stefansson-wrangel-09-15-127-001

December 31, 1924.

Dear Taylor:

You asked me to write you about the present status
of Wrangel Island under international law.

About the clearest principle in international law is
that effective occupation gives ownership. The other claims in descending
order are exploration, discovery, contiguity. There have been many arbi-
trations as to the ownership of lands and the claim of contiguity has
always been ignored wherever any other claim could be shown by one of the
contestants. I was assured of this by the permanent officials of the
British Foreign Office last year, and examined several arbitration
documents. The most important from this point of view was an arbitration
in South America where the arbitrator was the King of Italy. I do not
remember the countries dealt with, but the King reviewed at length many
previous arbitrations and showed that in each of them contiguity had been
ignored when occupation by one party or the other could be shown, even
though the occupation was of a floating character, as trappers, mining
prospectors, etc.

You are so familiar with the history of Wrangel Island
that I need not go further into this case. All the Russians did was to go
ashore, raise the Russian flag, and take away our party. The Russians
themselves claim that they took the party away at the party's own request.
They don't even claim, therefore, that they used violence or exercised
their authority in any way in removing the colonists. I do not see,
therefore, that the voyage of Russia to Wrangel Island altered its legal
status in any way. The whole question is: Has the British
labor gov't renounced Wrangel in a way that is necessarily
binding on the present gov't?

A.J.T. Taylor, Esq.,
Bank of Hamilton Building,
Toronto, Ontario.