with which power negotiations still continued. In these circumstances it was suggested by the United Provinces that the United States should either accede to the convention of the armed neutrality or else enter into similar engagements with France, Spain, and the United Provinces, or with the United Provinces alone. Congress, holding that the "true interest" of the United States required that they should be "as little as possible entangled in the politics and controversies of European nations," deemed it inexpedient to give such powers to the representatives of the United States in Europe, and instructed the ministers engaged in negotiating a definitive peace with Great Britain, in case they should include in the treaty any stipulations for the recognition of belligerent rights, to avoid any engagements which should oblige the contracting parties to support those stipulations by arms. (See Wharton, Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 481-483.) Prince Gortschakoff, in a communication addressed to the Russian envoy in the United States July 10, 1861, to be communicated to the Secretary of State, said: "In spite of the diversity of their Constitutions and of their interests, perhaps even because of their diversity, Providence seems to urge the United States to draw closer the traditional bond, as the basis and very condition of their political existence. In any event the sacrifices they might impose upon themselves to maintain it [the Union of the United States] are not to be compared with those which dissolution would bring after it. United, they perfect themselves; separated from each other, they are paralyzed." Note of Prince Gortschakoff, quoted by Mr. Everett, address of June 7, The passage here quoted from Prince Gortschakoff, when standing alone, The message of President Monroe, communicating to the Senate the convention of December 15, 1824, is contained in 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 432. In this correspondence the respective titles of Russia and of Great Britain to the northwest coast of North America are discussed. The convention of April 5, 1824 (concluded April 5-17), is given in 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 583. For the circumstances attending the negotiation of the commercial treaty with Russia in 1832, see 1 Curtis's Buchanan, 171; 1 Benton's Thirty Years, 606. As to Russia's claim to Northwestern Pacific, see 2 Lyman's Diplomacy of As to the treaty of 1832 and its bearing on the question of citizenship, see As to the treaty of 1824 and the Fur Seal Arbitration, see Moore, Int. "From the commencement of their intercourse with Russia, the United States have specifically and prominently had in view: "1. The negotiation of a treaty or convention of commerce and navigation upon those principles of liberal reciprocity which we have been so anxious to establish with all other nations; and "2. The establishment, by similar conventional stipulations, of rules for regulating the rights of the respective parties, in the following relations: "First, where the one is at war and the other neutral; 66 66 Secondly, where both are at war with the same power; Thirdly, where they are unfortunately at war with each other. "For a considerable time our desire in regard to both of these principal points was frustrated by the Russian Government uniformly declining to treat upon the subjects involved in them. "The main points here adverted to, however, were not necessarily connected; and in the year 1832, Mr. Buchanan, who arrived at St. Petersburg in the month of June of that year, perceiving the Russian government not unfavorable to the first object of his mission, promptly entered upon the negotiation of a commercial treaty, with a degree of zeal and ability which happily crowned his efforts with success, and finally resulted in the conclusion of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Russia on the 18th December, 1832. The treaty was ratified by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the 8th April, 1833, the ratifications were exchanged at Washington on the eleventh day of May following, and by this instrument, thus finally concluded, the first principal point I have already adverted to may be considered as entirely disposed of, and as requiring no further attention on your part. "Mr. Buchanan applied himself with equal promptitude to the second point of his mission; but the imperial government declining at that time to entertain any propositions relative to the conclusion of a treaty upon this subject, he returned with the leave of the President to the United States." Mr. McLane, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dickerson, June 26, 1834, MS. Inst. "The use of the lands on which stood the buildings, once allowed to the Russian-American Company, was extinguished by the treaty of 1867." Williams, At. Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 302. As to permission for curates of the Greek Church to reside on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, under Art. III. of the treaty of 1867, see Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, July 14, 1871, 90 MS. Dom. Let. 249. By the treaty between the United States and Russia, by which Alaska was acquired by the United States, the territory was incorporated into the United States and the Constitution became applicable to it; consequently an act of Congress depriving persons accused of a misdemeanor in Alaska of a right to trial by a commonlaw jury is unconstitutional and void. Rassmussen v. United States (1905), 197 U. S. 516. XXXV. SAMOAN ISLANDS. § 881. As to treaty relations with and concerning the Samoan Islands, and the final partition of the group, see supra, § 110, I. 536. XXXVI. SIAM. § 882. The first treaty between the United States and Siam, of March 20, 1833, was concluded by Edmund Roberts, who, as we have seen under the head of Japan, was appointed by President Jackson January 27, 1832, as agent for the purpose of examining in the Indian Ocean the means of extending the commerce of the United States by commercial arrangements with the powers whose dominions bordered on those seas. Siam was visited by Commodore Perry in 1853. In a letter to the King, March 14, 1853, he referred to the kindness extended to Mr. Roberts in 1836. The King replied that he held in pleasant remembrance his intercourse with Mr. Roberts and with the officers of the U. S. ships Peacock and Enterprise during their stay. Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1380-1381; H. Ex. Doc. 8, 35 Cong. 2 sess. September 12, 1855, Townsend Harris, who had been appointed consul-general of the United States at Simoda, Japan, was instructed to deviate from the direct route to Simoda and proceed to Bangkok with a view to obtain amendments to the treaty of 1833. He was furnished with a letter from the President to the King of Siam and with full power to negotiate a treaty. Some of the objects which he was desired to accomplish were understood to have been obtained Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, No. 1, Sept. 12, 1855, MS. Inst. Message of President Buchanan, Dec. 10, 1858, H. Ex. Doc. 8, 35 Cong. 2 sess. The trade regulations annexed to the treaty were amended in 1867. (Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 995–1003.) In 1880 Mr. Sickles, United States consul at Bangkok, reported, at the request of the Siamese government, the intention of the King to visit Europe and America. Mr. Evarts, who was then Secretary of State, addressed a note to the Senate and House committees recommending an appropriation for the King's reception and entertainment and for the employment of a naval vessel to bring His Majesty from Europe to America. Before any action was taken in the matter, the King announced the postponement of his voyage to America. Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Barrett, min. to Siam, April 15, 1897, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 238. In 1884, the President recommended to Congress an appropriation to No appropriation was made, but the embassy, on its arrival in the United As to an alleged effort of China to resume her old suzerain power over Owing to remoteness of interests, unfamiliarity with the merits of the An Anglo-French agreement as to Siam, signed at London, Jan. 15, 1896, is printed in For. Rel. 1896, 139. "An envoy from Siam has been accredited to this government and has présented his credentials." (President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.) In a letter of January 5, 1900, the Secretary of State recommended an As to repairs to the United States legation premises and grounds at As to the donation of property at Ratburi by the King of Siam to the With a despatch, No. 26, of July 21, 1870, Mr. Partridge, United States consul at Bangkok, enclosed to the Department of State certain correspondence in relation to the execution of two native servants of the Rev. Messrs. Wilson and McGilvary, citizens of the United States. The Department of State declared the proceeding to have been a plain violation not only of Article I. of the treaty of 1856, which stipulates that American citizens in Siam shall receive from the government full protection and assistance to enable them to reside there in security, but also of Article V., which stipulates for the free exercise of religion and for the right of Americans to employ Siamese subjects as servants. It appeared, however, that the Siamese government had ultimately receded from the ground, which it at first assumed, that the stipulations of the treaty were not applicable to the case in question. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, No. 25, Oct. 5, 1870, 60 MS. By the treaty of amity and commerce of March 20, 1833, between the United States and Siam, the citizens of the former are forbidden to import or sell in Siam (except to the King) "munitions of war." As to the meaning of this term, "I feel clear that a nomen generalissimum, such as munitions of war,' is far more comprehensive in its operation than would be any group of specifications, no matter how exhaustive. The rule, as you well know, is that the introduction of specifications operates to limit even general terms which may precede |