stefansson-wrangel-09-37-041

-40-

they speak of discovery, whereas the action of the United States
with regard to Navasa Island, since it may be looked upon as in
principle correct, is cited by the writers as an authority on
abandonment. An authority, it is submitted, the case is not. The
reasons behind the position taken by the United States have
merely a greater color of correctness, for example, than those
behind the award of the Queen of Spain with regard to Aves Is-
land. But to me it seems that, in the present state of affairs
with regard to the ownership of territory, sovereigns will do as
they please, limited only by world opinion as to their ability
to justify their positions before the world. As an aid to such
justification, occupation may be a stronger argument than dis-
covery. That is, it seems, however, all that it can be.

We turn now to the question of Wrangel Island. It may be said
in advance that the only facts derivable on the subject have had
to be gleaned from newspapers. Even where there is some mention
made of official documents, I have not been able to discover
them. For example, I have it from a newspaper report that
Russia in 1916 issued a note claiming sovereignty over Wrangel
Island. This note, however, I have been unable to find in the
documentary sources at ray disposal. Since the correctness of
any conclusions drawn must depend on the reliability of the
facts submitted, any conclusions with regard to Wrangel Island
must depend on the correctness of the facts.

To begin with, in 57 British and Foreign State Papers, 452,
is the treaty between the United States and Russia by which
Alaska was ceded to the former. This treaty conveys all land