|
CHAPTER XXVIII.
ALASKA AS A UNITED STATES COLONY.
1867-1883.
From the day on which the term of the Russian American
Company’s third charter expired, the great monopoly ceased to enjoy, except on
sufferance, any rights or privileges other than those common to all Russian
subjects. It retained, of course, its personal property and the real estate
actually in use, but after the company refused to accept the terms of the imperial
government, operations were continued only pending the disposition of its
effects and the winding-up of its affairs. Expenses were curtailed, some of the
trading posts abandoned, and the control of the colonies placed in charge of an
officer appointed by the company.
But Russia had no desire to retain control of this
territory, separated as it was from the seat of government by a wide tract of
tempestuous ocean and by the breadth of her vast empire. Long before the
Crimean war, the question had been mooted of placing Alaska under imperial
rule, but it was decided that the expense of protecting this vast territory,
and of maintaining there the costly machinery of a colonial government, was not
justified by the prospect of an adequate return. The bombardment of Petropavlovsk
and other incidents of the war had confirmed this impression, and the day
seemed not far distant when the long-threatened struggle would begin with
England for supremacy in central Asia. In such an event Russia would need all
her resources. Already her railroads had been built and her wars conducted
mainly with borrowed capital. In case of another war with the greatest moneyed
power and the greatest maritime power in the world, neither men, ships, nor
money could be spared for the protection of Russian America. Moreover, Russia
had never occupied, and had never wished to occupy, this territory. For two
thirds of a century she had been represented there, as we have seen, almost
entirely by a fur and trading company under the protection of government. In a
measure it had controlled, or endeavored to control, the affairs of that
company, and among its stockholders were several members of the royal family;
but Alaska had been originally granted to the Russian American Company by
imperial oukaz, and by imperial oukaz the charter had been twice renewed. Now that the company had declined to accept
a fourth charter on the terms proposed, something must be done with the
territory, and Russia would lose no actual portion of her empire in ceding it
to a republic with which she was on friendly terms, and whose domain seemed
destined to spread over the entire continent.
The exact date at which negotiations were commenced
for the transfer is difficult to determine; but we know that at Kadiak it was
regarded almost as a certainty not later than 1861, and that at Washington it
was discussed at least as early as 1859. In December of the latter year, during
Buchanan’s
administration, Mr Gwin, then senator for California,
held several interviews with the Russian minister, in the course of which he
stated, though not officially, that the United States would be willing to pay
five million dollars for Alaska. The assistant secretary of state also affirmed
that the president was in favor of the purchase, and that if a favorable answer
were returned by the Russian government, he would lay the matter before the
cabinet. A few months later a despatch was received
from Prince Gortschakof stating that the sum offered
was entirely inadequate; but that the minister of finance was about to inquire
into the condition of the territory, after which Russia would be in a condition
to treat.
On the 1st of January, 1860, the company’s capital was
estimated at about four million four hundred thousand dollars, but it was
represented almost entirely by furs, goods, real estate, improvements, and
sea-going vessels, which would realize, of course, but a small part of the
value placed on them. In view of this fact, and of the uncertainty as to the
renewal of the charter, it is not improbable that a positive offer of five
million dollars might have been accepted, but for i the outbreak of the civil war, which for several years put an end to further
negotiations.
Among those who most desired the transfer were the
people of Washington Territory, many of whom had been employed in the fisheries
of the British provinces, and wished for right of fishery among the rich
salmon, cod, and halibut grounds of the Alaskan coast. In the winter of 1866 a
memorial was adopted by the legislature of this territory, “in reference to the
cod and other fisheries,” and after being presented to the president, was
delivered to the Russian minister, with some comments on the necessity of an arrangement
that would avoid difficulties between the two powers.
A few weeks later other influences were brought to
bear. The lease of territory which, it will be remembered, had been granted by
the Russian American Company to the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1837, and several
times renewed, would expire in June 1868. Could not the control of this
valuable slip of earth be obtained for a trading company to be organized on the
Pacific coast, together with a license to gather furs in portions of the
Russian territory? Mr Cole, senator, for California,
sought to obtain these privileges on behalf of certain parties in that state,
and thus, as Sumner remarks, “the mighty Hudson’s Bay Company, with its
headquarters in London, was to give way to an American company, with its
headquarters in California.” The minister of the United States at St Petersburg
was addressed on the subject, but replied that the Russian American Company was
then in correspondence with the Hudson’s Bay Company as to the renewal of their
lease, and that no action could be taken until some definite answer were
received. Meanwhile the Russian minister at Washington, with whom Cole had held
several interviews, returned to St Petersburg on leave of absence, promising to
do his best to maintain friendly relations between the two powers.
If at this juncture a prompt and satisfactory answer
had been returned by the Hudson’s Bay Company, Alaska might at this day have
been one of the numerous colonies of Great Britain, instead of being, as in
fact it became for a time, the only colony belonging to the United States. But
no answer came, or none that was acceptable; nor at the beginning of 1867 had
any agreement been made by the Russian American Company with the imperial
government as to the renewal of its charter.
In February of this year, when the Russian minister
was about to return to Washington, the archduke Constantine gave him power to
treat for the sale of the territory. On his arrival, negotiations were at once
opened for this purpose. On the 23d of March he received a note from the
secretary of state offering to add, subject to the president’s approval,
two-hundred thousand dollars to the sum of seven million dollars before
proposed, on condition that the cession be “free and unencumbered by any
reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated
companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or any other.” Two days
later an answer was returned, stating that the minister believed himself authorized
to accept these terms. On the 29th final instructions were received by cable
from St Petersburg, On the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to the cession of
Russian America for the stipulated sum of seven million two hundred thousand
dollars in gold. At four o’clock the next morning the treaty was signed by the
two parties without further phrase or negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified,
and on June 20, 1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of the
United States.
Such in brief is the history of this treaty, which for
years was published and republished, discussed and rediscussed, throughout the
United States. As there is no principle involved, nor any interesting
information connected therewith, it is not necessary here to enter upon an
analysis or elucidation of these discussions. The circumstances which led to
the transfer are still supposed by many to be enshrouded in mystery, but I can
assure the reader that there is no mystery about it. In diplomatic circles,
even so simple a transaction as buying a piece of ground must not be allowed
consummation without the usual wise winks, whisperings, and circumlocution.
Some of the reasons which probably induced Russia to
cede her American possessions have already been mentioned. The motives which
led the United States government to purchase them are thus stated in a report
of the committee on foreign affairs, published May 18, 1868: “They were, first,
the laudable desire of citizens of the Pacific coast to share in the prolific
fisheries of the oceans, seas, bays, and rivers of the western world; the
refusal of Russia to renew the charter of the Russian American Fur Company in
1866; the friendship of Russia for the United States; the necessity of
preventing the transfer, by any possible chance, of the north-west coast of
America to an unfriendly power; the creation of new industrial interests on the
Pacific necessary to the supremacy of our empire on the sea and land; and
finally, to facilitate and secure the advantages of an unlimited American
commerce with the friendly powers of Japan and China.”
Here we have probably a fair statement of the case in
favor of the purchase question, howsoever senseless and illogical some of the
reasons cited may appear. On the other side, we have some cogent arguments in
the minority report, where it is remarked that “a contract is entered into by
the president, acting through the secretary of state, to purchase of the
Russian government the territory of Alaska. The contract contained stipulations
which were well understood by Baron Stoeckl, the agent of the Russian
government. Those stipulations were such as the negotiators could not enforce,
but which were necessary to be complied with before the treaty could become
valid or binding. The stipulations were, first, that the treaty should be
ratified by the senate; and second, that the legislative power should vote the
necessary appropriation. The first stipulation was complied with, and the
second is the one now being considered. Each stipulation was independent of the
other, and required independent powers to carry it into execution. The
treaty-making power can no more bind congress to pass a law than congress can
bind it to make a treaty. They are independent departments, and were designed
to act as cheeks rather than be subservient to each other.
“As was well said by Judge McLean, ‘a treaty is the
supreme law of the land only when the treatymaking power can carry it into
effect. A treaty which stipulates for the payment of moneys undertakes to do
that which the treaty-making power cannot do; therefore, the treaty is not the
supreme law of the land. A foreign government may be presumed to know that the
power of appropriating money belongs to congress.’ ”
The unseemly haste with which the treaty was consummated,
and the reluctance with which the purchase money was afterward voted by
congress, add to the pertinence of these remarks; and the mistrust as to the
expenditure of public funds was not dispelled by the report of the committee on
public expenditure published at Washington in February 1869. Moreover, it was
well known to all American citizens that the president of the United States, or
his representative, had no more right to use the public money for the purchase
of Alaska without a vote of congress, than had the queen of England to demand
from her people the price of her daily breakfast without the consent of
parliament.
Nevertheless, experience has proved that the territory
was well worth the sum paid for it, though at first it was believed to be
almost valueless. And this is the real reason of the purchase; it was thought
to be a good bargain, and so it was bought, though cash on hand was not over
plentiful at the time. A special , agent of the treasury, in a report dated
November 30, 1869, estimates the compounded interest of the purchase money for
twenty-five years at $23,701,792.14, and adds to this sum $12,500,000 as the
probable expense, caused by the transfer, to the army and navy departments for
the same period, thus making the total cost, including the principal,
$43,401,792.14 for the first quarter of a century. He is of opinion, however,
that $75,000 to $100,000 a year might be derived from what he terms the ‘seal-fisheries,’
and perhaps $5,000 to $10,000 from customs. “As a financial measure,” he
remarks, “ it might not be the worst policy to abandon the territory for the
present.” The agent appears to have been somewhat astray in his estimates, for
between 1871 and 1883 about $5,000,000 were paid into the United States
treasury as rent of the Prybilof Islands and tax on
sealskins alone. It is true that the military occupation, while it lasted, was
somewhat expensive, and that buildings which cost many thousands of dollars
were afterward sold for a few hundreds; but, as we shall see, troops were not
needed in Alaska, and the cost of maintaining the single war-vessel which was
occasionally stationed at Sitka after their withdrawal cannot have been
excessive.
Seward, who visited Alaska a short time before the
agent’s report was published, and who delivered a speech at Sitka in August
1869, remarks: “Mr Sumner, in his elaborate and
magnificent oration, although he spoke only from historical accounts, has not
exaggerated—no man can exaggerate—the marine treasures of the territory.
Besides the whale, which everywhere and at all times is seen enjoying his robust
exercise, and the sea-otter, the fur-seal, the hairseal,
and the walrus found in the waters which embosom the western islands, those
waters, as well as the seas of the eastern archipelago, are found teeming with
the salmon, cod, and other fishes adapted to the support of human and animal
life. Indeed, what I have seen here has almost made me a convert to the theory
of some naturalists, that the waters of the globe are filled with stores for
the sustenance of animal life surpassing the 'available productions of the
land.”
Of the resources of Alaska, mention will be made
later. At present her furs and fisheries are of course the chief attractions;
but it is not improbable that in the distant future the sale of her mining and
timber lands will yield to the United States an annual income larger than the
amount of the purchase money.
The Russian American Company, besides supporting its
numerous and expensive establishments, paid into the imperial treasury between
1841 and 1862 over 4,400,000 roubles in duties, to
stockholders more than 2,700,000, and for churches, schools, and benevolent
institutions about 553,000 roubles. There appears no
valid reason, therefore, why Alaska should not have been a source of profit to
the United States, except perhaps that this was the first experiment made in
the colonization, and it is to be hoped the last in the military occupation, of
a territory which, as will be related, the attorney-general declared in 1873 to
be ‘Indian country.’
On Friday, the 18th of October, 1867, the Russian and
United States commissioners, Captain Alexei Pestchourof and General L. H. Rousseau, escorted by a company of the ninth infantry, landed
at Novo Arkhangelsk, or Sitka, from the United States steamer John L.
Stephens. Marching to the governor’s residence, they were drawn up side by
side with the Russian garrison on the summit of the rock where floated the
Russian flag; “whereupon,” writes an eye-witness of the proceedings, “Captain Pestchourof ordered the Russian flag hauled down, and
thereby, with brief declaration, transferred and delivered the territory of
Alaska to the United States; the garrisons presented arms, and the Russian
batteries and our men of war fired the international salute; a brief reply of
acceptance was made as the stars and stripes were run up and similarly saluted,
and we stood upon the soil of the United States.”
Thus, without further ceremony, without even banqueting
or speech-making, this vast area of land, belonging by right to neither, was
transferred from one European race to the offshoot of another. No sooner had
the transfer been made than General Davis demanded the barracks for his troops,
taking possession, moreover, of all the buildings, and this although the
improvements of whatever kind were beyond doubt the property of the Russian
American Company, the Russian government having no right whatever to transfer
them. Thus the inhabitants were turned into the streets, only a few of them
obtaining two or three days’ grace in which to find shelter for their families
and remove their effects.
Within a few weeks after the American flag was raised
over the fort at Sitka, stores, drinking-saloons, and restaurants were opened,
vacant lots were staked out, were covered with frame shanties, and changed
hands at prices that promised to make the frontage of the one street which the
capital contained alone worth the purchase money of the territory. To this new
domain flocked men in all conditions of life—speculators, politicians,
office-hunters, tradesmen, even laborers. Nor were there wanting loafers,
harlots, gamblers, and divers other classes of free white Europeans never seen
in these parts before; for of such is our superior civilization. A charter was
framed for the so-called city, laws were drawn up, and an election held, at
which a hundred votes were polled for almost as many candidates. The claims of
squatters were put on record; judgment was passed in cases where liberty and
even life were at stake; questions were decided which involved nice points of
international law; and all this was done with utter indifference to the
military authorities, then the only legal tribunal in the territory.
Two generations had passed away since Baranof and his
countrymen had built the fort, or as it is now termed the castle, of Sitka.
During all these years the Russians had known little and cared for little
beyond the dull routine of their daily labor and their daily life. It is
probable that the appearance of the first steam-vessel in Alaskan waters caused
no less sensation among them than did the news of Austerlitz, of Eylau, or of
Waterloo. Apart from the higher officials, they belonged for the most part to
the uneducated classes. If poorly paid, they had been better fed and clad and
housed than others of their class. They were a law-abiding, if not a
God-fearing, community. During the long term of the company’s dominion there
had been no overt resistance to authority, except in the two instances already
mentioned in this volume. They had been accustomed to submit without a murmur
to the dictates of the governor, from whom there was no appeal, save to a court
from whose seat they were separated by more than one third of the earth’s
circumference. This, however, was under what might be called a half-savage régime.
But now all was changed. Speculation and lawlessness
were rife, and the veriest necessaries sold at prices
beyond reach of the poor. The natives were not slow to take advantage of their
opportunity, and refused to sell the Russians game or fish at former rates;
while the Americans refused to accept the parchment money which formed their
circulating medium in payment for goods, except at a heavy discount. No wonder
that few of the Russians cared to take advantage of the clause in the treaty
which provides that, “with the exception of the uncivilized native tribes, the
inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all
the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and
shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and religion.” The company and the imperial government gave them at
least protection, sufficient means of livelihood, schools, a church; but in
this vast territory there never existed, since 1867, other than a semblance
even of military law. There was not in 1883 legal protection for person or
property, nor, apart from a law regulations as to commerce and navigation, had
any important act been passed by congress, save those that relate to the
preservation of seals, the collection of revenue, and the sale of fire-arms and
fire-water.
“The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to
their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within
three years,” read the words of the treaty. Within a few weeks, or perhaps
months, after the transfer, there were not more than a dozen Russians left at
Sitka, the remainder having been sent home by way of California, or round the
Horn. Five years later, the population was composed of a few creoles of the
poorer class, a handful of American soldiers, perhaps a score of American
civilians, a few Aleuts, and a few Kolosh.
Toward the creoles and Indians the policy of the
United States has thus far been severely negative; and, to put the matter in
its most favorable light, I cannot do better than quote the words of the creole Kostromitin, who in 1878 was a resident of Unalaska,
being at that date an octogenarian. “I am glad,” he says, “that I lived to see
the Americans in the country. The Aleuts are better off now than they were
under the Russians. The first Russians who came here killed our men and took
away our women and all our possessions; and afterward, when the Russian
American Company came, they made all the Aleuts like slaves, and sent them to
hunt far away, where many were drowned and many killed by savage natives, and
others stopped in strange places and never came back. The old company gave us
fish for nothing, but we could have got plenty of it for ourselves if we had
been allowed to stay at home and provide for our families. Often they would not
sell us flour or tea, even if we had skins to pay for it. Now we must pay for
everything, but we can buy what we like. God will not give me many days to
live, but I am satisfied.” We shall see presently that Kostromitin’s satisfaction was not shared by a majority of his countrymen.
In many sessions of congress bills have been introduced
relating to Alaska, of which some have provoked discussion, many have been
tabled, and a few have passed into law. The only measures to which reference is
needed at present are the act of congress approved July 27, 1868, whereby,
among other provisions, a collection district was established in that
territory; two bills introduced in 1869 and 1870 to provide for a temporary
government in Alaska, both of which were referred, though neither passed; some
futile attempts to extend the United States land laws J over the territory; and
certain regulations as to the importation, sale, and manufacture of liquor.
It is worthy of note, that in a territory which has
belonged to the United States for more than half a generation, and whose area
is more than double that of the largest state in the Union, no legal title
could be obtained to land, other than to small tracts deeded to the Russians at
the time of the purchase, except by special act of congress, and not a single
acre had as yet been surveyed for preemption. “Claims of preemption and
settlements,” remarks Seward, “are not only without the sanction of law, but
are in direct violation of laws applicable to the public domain. Military force
may be used to remove intruders if necessary.”
As there was no legal title to land in Alaska, there
could be neither legal conveyance nor mortgage, though conveyances were made
occasionally, and recorded by the deputy collectors at Wrangell and Sitka, the
parties concerned taking their own risk as to whether the transaction might at
some distant day be legalized.
Miners and others whose entire possessions might lie
within the territory, and who might have become residents, could not bequeath
their property, whether real or personal, for there were no probate courts, nor
any authority whereby estates could be administered. Debts could not be
collected except through the summary process by which disputes are sometimes
settled in mining camps. In short, there was neither civil nor criminal
jurisdiction in any part of Alaska. Even murder might be committed, and there was
no redress within that colony. Thus it was that “the inhabitants of the ceded
territory were admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and
immunities of citizens of the United States.”
What shall we do with Alaska? was one of the first
questions asked after the transfer of the territory— make of it a penal colony?
Perhaps it had been better so. At no period in the annals of Alaska were there
so many Indian émeutes as during the few years of the military occupation; at
no period were lust, theft, and drunkenness more prevalent among Indians and
white persons alike. After the withdrawal of the troops, in June 1877,
disturbances among the natives became fewer in number and less serious in character,
and it is probable that many lives would have been saved if no United States
soldier had ever set foot in the territory.
“I am compelled to say,” writes William S. Dodge,
collector of customs, to Vincent Colyer, special Indian commissioner, in 1869,
“that the conduct of certain military and naval officers and soldiers has been
bad and demoralizing in the extreme; not only contaminating the Indians, but in
fact demoralizing and making the inhabitants of Sitka what Dante characterized
Italy—‘A grand house of ill-fame.’ I speak only of things as seen and felt at
Sitka.
“First. The demoralizing influence originated in the
fact that the garrison was located in the heart of the town.
“Secondly. The great mass of the soldiers were either
desperate or very immoral men.
“Thirdly. Some of the officers did not carry out
military discipline in that just way which the regulations contemplate. They
gave too great license to bad men; and the deepest evil to all, and out of
which other great evils resulted, was an indiscriminate pass system at night.
Many has been the night when soldiers have taken possession of a Russian house,
and frightened and browbeaten the women into compliance with their lustful
passions.
“Many is the night I have been called upon after
midnight, by men and women, Russian and Aleutian, in their night-clothes, to
protect them against the malice of the soldiers. In instances where the guilty
parties could be recognized, they have been punished; but generally they have
not been recognized, and therefore escaped punishment.
“Fourthly. The conduct of some of the officers has
been so demoralizing that it was next to impossible to keep discipline among
the soldiers... Officers have carried on with the same high hand among the
Russian people; and were the testimony of citizens to be taken, many instances
of real infamy and wrongs would come to light.
“For a long time some of the officers drank immoderately
of liquor, and it is telling the simple truth when I say that one or two of
them have been drunk for a week at a time. The soldiers saw this, the Indians
saw it; and as ‘ayas tyhus,’
or ‘big chiefs,’ as they called the officers, drank, they thought that they too
must get intoxicated. Then came the distrust of American justice when they
found themselves in the guard-house, but never saw the officers in when in a
like condition.”
“All effort is being made to have the military return
to Alaska,” writes the deputy collector of customs from Fort Wrangell, in
October 1877, “and in the name of humanity and common sense I ask, What for? Is
it for the best interests of the territory that they should return? Look at the
past for an answer. Whenever did they do anything for the country or the people
in it that deserves praise? Did they encourage enterprise and assist in the
developing of the resources of the country? No! It stands recorded that they
foiled the developing of it, and placed restrictions on enterprise and
improvements. Did they seek the enlightenment of the Indian, and endeavor to
elevate him to a higher moral standard ? On this point let the Indians
themselves testify.”
There were in 1869 five hundred soldiers stationed in
Alaska, while it was admitted by many of the officers that two hundred were
sufficient, and it had already become apparent to civilians that none were
really needed. In a country where there are few roads, and where communication
is almost entirely by water, three or four revenue cutters and the presence of
a single war-vessel would have prevented smuggling and lawlessness far more
effectually than any force of troops.
Notwithstanding all that has been said against the
regime of the Russian American Company, it must be admitted that there were
more troubles with the natives in the ten years during which American troops
were stationed in Alaska than in any decade of the Russian occupation.
“When the territory was transferred to the United
States,” writes Bryant, “the natives had no knowledge of the people with whom
they were to deal; and having been prejudiced by the parties then residing
among them, some of the more warlike chiefs were in favor of driving out the
‘Boston men,’ as they termed us.” The discontent arose, not from any antagonism
to the Americans, but from the fact that the territory had been sold without
their consent, and that they had received none of the proceeds of the sale. The
Russians, they argued, had been allowed to occupy the territory partly for
mutual benefit, but their forefathers had dwelt in Alaska long before any white
man had set foot in America. Why had not the $7,200,000 been paid to them
instead of to the Russians?
But long before the purchase, as the reader will
remember, the natives received better prices for their peltry from the
Americans than from the Russians, and when it was found, after the transfer,
that still higher rates and greater variety of products could be obtained,
their antipathy rapidly disappeared. Thus for a time there was no difficulty;
Aleut and Thlinkeet became friends of the ‘Boston
men,’8 and so it might have continued but for an untoward incident.
On New-Year’s day, 1869, a Chilkat chief, Choicheka by name, was invited to dinner by
General Davis, then in command of the district. After doing ample justice to
the general’s hospitality, he was presented with two bottles of American
whiskey, and on taking his leave, felt that he was not only every inch a chief,
but as good and great a man as any who claimed possession of his country. On
reaching the foot of the castle stairs, attired in a cast-off army uniform, and
with bottles in hand, he stalked majestically across the part of the
parade-ground reserved for officers, and was challenged by the sentry. Ignoring
such paltry presence, Cholcheka went on his way
toward the stockade, at the gate of which was a second sentry, and refusing to
turn back, he received a kick as he passed out. Now a kick to a Chilkat chief, and especially to one who dons the United
States uniform, has just dined with the general in command, and has a bottle of
whiskey in each hand, is a sore indignity. With the aid of one Sitka Jack, then
a well known character among the townsfolk, he wrested the rifle from the
soldier’s grasp, and entered the Indian village close at hand.
The guard was at once turned out, and “ordered,”
writes Davis in his report of January 5, 1869, “to follow him into the village,
and arrest him and his party. He resisted by opening a fire upon the guard. The
guard returned it, but finding the Indians too strong for them, retreated back
into the garrison. As the chief himself was reported probably killed in the melée, and the whole tribe of Sitkas,
among whom he was staying, was thrown into a great state of excitement, I
thought it prudent to order a strong guard out for the night, and to take no
further action until morning, as the night was, very dark, thus giving them
time to reflect.
“I called the principal Sitka chiefs together, and
they disclaimed any participation in the affair, and said they did not desire
to fight either the troops or the Chilkahts, and that
they had already hoisted white flags over their cabins. I then demanded the
surrender of the Chilkaht chief, who, after
considerable delay and some show of fight on the part of about fifty of his
warriors, came in and gave himself up. A few minutes’ talk with him sufficed to
convince me that he was bent on war, and I would have had to fight but for the Sitkas refusing to join in his design. I confined him and
his principal confederates in the guardhouse, where he still remains.”
In a few days Cholcheka and
bis party were liberated, and here it was supposed the matter would end; but,
as it proved, this, the first difficulty between the Indians and the military,
was fraught with evil consequences, and all on account of a United States
general making an Indian drunk, and then having two of his people killed. And
this from his own showing; we never hear the other side of these stories. “On
the 25th of December last,” continues Davis, in a report dated March 9, 1869,
“a couple of white men, named Maager and Walker, left
Sitka in a small boat on a trading expedition in Chatham Straits. About one
week after their departure the difficulty between the Chilcot chief and a few
of his followers occurred at this place, as heretofore reported. It appears
that during this difficulty a party of eight Kake Indians were at the Sitka
village, and one of them was shot by a sentinel while attempting to escape from
the village in a canoe, contrary to orders and an understanding with the
peaceable portion of the Indians. The parties thus attempting to escape were
run down by small boats from the Saginaw and the revenue cutter Reliance,
and brought back. As they were unarmed, they were permitted to go about their
business. They remained some days among the Sitkas,
and after the Chilcot chief was restored to liberty, it is reported they tried
to get him to join them in a general fight against the whites. From the best
information I can get, he declined to do so. They then left for their homes,
and en route murdered Maager and Walker in the most brutal manner.”
It was not yet known to the military authorities, or,
if it were, the fact was ignored, that among the Thlinkeet tribes, when a member has suffered death or injury from violence, his comrades
require payment in money or goods, and in default of it, never fail to
retaliate. The present of a few blankets or other articles to the relatives of
those who fell in the émeute at Sitka would probably have prevented the
troubles that ensued. It is certain that it would at least have prevented the
mutilation and murder of Maager and Walker.
Davis had now, as he thought, no alternative. He
sailed for Kou Island, the territory of the Kakes, on board the Saginaw,
intending to obtain the surrender of the murderers, or to seize some of their
chiefs as hostages. On his arrival he found that the whole tribe had
disappeared, dreading the vengeance that might overtake them; whereupon he ordered
their villages to be razed to the ground and all their property to be
destroyed.
Henceforth troubles with the Indians continued
throughout and after the military occupation. On Christmas night of 1869 it was
reported to the officer in command at Fort Wrangell that a Stikeen named Lowan,
or Siwau, had bitten off the finger of the wife of
the quartermaster sergeant. A detachment was sent to arrest him, in charge of
Lieutenant Loucks, who states that he entered the Indian’s house with twelve
men, eight being posted outside, and instructions given to fire at a given
signal. “I tapped Siwau on the shoulder,” reports the
lieutenant, “ saying that I wanted him to come with me. He arose from his
sitting posture and said he would put on his vest; after that he wished to get
his coat. Feeling convinced that this was merely to gain time, and that he
wished to trifle with me, I began to be more urgent. Siwau appeared less and less inclined to come away with me, and in this the latter
part of the parley he became impudent and menacing in raising his hands as if
to strike me. I admonished him against such actions, and tried my utmost to
avoid extreme measures in arresting him. About this time Esteen, probably
apprehending danger to his brother, Siwau, rushed
forward in front of the detachment, extending his arms theatrically, and
exclaiming, as I supposed under the circumstances, ‘Shoot; kill me; I am not
afraid.’ Siwau, seeing this, also rushed upon the
detachment, endeavoring to snatch a musket away from one of the men on the
right of the detachment. Still wishing to avoid loss of life if possible, I
tried to give him two or three sabre-cuts over the
head to stun without killing him. In doing this I had given the preconcerted
signal, by raising my hand, to fire. I should judge about six or eight shots
were fired during the melée, and only ceasing by the
Indian Siwau falling at the feet of the detachment
dead.”
The officer returned to his quarters and dismissed his
men, supposing that no further trouble would occur; but an hour later shots
were heard from the direction of the store of the post-trader, and taking with
him a single private, Loucks ran toward the spot. On his way he stumbled across
an object near the plank walk laid between the store and the garrison quarters.
It was the post-trader’s partner, Leon Smith, lying on his breast with arms
extended, a revolver near his right hand, fourteen bullet wounds in his left
side just below the heart, and three in the left wrist. A few hours later he
died an extremely painful death, and it was ascertained that the murder had
been committed by an Indian named Scutdoo.
Immediately after reveillé Loucks was sent with twenty men to demand the surrender of the murderer; to
summon the chiefs of the tribe to the post, and to state that if the culprit
were 'not delivered up at midday at latest, fire would be opened on the Indian
village outside the stockade. At noon there were no indications that the demand
would be complied with, but there were very strong indications that the Indians
intended to fight. After consulting with his fellow-officers and waiting for
two hours more, in the hope that the natives would change their determination,
Lieutenant Borrowe of the second artillery, then in
command, ordered his battery to open with solid shot on the murderer’s house.
Several shot passed through the building, but the Indians maintained their position
and returned the fire. Later a fusillade was opened by the Indians from the
hills in rear of the post, but being answered with canister, they quickly
dispersed.
Firing was continued on both sides until dark. “The
next morning, just at daybreak,” reports Borrowe,
“they opened on the garrison from the ranch with musketry, which was
immediately replied to, and seeing that they were determined not only to
resist, but had become the assailants, I resolved to shell them, but having
only solid shot for the six-pounder, and the distance being too great for
canister, I still continued the fire from that gun with shot and from the
mountain howitzer with shell.”
During the afternoon messengers were sent under a flag
of truce to request a parley. The reply was, that until the murderer was
surrendered “talk was useless.” “ Soon after,” continues Borrowe,
“the chiefs were seen coming over, and a party behind them with the murderer,
who was easily recognized by his dress. Just as they were leaving the ranch a
scuffle, evidently prearranged, took place, and the prisoner escaped, and was
seen making for the bush, no attempt to rearrest him being made.” On arriving
at the post the chiefs were informed that if Scutdoo were not delivered up before six o’clock the next evening their village and its
occupants would be destroyed. At nine p. m. on the 26th the murderer was
surrendered; on the 28th he was tried by court-martial, and at noon on the
following day he was hanged.
The prompt action of Lieutenant Borrowe was approved by General Davis, but it would appear that the matter might have
been settled without the murder of an Indian, a white man, and the bombardment
of an Indian village, especially as the general admits that Siwau was drunk when he bit off the woman’s finger. This skilful and gentlemanly performance of the lieutenant, who with twenty armed men could
not arrest a drunken and defenceless Indian without
first cutting him on the head with a sabre, and then
allowing him to be shot, was a fitting supplement to that of his general. The
killing of Siwau was no loss a murder than was the
assassination of the white man. For that murder vengeance must be taken, in
accordance with Indian notions of justice, and the post-trader’s assassination
was the act of vengeance as inflicted by Scutdoo.
After listening with perfect calmness to his sentence, the prisoner exclaimed,
“Very well,” and said that “he would see Mr Smith in
the other world, and, as it were, explain to him how it all happened; that he
did not intend to kill him particularly; had it been any one else, it would
have been all the same.”
There is abundant testimony as to the peaceful
character of the Indians at Fort Wrangell. Leon Smith himself says, in a letter
to Vincent Colyer, written about three months before his death, “I have found
them to be quiet, and they seem well disposed toward the whites;” and in the
same letter remarks that “the Stick (Stikeen) tribe are a very honest tribe,
and partial to the whites.” These statements are indorsed by others. Moreover,
from the reports of several reliable witnesses it appears that the Wrangell
Indians were far more industrious, if not more intelligent, than the United
States soldiers.
From the official reports of the officers in command
at Sitka and Fort Wrangell, it will be seen that the conduct of the troops was
sufficiently atrocious, and of course they put the matter in its most favorable
light. “If,” writes the Christian missionary society’s superintendent of Indian
missions to Vincent Colyer, in 1870, “the United States government did but know
half, I am sure they would shrink from being identified with such abominations,
and the cause of so much misery. I hope and pray that in God’s good providence
the soldiers will be moved away from Fort Tongas and
Fort Wrangel, where there are no whites to protect.”
It is unnecessary to relate in detail all the outrages
that called forth this well deserved remark and justified it in later years. I
will mention only three instances. At Sitka, a Chilkat was deliberately shot dead, by a civilian in 1869 for breaking the glass of a
show-case; three were wounded in 1872 by United States soldiers in an affray
caused by the accidental breaking of an egg; and an Indian chief, being sent
on board a steamer from Fort Wrangell in 1875, as a witness against some
military prisoners, met with such ill usage that he cut his throat, his servant
afterward attempting to blow up the steamer by throwing a large can of powder
into one of the furnaces, and his tribe threatening war on hearing of their
chief’s suicide.
After the withdrawal of the troops there was no power
or authority in the land to punish wrong-doers, and a serious outbreak was of
course anticipated; but none occurred. In August 1877 there were at most but
fifteen American citizens and five Russians remaining at Sitka, with their
wives and families, at the mercy of the hundreds of Kolosh who inhabited the
adjoining village. They were in hourly fear of their lives, as they saw drunken
men staggering past their residences at all hours of the day and night; but
that for two years at least, the Indians caused further trouble, apart from
being noisy, boisterous, sometimes insolent, sometimes guilty of petty theft,
and always drunk when they could obtain liquor, there is no evidence. Much
indignation was expressed by the newspapers of the Pacific coast as to the
indifference with which a handful of loafers and office-seeking politicians—American
citizens they were called—were abandoned to their fate.64 In a San Francisco
publication issued November 2, 1877, it is even stated that the timely arrival
of a revenue cutter alone saved Sitka from demolition and the white population
from slaughter; but now let us hear the official reports of the revenue
officers themselves on this matter.
Captain White of the Corwin, ordered to Sitka soon
after the withdrawal of the military, writes, on August 12, 1877: “After
diligent inquiries and careful observation since our arrival here, I have not
discovered any breach of the public peace, nor has my attention been called to
any particular act, save a few petty trespasses committed by the Indians, halfbreeds, and white men as well.”
In September of this year there was much needless
alarm at Sitka. It was reported that Sitka Jack, then the chief of his tribe,
had invited a large number of the Kolosh from the districts north of the
capital to be present at a grand festival which was to commence on the 1st of
October. Liquor would of course flow plentifully, and it was feared that the
festival would end in the sack of the town and the massacre of its inhabitants.
The revenue steamer Wolcott was therefore ordered to Sitka from Port
Townsend, and on the 18th of October her commander thus reports to the
secretary of the treasury: “The situation of affairs here remains unchanged
since the cutter Corwin left. The festival among the Indians is nothing
new; they have continued this fashion of holding an annual celebration similar
to this one for years, and I learn from a reliable source that no trouble has
ever come of it, or is there likely to now. They are noisy and boisterous in
their mirth, and assume immense airs, and swagger around with some insolence,
but never make any threats. Sitka Jack, the chief of the Sitka Indians, has
recently built him a new house, and celebrates the event on this occasion by
inviting the relatives of his wife, numbering about thirty persons, from the Chilkaht tribe. These are all the Indians from abroad,
which, with the five hundred Sitka Indians, comprise the total number present.
With the exception of the noise and mirth incident to these festivities, I am
assured by the chiefs that there shall be no disturbance.” And there was none;
nor has there since been any very serious trouble. In 1879 émeutes were
threatened at Sitka and Fort Wrangell, but both were prevented, the former by
the arrival of the British man-of-war Osprey, and the latter, which was
merely a fray between two hostile tribes, by the arrival of a party of armed
men from the United States steamer Jamestown. Since that time there have
been occasional murders and attempts at murder, but less frequently, in
proportion to the population, than has been the ease in some of the states and
territories of the Pacific coast.
Considering that since the withdrawal of the troops
the natives have been for the most part masters of the situation, they appear
to have shown more forbearance than could reasonably be expected. It is true
that they have often assumed an arrogant tone, have sometimes demanded and
occasionally received blackmail from the white man when trouble was threatened;
but this is not surprising. They had been accustomed to stern treatment under
Russian rule, to brutal treatment under American rule, and now that there was
no rule, they found themselves living in company with Americans, Russians,
creoles, Chinamen, Eskimos, men of all races, creeds, and colors, in a
condition of primitive republican simplicity. They vastly outnumbered those of
all other nationalities. Notwithstanding the regulations as to the sale of
fire-arms, ammunition, and spirituous liquor, the Indians could always obtain
these articles in exchange for peltry and other wares. They were seldom free
from the craze of strong drink, and strong drink of the vilest description; the
imported liquor sold to them was the cheapest and most, poisonous compound manufactured
in the United States, and the soldiers had taught them how to make a still more
abominable compound for themselves.
Nearly all the troubles that have occurred with
Indians, since the time of the purchase, may be traced directly or indirectly
to the abuse of liquor. During the regime of the Russian American Company, rum
was sold to them only on special occasions, and then in moderate quantities,
but afterward the supply was limited only by the means of the purchaser. The
excitement of a drunken and lascivious debauch became the one object in life
for which the Indians lived, the one object for which they worked. While sober they
were tractable and sometimes industrious, and if they had sufficient
self-denial, would remain sober long enough to earn money for a prolonged
carousal. They would then plan their prasnik,
as they termed it, deliberately, and of malice aforethought, and enjoy it as
deliberately as did the English farm-laborer in, the seventeenth century, when
spirits were cheap and untaxed, and when for a single shilling he could soak
his brains in alcohol for a week at a time at one of the road-side taverns,
where signs informed the wayfarer that he could get well drunk for a penny,
dead-drunk for two pence, and without further expense sleep off the effects of
his orgy on the clean straw provided for him in the cellar.
Soon after the purchase, an order was issued by the
president of the United States that all distilled spirits should be sent to
department headquarters at Sitka and placed under control of General Davis—a
wise proceeding, if we may judge from results—but the injunction was of no
avail. In 1869 confiscated liquor was sold at auction by the collector of the
port in the streets of Sitka. In the same year nine hundred gallons of pure
alcohol, landed from the steamer Newbern and marked ‘coal oil,’ were
seized by the inspector; but for each gallon of alcohol or alcoholic liquor
confiscated by the revenue officers, probably ten were smuggled into the
territory, or were delivered under some pretext, at the sutler’s stores. By the
Newbern were also forwarded to Tongass and Fort
Wrangell, during the same trip, ten barrels of distilled spirits, twenty of
ale, and a large number of eases of porter and wine. The ship’s papers showed
that they were for the use of the officers; but as there were only four
officers at Tongass and a single company of troops at
Fort Wrangell, there is no doubt that they were intended for sale at the Indian
villages adjoining these posts
In answer to a letter from the secretary of war in
1873, the attorney general of the United States declared officially that
“Alaska was to be regarded as Indian country, and that no spirituous liquors or
wines could be introduced into the territory without an order by the war
department for that purpose.” In 1875 all permits for the sale of spirituous
liquors in Alaska were revoked, and during the two remaining years of the
military occupation, we learn of no serious disturbances among the natives.
The disorders that followed the withdrawal of the
troops were due quite as much to white men as to Indians; and by both, the
revenue laws and revenue officers were held in contempt. Of the disgraceful
scenes that then ensued, I will give a single instance. Early in 1878 there
were about two hundred and fifty miners at Fort Wrangell, waiting until the ice
should form on the Stikeen River or navigation should become practicable. In a
report dated February 23d of that year, the deputy collector of customs at Wrangell
says: “While I was at Sitka another thing occurred at this port that puts to
shame anything that has happened heretofore. A gang of rowdies and bummers
have, for the past three months, been in the habit of getting on a drunken
spree, and then at midnight going about the town making the most hideous
noises imaginable, disturbing everybody, and insulting those who complain of
these doings. On the night of February 16th the incarnate devils started out
about midnight, and after raising a commotion all over town, visited a house
occupied by an Indian woman, gave her whiskey that made her beastly drunk, and
then left. Shortly after their departure the house occupied by the woman was
discovered to be in flames, and ere any assistance could be rendered the poor
woman was burned to death.” It was feared that two months later there might be
a thousand miners congregated at Wrangell; and the population of the Indian
village was about double that number. As there was a plentiful supply of
whiskey for the former, and of hootchenoo, or
molasses-rum, for the latter, serious troubles were anticipated.
During the last five months of 1877, there were
delivered at Sitka, from the steamer which carried the United States mail from
Portland, 4,889 gallons of molasses, and at Fort Wrangell 1,635 gallons. Large
quantities were also landed from other vessels, all for the purpose of making hootchenoo, the other ingredients used being flour, dried
apples or rice, yeast powder, and sometimes hops. Sufficient water is added to
make a thin batter, and after fermentation has taken place, a sour, muddy,
highly alcoholic liquor is produced, of abominable taste and odor. From one
gallon of the mixture nearly a gallon of hootchenoo is distilled, a pint of which is quite sufficient to craze the strongest brain.
Before the time of the purchase the art of making
molasses-rum was unknown to the natives, but after the military occupation many
of the soldiers became proprietors of hootchenoo stills, while others were in the habit of repairing for their morning dram to
the Indian village outside the stockade at Sitka, where this liquor was sold at
ten cents a glass. Occasional raids were made on the distilleries, and the
proceeds detained until it could be settled by the proper authorities what
should be done with them. What was done with them was seldom known, but it is
certain that no real effort was made to check this evil, though pretended
restrictions were sometimes placed on vendors of raw sugar and molasses.
At least, a considerable amount of revenue might have
been derived from this source, enough, perhaps, if honestly collected, to
offset a large part of the excess in disbursements over receipts, which has occurred
each year since Sitka was declared a port of entry. Between July 1, 1869, and
May 1, 1878, the receipts of the customs district of Alaska from all sources
were $57,464.95, while the disbursements for the same period were $116,074.87.
The operations of the Alaska Commercial Company, of which mention will be made
later, were confined almost entirely to the Prybilof Islands, and have yielded an income to the United States sufficient to pay good
interest on the purchase money. But the rent paid for the furseal islands since 1871, apart from the tax on furs, has barely covered the deficit
of revenue in other portions of the territory. Under these circumstances, ii
was recommended by the secretary of the treasury, in December 1877, that Sitka
should be abolished as a port of entry, or, in other words, that Alaska should
be left to take care of itself.
It would seem that a territory which for the five
years ending May 1, 1876, paid into the United States treasury as rent for the Prybilof Islands, and tax on seal skins, more than
$1,700,000, or nearly four and three quarters per cent a year on the purchase
money, deserved a better fate. It is at
least the only territory that yields, or ever has yielded, any direct revenue;
and yet, notwithstanding all the bills and petitions laid before congress for
its organization, it was without government, and almost without protection.
“I recommend civil government,” writes General Howard
to the secretary of war, in 1875, “by attaching Alaska to Washington Territory
as a county, as the simplest solution of all difficulties in the case.” In a despatch to the secretary of the navy, dated January 22,
1880, the commander of the Jamestown, then stationed at Sitka, remarks:
“A court should be established possessing full power to summon a jury and try
and settle all minor cases of delinquency on the spot, and with power to make
arrests and inflict punishment of fine or imprisonment. For offences of
magnitude this court should have full power to take all testimony, which should
be received by the United States court at Portland as final. The land here
should be surveyed and existing titles perfected and protected, and it made
possible to transfer real estate.” “ Either the civil laws of the United States
should be extended over the Indians,” remarks Colyer, “or a code of laws at
once adopted defining crime and providing a judiciary and a police force to
execute it.” “What this country wants is law, and without it she will never
flourish and prosper,” remarks I. C. Dennis, on resigning his position as
deputy collector at Wrangell in 1878. “I have acted in the capacity of
arbitrator, adjudicator, and peace-maker until forbearance has ceased to be a
virtue. Within the past month one thousand complaints by Indians have been laid
before me for settlement, and as I am neither Indian agent nor justice of the
peace, I decline the honor of patching up Indian troubles.”
The main obstacle in the establishment of some form of
civil government for Alaska appears to have been the difficulty in reconciling
the conflicting claims of the several sections, separated as they are by a vast
extent of territory, and having few interests in common. South-eastern Alaska
has mines, timber, and fisheries, though it is not probable that any of these
resources except the last will receive much attention in the near future. On
Cook Inlet in Kadiak, on the Alaskan peninsula, and on the Aleutian Islands
there are also mines and fisheries, but fur-hunting is still the leading
industry. In the far north, on the banks of the Yukon, now almost deserted by
white men, salmon canneries may be established at no distant day, which will
rival those of the Columbia River; while at the Prybilof Islands, the catch of fur-seals produces at present a larger aggregate of
wealth than all the other industries of the territory combined.
In 1883 Alaska was but a customs district, with a
collector and a few deputies. For laws, the territory had the regulations made
by the secretary of the treasury; and for protection, the presence of a single
war-vessel, the crew of which was sometimes employed as a police force among
the settlements of the Alexander Archipelago.
From St Paul to Sitka the distance is but five hundred
and fifty miles, and from Iluiliuk in Unalaska about
a thousand miles; and yet the deputies at both of these stations could rarely
report to the collector except by way of San Francisco, nearly twenty degrees
to the south of either point. The mail service established between Sitka and
Port Townsend extended only to Fort Wrangell and Harrisburg, and in some parts
of the territory the visit of a whaling-vessel or revenue cutter afforded until
recently the only means of communication with the outside world.
Among the wants of Alaska, remarks a special agent of
the census of 1880, are “a gradual but systematic exploration of the interior,
and an immediate survey of the coast and harbors of the region now constantly
frequented by trading and fishing vessels, in order to prevent the alarmingly
frequent occurrence of wrecks upon unknown rocks and shoals.” The navigation of
the Alaskan coast is in many parts extremely intricate, and as yet reliable
charts exist only for a few sections. Some progress has been made in this
direction, however, since the purchase, and as I have already observed, we may
in the remote future possess reliable charts for the entire coast and more
definite information as to the interior.
In 1867 an expedition organized by the treasury
department sailed from San Francisco on board the revenue steamer Lincoln, and
during the summer passed several months in exploring and obtaining information
concerning the newly purchased country. Among the members was George Davidson,
who was placed in charge of the coast survey party, and whose report was
printed by order of congress, and forms a most valuable memoir.
In 1869 a party was sent to the Yukon River, in charge
of Charles W. Raymond, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the
Hudson’s Bay Company’s trade in that district, and the quantity of goods
forwarded from British territory; also to obtain information concerning the
sources of the Yukon and its tributaries, and the disposition of the tribes in
its neighborhood. In 1871—2 W. H. Dall surveyed the Aleutian and Shumagin Islands and located several new harbors. In 1879 a
valuable set of charts of Sitka Sound was forwarded to the bureau of navigation
by L. A. Beardslee, the commander of the Jamestown. Thus some little
effort has been made toward the survey and exploration of the territory, if
none as yet toward its development.
|