I have heard about a parish in Galveston in the 1860s, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that an actual Orthodox parish existed there prior to the 1890s. There may well have been an organized group of Orthodox Christians, and they may even have had a chapel, but I’m still looking for hard evidence of this.

Is he refering to Holy Trinity in New Orleans, or some other parish (Galveston?).

“Isa, you quickly moved into discussing the Greeks. The treaty was nearly left aside.”

I had been putting something aside, CALLSEN et al. v. HOPE et al. 75 F. 758, because it is later (1896), technically delt only in AK, and wasn’t even an Orthodox Church (and hence, not the subject of art. II of the Treaty), and and so tangential. But its reasoning is relevant as to the standing of the Orthodox Church at the time of 1867 (I know I am stating that in retrospection, the reason why I see this case somewhat a tangent).

Hope had taken position of the land on which had stood the Lutheran church in Sitka had stood, having “contended that, inasmuch as the Congregation of the Lutheran Church is nonincorporated, as disclosed by the bill, it can obtain no standing as a party in court, and that its trustees have not capacity to bring this suit.” A Lutheran, Callsen, sued for a restraining order.

How the court dismissed the problem of the congregation being non-incorporated is what is of interest:
“I do not think this contention can be sustained. Stripped of its surplusage, it appears by the bill that there is a voluntary religious association at Sitka known as the Congregation of the Lutheran Church; that such congregation has been in existence for a long term of years, before and since the transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States…that prior to the treaty of cession and the transfer of the territory the said congregation became the owner in fee by grant from Russia of lot No. 33 of the town of Sitka…that the church building located on said lot, and for a long term of years occupied by said congregation as a place of worship, has fallen into decay, and some years since was removed from said lot; that no new structure has been erected in its place; that there is at present no pastor of said congregation; that there are members thereof still residing in Sitka, and that the congregation has never disbanded…The question of legal capacity of the plaintiffs to sue has been settled by the supreme court of the United States in Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. 566, wherein the facts presented are very similar to those of the case at bar. Indeed, with the single exception that in the case cited the lot in controversy had been set apart for the benefit of the Lutheran Church of the city of Georgetown, Md., by the original owner of the fee, who had platted an addition to said city, and had marked on the plat the lot of ground in controversy “For the Lutheran Church,” but had made no conveyance, the facts in the case now here and in the one above cited are substantially the same. Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court in the case cited, said that, while it was not necessary to decide the point as to whether trustees of a voluntary religious association have legal capacity to sue as such, as persons belonging to such a society, and having a common interest, they may sue in behalf of themselves and others having the like interest, as part of the same society, for purposes common to all and beneficial to all. The doctrine here laid down has been adopted by the supreme court of the state of Oregon in the case of Trustees v. Adams, 4 Or. 77. These cases sufficiently determine the law, and our equity jurisprudence would be faulty, indeed, if its doors were closed against parties seeking to reach the forum of the court with a case like that presented by this bill.”

The court was not impressed by Hope’s “contention is that equity cannot be invoked, for the reason that the plaintiffs have a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law; and it is further urged that the lot of ground in question passed to the United States under the treaty, and that, if it did not, inasmuch as it is no longer occupied for church purposes, or as a place of worship, any title thereto derived from Russia is forfeited, and the lot has become part of the public lands of the United States, and subject to occupation and possession by citizens of the United States as such. I do not think these positions can be maintained….Equity will not sit by and permit an intruder upon lands belonging to another to use, occupy, and enjoy the same, and possibly divert them from the purposes of the real owner, or perhaps impair and destroy them for the uses designed by him, while he is seeking to establish and enforce his rights in a court of law…and, before the rights of the plaintiffs herein could be adjudicated in ejectment, a saloon or a dance house might be in operation upon a lot of ground belonging to an Evangelical church.”

The court then forcused on the term of the Treaty:
“The contention that the lot passed to the United States under the treaty, or has since become public lands by reason of nonuser for church purposes, leads to an investigation of the terms of the treaty and the contents of the protocol of transfer; and, as the conclusions the court has reached in relation thereto affect quite a number of land titles in this district, and may prove decisive of this case, the court has deemed proper to state somewhat fully the determination reached upon these questions. Under the constitution of the United States (article 6, par. 2), all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land; and courts take judicial notice of them. This court will therefore take judicial notice of the treaty of March 30, 1867, between Russia and the United States, ceding the territory of Alaska from the former government to the latter;…Article 6 of the treaty, among other things, provides that:

“The cession of territory and dominion herein made is hereby declared to be free and unincumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or other, or by any parties, except merely private individual property owners; and the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory and dominion and the appurtenances thereto.”

It would be utterly inconsistent with well-authenticated historical events, as well as with the time-honored policy of the Russian government upon religious matters, to assert that the term “associated companies,” used in the section of the treaty just quoted, has reference to any religious association…companies grew quite formidable in their rivalry for the possession of the northwest coast of North America, now comprising the territory of Alaska. The more important of these were consolidated in 1799, and a charter was granted by the crown to the Russian-American Company, under which said company asserted and maintained occupancy of the Russian possessions in America until the time of the treaty and transfer. In the light of these historical facts it is perfectly clear that the intention of the high contracting powers, as expressed in the portion of the treaty above quoted, was to extinguish all the reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, and possessions of said corporation, or other companies or parties, carrying on business within the limits of the territory ceded, and not to affect private individual property rights theretofore granted. It is also manifest from the concluding words of the section quoted that Russia ceded only that which belonged to the empire at the time of the treaty; and it is by no means certain that under the doctrine of vested rights, which, since the decision of the supreme court of the United States in the Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 518, presented with such great intellectual power by Mr. Webster, has found a secure lodgment in our law, fee-simple titles antedating the treaty would not be sustained, without the exception referred to…Article 4 of the treaty provides that each of the parties thereto shall appoint “an agent or agents for the purpose of formally delivering the territory, dominion, property, dependencies, and appurtenances ceded,” and in pursuance of this…Prince Dmitry Maksoutoff, governor of the Russian colonies in America, made or caused to be made inventories and a map of New Archangel, or Sitka, showing by numbers all property holdings, public and private, in that town. These inventories consist of (a) public property passing to the United States under the treaty; (b) property of the Greco-Russian Church; (c) fee-simple titles, with the names of persons holding the same, who were furnished with certificates thereof; (d) dwelling houses, establishments, and lots of ground held by possessory rights only. These inventories and the map were attached to and made a part of the protocol of transfer. By them lot No. 33 is designated as the property of the Congregation of the Lutheran Church, and appears in the inventory of fee-simple titles, as is alleged in the bill in this case, and as appears by the certificate of such [**12] title executed by said commissioners and authenticated by said governor, a copy of which is set out in the bill. From these facts, derived from a public document of the very highest order, of which this court is bound to take judicial notice, the conclusions are irresistible that this lot falls within the exceptions provided for by the treaty; that the title thereto never became vested in the United States; and that the Congregation of the Lutheran Church holds the absolute and indefeasible title in fee simple of said lot of ground, as granted to it by Russia. No title thereto can be obtained except through said congregation, and a failure to use and occupy the lot for church purposes will not divest the congregation of its title. The lot, therefore, is not open to possession and occupancy as public lands of the United States… ”

Continuing, the court put aside questions of the First Amendment, and ruled on the basis of the Czar’s ukazes regarding religion:
“Further than this, and notwithstanding the existence of an established church — the Greco-Russian — in Russia, the settled policy of that government for a long period of years has been to foster and protect among its people religious associations and organizations of every known shade of belief or doctrine; and within the limits of the empire, from the Arctic Ocean to the Chinese border, and from the North Pacific to the Baltic Sea, may be found congregations whose members are believers of every known religious doctrine and form of worship, from the faith of Islam and Mohamet to the Catholic creeds and high-sounding liturgies of the Greek and Roman Churches; all enjoying the protection, if not the patronage, of the crown. Among these the membership of the Lutheran denomination ranks next in numbers to that of the established church, and the population of the Baltic provinces and Finland are almost entirely Lutheran. The reasons for this policy are not far to seek, as it is one which must inevitably bind to the autocrat adherents of all the different denominations thus fostered and protected by the sovereign head of the empire. It would not only be unjust, but utterly contradictory to this long-continued policy of the czar, to hold that in granting the territory of Alaska to the United States, Russia intended to transfer, with the territory ceded, the title to church property theretofore granted by that government. It follows, therefore, that in construing the portion of the treaty cited, church property must be held to be “private individual property,” falling within the exceptions of the treaty; and this view is sustained by the protocol, inventories, and map.”

Thus the court found that the Lutheran parish, although unincorporated, by terms of the Treaty preserved the rights the Czar (and St. Innocent) had given them, and the US government was bound to recognize a religious entity not incorporated under US law, concluding that “…among the considerations moving between the high contracting powers to the treaty are the exceptions to the cession of territory and dominion granted. Following its long-established policy on religious matters, Russia desired to protect the Congregation of the Lutheran Church, with others to whom title to lands in Alaska had been given, in the enjoyment of the property so granted, and the United States acceded to that desire. Treaty, art. 3 [note: this is the article where the Orthodox Church generated the most US case law, dealing with Russia's " long-established policy on religious matters".] Our government therefore is bound upon its national honor to maintain in good faith these stipulations of the treaty by sustaining the fee-simple titles set forth in the protocol, including that of the Congregation of the Lutheran Church, and by protecting the holders of such titles in the enjoyment of the property so granted. This court will certainly not assume the responsibility of placing the government of the United States in the position of having violated these treaty obligations.”

Callsen v. Hope, and the Cession Treaty, did come up much later (1948) in an acction of the Orthodox congregation against the Orthodox priest and the primate Met. Theophilos of SF. The jurisdiction of the bishop was upheld.
http://ak.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFDCT%5CDAK%5C1948%5C19480327_0000003.DAK.htm/qx

Anyway, yes I perhaps we are looking from a different perspective, as I see nothing unusual or unprecedented in Orthodox history at least until 1891. And even then after, there are parallels, e.g. the battle over Bulgaria in the 9th century.

No, I don’t see the claims unclaimed:the court records show
http://books.google.ro/books?id=Td0KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&dq=Alexis+toth+jurisdiction#v=onepage&q=Alexis%20toth%20jurisdiction&f=false
that St. Alexis was accepting a claim of Bp. Nicholas as “Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with jurisdiction over the United States, of San Francisco, California” by 1892/3. I recall something similar regrarding Bp. Vladimir in 1890-1 (btw., I just was reminded about the reported falling out between him and the Russian Consul Olarovsky, who hosted Prince George when he suggested the formation of Greek Holy Trinity
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1891/06.14.SF.Examiner.html
which might explain the lack of complaint from him with what the Greeks were doing). Perhaps the argument can be made that they just claimed jurisdiction over all the Russians only, on a phyletistic basis no diferent from the othe Orthodox jurisdictions here. Such an arugment would have to explain why that contrasts with Russia’s attitudes and doings in the rest of the world, the call of St. Raphael, the actions of the diocese taken with the Greeks in SF before the Alaskan sale and afterwards, etc. On these points, a couple of things in the above document I find interesting:

(p. 12) In the archive of the chancery of the Ober Prokurator of the HS, from 1872 “Report of the priest Bierring on the situation in New York City” and “Problem of drawing the Greeks in New York into the Church, etc.” Other reports follow.

(p. 32) In the St. Petersburg principal archive of the foreign ministry, a letter from the Russian ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1819 on the “Question of a Greek church in Washington.”

And in basis of those who challenged Russia’s jurisdiction at the time, I’ve yet to see anything but a foundation of sand. As we are a hiearchal Church, someone has to be in charge.

The US government cannot give the Russian Church jurisdiction over all of America. It can grant citizenship to whomever it wishes, and it can resolve property disputes, but it has no authority — either according to the US constitution or the Orthodox canons — to actually grant ecclesiastical territory to the Russian Orthodox Church.

I’ve said this many times before, but I’ll say it one last time (for now):

The Russian Orthodox Church did not formally declare the United States (outside of AK) to be under its jurisdiction until the turn of the 20th century. The ROC had the opportunity to do this, when it reorganized the diocese in 1870, but it did not. If the implications of 1867 are as you claim, then the ROC should have included “America” or “United States” in the name of the diocese. It did not. My own theory, which I think is reasonable, is that the ROC did not want to create a conflict with the Episcopal Church, with whom it was engaged in close ecumenical dialogue at that time.

Also, what was to be gained from claiming America? In 1870, nobody knew that in two decades, Orthodox immigrants would flood the East Coast. And the ROC pretty clearly did not want to convert Americans to Orthodoxy. Yes, the ROC engaged in “jurisdictional acts” in America in the 19th century (SF, NY), but to jump from this to a claim that the whole country was their territory is too far a leap, based on the evidence I have seen.

There are two types of jurisdiction — de jure and de facto. The ROC would have had de jure jurisdiction if they had included America in the name of the diocese. They didn’t. They would have had de facto jurisdiction if they had spread throughout America and resisted the establishment of independent Greek churches in the 1890s. They didn’t. Until the 1890s, the Russian diocese in the contiguous US had only one church in SF and a defunct chapel in NY. That’s not enough, in my book, to qualify as de facto jurisdiction over the entire, extremely large, country.

Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this discussion for now, as I’d like to focus my energies on other lines of research for a little while. But I’m sure we’ll come back to it in the future, and I’d be happy to continue corresponding via email if you wish — mfnamee [at] gmail [dot] com.

I’ll close with this: For what it’s worth, I wish that the early Greek parishes had joined the Russian diocese. The diocese wasn’t perfect, but had the various ethnic groups endorsed St. Tikhon’s plan, they all would have been better off.

…or the theoretical nature of the question.

If the Tomos of 1908 had been issued in 1868, and the CoG pointed Meletios bishop for North America (not only outside its nominal territory but not even close to that territory), that year instead of 60 years later, and he come to SF that year instead of over 60 years later to establish his jurisdiction, and better yet (for our purposes) initiate a suit Greek Orthodox Church v. Russian Orthodox Church to settle matters, etc… we would have documents etc. to analyse to reach a historical judgement.

Instead, we are forced to more or less deal in alternative, contrafactual and virtual history. Until 1867 we are not dealing with any other claims of any sort over any part of North America except the Russian claims, and it is not until 1891, when the Russian bishops had already traversed the continents, and the HGS had made known their designs, that we even get a question of no or multiple jurisdictions in North America, with the visit of Bp. Dionysios of Zante in the continent.

Under a number of canons (for a handy survey of some: “Unity and Autocephaly: Mutually Exclusive?” byDr. Lewis J. Patsavos http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8131) in particular Apostolic canon 34-5, canons 15-16 of Nicea I, canon 17 of Chalcedon, canons 20 and 38 of the Quinsex/Penthekti, Sardica c. 11, etc. outline the basis and limits of episcopal authority. There can be only one bishop a diocese, the bishops must acknowledge the canonical head of the region and his jurisdiciton, and bishops shall not linger in or ordain, etc. in the jurisdiction of another.

Hence, the mere presence of a bishop is a jurisdictional act, more so when he consecrates, forms parishes, claims parishes, etc. And until 1891, throughout the US and Canada, the only one doing that in North America (both metaphorically and literally) were the Russian bishops.

“Basically, unless I’ve missed something (which is entirely possible), you haven’t really answered my question — what does the 1867 treaty have to do with the idea that Russia laid claim to all of the United States of America (or North America; take your pick).” If I would just argue the same paradigm in play at the time in Athens and Greece at the same time (or earlier Kiev over the Russias, etc.). It wouldn’t make a difference. I think it better to trace the exercise of jurisdiction from Sitka to New York City, where it was, fully formed, when first counter jurisdictinal act which any note need be conisdered, the EP-CoG 1908 Tomos.

In that vein, I’ve just demonstrated the HGS jurisdiction just to SF. I’ll proceed, Lord willing, to All of North America.

“You’ve gone to great lengths to refute Metaxakis, but neither Fr. Oliver nor I have endorsed Metaxakis. We’re not talking about the GOA or anything of the sort.”

I’m aware of that. But their arguments, as I say, have to be dealt with. If their argument is sound, it is also constitutional, and hence whatever the Russians did, as Bp. Alexander claims, is void.

“We’re talking about the fact that, prior to 1905, the Russian Orthodox Church did not have a diocese with territory that officially included the Americas outside of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska….The fact of the matter is, Russia itself officially stated that its canonical territory included the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. It said nothing — officially — about California, or New York, or anywhere in between. That this claim may have been implicit does not make it official.”

For 19 centuries Alexandria was officially metropolis of “All of Egypt.” But that didn’t stop it from exercising jurisdiction in Sudan, Ethiopia etc for 16 centuries, before Pope Meletios (who didn’t check it out with his successor in Constantinople per the canon 28 claims) changed it to “All of Africa.” It’s not an isolated case, and doesn’t mean much, in particular, as you have pointed out (e.g. the Episcopalian issue) and I point out (the title gave the Diocese, per the Treaty, gave the Diocese a solid legal status in American Law), there were other issues involved.

Again, this is very theoretical, as the CoG, the first to contest the Russian Diocese of North America, did not even name a diocese here until 14 years after the Russians had changed it to “and North America,” and the Greeks we know were welll aware of that (despite Meletios’ claims to the contrary).

“The 1867 treaty, which you cited at length earlier, seems irrelevant to the question of whether the Russian Orthodox Church did in fact claim jurisdiction over the whole of America (either the country or the continent).”

For one, it prevents the Greek claim under Tomos of 1908 and Meletios’ charter of 1922. Either one is canonical and valid or the other: they cannot both be.

And the retention of the HGS under the treaty of its jurisdiction in AK is precursor of all that follows, whether arguing that AK gives title to all North America, or that, as I will be arguing, just the first step in extending its jurisdiction.

As my Guantanomo analogy, I hope, shows, just a residual jurisdiction in a transfer of sovereignty can have far reaching consequences.

Was legislatiion passed? Do you have a link to the bills, or references in the newspapers? I’d be interested in seeing the particulars.

“I still don’t get your point about the treaty, Isa. I don’t dispute Russian claims to Alaska, which is what the treaty deals with. How is this relevant to a claim over all of America?”

On point is that the Greek argument is a zero sum theory of jurisdiction in North America, all or nothing. If the EP didn’t have jurisdiction over AK, he didn’t have jurisdiction over any of North America. 1918 was too late. Even if we are generous and go by Fr. Hatherly in 1884, the EP still arrived too late: the Russians had already by canonical and legal jurisdictional acts, established their jurisdiction over the US.

I bring the Greeks up, because in the period we are discussing, they were the only ones making a counterarguement to Russian claims, an argument which, unless it is constituionally correct, they also made too late.

Sitka has claim on the rest of the US, the same way Alexandria has taken claim (under the ex-EP-turned-Pope Meletios, without his successor EP’s approval) over All of Africa, Sirmium (St. Methodius’ see: note that although sent by Constantinople, he had to get approval from Rome, whose jurisdiction he was laboring in) laid claim over Pannoia, Great Moravia and Serbia (EP Meletios dusted off these claims to interfere in Czechoslovakia with Serbian, Russian (and Romanian?) jurisdiction there), Ohrid gave jurisdiction over the Bulgarian empire, Kiev laid claim on All the Russias, etc. It is a common paradigm repeated over and over, e.g. Athens over Greece.

The counter argument can be made, but neither the EP nor the CoG (as I’ve said, the only ones who made a counterargument in the period at hand) are the ones to make it: the Phanar was quite fine with “abolishing” autocephalous Churches that fell to their Ottoman state, and the CoG extended its jurisdiction wherever the Greek Kingdom annexed territory (e.g. the Ionian islands, over the EP’s objections and just before the Cession Treaty of AK. Great Britain played the role of Russia there. In 1881 Thessaly and Epirus were annexed by Greece, and their diocese by the CoG, and the EP didn’t even protest).

Btw, the Ionian Islands had a status comparable to the Alaskan Diocese post Cession, until GB ceded them to Greece.
The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece, 1821-1852 By Charles A. Frazee, p.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=Khk7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=Ionian+islands+Church+of+Greece#v=onepage&q=Ionian%20islands%20Church%20of%20Greece&f=false

Btw, for those who read Greek etc., I’ve just found that the documents of the dispute between the EP and the CoG over autocephaly, with Jerusalem and the EP over Sinai, leading to the EP’s deposition, the jurisdiction fight with the Bulgarian exarchate, etc. (including the Romanian organic statute for the Romanian Church) can be found in Mansi:
http://www.veritatis-societas.org/200_Mansi/1692-1769,_Mansi_JD,_Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_040,_LT.pdf
http://www.veritatis-societas.org/200_Mansi/1692-1769,_Mansi_JD,_Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_042,_LT.pdf

But back to the discussion at hand: the argument can be made that the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthoodx Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska gave jurisdiction to the rest of North America, based on Orthodox precedents. I think it would be a waste of space here to argue that, as it can, as I hope to completely show, the Diocese, by a series of jurisdictional acts, established its jurisdiction over the US undisputably by 1891 and over Canada by 1903, before the 1905 date.

I’ve already said my piece on Chambesy.

I don’t think a failure to communicate was a problem. I think the Old World jurisdictions understood each other quite well. They should have addressed the problem in their own houses: each and every one of the Old World jurisdictions during the 19th century had serious jurisdictional problems. America is quite tame in comparison: look at Macedonia at the time! At least 5 Old World jurisdictions (including the EP) slitting throats (literally) over jurisdiction!

“Isa, you quickly moved into discussing the Greeks. The treaty was nearly left aside.”

Not reallly: the Greek claims always have to be dealt with as the context of the Russian.

Met. Jonah I believe is correct: it comes down only to those two. Other than a phyletistic justification, the other schools/jurisdictions do not really have an argument to explain their presence in the New World.

The canons are quite clear: no two bishops in one city/diocese. The Greek canon 28 argument is a constitutional one. If it is correct, that the EP has jurisdiction under the canons, and Bp. Alexander is correct:everything that the Russian bishop did is null and void. ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT, i.e. the EP having less than that universal jurisdiction, then just by virture of including Alaska, Meletios charter of 1922 and his setting up of his hiearchy in North America is null and void.

It is not a theoretical question, e.g. EP Sophronios III (1863-8) found that out the hard way: when he answered a request of the Archbishop Abbot of Sinai to help discipline the monks of St. Catherine’s. Since the Patriarch of Jerusalem must consecrate the Abbot of Sinai, Pat. Cyril summoned a synod in 1867 which declared the EP had no authority to interfere in anything that happened outside his own patriarchate. “If we acted otherwise people would think that we tolerate such anti-canonical interference, and that we acknowledge foreign and unknown authorities in the Church as well as the only lawful and competent high jurisdiction of the Ecumenical synods.” The Acts of the synod were then sent to all the other autocephalous Churches, who then forced not only the Abbot of Sinai to resign, but the EP Sophronios as well.
Fortescue, “The Orthodox Eastern Church” p. 310-1.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=Fortescue+sinai&source=bl&ots=qAa73G7T3i&sig=q21_8Rb4ckpNGXc3G-tuZ-9Uw_0&hl=ro&ei=Gaf6Sr010aOdB56Y2IcN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Like I said, North America was far, FAR from being the only area of Orthodoxy with jurisdiction problems.

The deposition of EP Sophronios coincides with the Cession Treaty and the arrival of a canoical priest at New Orleans. If the Greek argument is right, then the terms of the Cession Treaty voids all subsequent action stemming from it: leaving the Alaskan Diocese with jurisdiction was (as Bp. Alexander pointed out) “anti-canonical interference” in the EP’s territory. If the Russian/OCA argument is correct, then the presence of any parishes, not to mention the absence of any other bishops, do not count: as Greek Catholic Church v. Orthodox Greek Church shows, by December 1892/January 1893 AT THE LATEST, “the Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with jurisdiction over the United States, of San Francisco, California” was recognized as having extended his jurisdiction from the extreme Northwest of the continent to the Northeast. In other words, if the OCA argument is the constitutionally correct one, the other parishes have no more bearring than the states of Franklin, Westsylvania, Westmoreland, Superior, Sequoyah etc. have on US law.

“Even so, granting you the argument only shows that the cessation treaty was important for intra-Russian Orthodox questions. That’s it.”

Actually, I don’t see it having any bearing on intra-Russian questions (I take that you mean MP/OCA/ROCOR questions), as there is no dispute between them on it.

“Matthew and I also grant that it gives guarantees to Orthodox in Alaska.”

Which was either canonical, or “anti-canonical interference.” If Bp. Alexander was around, and tried to assert jurisdiction, the US courts would be bound by those guarantees to find against him.

“There’s nothing in that treaty that indicates that by virtue of recognizing the Orthodox Alaskans as citizens, the Russian Orthodox Church has automatic national jurisdiction. As you admitted, the first amendment would prohibit that, anyway.”

The citizenship issue (which, the First Ammendment notwithstanding, is bound up by US case law with Russian Orthoodoxy as “the established Church”) vitiates Bp. Alexander’s “diaspora” argument. The US couldn’t leave Russian Orthodoxy as the “esbalished Church,” but it was bound to recognize its jurisdiction. If Bp. Alexander tried to enforce Meletios charter there he would lose.

The problem here is that, on the question of jurisdiction, it is all very theoretical. Until 1918 there cannot be any issue of jurisdiction for the simple reason that there was no non-Russian Diocese bishop who even CLAIMED to be the bishop in North America. Even if we, retrospectively, count the 1908 Tomos or even the mere presence of a parish, that only brings us (with the seperate cases of New Orleans and Fr. Hatherly, which I’ll Lord willing get to) to the end of 1891. By then the Russian bishop of Alaska was exercising jurisdciton (as I’ll further show) across the continent.

“So, the treaty is a part of the picture, but not the central object within the picture.”

yes and no. If its terms left a canonical Diocese in AK, the Greek argument’s rational and justification is vitiated. By the time there could be a dispute over that, however, much more water had gone under the bridge.

“On the autocephay of the OCA, however, we might differ in places. My guess is that the three of us will each have a slightly different take on the question of “autocephaly” more generally”

LOL. I don’t think we are the only ones…

If the Russian Church was so intent on claiming America as its territory, why did it define the diocese in 1870 as including only the Aleutians and Alaska? Why did it take three decades for the Russian Church to make its claim to America explicit?

I’m open to being wrong on all this; this is not nearly as clear-cut as the “myth of unity” issue. But based on what I’ve seen so far, the notion that the whole of the United States of America was the exclusive canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1870, or 1890, or whatever, doesn’t hold up.

And, given that any claims to jurisdiction prior to Tikhon’s time were implicit, are we really to expect the Church of Greece or the EP to acknowledge those claims? Shouldn’t something be spelled out on paper?

The issues involved with the Cession treaty were not in dispute, nor on point, in Kedroff. The court’s summary disposed of any need of invoking it.

“Greek Catholic Church v. Orthodox Greek Church, 195 Pa. 425,” where the PA Supreme Ruled against St. Alexis, and stating “The opinion of the learned court below contains an exposition of this controversy so full and exhaustive and so eminently in accord with the testimony taken on the hearing and with our own decisions, that we adopt it as the opinion of this court and affirm the decree for the reasons and upon the considerations therein expressed,” adopted the fact that “It is also undisputed and acknowledged by all parties to this controversy that the United Greek Catholic Church is an organization separate and distinct from the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church, and that its doctrines, tenets, rules, etc., are the same as the Roman Catholic Church, except in some matters of discipline, both acknowledging the pope as the ecclesiastical head of the church and acknowledging the authority of the bishops appointed by him. While the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church differs in many respects in its faith, doctrines, tenets, rules, etc., from the United Greek Catholic Church, and acknowledges as its spiritual or ecclesiastical head “the Synod of Russia, consisting of bishops appointed by the czar of Russia,” and “It is also undisputed that before Rev. Toth became pastor of the church and prior to the acceptance of this congregation and church under the jurisdiction of the Bishop Nicholas, Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with jurisdiction over the United States, and before the decree of the court making Bishop Nicholas one of the trustees, the Rev. Toth and Bishop Nicholas required trustees of the church property and the officers of the societies of St. Peter and Rome and St. John the Baptist, to sign a renunciation of their belief or connection with the “United Greek Catholic Church,” of which the following is an extract:

“We, the undersigned, trustees of the Annunciation Church, and inhabitants of the City of Wilkes-Barre, State of Pennsylvania, and also we, the officers of the following societies, viz, St. Peter and Paul, St. Nicholas and St. John the Baptist of the same church and city, humbly beseech your eminency that you kindly accept us and our church in your protection and your spiritual jurisdiction,…3. We hereby grant and deliver to the jurisdiction of your Eminency, our church property, parsonage; . . . also all documents in relation with the said church to the amount of ten thousand dollars, and the keys of the said church. ”

Thus in PA in 1900, the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alaska was recognized.

Jurisdictional acts.

I’ll start with the legal ones, as they’re the easiest.

The Terms of the Cession Treaty were a jurisdictional act (which, by Senate ratification, required the Congress to impliment by appropriate legistlation). It incorporated the Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska (or rather, at the time “Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands.” I’ll deal with that point below) as the successor of the Czar. The status was somewhat analogous to that of Guantanamo Bay, which, by Treaties etc. stemming from the independence of Cuba from the US, the US withdrew from Cuba but remain at Guantanomo over which Cuba has the right of sovereignty but the US has the right to exercise jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.

On June 20, 1870 the Russian subject Bishop Paul committed a jurisdictional act: he was still in AK, and by terms of the treaty was now automatically a native US citizen. If he wanted to run for US president, there would be no legal disability. However, he instead soon committed another jurisdictional act: he was recalled by the Russian HGS, and he left, confirming the jurisdiction of the HGS, according to the Ecclesiastical Regulation, over AK, the same jurisdiction the US Supreme Court would uphold almost a century later.

As the US extended its sovereignty, the HGS began to extend its jurisdiction over the US, as the jurisdictional acts under law and canon began to merge. The HGS recognized the US sovereignty by making the Sitka auxiliary independent of the bishop of Kamchatka, attaching the Aleutians, now American territory, to the jurisdiction of Sitka and renaming the Sitka Diocese as “Alaska,” the name the US gave to its new territory. Besides the jurisdcition the Alaskan Diocese had under the Treaty and US law, it had already begun to exert its jurisdiction in the rest of the US.

The HGS had exerciesed its jurisdiction with Russian sovereignty at Fort Ross, and continuedt to do so per the Russian American Charter via the Russian Navy, as it made ports of call to SF, and the Champlains served the remnants of Fort Ross there, as they had when the Russian flag still flew over Northern CA. Kostromitinov, former governor of Fort Ross and then in SF Russian agent then Vice-Consul oraganized the Orthodox-Russian, Greek, Serb-into the The Russian-Greek-Slavonian Church and Philanthropic Society, which worshipped in his house and on board the Russian Navy ships in port. In 1867 the Russian and Greek Consuls (George Fisher, acutally an American pioneer, born in Serbia) incorporated this Society in CA, a jurisdictional act establishing it in CA. The Russian Consul Klingovstrem then committed another jurisdictional act, writing to the Sitka bishoprick:

“This Society through me (…) into correspondence with the Russian Government and the Most-Holy Synod regarding the construction of a temple, etc. The Society asked me to inform the Spiritual Directorate regarding all this, especially because, it seems, another society has the intention to form, also using the name Russian Slavonian Benevolent Society. Our Society has no relations whatsoever either with that society or with the church under the directorship of Mr. Honcharenko. The signature of the Chairman and the Russian Consul will serve as proof of the true Society. If the Spiritual Directorate will be in the position of helping the Society, it is to be done through the Russian Consul, who at the same time is the Society’s Chairman. Time (…) does not allow to enter into details. However, in due time the Society will have the honor of forwarding to the Spiritual Directorate its Statutes and directives from the Russian Governing Most-Holy Synod.”
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1867/12.14.Klinkovstrem.html
With this jurisdictional act, the SF parish, previously canonically, now legally was under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Diocese, and by the Cession Treaty, the Supremacy Clause, the Privileges and Immunities, and Full Faith and Credit the Americanized Ecclesiastical Regulation and Russian Charters became binding precedence as to the Orthodox.

How’s that?:

As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"

In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.

to be cont.

The central problem in American Orthodoxy is the failure of the various Churches in the Old World to communicate better and develop a means of addressing the problem. That has started now at Chambesy. I guess we’ll see if it nets any results.

Isa, you quickly moved into discussing the Greeks. The treaty was nearly left aside.

Citing the Kedrovsky case is intriguing, but keep in mind that the U.S. courts had shifted how they reflected on these questions. The Watson v. Jones had become the standard. Although it predated the dispute in Wilkes-Barre that Toth witnessed, by about 30 years, Toth still lost his case, because of the older English law assumptions. The Cessation treaty was not the main thinking of the court in Kedrovsky’s victory. The Watson v. Jones case was.

Even so, granting you the argument only shows that the cessation treaty was important for intra-Russian Orthodox questions. That’s it.

Matthew and I also grant that it gives guarantees to Orthodox in Alaska.

There’s nothing in that treaty that indicates that by virtue of recognizing the Orthodox Alaskans as citizens, the Russian Orthodox Church has automatic national jurisdiction. As you admitted, the first amendment would prohibit that, anyway.

So, the treaty is a part of the picture, but not the central object within the picture.

I think at this point I may be pulling out. Other than commenting on Watson v. Jones, there wasn’t much reason for me to say the rest. Matthew and I are at risk for parroting one another, here.

On the autocephay of the OCA, however, we might differ in places. My guess is that the three of us will each have a slightly different take on the question of “autocephaly” more generally.

More to the point: what of the fact that the Russian Church did not formally claim territory in America, outside of Alaska, until 1905? What is the relevance of the 1867 treaty to this issue?

The queston is not unprecedented: The EP “aboished” the Serbian Patriarchate. I take this act as void, for the reason stated above, and so did the Serbs. The EP claimed jurisdiction over all of Serbia, but the Patriarch of Serbia who escaped to the Hapstburg empire set up the Patriarchate of Karlovici. The bishop of Montenegro, out of reach from the Turks, refused to recognize the abolition, de facto became autocephalous, but connected to the Russian Church (for one thing, it had to borrow bishops to consecrate successors over Montenegro). Another Serb autocephaly, Prizrend and Uskub, was on the verge of formation (it already had millet status) on the verge of the Balkan War, and Bosnia and Hercegovina was autocephalous in all but name before WWI. Romania was similarly in a dismembered state, the CoG was formed piecemeal, etc. All this had to do with the Ottoman expansion and control of the Phanar, and the Austrian, Hungarian, Russian, etc. and the Balkan peoples efforts to push the Turk (and in the process, the Phanariot) back. The situation in North America was similar, with the Soviets playing the Ottomans in that drama.

The Romanians and even more so the Serbs never ruptured communion with the EP, continued to acknowledge him in a sense while freeing themselves of him. The compromises along the way with multiple jurisdictions in their own house did not compromise their exclusive claims, which they were finally able to make good after WWI.

The situaiton in America resembles that of the Czech lands and Slovakia, but to get into that, we would have to get into when she became autocephalous and who was her Mother Church.

I don’t find the Tomos of 1970 compromised, but I’ll have to defend that later.

A tangential comment… Let’s assume for a moment that you are right, and that Russia retained exclusive territorial claim on America into the 1920s. What do we make of the Metropolia’s release of Syro-Arab parishes to the Antiochian Archdiocese following Bp Emmanuel’s death in 1934? This action seems to have sanctioned the multi-jurisdicitonal situation in America (at least, in the case of the Antiochian Archdiocese). How, then, could the Metropolia accept autocephaly in 1970 — an action which implied exclusive claim to America? Did they not relinquish that claim when they sanctioned the existence of the Antiochian Archdiocese?

(I realize this is rather off-topic. My apologies in advance… perhaps I should stick to one argument at a time, but it occurred to me in the course of thinking on this subject, and I thought I’d pose the question for discussion.)

You’ve gone to great lengths to refute Metaxakis, but neither Fr. Oliver nor I have endorsed Metaxakis. We’re not talking about the GOA or anything of the sort. We’re talking about the fact that, prior to 1905, the Russian Orthodox Church did not have a diocese with territory that officially included the Americas outside of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The 1867 treaty, which you cited at length earlier, seems irrelevant to the question of whether the Russian Orthodox Church did in fact claim jurisdiction over the whole of America (either the country or the continent). The fact of the matter is, Russia itself officially stated that its canonical territory included the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. It said nothing — officially — about California, or New York, or anywhere in between. That this claim may have been implicit does not make it official.

Basically, unless I’ve missed something (which is entirely possible), you haven’t really answered my question — what does the 1867 treaty have to do with the idea that Russia laid claim to all of the United States of America (or North America; take your pick).

On the subject of the 1908 Tomos, an English translation of the text is underway. I don’t believe there has been an English translation up to now. Details will be forthcoming.

Anyway, Isa, if you could speak directly to the relevance of the 1867 treaty to this discussion, that would be very helpful. I remain confused — a fact just as likely the result of my own ignorance as it is a result of any deficiency in your explanation.

America, meaning the US, or North America? For the latter, the Cession Treaty had no immediate effect. It did when the Russian Diocese introduced Orthodoxy into Canada and Mexico.

As for the US, as I indicated, I”m not sure of the ramifications in the Reconstructionist South, an issue because of the New Orleans parish and the putative existence of the Galveston parish. With the readmission of the Souther States, before, during and shortly after the Cession Treaty, this becomes moot in a sence, but I’ll deal with the New Orleans parish, the “grandfather” parish. Since the Galveston parish was, at the very latest 1895 under the Russian Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska, I do not think space warrants the digression.

Before I do, perhaps I should first quote Archb. Meletios’ report in 1920 to the CoG on his episcopal oversight over America, as the first Greek bishop (except for the visiting Bp. Dionysios of Zante) to set foot in America in 1918. The context of his speech was that he had been elected Archbishop of Athens and head of the Holy Synod of Greece (an election which the whole episcopacy of Greece in synod later declared “void,” the status at the time of the deposed Meletius’ issuing the 1922 GOANSA Charter), and on August 4, 1918 the CoG’s HS created a “Archdiocese of America” to govern “all Greek Orthodox of permanent and/or temporary residence in North and South America” and “shall be considered as one of the Dioceses of the Autocephalous Church of Greece.” This of course is interesting, as although the Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska was in CA, outside the territory in his title, the CoG’s action not only created a bishop of North and South America outside its terriory, but placed its see outside its “canonical” territory, in Athens, which was also the see of another diocese, and “incorporated” this Archdiocese-in whose creation on the ground the CoG and the EP’s involvement was miminal at best-into its own jurisdiction.

This it did on the basis of Constantinople’s 1908 tomos, which is the first notice of the EP of America. It claimed in pertinent part (evidently: I have not been able to get the text of the whole document: if someone can get whole document (e.g. out of Met. Maximos of Sardis’ “Ecumenical Patriarchate”-a work I have not been able to get a hold of-and post it (preferably with the original Greek), that would be of capital value):”As per canonical order and as has been the practice for centuries, all Orthodox communities outside the canonical geographical boundaries of the Holy Churches of God are under the pastoral governing of the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne…Since it has become more practical for administrative purposes to unite the Greek communities of Europe, America and elsewhere, to the Most Holy Autocephalous Church of Greece, it has proved necessary to transfer the pastoral responsibility for these communities to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece.” How making “canonical” orders on the basis of Greek ethnicity-the Tomos speaks only of Greek communities-does not violate the EP’s own Anti-Phyletism Synod of 1870 I do not know.

Archb. Meletios, on the day of this Act, left as “Exarch” of the Greek Parishes (or “of North and South America?” Not having the full text, I can’t tell) left for his “diocese.” On his return he was reporting:

“During my visit to America, I was informed of the presence of a Russia Bishop on American soil without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate….The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America. However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome. Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not. In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me. I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong. I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken. Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction[emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted. We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia [Germanos Shehadi] to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox. Prior to this, Efthymios [i.e. Aftimios Ofiesh], who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians. This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America. Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially”
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA137&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#v=onepage&q=Galveston%20Orthodox&f=false
American Orthodoxy and Parish Congregationalism By Nicholas Ferencz p. 133-7

Besides mischaracterizing both the activities of Met. Germanos (who came to raise funds for his diocese in Syria and was received by St. Raphael and the Russian Diocese for that purpose. Ignoring calls from Antioch for his return, he created his own rogue diocese (“without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch” LOL)), and the status of Bp. Aftimos (who was in good standing with the Diocese at the time), Archb. Meletios is flat out, well, stating other than the facts:the Greek Consul had helped found the SF Cathedral Parish way back in the 1860s, Rev. Hatherly from Constantinople wrote to Russia according to his own words, Prince George of Greece prompted the formation of the the first NY Greek parish having been just greeted by the Greek community who worshipped at the OCA Cathedral, the Greek Consul in NY made headlines by snubbing the episcopal consecration of St. Raphael (with all the other resident bishops there), St. Tikhon was barred from Greek Holy Trinity, and Bp. Alexander speaks of some legal action by the Russian bishop to take over the Greek parishes in 1907 in New York at least, etc. The Russian bishop wasn’t a suprise, but it is telling how Archb. Meletios feels compelled to so claim.

The problem of course, is that Archb. Meletios, as his words show, is claiming jurisdiction over the Russian Diocese, which reveals the problems that render the CoG’s actions uncanonical (unless one accepts in toto the EP’s present interpretation of canon 28, a problem because at the time the accepted canonical authority of the Greek Church, the Pedalion, knows nothing of this superjurisdiction, despite the Tomos of 1908 implying otherwise). In 1908, and 1918 the Russian mission had a diocese with resident bishops (plural), and had by 1908 already made good its claims across North America, and had by then explicitely stated so in the primate’s title. The canons barr interferring in the diocese of another bishop, on pain of deposition. The 1908 Tomos spoke only of the Greek communities, not the rest of the Orthodox, and if Meletios only claimed the Greek parishes in North America, and could explain how that didn’t fall under the anathemas heaped on Phyletism under the EP and CoG’s own 1870 synod, he could make an argument (which, I think, however, would have to fail too). But Meletios and his CoG wasn’t doing that: they were claiming ALL the Orthodox on North (and South!) America. This would include the Diocese of AK, from which the EP was barred from interferring with or claiming not only by Orthodox canon but, as skimmed above, US law, in fact Supreme US law. It was even worse in Canada: there it was assented June 19, 1903 that “the bishop of the Russo-Greek Orthodox Church for North American and the Aleutians,” i.e. St. Tikhon, “he and his successors having jurisdiction over the said Church in Canada, and each of the duly authorized parishes and missions in the Territories be incorporated” (at the time, only the Russian Missions had a presence, except the one Romanian parish which had just come in Regina, which at the time was NW Territory. Now under Bp. Nathaniel of the OCA Romanian Episcopate, Bishop Ghicherie of Iasi was listed on the property title. The parishioners were mostly from Bucovina, at the time an autocephalous Church, which reported refrained from sending clergy out of deference to the Russian bishop).
http://books.google.com/books?id=9l4vAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=northwest+territories+first+orthodox+church&source=bl&ots=PNecwbNsxP&sig=faH2t_YmTDgfUj0H0s4qkKmIROQ&hl=en&ei=4GudSubXAY3iMNLJ9JAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=1903%20Russo&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=3mwcAAAAMAAJ&dq=Ukrainian+Greek+Orthodox+Church+of+Canada+1918-1951&q=Bukovyna
Meletios was a foreign national, of no legal standing under US law. The decision of his synod, though legal in Greece, had no standing in US law. In contrast, the “Russian Bishop on American soil without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate” had the legal status in both America and Canada, as primate of the Orthodox Church incorporated in American and Canadian law. In America, the effect of standing, or its lack, can be compared to the treaty between the US and the Czar on mutual recognition of corporations of the others (in effect the US, which were not recognized in Russia until then).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E06E7DF1E31E733A25754C0A9639C946897D6CF
it got involved with the issue of Russian law on Jews, and applying them to American Jews:
http://books.google.ro/books?id=GUsRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=treaty+1904+Russia+corporations#v=onepage&q=treaty%201904%20Russia%20corporations&f=false

“Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially.” It would seeem that the message, maybe not as explicite as we would like, got through loud and clear.

How the Tomos of 1908 failed to bring any order is witnessed by the cotemporary Burgess (1913, “Greeks in America” p. 57)
“And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community. He has no power as far as the written constitution goes. Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America. It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church! From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revolution. So the Greek priest is hired, and often “fired,” by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants. And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers. Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop’s jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible. The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!”
http://books.google.com/books?id=HHmOYmd05BUC&pg=PA57&dq=Greeks+in+America+vestry#v=onepage&q=Greeks%20in%20America%20vestry&f=false

The US government did note the different status of the Greek versus the Russian Diocese, e.g. “Religious bodies, 1906″ By United States. Bureau of the Census, William Chamberlin Hunt. http://books.google.com/books?id=5zsTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436&dq=Churches+Greek+Church+1897&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20Greek%20Church%201897&f=false
After recounting the autocephalous Churches of the time (not identical to today’s diptychs, btw) it states: “Of these churches, 4 are represented in the United States by regular church organizations. These are the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Servian Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox. Only I of these has a definite and inclusive ecclesiastical organization, and that is the Russian Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox churches are looking forward to such an organization, but it is not as yet completed. The Servian and Syrian Orthodox churches are under the general supervision of the Russian Orthodox Church, although reported separatedly.” On the Syrians it states “The churches of this body represent the immigration into the Unites States of communities from Syria connected with the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch or Jerusalem. They all have priests of their own, but as a body they are under the general supervision of a coadjutor bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. In doctrine and polity they are in harmony with the Russian Orthodox Church…” On the Serbians “Servians” [sic] they “are under the general supervision of the archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States, but have a special administrator an archimandrite of that church [St. Sebastian Dabovich]. In doctrine and polity they are in harmony with the Russian Orthodox Church…” But on the Greeks “application has been made by the communities to the ecclesiastical authorities of their own sections, and priests have been sent to this country, sometimes by the Holy Synod of Greece and sometimes by the Patriarchate of Constantinople…there had been no central organization, each priest holding his ecclesiastical relation with the synod or patriarchate which sent him to this country. Arrangements are being perfected for a general organization of the Greek speaking communities representing both the Holy Synod of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople…In doctrine the Greek churhces are in entire accord with other Eastern Orthodox Churches…The entire organization of the Greek churches is practically on a home missionary basis”

Which of course is the problem with sustaining Meletios claims. Under the canons and US law, the Orthodox Church has a hiearchal nature. I will have to continue that later. Right now, I just some up that under Orthodox canon and US law, congregationalism doesn’t make a valid parish.

I still don’t get your point about the treaty, Isa. I don’t dispute Russian claims to Alaska, which is what the treaty deals with. How is this relevant to a claim over all of America?