every prediction of dire effect made by the opponents of its acquisition. When the purchase of Louisiana was under consideration, the fear was expressed that people who would move to that region would scarcely ever feel the rays of the general government, their affections would be alienated by distance, and American interests would become extinct. The generous response of men and money made by Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa, when the Union was in the throes of a struggle for its preservation, attests the loyalty of the Louisiana region. A Southern senator asked, in 1843, what good was Oregon for agricultural purposes, and said he would not give a pinch of snuff for the whole territory. Yet the Oregon Country has given the Union three sovereign states, and part of its territory has been taken to form two other states; its occupation by Americans was a direct cause of the annexation of California; it has in the Columbia River and Puget Sound two important bases for military and naval operations; far from being inhospitable to the honest farmer of the Atlantic seaboard, or the Ohio Valley, it has one hundred thousand farms, valued at nearly $600,000,000. Alaska was denounced as a barren waste, that would never add one dollar to our wealth, or furnish homes to our people. Yet in less than forty years Alaska has supplied gold, fish, and furs worth $150,000,000, and has paid revenue to the government exceeding by $1,500,000 the price Russia got for it in 1867; and at no distant day Hawaii and the Philippines will justify American occupation by statistics as telling as those here presented of Louisiana, Oregon, and Alaska.
If a nonexpansive policy had prevailed in our national councils at the beginning of the nineteenth century; if the presidential chair had been occupied by another than the broad statesman who saw beyond the Mississippi, over the Rockies to the Pacific, and over the Pacific to
