanic hif^hway thus far lar}.>cly jjrotected, is tliere not still another important duty incuml)ent upon us, as imperative as it is essen- tial, and which api)eals to every public-spirited and patriotic American? There is; and that duty calls for the construction of the Nicaraj^ua Canal, to be not only constructed, but owned and controlled by our (iovernment. With the canal completed, our Atlantic and Pacific seaboards will be brou^^ht nearer together by almost 1 1,000 miles. In the event of war with any nation this canal will bring our military and naval forces from both oceans with quick and safe dispat<'h at any threatened point along our coasts or ui)on our ishuul possessions. The very .security which such an advantage wotdd confer woidd of itself often prevent con- fhct-s, as no nation would hastily engage our country in war with such a safeguard and such an avenue for rapid passage and national defense. The commerce of the Atlantic as well as of the Pacific demands this interoceanic highway. A stream of trafBc will pour direct from the great rivers and lakes on the one side to tho.se on the other. The products of our country will find cheap transportation for inter- change in our hotne markets, as well as more profitable shipment to the wider marts of the world. The month of the Columbia river, in a .sense, will be extended to theCUilf of Mc.cico, and the mouth of the Mississijjpi to the Pacific Ocean. i)ur jjcople will become more closely related. Our nation will become stronger at home and more honored abroad. When the great undertaking shall have been accomplished, it can then be said that of all achievements in our industrial development none will have contributed more to the material interests of our people than this world-famed project. While extending our already vast commerce and dominion it will also contribute to the defen.se, the honor, and the glory of our beloved country, and b ■ a monument to American genius and American foresight and energy as long as time shall endure.