New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-09
RUSSIA-AL4SRA-RIG OF AMERICAN
1xr.Ar

The claims made by tho Russian Minister for
interest on the Alaska purchase during the
time payment was deferred by Congress. will
not surprise any one at all familiar with tho
promptness of the Imperial Government in
collecting its dues. 1t makes difference in
law or morals that the consideration we re-
ceived for our $72O0,000 was very inadequate
or that up to the present time that national
adventure has cost us an additional outlay of
some S5sOOOO, while its yield from all sources
has been but a little over $4,000. We made
the bargain, paid our money, and must do the
best we can with the purchase. And if we
really owe $2J0,000 or any other sum as in
tercst on that hopeful investment. let us by
all means pay it. We must not fall short of
the requirements of the contract simply be-
cause the bargain was n bad one.
But, while we recognize this, we are forced
TO approve the attitude assumed by our De-
partment of State and Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House, that where there is a just
claim of American citizens against the Russian
Government, claims which our Government
has pronounced valid it is proper that these
should DO settled before more money is paid
to Russia; and it appears that our Executive
Department has twice, and the lower House of
Congress has once declared that the proofs
filed show valid claim in favor OF Perkins.
No higher duty devOlves on any Government
than that of protecting the rights of its citi-
yens as against foreign governments when or
however involved. The rule that would go to
war for putting vagabond wrongfully in Jail,
and vet allow an honest citizen to be robbed
of his property, is bad one, but when there
In hap hp1 IN ON
government it is always judicious to raise the
question, and secure at least fair trial for
American citizens, and any money which may
be due them. We took this ground for the
Perkins claim at the time the Alaska purchase
came up for appropriation, and we repeat it
now that the interest upon that purchase is to
be paid. The Russian Government, it is said,
declares the claim to be fraud, while on the
other hand the United States Government has
three times declared it valid and just. Now,
fraud is matter of fact, capable of proof.
The Imperial Government brings forward no
proof of its assertion. The United States Gov
eminent, stating the facts proven in the case,
shows that the claim is valid, and also sets
forth the authority of law upon which its
judgment is based. Which opinion shall pre-
vail the Russian, without law or fact, or the
American, founded on both law and fact
Obviously the best and most natural way to
settle the points involved is to refer the ques-
ton ut issue to some chosen tribunal whose
unbiased decision shall be respected and
obeyed by both parties.
In the case of Perkins we think it difficult
for any ono TO maintain that the claims are
fraudulent. The examination made by tho
Secretary Of State shows that It is well sup
ported by proof. The character of the proof,
and the names Of most of tho witnesses are
set forth in the declaration of Perkins in adj
| vance, a copy Of which was furnished to the
Russian Minister. Tho record in this case is
free from suspicion. and mere sweeping asser-
tons and far-fetched theories cannot alter well
defined facts. II, then. tho claim is, as we be-
leve it to be, right and proper, let it be paid.
| If the Imperial Government doubts its correct
ness let it refer tho whole question to arbitra-