stefansson-wrangel-09-37-038

-37-

open to the subjects of all nations for commerical enterprise.
The reply was unfavorable; and, in view of the growing differ-
ences between Norway and Sweden at the time, the matter was
dropped. After the separation of the two countries in 1905,
Norway revived the question, and in 1907 addressed Britain,
France, Russia, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany
on the subject, declaring that she herself had no intention of
altering the status of Spitsbergen as a terra mullius. The
powers addressed were unanimous as to the desirability of regu-
lating affairs in Spitsbergen, and expressed their willingness
to consider proposals for an international agreement along the
lines proposed."

The question, however, remained unsettled until 1920, when
a treaty was signed at Paris on February 9. The parties to
this treaty were the United States, Great Britain, Denmark,
France, Italy, Japan, Norway, Holland, and Sweden. This treaty
was ratified by the President March 4, 1924, and is No. 686 of
the United States Treaty Series.

Article I of the treaty provides: "The high contracting
parties undertake to recognize, subject to the stipulations of
the present treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway
over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen."

It seems difficult to explain this result on any other
basis than that the territory had long been derelict, that the
archipelago was most contiguous to Norway, and that Norway, of
recent years, had shown the most interest in its development.
The claims which might have been based on discovery were dis-
regarded. The claims which might have been based on occupation
were apparently not insisted on. It is not shown that the Nor-
wegian subjects in Spitsbergen formed the most influential part
of the community, either numerically or economically. In the
last analysis, contiguity must form the principal basis of the
result.

In regard to the question raised by the Oregon Territory,
the following factors are to be considered.