Beyond the consideration founded on the desire of "strengthening the good understanding" between the two countries, there is the pecuniary consideration already mentioned, which underwent a change in the progress of the negotiation. The sum of seven millions was originally agreed upon; but when it was understood that there was a fur company and also an ice company enjoying monopolies under the existing government, it was thought best that these should be extinguished, in consideration of which our Government added two hundred thousand dollars to the purchase money, and the Russian Government in formal terms declared "the cession of territory and dominion to be free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions, by any associated companies whether corporate or incorporate, or by any parties, except merely private individual property-holders."
The treaty proceeds to say that "the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto."
There are questions not unworthy of attention, which arise under the treaty between Russia and Great Britain, fixing the eastern limits of these possessions, and conceding certain privileges to the latter power. By this treaty, signed at St. Petersburg February 28, 1825, after fixing the boundaries between the Russian and British possessions, it is provided that "for the space of ten years the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hinderance whatever, all the inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives"; and also that "for the space of ten years the port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce and vessels of British subjects." In the same treaty it is also provided that "the subjects of his Britannic majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navigating freely and without any hinderance whatever all the rivers and streams which in their course toward the Pacific ocean may cross the line of demarcation." Afterward a treaty of commerce and navigation between Russia and Great Britain was signed at St. Petersburg, January 11, 1843, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the expiration of ten years, in which it is provided that "in regard to commerce and navigation in the Russian possessions on the northwest coast of America the convention of February 28, 1825, continues in force."
Then ensued the Crimean War between Russia and Great Britain, effacing or suspending treaties. Afterward another treaty of commerce and navigation was signed at St. Petersburg, January 12, 1859, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the expiration of ten years, which repeats the last provision.
Thus we have three different stipulations on the part of Russia: one opening seas, gulfs, and havens on the Russian coast to British subjects for fishing and trading with the natives; the second making Sitka a free port to British subjects; and the third making British rivers that flow through the Russian possessions forever free to British navigation. Do the United States succeed to these stipulations?
Among these I make a distinction in favor of the last, which by its language is declared to be "forever," and may have been in the nature of an equivalent at the settlement of the boundaries between the two Powers. While pleading with Great Britain in 1826 for the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, Mr. Clay, who was at that time Secretary of State, said that "the American Government did not mean to contend for any principle the benefit of which, in analogous circumstances, it would deny to Great Britain." In the same year Mr. Gallatin, our Minister in London, when negotiating with Great Britain for the adjustment of our boundaries on the Pacific, proposed that "if the line should cross any of the branches of the Columbia at points from which they are navigable by boats to the main stream, the navigation of both branches and of the main stream should be perpetually free and common to the people of both nations."
“We must not be proud of our bodies, because the matter is from the earth, yet not dishonour our bodies, because the mould and shape are from the divine wisdom.”
–Matthew Henry, Commentary, Job 10