As to Russia's claim to Northwestern Pacific, see 2 Lyman's Diplomacy of
the United States, ch. xi.

As to the treaty of 1832 and its bearing on the question of citizenship, see
Kie v. United States, 27 Fed. Rep. 351.

As to the treaty of 1824 and the Fur Seal Arbitration, see Moore, Int.
Arbitrations, I. 755 et seq.

"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

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 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.
Russia, XIV. 15.

"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
by the British in their then recent treaty with Siam. The United
States, it was declared, could not allow its trade with Siam to be
placed on a footing inferior to that of any nation. "You will be at
no loss for arguments," said the instructions to Harris, "to show the
difference between the foreign policy, especially in the East, of this
country and Great Britain. While the latter is herself an eastern
power, and as such by the late Burmese war has since become a near
neighbor of Siam, we covet no dominion in that quarter. It is
undoubtedly the interest of Siam to be liberal in her commercial
policy towards the United States.
It is also desirable that
the Christian missionaries who may resort to Siam from this country
should be exempt from molestation in their sacred calling and should
be allowed free scope for their labors. In asking for a stipulation
which will in effect confer this privilege, you will, however, cause
it to be understood that in this country there is no connection between
religion and the government, and that we have no desire or inten-
tion to interfere with the Siamese policy on this subject." Mr.
Harris concluded a new treaty of amity and commerce on May 29,
1856. Annexed to it were trade regulations. The ratifications of
the treaty were exchanged at Bangkok June 15, 1857. It was com-
municated to Congress by President Buchanan December 10, 1858,
with a recommendation that legislation be adopted to carry into
effect Article II. in relation to the judicial powers of the United
States consul at Bangkok.

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, No. 1, Sept. 12, 1855, MS. Inst.
Japan, I. 1.

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
defray the expenses of a special embassy from Siam. (H. Ex. Doc.
137, 48 Cong. 1 sess.)

No appropriation was made, but the embassy, on its arrival in the United
States, was duly received and entertained. (For. Rel. 1884, 454–456.)

As to an alleged effort of China to resume her old suzerain power over
Siam, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Halderman, No. 8,
March 3, 1883, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 9.

Owing to remoteness of interests, unfamiliarity with the merits of the
dispute, and lack of reason to suppose that such action would be
acceptable to both parties, the United States declined the request of
Siam to tender its good offices to France in the Anam boundary ques-
tion. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Suriya, April 27, 1893,
MS. Notes to Siam, I. 2; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nuvatr,
May 18 and June 3, 1893, id. 3, 6.)

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 presented his credentials." (President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

In a letter of January 5, 1900, the Secretary of State recommended an appropriation for securing legation premises at Bangkok. (H. Doc.

249, 56 Cong. 1 sess.)

As to repairs to the United States legation premises and grounds at
Bangkok, see S. Doc. 251, 56 Cong. 1 sess.

As to the donation of property at Ratburi by the King of Siam to the
American Presbyterian mission, for the establishment of a hospital,
see For. Rel. 1889, 657.

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.
Desp. to Consuls, 68.

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

them, and in this view I can not but think that the terms' firearms,
shot, or gunpowder,' which are quoted as used in the treaty between.
Siam and Great Britain, cover a much more restricted area than
does the term munitions of war. If, for instance, poisoned arrows
were called for in Siam as weapons likely to be peculiarly efficacious
in Siamese warfare, they would be excluded under the term 'muni-
tions of war,' but not under those of firearms, shot, or gunpowder.'
The same might be said of preparations of dynamite. I hold, there-
fore, that the term munitions of war' gives all the protection to
Siam, as to the question at issue, that could be secured by an enumera-
tion of particulars, no matter how exhaustive.”

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, Jan. 7, 1886, MS. Inst. Gr. Brit.
XXVII. 640.

Mr. Bayard offered, however, in case Siam should make a formal applica-
tion to that effect, to adopt a new and additional stipulation declar-
ing the provisions of the treaty of 1833 as to “munitions of war" to
be still in force, and adding the words "and weapons to "muni-
tions," so as to prohibit the importation, without royal assent, of all
“munitions and weapons of war."

In 1887 a law was agreed upon, by a committee of representatives
of the treaty powers in Siam, for the purpose of regulating the
importation and sale of spirituous liquors in that country. By Arti-
cle I. of the treaty between the United States and Siam of May 14,
1884, regulating the liquor traffic in the latter country, it was pro-
vided that beer and wines might be imported and sold by citizens of
the United States on payment of the same duty as was levied on
similar articles manufactured in Siam, but that in no case should
the import duty exceed ten per cent ad valorem, while by Article V.
of the same treaty it was stipulated that spirits, beer, wines, and spir-
ituous liquors coming from the United States should enjoy most-
favored-nation treatment. By section 4 of the law above referred to
it was provided that no spirituous liquors, except "wine and beer
actually made in Europe," should be imported or sold unless they
had paid the import or excise duty, which was fixed at 5 per cent ad
valorem. The United States made representations against the law
as proposing a clear violation of the provisions of the treaty of 1884.
The Siamese government accordingly altered the law by inserting in
section 4, after the word "Europe," the words "or in the United
States of America."

For. Rel. 1887, 972-974.

As to the discussion among the foreign diplomatic and consular repre-
sentatives in Siam of the questions whether the treaties regulating
the liquor traffic abrogated the privilege enjoyed by foreign residents
under previous treaties of importing, as "provisions," liquors for
private consumption, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boyd, No.
5, March 9, 1891, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 111.