Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of the changing function and contemporary impact of the Alaska-British Columbia boundary Halsey-Brandt, Gregory Charles 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 H35.pdf [ 6.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104213.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104213-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104213-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104213-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104213-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104213-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104213-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104213-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104213.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGING FUNCTION AND CONTEMPORARY IMPACT OF THE ALASKA-BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARY BY GREGORY CHARLES HALSEY-BRANDT B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of GEOGRAPHY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF A p r i l , BRITISH COLUMBIA 1969 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thes,is f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t H h (fo]m^fTa Vancouver 8, Canada Date ABSTRACT T h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n to e s t a b l i s h t h e impact o f t h e A l a s k a - B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a b o u n d a r y on s o c i o - e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t i n the b o u n d a r y r e g i o n . The impact was s t u d i e d i n t h r e e s t a g e s : (1) an h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s to d e t e r m i n e the r a i s o n d ' e t r e o f the b o u n d a r y and the c o n s e q u e n t a d a p t a t i o n s w h i c h have been made t o i t s r e s u l t i n g b a r r i e r f u n c t i o n s , (2) a c o n t e m p o r a r y a n a l y s i s o f t h e b o u n d a r y as a c o n s t r a i n t on the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r o u t e w a y s w h i c h i t d i v i d e s and (3) an a n a l y s i s o f a f u t u r e p r o b l e m w h i c h t h e s i t u a t i o n o f the b o u n d a r y i s e x p e c t e d to c r e a t e i n t h e d i v i s i o n o f a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s w h i c h t r a v e r s e t h e b o u n d a r y . I t was f o u n d t h a t h i s t o r i c a l l y t h e b o u n d a r y was e s t a b l i s h e d as a r e s u l t o f the e x t e n t i o n o f the R u s s i a n and B r i t i s h f u r t r a d e economies and t h u s was c r e a t e d as a b a r r i e r to p e n e t r a t i o n by t h e o p p o s i n g t r a d e r s . As a r e s u l t o f i t s d e l i m i t a t i o n on t h i s b a s i s , i t c r e a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e s t r e s s i n the r e g i o n as the n e e d a r o s e f o r g r e a t e r economic and s o c i a l p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e b o u n d a r y . S e v e r a l r a i l , h i g h w a y , and w a t e r r o u t e s were u t i l i z e d to e x p l o i t t h i s r e g i o n and i t was f o u n d t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y impeded t h e e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e r o u t e w a y s , a l b e i t to a l e s s e r e x t e n t t h a n the C a n a d i a n p u b l i c have e x p r e s s e d i n p o l i t i c a l c o n c e r n . However , to overcome t h i s p r o b l e m , e f f o r t has b e e n d i r e c t e d a t a l t e r i n g the l o c a t i o n o f t h e b o u n d a r y to f a c i l i t a t e C a n a d i a n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r o u t e w a y s . T h i s s o l u t i o n was f o u n d t o o f f e r l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y o f success. I t was therefore suggested that the functions of the boundary be reviewed and that t h i s approach would lead to a r e d u c t i o n i n the b a r r i e r e f f e c t of the boundary. The f u t u r e p o s s i b i l i t y of e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of the hydro e l e c t r i c resources of the Yukon, Taku and S t i k i n e R i v e r s was a l s o found to be hampered by the d i v i s i o n of p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t i s suggested that the l i m i t e d market base i n the region and large c a p i t a l costs r e q u i r e d f o r hydro p r o j e c t s preclude separate American and Canadian development programmes. Precedent e s t a b l i s h e d along the southern boundary of Canada and the United States provides a s u f f i c i e n t p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c frame-work w i t h i n which to e x p l o i t j o i n t l y the power a v a i l a b l e on the northern r i v e r s . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i INTRODUCTION 2 CHAPTER I HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGING BOUNDARY Review of L i t e r a t u r e on the H i s t o r i c a l Approach to Boundary Studies Method of A n a l y s i s The E v o l u t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia Boundary The F r o n t i e r P e r i o d : 1741-1845 The Period of Undefined Sovereignty: 1825-1903 The Period of Boundary Entrenchment: 1903 - Present Summary I I THE PRESENT IMPACT OF THE BOUNDARY - THE PROBLEM OF TRANSPORTATION 51 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e The F i r s t A l t e r n a t i v e - A change i n the Location of the Boundary The Second A l t e r n a t i v e - A Change i n the Functions of the Boundary Summary I I I FUTURE IMPACT OF THE BOUNDARY - THE PROBLEM OF Review of L i t e r a t u r e on Boundary Waters H i s t o r i c a l Development of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r i n e Law The Columbia River Treaty The Yukon, S t i k i n e , and Taku Rivers Summary FUNCTION 8 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS 96 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A . LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The P a c i f i c Northwest 1 2. Trading Posts and Communication Axi s During the F r o n t i e r P e r i o d , 1741-1825 25 3. Area Claimed by Russia under Ukase of 1821 and the F i n a l Boundary as Arranged a f t e r N e g o t i a t i o n s , 1825 29 4. Klondike Access C o r r i d o r s , 1900 37 5. R i v a l Claims and T r i b u n a l Award of 1903 42 6. Population Growth Rates, 1921 - 1961 46 7. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Routeways 65 8. Proposed C o r r i d o r s 69 9. St. Mary and M i l k R i v e r Basins 109 10. St. John River Basin I l l 11. Columbia River Basin 121 12. Yukon-Atlin-Taku D i v e r s i o n Scheme 127 13. Ramparts P r o j e c t 132 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my g r a t i t u d e to a l l those who have a s s i s t e d i n the pr e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . S p e c i f i c a l l y to Dr. J u l i a n V. Minghi, f o r h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n of advice and as s i s t a n c e from c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the problem to the f i n a l stage of w r i t i n g . For the advice given during the long stage of d r a f t i n g both maps and text I wish a l s o to thank Dr. A.L. F a r l e y . The support, advice, and co-operation of many o f f i c i a l s of the Governments of B r i t i s h Columbia, A l a s k a , and Canada added g r e a t l y to the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. Also to Mr. T. E l l i o t of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines who opened h i s e x c e l l e n t records f o r my perusal and to Mr. R. Minter of the White Pass and Yukon Railway f o r h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n , I extend my g r a t i t u d e . P a r t i c u l a r a p p r e c i a t i o n i s extended to Father G.F. McGuigan of the Department of Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r h i s encouragement i n s t r i v i n g to broaden my understanding g e n e r a l l y and of t h i s t h e s i s problem i n p a r t i c u l a r . I have been fortunate i n having the perseverance and s k i l l of Mrs. Beverly Smith i n the typ i n g of t h i s study. F i n a l l y , i t remains to express a personal a p p r e c i a t i o n to my w i f e , Susan, f o r her patience and support during the long pre p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . In s p i t e of the as s i s t a n c e of those above, the author takes f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l e r r o r s appearing i n the t h e s i s . A p r i l , 1969 Gregg Charles Halsey-Brandt Toronto, Canada 2. INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g functions of two states are most c l e a r l y evident at a "window" or boundary between t h e i r p o l i t i c a l systems. Because of i t s r o l e as a b a r r i e r or f i l t e r , a boundary enables the geographer to i d e n t i f y and measure i n t e r a c t i n g phenomena of the two p o l i t i c a l systems of which i t i s an i n t e r f a c e . I t s i n f l u e n c e may be observed on the a c t i v i t y which encounters i t e i t h e r by d i m i n i s h i n g that a c t i v i t y ( i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y or s e l e c t i v e l y ) or by changing i t s d i r e c t i o n . The A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary r e f l e c t s the sovereignty of two s t a t e s , and provides an e x c e l l e n t o pportunity to study i n t e r a c t a n c e phenomena of the two p o l i t i c a l systems. In t h i s a n a l y s i s of the changing f u n c t i o n and contemporary impact of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary, the focus i s toward an assessment of the f u n c t i o n and i n f l u e n c e of the boundary on the basis of observed e f f e c t upon s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s . The three a c t i v i t i e s or problems d e a l t w i t h i n t h i s t h e s i s are the h i s t o r i c a l development of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary, i t s contemporary impact i n terms of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and i t s future impact on hydro power development. As a r e s u l t of the l o c a t i o n of the boundary, Canada i s without a c o a s t l i n e north of 56° North l a t i t u d e . The coast north of t h i s p o i n t , and for approximately twenty-miles to the landward, comprises the southeastern Alaskan l i t t o r a l or the Alaskan "Panhandle" as the region i s commonly known. Consequently, from the Canadian point of view two problems are evident; f i r s t l y , Canadian coastwise t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to and from northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y must cross the Alaskan l i s i e r e and i n so doing use American f a c i l i t i e s ; and secondly, the lower reaches of a l l the westward f l o w i n g r i v e r s are i n A l a s k a , thus r e q u i r i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n s u l t a t i o n before t h e i r hydro power p o t e n t i a l can be u t i l i z e d . As a r e s u l t of the f u n c t i o n of the boundary, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n media and hydro development plans are confronted by two d i f f e r e n t and o f t e n opposing l e g a l systems having j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s of t h e i r u n i t a r y systems. This boundary f u n c t i o n creates a b a r r i e r to the e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n media and of hydro power development. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Throughout the t h e s i s the approach u t i l i z e d i s p r i m a r i l y that of h i s t o r i c a l geography wherein past geographical patterns and r e l a t i o n s h i p s are analyzed i n order to understand f u l l y the present geographical m i l i e u . This method has been chosen f o r two reasons. F i r s t , i t i s f e l t that t h i s i s the best way to handle the data a v a i l a b l e because of i t s volume and d i v e r s i t y . Secondly, i n the absence of any major work on the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i n p o l i t i c a l geography, a h i s t o r i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s i s r e q u i r e d to compile and judge the research data i n order to understand the contemporary s p a t i a l impact of the boundary. The f i r s t chapter traces the e v o l u t i o n of the Alaska-B r i t i s h Columbia boundary through i t s various stages, i s o l a t i n g f a c t o r s i n the h i s t o r i c a l process which e x p l a i n the l a t t e r - d a y l o c a t i o n and f u n c t i o n of the boundary. In the second and t h i r d chapters the p a r t i c u l a r problems of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and hydro power r e s p e c t i v e l y are analyzed. In the case of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , two a l t e r n a t e s o l u t i o n s to the problem are suggested and each analyzed to determine the most f e a s i b l e . In the case of hydro power, the most s i g n i f i c a n t precedents a v a i l a b l e from past experience along the United States-Mexico boundary and the United States-Canada boundary are analyzed w i t h a view to proposing a s o l u t i o n to the problem of hydro power development i n the f u t u r e . S o l u t i o n s based on h i s t o r i c a l trends are not a b s o l u t e , as the problems are dynamic and can n e i t h e r be analyzed nor t h e i r outcomes determined i n c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s , but s o l u t i o n s that appear acceptable i n l i g h t of present knowledge are put forward. The f i n a l chapter summarizes the conclusions reached i n t h i s s p e c i f i c boundary study and discusses the study w i t h i n the framework of boundary s t u d i e s and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law g e n e r a l l y . In c a r r y i n g out the research there i s a problem i n that there i s a lack of enquiry w i t h i n the context of p o l i t i c a l geography i n boundary s t u d i e s , apart from what might be termed d e s c r i p t i v e geography. D e s c r i p t i v e geography i s of course inadequate today and meaningful analyses should be based on r e a l i s t i c problems and present f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n s . That i s , i n some way boundary st u d i e s must both f a c i l i t a t e the j u s t settlement of boundary problems and c o n t r i b u t e to the understanding of the f u n c t i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. An a n a l y s i s of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i n terms of problems which confront businessmen and p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s concerned d i r e c t l y w i t h schemes of development dependent i n some way on boundary r e g u l a t i o n s , i s of value i n a p r a c t i c a l sense. I t may a l s o help i n o r g a n i z i n g data on the boundary problem i n such a manner as to make fu t u r e i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n cognizant of e x i s t i n g precedent. Although the study i s concerned w i t h two of the most important problems stemming from the l o c a t i o n and f u n c t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary, water t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and hydro power development, there are many other problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the boundary. Less important problems such as labour supply and immigration r e s t r i c t i o n s are b r i e f l y discussed as they r e l a t e to water t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Many other f a c t o r s such as the impact of the boundary on c a p i t a l investment and the r o l e of the boundary i n c r e a t i n g a water-oriented Alaskan economy and a land- o r i e n t e d Canadian economy are b r i e f l y considered but do not form the major focus of the t h e s i s . As the t o t a l impact of the Alaska-B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i s analyzed by p o l i t i c a l geographers i n the f u t u r e , many of these questions may be answered. 6. RELEVANT LITERATURE Boundary s t u d i e s i n the past have been concerned w i t h "the nature of the boundary's l o c a t i o n and h i s t o r y " . ^ This approach appears unrewarding both to the author and other geographers as i t lacks the a b i l i t y to deal w i t h contemporary boundary problems, which g e n e r a l l y extend beyond the mere s i t e of a boundary. Whittemore Boggs and Richard Hartshorne were the f i r s t to study boundary functions as they have changed over time and to focus on the p o l i t i c a l l y organized area as a s p a t i a l consequence of p o l i t i c a l process. Since these men wrote i n the 1930's the f u n c t i o n a l approach has been improved and e v e n t u a l l y adopted by most p o l i t i c a l geographers. There are s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t p u b l i c a t i o n s on boundaries, c o r r i d o r s , b a r r i e r s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways and i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r development a v a i l a b l e upon which a geographer can base h i s research. These references can g e n e r a l l y be c l a s s i f i e d i n two c a t e g o r i e s : 1. those w i t h i n the f i e l d of p o l i t i c a l geography were found u s e f u l i n c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the t h e s i s problem w i t h i n the framework of p o l i t i c a l geography and i n determining how the problem r e l a t e s to s i m i l a r boundary s i t u a t i o n s i n other areas of the world; (that i s , f o r comparative study). J.V. Minghi, "Boundary Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Geography", Annals of  the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, L l l l , (September, 1963) p. 407. 2. those sources outside geography, such as government r e p o r t s , l e g a l p u b l i c a t i o n s , h i s t o r i c a l evidence, and i n d u s t r i a l b r i e f s were r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the p r a c t i c a l understanding and s o l u t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r boundary problem. To f a c i l i t a t e an e a s i e r understanding of the types of references used and t h e i r r o l e i n p o l i t i c a l geography g e n e r a l l y and i n the problems discussed i n the t h e s i s s p e c i f i c a l l y , the l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed at the beginning of each chapter. I t i s f e l t that t h i s method i s more meaningful to the reader as i t both enables a wide v a r i e t y of sources to be covered and reviews them w i t h i n t h e i r context. The contemporary nature of the t h e s i s problem creates d i f f i c u l t i e s i n terms of data and co n c l u s i o n s . As a r e s u l t , much of the research i s based on personal correspondence w i t h r e s p o n s i b l e a u t h o r i t i e s i n business and government, and t h e i r proposals and conclusions are weighed by the author before they are discussed. I t i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t to s t a t e d e f i n i t e conclusions to the problems analyzed, but again these are weighed by the author and are presented as suggested s o l u t i o n s i n l i g h t of a l l the research undertaken. 8. CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGING FUNCTION  OF THE BOUNDARY There are "two main l i n e s of geographical research i n t o boundaries - the i n f l u e n c e of geographical f a c t o r s on the l o c a t i o n of the boundary, and the r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e of the boundary, once e s t a b l i s h e d , on the development of the landscape through which i t was drawn". * This Chapter w i l l d eal w i t h the f i r s t l i n e of res e a r c h , the i n f l u e n c e s through h i s t o r y of geographic f a c t o r s on the l o c a t i o n of the boundary. Chapters Two and Three w i l l d eal w i t h the second l i n e of research, the r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e s of the boundary, once e s t a b l i s h e d , on the development of the landscape through which i t was drawn, by the s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s of the o r i e n t a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and hydro-power development. The f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s Chapter i s a b r i e f review of l i t e r a t u r e on methods of approach to boundary studies.. The second s e c t i o n takes the main points summarized from the review and r e l a t e s them to the present case study, thus endeavouring to i l l u s t r a t e both the p o s i t i o n of t h i s h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s i n the general methodology of boundary s t u d i e s and what i n turn i s hoped to be c o n t r i b u t e d by the author to t h i s methodology. The f i n a l and major s e c t i o n i s a case study of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary. J.R.V. P r e s c o t t , The Geography of F r o n t i e r s and Boundaries (Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1965), p. 58. 9. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE HISTORICAL APPROACH TO BOUNDARY STUDIES The primary concern of t h i s review i s to a s c e r t a i n the degree of p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n attempted by the authors. This w r i t e r i s concerned that t h i s aspect of geography be of primary importance, re-emphasizing the words of Hartshorne i n 1933; While almost every geographer ... has concerned hims e l f at some time i n the past twenty years w i t h some p a r t i c u l a r boundary problem very few have attempted any systematic t h e o r e t i c a l study of the problem as a whole. I t could e a s i l y be shown that the p r a c t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of geographers to the s p e c i f i c problems have s u f f e r e d g r e a t l y from t h i s lack of academic p r e p a r a t i o n . For the most part t h e i r work shows the earmarks of knowledge expert but unorganized; lack of technique, no recognized terminology, and no means of measurement.^ In the above, Hartshorne points out one of the major weaknesses i n the geographic d i s c i p l i n e g e n e r a l l y and i n p o l i t i c a l geography s p e c i f i c a l l y . Too many of the a r t i c l e s reviewed i n t h i s s e c t i o n are simply analyses of a unique problem w i t h no attempt made at c r e a t i n g out of the research broad p r i n c i p l e s or t h e o r i e s . However, i f t h i s branch of geography i s to use the term " s c i e n t i f i c method", p o l i t i c a l geographers must adopt a new approach, the one s t a t e d above by Hartshorne. The f o l l o w i n g review of boundary studies i s c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two types according to purpose, unique studies w i t h l i m i t e d methodology and case studies w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t methodology. The a r t i c l e s s e l e c t e d g e n e r a l l y adopt a h i s t o r i c a l approach i n order to c o r r e l a t e c l o s e l y Richard Hartshorne, "Geographic and P o l i t i c a l Boundaries i n Upper S i l e s i a " , Annuals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, XXXIII (December, 1933), pp. 195-196. w i t h the author's approach i n t h i s Chapter. Several conclusions w i l l be presented at the end of the review i n an attempt to a s c e r t a i n conceptual trends i n boundary s t u d i e s , to examine terminology, and to determine what has been gleaned from the review a p p l i c a b l e to the case study at hand. A. UNIQUE STUDIES WITH LIMITED METHODOLOGY The f i r s t approach i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s the unique study, or an a n a l y s i s i n which a large v a r i e t y of c u l t u r a l and p h y s i c a l data about the impact of the boundary i s accumulated and examined, w i t h some i n s i g h t of the author p u l l i n g together the d i f f e r e n t strands of a n a l y s i s i n the summary. These st u d i e s are g e n e r a l l y e x c e l l e n t i n q u a l i t y of data but lack a s i g n i f i c a n t technique or broadly a p p l i c a b l e methodology. Works by Alexander, Hoffman, Mead, Pounds, R a n d a l l , Moodie, Melamid, Jones, H i l l , and House a l l deal w i t h boundary 3 problems i n t h i s manner. As examples, four studies have been s e l e c t e d . Randall's " P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Klagenfurt Basin" begins f i r s t w i t h a statement of the problem and then examines the 4 p h y s i c a l geography, economy, and p o l i t i c a l e v o l u t i o n of the r e g i o n . 3 L.M. Alexander, "Recent Changes i n the Benelux-German Boundary", Geographical Review, X L I I I (January, 1953) p. 69-76. G.W. Hoffman, "Boundary Problems i n Europe", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American  Geographers, XLIV (March, 1954), p. 102-106. W.R. Mead, " F i n n i s h K a r e l i a : An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Borderland". Geographical J o u r n a l , L I (March 1952), pp. 40-57. 4 R.R. R n d a l l , "The P o l i t i c a l Geogr phy of the K l a g e n f u r t B sin". Geographical Review, XLVII ( J u l y , 1957), pp. 406-419. 11. He proposes a s o l u t i o n to the Slovene problem i n the b a s i n as a co n c l u s i o n but does not t r y and r e l a t e t h i s to m i n o r i t y problems i n other boundary areas. Moodie opens h i s paper on "The Italo-Yugoslav Boundary" by s e t t i n g up the problem; that i s , a f t e r World War I I , statesmen w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g l i n e a r boundaries, many of which w i l l not be easy to locate."' The Italo-Yugoslav boundary i s one such case. A f t e r t h i s b r i e f j u s t i f i c a t i o n he begins w i t h a h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of the " J u l i a n f r o n t i e r r e g i o n " from the e a r l i e s t times to World War I I and then considers the problem of s e t t i n g up a l i n e a r boundary w i t h i n the zone. This i s done f i r s t through a d i s c u s s i o n of the p h y s i c a l morphology and secondly through an a n a l y s i s of the human responses the boundary evokes. Moodie concludes w i t h a plea that boundary-makers at the end of the War f o l l o w geographical r a t h e r than p o l i t i c a l - c o n s i d e r a t i o n when drawing the boundary and thus reach an amicable s o l u t i o n . Moodie r e s t r i c t s h i s paper to the s p e c i f i c s of the J u l i a n r e g i o n and does not t r y and r e l a t e to boundary problems g e n e r a l l y , nor does he t r y to derive p r i n c i p l e s from i t . A r a t h e r unique t o p i c i n the f i e l d of boundary s t u d i e s i s "France and 'Les Limit e s N a t u r e l l e s ' from the Seventeenth to the 6 Twentieth C e n t u r i e s " by Norman Pounds. He presents a h i s t o r i c a l A.E. Moodie, "The Italo-Yugoslav Boundary," Geographical J o u r n a l , CI (February, 1943), p. 49-65. 6 N.J.G. Pounds, "France and Les Limit e s N a t u r e l l e s from the 17th Century to the Twentieth Century," Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of  American Geographers, XLIV (March, 1954), pp. 51-62. 12. a n a l y s i s of the concept of "Les Li m i t e s N a t u r e l l e s " to demonstrate the r o l e that t h i s concept played i n French expansion toward the Rhine. However, apart from the unique case study, Pounds' a n a l y s i s does not add any new concepts to the h i s t o r i c a l approach or to boundary terminology. The most recent example of those a r t i c l e s reviewed i n t h i s 7 area i s "The P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Gulf of Aquaba". Melamid f i r s t gives a general d e s c r i p t i o n of the region and then presents a h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of the Gulf from B i b l i c a l times to the present E g y p t i a n - I s r a e l i - J o r d a n i a n - S a u d i Arabian dispute over sovereignty. He discusses the s t r a t e g i c plans of each s t a t e f o r t h e i r s e c t i o n of the Gulf and the c o n f l i c t s which have a r i s e n because of them. As there i s no statement of the problem at the ou t s e t , i t i s therefore d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n a methodology. In the co n c l u s i o n s e v e r a l important points are made on the p o l i t i c a l geography of the area but again he has not t r i e d to discuss the problem w i t h a view to c o n t r i b u t i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y to boundary s t u d i e s . W i t h i n the same category as these above examples but w i t h some attempt at u t i l i z i n g or developing general concepts are three authors, Held, Hartshorne and Minghi. Held, although not u t i l i z i n g a p r e c i s e concept, does add s i g n i f i c a n t l y to studies of disputed boundary areas through h i s work-residence r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the Saar and h i s 8 breakdown of a n a l y s i s i n t o r a i s o n de c r e a t i o n and r a i s o n d'etre. A. Melamid, "The P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Gulf of Aquaba," Annals  of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, XLVII (September, 1957), p. 231. 8 C.C. Held, "The New Saarland," Geographical Review, XLI (October, 1951), pp. 590-605. 13. Hartshorne's "The P o l i s h C o r r i d o r " analyzes the a r e a l f a c t s 9 and r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v e d i n the problem of the C o r r i d o r . He begins w i t h an a n a l y s i s of the geographic, p o l i t i c a l , and ethnographic backgrounds of the r e g i o n . With t h i s as a s e t t i n g he adopts a problem-o r i e n t e d approach and discusses the p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l problems created by the l o c a t i o n of the c o r r i d o r i n r e l a t i o n to East P r u s s i a , Danzig, Germany and Poland. Hartshorne concludes that there can be no geographical s o l u t i o n , that i s , by exchange of t e r r i t o r y and s a t i s f a c t i o n can only be achieved through other methods, f o r example i n t a r i f f changes and the treatment of m i n o r i t i e s . No new concept as to the h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of a boundary problem emerges from h i s paper, but the problem-oriented approach appears b e t t e r equipped to point out d i f f i c u l t i e s and come up w i t h meaningful s o l u t i o n s to the method considered p r e v i o u s l y . However, t h i s paper does appear as a step backward i n terms of methodology from h i s 1933 paper on Upper S i l e s i a . ^ Minghi, i n h i s a n a l y s i s of the P a c i f i c Coast s e c t i o n of the Canadian-United States boundary, uses a h i s t o r i c a l approach to determine the boundary's f u n c t i o n through time and thus to under-11 stand the present day r o l e of the boundary. His d i s c u s s i o n i s b u i l t R. Hartshorne, "The P o l i s h C o r r i d o r , " J o u r n a l of Geography, XXXVI (May, 1937), pp. 161-176. 10 R. Hartshorne, "Geographic and P o l i t i c a l Boundaries i n Upper S i l e s i a . " ^ J.V. Minghi, "The E v o l u t i o n of a Border Region: The P a c i f i c Coast S e c t i o n of the Canada-U.S. Boundary," The S c o t t i s h Geographical  Magazine LXXXI ( A p r i l , 1964), pp. 37-52. 14. on the terminology and o r g a n i z i n g concepts of Hartshorne, Jones and Boggs to which he adds the c o n t r i b u t i o n of h i s own study. In t h i s l i m i t e d way he not only considers a unique case study but a l s o develops a g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e h i s t o r i c a l approach to boundary s t u d i e s . B. CASE STUDIES WITH SIGNIFICANT METHODOLOGY The second approach i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s that of case st u d i e s which apart from t h e i r value per se, include a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of conceptual development. Papers by Jones, Hartshorne, Hoffman, and P r e s c o t t w i l l be considered as examples. Stephen Jones' "The C o r d i l l e r a l S e c t i o n of the Canada-12 United States Borderland" was one of the f i r s t i n t h i s category. The beginnings of a systematic f u n c t i o n a l approach are evident i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the s i t e and s i t u a t i o n of the boundary, the extent of i t s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c i r c u l a t i o n , and the c u l t u r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s on e i t h e r s i d e of the boundary. A f t e r these systematic t o p i c s he considers some case studies of problems i n water supply, f o r e s t r y , the T r a i l Smelter, and others a r i s i n g from the l o c a t i o n of the boundary. In h i s summary and at points throughout h i s paper Jones discusses the r o l e of the boundary as antecedent to settlement and through t h i s concept he does succeed i n g e n e r a l i z i n g somewhat about antecedent boundaries and t h e i r p e c u l a r i t i e s i n border reg i o n s . S.B. Jones, "The C o r d i l l e r a n S e c t i o n of the Canada-United States Borderland," Geographical J o u r n a l , LXXXIX (May, 1937), pp. 439-450. Jones therefore has a c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d problem-oriented approach to the boundary. The h i s t o r y of boundary e v o l u t i o n i s given but only as i t i s r e l e v a n t i n c e r t a i n t o p i c a l analyses, such as c i r c u l a t i o n . This approach lends i t s e l f w e l l to other boundary stu d i e s as i t avoids a simple r e g i o n a l inventory. Hartshorne's " F u n c t i o n a l Approach to P o l i t i c a l Geography" c l e a r l y had precedent i n t h i s example. Hartshorne begins h i s "Survey of the Boundary Problems of Europe" w i t h a d e f i n i t i o n of h i s concepts on disputed border 14 areas. He then uses these concepts to construct a matrix wherein he considers each boundary dispute under the headings "disputed area", "country now i n " , "claimed by", "population", and "population speaking language of the c l a i m a n t - s t a t e " . F i n a l l y he gives a r a t i n g from A to E i n terms of n a t i o n a l i t y , transport and trade, and h i s t o r y f o r the disputed areas i n r e l a t i o n to geographical a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the claimant s t a t e . Hartshorne's method i s rudimentary i n terms of i t s q u a n t i t a t i v e f a c e t s but as an approach to general boundary a n a l y s i s , the method appears s i g n i f i c a n t i n l i g h t of what l i t t l e new methodological research has appeared since the p u b l i c a t i o n of the a r t i c l e i n 1938. R. Hartshorne, "The F u n c t i o n a l Approach i n P o l i t i c a l Geography," Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, XL (June, 1950) pp. 95-130. R. Hartshorne, "A Survey of the Boundary Problems of Europe," i n Geographic Aspects of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , C.C. Colby (ed.), (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 163-213. The same method i s used by Hoffman to analyze European 15 boundary problems i n 1954. However, he adds no new concepts to Hartshorne's approach. Perhaps the best example i n t h i s second category i s Hartshorne's "Geographic and P o l i t i c a l Boundaries i n Upper S i l e s i a . " ' ' " ^ The purpose of Hartshorne's paper i s "to suggest a method and some 17 terminology that might be a p p l i c a b l e f o r any border study." Upper S i l e s i a served as a s p e c i f i c case study, which he tre a t e d from a l a b o r a t o r y p o i n t of view. His approach was e s s e n t i a l l y s ystematic, based on a n a l y s i s of d i f f e r e n t types of boundaries; defense boundaries, boundaries marked i n nature, boundaries based on areas s i m i l a r i n landscape f e a t u r e s , human boundaries, and boundaries of areas a s s o c i a t e d by trade. Under these headings he considers such t o p i c s as language, r a i l w a y s , mines, and trade routes. Although t h i s approach i s a meaningful advance as a method of research, h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s weak and f a i l s to summarize the. main p o i n t s , both of h i s case study and h i s method. The l a s t example i s Pr e s c o t t ' s "Geography of F r o n t i e r s and 18 Boundaries." Throughout the book Pr e s c o t t s u b s t a n t i a t e s h i s conceptual arguments on f r o n t i e r s and boundaries w i t h case s t u d i e s , mostly from h i s A f r i c a n research. In t h i s way he not only studies a ^ Hoffman, op. c i t . 16 Hartshorne, "Geographic and P o l i t i c a l Boundaries i n Upper S i l e s i a , " op. c i t . 1 7 I b i d , p. 196. 18 P r e s c o t t , op. c i t . 17. boundary problem per se, but s i g n i f i c a n t l y advances geographic methodology to boundary s t u d i e s . Several conclusions can be drawn from t h i s review. 1. C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y the second category (case s t u d i e s combined w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t methodology) does not appear e i t h e r to be widely u t i l i z e d nor i n c r e a s i n g i n frequency i n p o l i t i c a l geography; r a t h e r t h i s approach appears to be r e s t r i c t e d to s p e c i f i c authors. This h i s t o r i c a l approach i s widely used, although geographers tend to includ e superflous d e t a i l . 2. Case st u d i e s are worthwhile i n t h e i r own r i g h t but i f the d i s c i p l i n e i s prepared to advance " s c i e n t i f i c a l l y " p o l i t i c a l geographers must b u i l d and improve upon the techniques of previous w r i t e r s . Techniques of a n a l y s i s of boundary functions to date are rudimentary and t h e r e f o r e except i n a few instances p o l i t i c a l geographers are not sought a f t e r by p o l i t i c i a n s , planners, and such, who wish to be advised on boundary disp u t e s . 3. A s i g n i f i c a n t amount of boundary terminology has been developed but confusion e x i s t s over proper usage. 4. The method of Jones, Minghi, and Hartshorne best o f f e r themselves as models upon which t h i s t h e s i s can be b u i l t . METHOD OF ANALYSIS As seen i n the previous s e c t i o n most approaches to boundary s t u d i e s are based on h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . This method i s necessary i f one must understand the e v o l u t i o n of the boundary i n order to analyze the impact of a boundary on the contemporary geographical p a t t e r n of a border r e g i o n . The approach has been developed s u f f i c i e n t l y i n p o l i t i c a l geography to free i t s e l f from superfluous h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l and i n t h i s way develop i n t o a h i s t o r i c a l approach w i t h the focus of research on the changing f u n c t i o n of the boundary.line or zone. This case study w i l l t h e r e f o r e be methodologically s t r u c t u r e d on the h i s t o r i c a l approach and s p e c i f i c a l l y on the work of Jones, Minghi, and Hartshorne. In a d d i t i o n , the concept of the f r o n t i e r as considered by such geographers as Prescott and K r i s t o f w i l l be i n c o r p o r a t e d . As the f r o n t i e r concept was found to be seldom mentioned i n any of the a r t i c l e s reviewed, and as i t i s an important element i n the case study, the r o l e of f r o n t i e r s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to boundaries w i l l now be examined. The concepts of a f r o n t i e r and a boundary w i l l f i r s t be defined and then a p p l i e d to the case study to examine t h e i r u s efulness. FRONTIERS K r i s t o f presents what he considers to be three major 19 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a f r o n t i e r . 19 L.D. K r i s t o f , "The Nature of F r o n t i e r s and Boundaries," Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, XLIX (September, 1959), pp. 269-274. 1. A f r o n t i e r i s o u t e r o r i e n t e d . I t i s n o t the end b u t r a t h e r the b e g i n n i n g o f the s t a t e . I t s m a i n a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d towards the o u t l y i n g a r e a s w h i c h a r e b o t h a s o u r c e o f danger and a c o v e t e d p r i z e . The h i n t e r l a n d (ecumene) i s s e l d o m t h e d i r e c t i n g f o r c e b e h i n d t h e p u l s a t i o n s o f f r o n t i e r l i f e . 2. The f r o n t i e r i s an i n t e r g r a t i n g f a c t o r . B e i n g a zone o f t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e ecumene o f one way o f l i f e to a n o t h e r , and r e p r e s e n t i n g f o r c e s w h i c h a r e n e i t h e r f u l l y a s s i m i l a t e d to n o r s a t i s f i e d w i t h e i t h e r , i t p r o v i d e s an e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r m u t u a l i n t e r -p e n e t r a t i o n and sway. 3 . The f r o n t i e r l a n d s have to be c o n t r o l l e d and bound to t h e s t a t e : t h e y must be s u b o r d i n a t e d to t h e i m p e r a t i v e and o v e r r i d i n g demands o f t h e s o v e r e i g n r a i s o n d ' e t r e o f t h e s t a t e as a w h o l e . In o t h e r w o r d s , an e f f o r t i s made to draw a l i n e o f e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r b o t h i n g r e s s and e g r e s s , n o t o n l y t h e enemy has to be k e p t out b u t o n e ' s own c i t i z e n s have to be k e p t i n . No s u b d i v i s i o n o f f r o n t i e r t y p e s i s o f f e r e d by K r i s t o f . The f r o n t i e r c a n be summarized i n g e n e r a l terms as a zone o f t r a n s i t i o n f r o m one e n v i r o n m e n t ( c l i m a t i c , c u l t u r a l , p o l i t i c a l , o r w h a t e v e r ) to a n o t h e r . Boundaries The f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a boundary are a l s o 20 summarized from K r i s t o f . 1. The borderlands, the o l d marchlands, are defined more and more e x a c t l y u n t i l there i s i n p r i n c i p l e , an exact b o r d e r l i n e . 2. The etymology of the word "boundary" immediately points to the primary f u n c t i o n of the boundary: the boundary i n d i c a t e s c e r t a i n w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d l i m i t s (the bounds) of a given p o l i t i c a l u n i t , and a l l that which i s w i t h i n the boundary i s bound together (by the l e g a l system of the s t a t e ) . 3. In order to have some s t a b i l i t y i n the p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e , both on the n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l , a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between the spheres of f o r e i g n and domestic p o l i t i c s i s necessary. The boundary helps to maintain t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n as a se p a r a t i n g f a c t o r impeding i n t e g r a t i o n across the b o r d e r l i n e . 4. The boundary i s i n n e r - o r i e n t e d . I t i s created and maintained by the w i l l of the c e n t r a l government. I b i d , pp. 270-274 From this d e f i n i t i o n , a boundary can be summarized as a l i n e between states functioning as a b a r r i e r to r e s t r i c t both ingress and egress. The Need For Refinement In Concepts K r i s t o f ' s d e f i n i t i o n s have been accepted by such geographers as Weigert, and Percy, but Prescott accepts them only with reservations. Weigert, Percy and K r i s t o f suggest that the term f r o n t i e r refers to a t r a n s i t i o n zone, which stretches inwards from the boundary and merges imperceptibly with the state core. They j u s t i f y this...on the grounds that p r e c i s e boundaries have replaced vague f r o n t i e r s throughout most of the world. However, such a change would rob h i s t o r i c a l - p o l i t i c a l studies of c l a r i t y , and i t i s to be hoped that a term such as borderland w i l l be used by these authors, leaving,^ f r o n t i e r to r e f e r to zonal d i v i s i o n s between states. Prescott's c r i t i c i s m i s v a l i d , but unfortunately i s not precise enough to aid i n c l a r i f y i n g the term " f r o n t i e r " . He suggests two types of f r o n t i e r ; settlement f r o n t i e r s , f r o n t i e r s within a state separating s e t t l e d and unsettled areas; and p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r s , f r o n t i e r s between states. This study w i l l be concerned only with the second type, the p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r . However, th i s does not solve the dilemma of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between a p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r as a feature p r i o r to a boundary i n time and a p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r as a zone of contact on either side of an established boundary. It would appear, although Prescott does not state i t c l e a r l y i n the above quotation, that he' wants the boundary zone of contact to be c a l l e d a borderland (thereby i n d i c a t i n g the presence of a boundary) and a zone d i v i s i o n predating a boundary, to be c a l l e d a f r o n t i e r . Prescott, op. c i t . p. 34 I t i s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Prescott which w i l l be used i n t h i s study. An a d d i t i o n a l conceptual problem remains to be s e t t l e d . This problem i s a refinement i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of boundaries; that i s , the p o l i t i c a l gradations from the f r o n t i e r stage to the boundary stage are not s p e c i f i c enough. F r o n t i e r s are a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of rudimentary s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l r e l a t i o n s ; and/or of laws. The presence of boundaries i s a s i g n that the p o l i t i c a l community has reached a r e l a t i v e degree of m a t u r i t y and o r d e r l i n e s s , the stage of law abidance. This d i s t i n c t i o n between f r o n t i e r s and boundaries by K r i s t o f leaves a wide v o i d between the two stages. This v o i d i s a p e r i o d wherein a c l a i m to a boundary has been put forward by a s t a t e , but wherein the f r o n t i e r has not yet been s e t t l e d e x t e n s i v e l y , and the boundary c l a i m i s n e i t h e r demarcated nor recognized by a l l the s t a t e s i n v o l v e d . K r i s t o f ' s e a r l i e r s t a t e d d e f i n i t i o n s of a f r o n t i e r and boundary overlap and do not c l a r i f y the progression from a f r o n t i e r stage to a boundary stage, and thus a new category i s r e q u i r e d . From 1825 to 1903 the B r i t i s h Columbia-Alaska boundary was vaguely d e l i m i t e d but was not demarcated and the sovereignty of s t a t e s on both sides overlapped. The border region s t i l l r e t a i n e d many a t t r i b u t e s of K r i s t o f ' s " f r o n t i e r " and "boundary". Therefore, i t i s suggested that the term "zone of undefined sovereignty" be a p p l i e d to t h i s stage of f r o n t i e r and boundary e v o l u t i o n . Expanding K r i s t o f , op. c i t . , p. 143. and examining the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s new concept w i l l be a major aim of the remaining p o r t i o n of t h i s chapter. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ALASKA-BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARY This case study of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary w i l l have two f u n c t i o n s . F i r s t , i t w i l l u t i l i z e both the h i s t o r i c a l concept summarized from the geographers reviewed i n the f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter and i n a d d i t i o n the f r o n t i e r concepts discussed above. Secondly, i t w i l l examine the h i s t o r i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c f a c t o r s which a f f e c t e d the l o c a t i o n of the boundary and i n turn the h i s t o r i c a l f unctions of the boundary which i n f l u e n c e the contemporary geographical p a t t e r n . The a n a l y s i s of the boundary i s d i v i d e d i n t o three h i s t o r i c a l periods as defined by the s t a t e of boundary e v o l u t i o n ; the f r o n t i e r p e r i o d , the period of undefined sovereignty, and the period of boundary entrenchment. THE FRONTIER PERIOD 1741 - 1825 The p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r i n northwest America was a r e s u l t of the expansion of a c t i v i t i e s by Russian and B r i t i s h f u r t r a d e r s . E a r l y e x p l o r a t i o n s l a i d general claims to areas i n what might be termed "spheres of r e c o g n i t i o n " , but i t was the f u r trade which e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l sovereignty to the re g i o n . The f i r s t e x p l o r e r s to reach the northwest coast of America were two Russians, Ryoderov and Gvosdyov, i n 1732. However, popular c r e d i t f o r the discovery of Alaska i s given to Bering and C h i r i k o v , 24. who se p a r a t e l y explored the coast of Alaska i n 1741 and claimed the region f o r Russia. During the next s i x t y years Russian f u r traders penetrated the A l e u t i a n s and the southern coast of A l a s k a , e s t a b l i s h i n g t r a d i n g posts at s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s , (Figure 1). A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Russian expansion i n t h i s p e r i o d , i n c o n t r a s t to the Hudson's Bay Company, was the p r i v a t e nature of t h e i r sovereignty (due to the lack of c o m p e t i t i t o n ) i n the f u r t r a d i n g r e g i o n . An i n d i c a t i o n of the lack of p o l i t i c a l concern over the area and the b e l i e f that the f u r i n t e r e s t s could adequately administer the re g i o n was the postponement of an intended proclamation of the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the North American lands i n t o the Russian Empire p r i m a r i l y because the Russians had met no other European exp l o r e r s there. Therefore, t e r r i t o r y remained a p r i v a t e f u r preserve of Russian t r a d e r s . Spain responded to t h i s encroachment i n t o what she considered her t e r r i t o r i a l waters by d i s p a t c h i n g an e x p e d i t i o n north under Bodega y Quadra i n 1744. The e x p e d i t i o n reached L a t i t u d e 57° 2' near S i t k a and f o r m a l l y took possession of the coast as f a r north as the Russian t e r r i t o r y f o r Spain. James Cook s a i l e d to the northwest coast 1778 "to take possession i n the name of Great B r i t i a n , of convenient s i t u a t i o n s i n such c o u n t r i e s as he might d i s c o v e r , that have not already been 23 discovered or v i s i t e d by any other European power". 23 H.H. Banc r o f t , H i s t o r y of the Northwest Coast, V o l . 1, (New York: The Bancroft Company, 1890), p. 168. L Thus, the o r i g i n of claims to the region was a r e s u l t of c o a s t a l e x p l o r a t i o n of the three European powers. By the Nootka convention of 1790, Spain r e l i n q u i s h e d her c l a i m to c o n t r o l north of C a l i f o r n i a and r e t i r e d as a competitor. B r i t i s h c o n t r o l extended from the Columbia R i v e r to approximately Baranof I s l a n d and Russian sovereignty extended from t h i s i s l a n d north. A l l o c a t i o n of t e r r i t o r y had begun, but as yet no d e l i m i t a t i o n of the boundary took p l a c e . The b a s i s f o r the 1825 attempt at d e l i m i t a t i o n of a boundary was a c o n f r o n t a t i o n of Russian and B r i t i s h f u r companies. In 1799 the Russian-American Company, modelled a f t e r the Hudson's Bay Company, was e s t a b l i s h e d by o f f i c i a l decree of Czar Paul. The Russian-American Company "received f o r a period of twenty years the r i g h t to e x p l o i t the o n a t u r a l resources on the American coast from 55 north and to take possession of t e r r i t o r i e s discovered so f a r as they had not been occupied 25 already by other peoples". Thus, the area was f o r the f i r s t time organized i n t o a e c o n o m i c - p o l i t i c a l r e g i o n and p a r t i t i o n e d by what could be termed a f r o n t i e r - z o n e , based on the l i m i t s of Russian e x p l o r a t i o n and c o s t a l f u r trade. The c h i e f Russian adversaries i n the region were the Northwest and Hudson's Bay Companies, who were both expanding westwards towards the f r o n t i e r of Russian America f o r the same reason the 24 A l l o c a t i o n i s used i n the sense o u t l i n e d by Jones: that i s , the i n i t i a l p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n of t e r r i t o r y . S.B. Jones, Boundary  Making, a Handbook f o r Statesman (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1945). 25 Y. Semyonov, Siberia., Trans, by J.R. F o s t e r , (Baltimore: H e l i c o n Press, 1954), p. 208. 27. Russians moved eastwards; the f u r trade. The f i r s t overland e x p e d i t i o n was made by Alexander Mackenzie f o r the Northwest Company i n 1793, when he reached the P a c i f i c at Bentinck Arm v i a the Parsnip and Fraser R i v e r s . Nothing f u r t h e r was done u n t i l 1804 when Simon Fraser was sent out by the Northwest Company to organize the fur trade west of the Rochy Mountains through the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t r a d i n g posts at s t r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n s . As shown by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of posts (Figure 2) the E n g l i s h traders were r e s t r i c t e d to the i n t e r i o r , except f o r t h e i r o u t l e t at Fort George and l a t e r at Fort V i c t o r i a . L i t t l e contact was thus made w i t h the Russian traders on the coast. In 1821 the Northwest Company had no posts o 26 west of the C o n t i n e n t a l Divide north of 54 30'. In t h i s year the Northwest Company amalgamated w i t h the Hudson's Bay Company and a l l posts came under Hudson's Bay Company c o n t r o l . The B r i t i s h a x i s of f u r a c t i v i t y i n New Caledonia was north and south r a t h e r than toward the ocean. Three c o n d i t i o n s were p r i n c i p a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n f i n i n g the Company to the i n t e r i o r . The r i v e r v a l l e y s of the area u s u a l l y l e d the traders north and south, and the u n f r i e n d l y d i s p o s i t i o n of the c o a s t a l Indians provided no inducement f o r communication to the west, and r e a d i l y e x p l o i t a b l e f u r resources on the coast were becoming scare. The Russian a x i s of f u r a c t i v i t y was along the coast of the Gulf of A l a s k a , depending upon ocean t r a n s p o r t from the American posts to Kamchatka. J.S. G a l b r a i t h , The Hudson's Bay Company, 1821-69, V o l . 1. (Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1957), p. 119. C o n f l i c t between the two t r a d i n g f r o n t i e r s began i n 1821. The Russian government became apprehensive about E n g l i s h expansion and subsequently issued a ukase i n which the Czar decreed that a l l i s l a n d s and waters north of 51° north l a t i t u d e of the American coast were Russian property and that a l l f o r e i g n e r s were not to approach w i t h i n one hundred I t a l i a n miles of the Russian coast, ( f i g u r e 3). In r e p l y , the Hudson's Bay Company i n 1822 i n s t r u c t e d t h e i r c h i e f -f a c t o r to extend the t r a d i n g area of the Company as f a r west and north from the Fraser River as might be p r a c t i c a b l e and p r o f i t a b l e i n order 27 "to keep the Russians at a d i s t a n c e " . The dispute which arose between the Russian and B r i t i s h governments over the Russian c l a i m was concerned w i t h the determination of sovereignty over the wilderness between the two Companies' areas of i n f l u e n c e , a vacuum i n t o which each hoped to expand. Talks f o r settlement of j u r i s d i c t i o n were he l d p e r i o d i c a l l y from 1822 to 1825 which allowed time f o r gradual withdrawal of both governments from t h e i r extreme pretensions, u n t i l a somewhat reduced 28 v e r s i o n of the Russian proposal was acceptable. The Russian government d e s i r e d a b a r r i e r that would p r o t e c t i t s f u r trade against that of the encroaching Hudson's Bay C ompany, and the B r i t i s h government was anxious not to have i t s i n t e r i o r t e r r i t o r y shut i n by a c o a s t a l 27 As quoted i n G a l b r a i t h , I b i d . , p. 123. 28 D e t a i l e d n e g o t i a t i o n s can be found i n many sources: J.S. G a l b r a i t h , The Hudson's Bay Company, 1821-69, V o l . 1. (Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1957) pp. 113-134. G. Davidson, The Alaskan  Boundary (San F r a n c i s c o : Alaska Packers A s s o c i a t i o n , 1903)., C C . Tans i l l , Canadian-American R e l a t i o n s , 1875-1911 (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1943), pp. 121-128. 29 s t r i p c o n t r o l l e d by another power. By a t r e a t y signed on February 28, 1825, the boundary between Russian and B r i t i s h America began at the most southern o point of P r i n c e of Wales I s l a n d , 54 40' north l a t i t u d e , and o followed the P o r t l a n d Canal to i t s head at 56 north l a t i t u d e . From that p o i n t the l i n e followed the c r e s t of the mountains p a r a l l e l to the coast, except that i t was to be no where more than ten marine leagues from the coast. At the point where the s t l i n e i n t e r s e c t e d the 141 meridian, i t was prolonged on that degree to the A r c t i c Ocean. B r i t i s h subjects were accorded, as Americans had been by the Treaty of 1824, the p r i v i l e g e of trade w i t h S i t k a f o r ten years and were permitted to trade i n Russian c o a s t a l waters south of Mount Saint E l i a s f o r the same p e r i o d . The r i g h t to t r a v e l to and from the i n t e r i o r through the Russian 30 c o a s t a l s t r i p was guaranteed forever to B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s . American resentment over the southern expansion of the Russian f r o n t i e r l e d to n e g o t i a t i o n s . Under the terms of the Russian-American Treaty of A p r i l 17, 1824, the Russian government abandoned i t s r i g h t to exclude American c i t i z e n s from approaching c l o s e r than 100 I t a l i a n miles from the boundary of Russian possession at 54 40' l a t i t u d e . This agreement d i d not a l t e r the R u s s o - B r i t i s h n e g o t i a t i o n s as the B r i t i s h acceptance of the Russian p o s i t i o n was i n d i c a t e d before the B r i t i s h government had news of the Russo-American agreement. G a l b r a i t h , op. c i t . , p. 134. The boundary n e g o t i a t o r s r e l i e d on Captain George Vancouver's chart of the northwest coast published i n 1789, which showed a range 31 of mountains running along the coast not f a r from the sea. Even i n 1867, when Russia t r a n s f e r r e d Alaska to the United S t a t e s , the o f f i c i a l American charts were s t i l l based on Vancouver's map and showed t h i s range of mountains. Subsequent commentators have shown that such a boundary cannot be loc a t e d ; however the misconception e x i s t e d u n t i l the turn of the century and was the essence of the Alaska 32 boundary dispute i n 1903. Thus i t can be c l e a r l y seen that the expansion of the Russian and B r i t i s h f r o n t i e r s i n New Caledonia up to 1825 was p r i m a r i l y based on e x p l o r a t i o n s and economic a c t i v i t i e s of the Russian America and Hudson's Bay Companies. An empty f r o n t i e r - z o n e was planned by the t r a d i n g i n t e r e s t s r a t h e r than any p o s s i b l e conception of an eventual i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between any two p o l i t i c a l l y organized areas. In n e g o t i a t i o n s over the boundary, the Russian government was guided by the representations of the Russian America Company and the B r i t i s h government by those of the Hudson's Bay Company, as the boundary the ne g o t i a t o r s were seeking to define was l a r g e l y that between the areas of Vancouver's chart "showing part of the coast of northwest America," Map Number 4, United States A t l a s , Alaska Boundary T r i b u n a l , Maps and Charts Accompanying the Case and Countercase of the United S t a t e s , (Washington, 1904). 32 As P r e s c o t t points out, ( P r e s c o t t , op. c i t . , p. 62), p o l i t i c a l geographers studying contemporary boundary problems should be knowledgeable of o r i g i n a l documents and thus aware of how such problems could a r i s e and perpetuate themselves. The i l l u s i o n of the c o a s t a l mountains as a boundary i s analyzed by: Davidson, op. c i t . and A.R. Hinks, "Notes on the Techniques of Boundary D e l i m i t a t i o n , " Geographical J o u r n a l , L V I I I (December, 1921), pp. 417-43. operations of these Companies. Just as the Russian-America Company-was vested w i t h governmental a u t h o r i t y over the areas i t occupied, so the Hudson's Bay Company had de facto governmental c o n t r o l over the areas i t e x p l o i t e d , i n that i t was the only organized B r i t i s h i n s t i t u t i o n i n the area. D e l i m i t a t i o n of the "boundary" was based on vague notions of the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area. The B r i t i s h Columbia-Alaska s e c t i o n was a " n a t u r a l " boundary (that i s , a row of mountain peaks) and the Alaska-Yukon s e c t i o n was an " a r t i f i c a l " boundary, (that i s , g e o m e t r i c a l ) . As a r e s u l t of the lack of accurate information on the t e r r a i n and g r i d bearings, the boundary was a seed f o r fu t u r e dispute when more r e f i n e d d e l i m i t a t i o n and/or demarcation was attempted. This i n d e c i s i v e n e s s was to come to a head i n the l a t e 1890's when the Klondike gold rush occurred; however u n t i l then the areas of Russian and B r i t i s h c o n t r o l were separated by a zone of undefined sovereignty. THE PERIOD OF UNDEFINED SOVEREIGNTY 1825 - 1903 The f r o n t i e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s evident i n the f i r s t p e r i o d ; outer o r i e n t a t i o n of the r e g i o n s , i n t e g r a t i n g f u n c t i o n s , and lack of p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l were s t i l l very important a f t e r 1825. A boundary had been d e l i m i t e d but as i t was not equal to the pressures exerted upon i t nor a c l e a r l y defined a l l o c a t o r of t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty, i t d i d not become entrenched i n the landscape. The border i n t h i s p e riod was therefore i n a stage of t r a n s i t i o n from f r o n t i e r to bounda: and had c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both. 33. The extent of undefined sovereignty i n the region and misuse of the term "boundary" i n t h i s p e r i o d can best be demonstrated through three examples; l e a s i n g of the Alaskan l i s i e r e to the Hudson's Bay Company, the Peter M a r t i n i n c i d e n t , and the c o n f l i c t over the C h i l k o o t and White Pass c o r r i d o r s . Under A r t i c l e VI of the 1825 Agreement, the Hudson's Bay Company had the r i g h t to f r e e l y navigate c o a s t a l r i v e r s . Taking advantage of t h i s r i g h t , the Hudson's Bay Company sent the ship "Dryad" to e s t a b l i s h a t r a d i n g post ten leagues from the sea up the S t i k i n e R i v e r . When the Company attempted to c a r r y t h i s out i n 1833, the Russian governor at S i t k a , Baron Wrangell, became alarmed at the B r i t i s h encroachment and sent a force to the S t i k i n e which r e p e l l e d the B r i t i s h . The i n c i d e n t was resolve d through b i l a t e r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s by the B r i t i s h and Russian governments and the Russians e v e n t u a l l y admitted t h e i r mistake. The Hudson's Bay Company used t h e i r r e s u l t i n g claims against the Russian American Company as a l e v e r to secure broader perogatives i n Russian t e r r i t o r y . The Company agreed to supply the Russians w i t h trade goods and food they normally bought from Americans and i n r e t u r n the B r i t i s h acquired a lease f o r a period of ten years on a l l of the l i s i e r e from Cross Bay down to 54° 40'. The Hudson's Bay Company thus acquired commercial and q u a s i - p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l over a s u b s t a n t i a l s e c t i o n of the northwest coast, subject only to the formal sovereignty of R u ssia. This encroachment by the B r i t i s h i n t o Russian t e r r i t o r y i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s of the two companies. The Russians had sought a f r o n t i e r of separation to safeguard t h e i r f u r resources. However, the Hudson's Bay Company, through the B r i t i s h 33 government, wanted a f r o n t i e r of contact to f a c i l i t a t e trade. The p o l i c y of separation was l o g i c a l from the Russian point of view as they were i n the weakest p o s i t i o n i n terms of numbers of s e t t l e r s , v i a b i l i t y of t h e i r f u r t r a d i n g company, and co-operation w i t h t h e i r home government. The Hudson's Bay Company had a l l these advantages and thus sought to i n f i l t r a t e Russian t e r r i t o r y to gain at l e a s t economic c o n t r o l , i f p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l could not be secured. The f a c t that the r e g i o n could be turned over to a f o r e i g n company emphasizes the inadequacy of the 1825 boundary as a b a r r i e r , and the true f r o n t i e r nature of the zone of contact. I f the Hudson's Bay Company had been able to b r i n g i n s e t t l e r s to the l i s i e r e , s i m i l a r to the i n f l u x of American s e t t l e r s i n t o the Oregon t e r r i t o r y during i t s j o i n t occupancy by the B r i t i s h and Americans, the B r i t i s h may have been able to put forward a strong p o l i t i c a l c l a i m to the area. However, the lease remained i n e f f e c t u n t i l Alaska was s o l d to the Americans i n 1867, at which date Russian sovereignty was replaced by that of the United S t a t e s . The second example of undefined sovereignty i s the i n c i d e n t of one Peter M a r t i n , a n a t u r a l i z e d American c i t i z e n , who These two f r o n t i e r concepts are discussed i n G. East, "The Nature of P o l i t i c a l Geography," P o l i t i c a , No. 2 (March, 1937), pp. 259-286. was t r i e d before the Court of A s s i z e s at Laketon, i n B r i t i s h Columbia, i n 1876 f o r a s s a u l t upon an o f f i c e r . He was found g u i l t y and sentenced to f i f t e e n months imprisonment. However, w h i l e encamped a "few m i l e s " from the mouth of the S t i k i n e R i v e r on route to j a i l i n V i c t o r i a , he attacked one of the constables and endeavoured to escape. He was soon recaptured and taken to j a i l i n V i c t o r i a . News of Martin's imprisonment e v e n t u a l l y found i t s way to the United States Government whereupon the Americans began n e g o t i a t i o n s to secure h i s r e l e a s e , contending that M a r t i n "should not have been t r i e d f o r the offense w i t h which he i s charged, ( a s s a u l t i n g the o f f i c e r , not the o r i g i n a l offense at Laketon), i t having been committed ... w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the United S t a t e s , and that being the case he should be set at l i b e r t y . " I t became evident that the exact l o c a t i o n of the Alaskan boundary would have to be a s c e r t a i n e d and i n 1877 a Canadian, Joseph Hunter, went to the S t i k i n e R i v e r . He found that the c r e s t of the mountains p a r a l l e l l i n g the coast was 24.7 miles from the r i v e r mouth, 19.1 miles i n a d i r e c t l i n e , and therefore the constables had recaptured Hunter i n American t e r r i t o r y . Subsequently M a r t i n was re l e a s e d . In r e a l i t y i t was p r a c t i c a l l y impossible to s e l e c t an e x i s t i n g range of mountains that ran p a r a l l e l to the coast and Secretary F i s h to S i r Edward Thornton, November 2, 1876. As quoted i n Tans i l l , op. c i t . , p. 135. Hunter's boundary was obviously a compromise l i n e . This example of undefined sovereignty i n a t r a n s i t i o n zone re-emphasizes the f r o n t i e r nature of the "boundary". P o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l i n the r e g i o n had become more r e f i n e d from the period when the whole l i s i e r e could be leased by a n o n - n a t i o n a l , but the s i t u a t i o n was s t i l l one of t r a n s i t i o n and not what could be termed "the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of two sovereign s t a t e s whose i n t e r f a c e was defined by an i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary". Because of the u n c e r t a i n t y regarding the boundary between Alaska and B r i t i s h Columbia, the B r i t i s h , Canadian, and American Governments continued at various times to press f o r the appointment of a commission to survey and determine the exact l i n e , but f o r s e v e r a l reasons, such as cost and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , t h i s was never c a r r i e d out. The c o n f l i c t over demarcation of a boundary i n the C h i l k o o t and White Pass c o r r i d o r s i s the f i n a l example of t h i s stage of boundary e v o l u t i o n . In accordance w i t h P r e s c o t t ' s hypothesis, the discovery of gold i n the area caused a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s , and boundary 36 n e g o t i a t i o n s were forced to begin. Apart from the reapprehension of the American i n f o r e i g n t e r r i t o r y , i t was argued that the unauthorized conveyance of a p r i s o n e r through the t e r r i t o r y of a f o r e i g n power i s an i n f r a c t i o n on the r i g h t s of such a power. Even though the Treaty of 1825 had given B r i t i s h subjects the r i g h t to navigate the r i v e r s f o r any purpose whatsoever t h i s u n l i m i t e d r i g h t had i n a d v e r t e n t l y been l o s t through the Treaty of Washington of 1871, wherein f r e e n a v i g a t i o n was conceded f o r the purposes of commerce only. H.G. Classen, Thrust and Counterthrust (Don M i l l s , Ontario: Longmans Canada L i m i t e d , 1965), p. 306. P r e s c o t t , op. c i t . , p. 56. 38. In the l a t e 1890's gold was discovered i n the Klondike area i n the Yukon T e r r i t o r y . In order to reach the g o l d f i e l d s miners had to f o l l o w c e r t a i n t r a i l s , almost a l l of which passed through American t e r r i t o r y (Figure 4 ) . On the Ch i l k o o t I n l e t which formed a part of the headwaters of the Lynn Canal, there were two important t r a i l s ; The Dyea T r a i l over the C h i l k o o t Pass, and the Skagway T r a i l over the White Pass. There were over t h i r t y thousand persons i n the Klondike mining approximately twenty-two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n gold from 1897 to 1900. As a r e s u l t of t h i s sudden economic boom, c o n f l i c t s over entry r i g h t s , t r a n s i t , and the l o c a t i o n of customs posts soon arose. At f i r s t , American customs agents refused Canadian v e s s e l s permission to discharge goods and passengers at Dyea or Skagway but by l a t e 1897 arrangements were made between Ottawa and Washington to al l o w Canadian goods through the l i s i e r e i n bond. By making these^arrangements the Canadian government had i m p l i c i t l y recognized American j u r i s d i c t i o n over the head of Lynn Canal. Apart from the above precedent over t r a n s - s h i p p i n g arrangements, the American settlement at Dyea had been i n existence f o r s e v e r a l years and thus t h e i r r i g h t to the head of the Lynn Canal, although disputed by Canada, was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . However, i f the Canadians were w i l l i n g to give up Dyea and Skagway they were not about to give up Chil k o o t and White Pass. Both these Passes, and a considerable extent of t e r r i t o r y i n l a n d i n c l u d i n g Lake Bennett, were claimed by the United States. To f o r e s t a l l American expansion, C l i f f o r d S i f t o n , the Canadian M i n i s t e r of the I n t e r i o r , l ed a detachment of one hundred and f i f t y Northwest Mounted P o l i c e to the Yukon and s t a t i o n e d them from the summits of the passes along the t r a i l s to Dawson C i t y . The f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e s how serious the s i t u a t i o n was over the i l l - d e f i n e d boundary and the steps American and Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s were t a k i n g to enforce t h e i r sovereignty. S i f t o n to Northwest Mounted P o l i c e Commissioner Walsh on A p r i l 1, 1898: The d i f f i c u l t y was that the o f f i c e r s of the United States Government asserted t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n down to and i n c l u d i n g the lower h a l f of Lake Bennett, and a m i l i t a r y f o r c e of the United States Army was already d e t a i l e d to go to Skagway. This force was gathered at P o r t l a n d , and i n another ten days would have taken possession of the t e r r i t o r y down to Lake Bennett, and i t would have taken twenty years of n e g o t i a t i o n s to get them out, i n f a c t I doubt i f we would ever have got them out. To prevent the l o s s of t h i s t e r r i t o r y I sent secret orders to Major Perry to send up Steele and f o r t y more men, and plant out posts i n the Passes j u s t under the Summit, and had them there w i t h a supply of p r o v i s i o n s before the other party know what we were doing. I t i s a case of possession being ten points of the law, and we intend to ho l d possession. The United States a u t h o r i t i e s have now been communicated w i t h through diplomatic channels, and we intend to ho l d the t e r r i t o r y i f we p o s s i b l y can. 3'' To f o r e s t a l l the growing danger of serious f r i c t i o n along the Alaskan f r o n t i e r , the B r i t i s h and American governments agreed to e s t a b l i s h a p r o v i s i o n a l boundary f o l l o w i n g the summit d i v i d i n g the watersheds surrounding the head of Lynn Canal. A c c o r d i n g l y , boundary monuments were placed at the summit of the White and Ch i l k o o t Passes. I t was From J.W. Dafoe, C l i f f o r d S i f t o n i n R e l a t i o n to His Times (Toronto: 1931), as quoted i n Classen, op. c i t . , p. 323. understood that t h i s boundary was merely a temporary one, and the modus v i v e n d i was not to be construed "as a f f e c t i n g i n any manner r i g h t s under e x i s t i n g t r e a t i e s f o r the u l t i m a t e ... 38 establishment of the boundary l i n e i n question." These three examples of the undefined nature of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia i n t e r f a c e i l l u s t r a t e the f r o n t i e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the boundary. The evidence of both f r o n t i e r and boundary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (as defined by K r i s t o f f , pp. 18-20), are both evident i n the per i o d 1825-1903, and t h e r e f o r e , the stage o u t l i n e d above, that i s , "the period of undefined sovereignty" i s necessary i n the h i s t o r y of the e v o l u t i o n of the boundary. Throughout the period from 1825 to 1903 s e v e r a l attempts at n e g o t i a t i o n s to a r r i v e at a more p r e c i s e boundary d e l i m i n a t i o n were made by va r i o u s government agencies, but u n t i l the discovery of gold and the r e s u l t i n g economic importance of the region no f i n a l arrangements were made. F i n a l l y , i n 1903, a Boundary T r i b u n a l composed of s i x " j u r i s t s of repute", (three each from the United States and Canada), agreed to the accurate d e l i m i t a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary. Arguments over the i m p a r t i a l i t y 39 of the boundary award can be found i n many sources. S u f f i c e to 38 T a n s i l l , op. c i t . , p. 167. 3 9 T a n s i l l , op. c i t . , pp. 169-265; Classen, op. c i t . , pp. 284-353; Davidson, op. c i t . ; Hon. D. M i l l s , The Canadian View of the Alaskan Boundary Dispute (Ottawa: Government P r i n t i n g Bureau, 1899) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Commission, J o i n t Report on the Survey and  Demarcation of the Boundary between Canada and the United States  from Tongass Passage to Mount Saint E l i a s (Ottawa: Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1952.); G.C. Halsey-Brandt, "Forget the Panhandle," The F i n a n c i a l Post, (November 5, 1966), p.6. 41. say that as the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n of the boundary was to block the Hudson's Bay Company from access to s a l t water and thereby from the Russian f u r trad e , the Canadian c l a i m i n 1903 that the l i n e should f o l l o w the summits of the mountains nearest the coasts and cut across a l l i n l e t s and f j o r d s , was not j u s t i f i a b l e . Hence, the Tr i b u n a l award of a compromise l i n e between the two claims (Figure 5) was as e q u i t a b l e as could be expected, and appears to have c a r r i e d out as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e the i n t e n t i o n s of the s i g n a t o r i e s to the Treaty of 1825. THE PERIOD OF BOUNDARY ENTRENCHMENT 1903 - PRESENT • A b r i e f a n a l y s i s of the h i s t o r y of the border r e g i o n s i n c e 1903 w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e the entrenchment of the boundary and to la y the groundwork f o r an a n a l y s i s of contemporary problems a r i s i n g from the boundary, i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters. As the f i n a l changes i n the l o c a t i o n of the boundary were made i n 1903, t h i s l a s t s e c t i o n w i l l d eal only w i t h boundary f u n c t i o n s . Both because of the lack of economic development i n the boundary region since 1905 and the obvious s u p e r i o r i t y of Alaskan routeways f o r access to Northwest B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to i l l u s t r a t e the entrenchment of the boundary i n the landscape since 1903 through analyses of c o n f l i c t a r i s i n g from the l o c a t i o n of the boundary as i n f a c t there were few c o n f l i c t s . However, i f the problem i s viewed conversely, the lack of f r i c t i o n over boundary sovereignty s i n c e 1903 demonstrates the acceptance of the boundary and the adaption of boundary functions to f a c i l i t a t e the unique s p a t i a l arrangement of an American l i s i e r e and a Canadian h i n t e r l a n d . The production of gold (which was the c r i s i s f a c t o r that f i n a l l y brought the boundary dispute to a climax) d e c l i n e d a f t e r 1905 and the border region s e t t l e d i n t o a period of r e l a t i v e economic st a g n a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g f i g u r e s (Table 1) help to i l l u s t r a t e the r i s e and d e c l i n e of the major economic f a c t o r i n the r e g i o n . Table 1 40 Yukon Gold Production 1 000 of d o l l a r s Year Value 1885 100 1890 175 1895 250 1900 9,809 1905 8,222 1910 3,594 1915 4,649 1920 1,660 1925 625 Gold mining d e c l i n e d not only i n the value of production as evident above but al s o i n terms of labour f o r c e requirements as i n d i v i d u a l panning became uneconomical and mechanization was introduced. No other resource i n the re g i o n emerged to maintain the 1900-1905 l e v e l of economic p r o s p e r i t y . H.A. I n n i s , Settlement and the Mining F r o n t i e r , V o l . IX: Canadian F r o n t i e r s of Settlement (Toronto: The M a c M i l l i a n Company, 1936), p. 219. 44 . The F i r s t World War f u r t h e r drained the region of much of i t s marginal labour f o r c e as many men l e f t f o r the s e r v i c e . A f t e r the War lumbering began to make small inroads i n t o the economy but the depression of the 1930's brought a c t i v i t y to a s t a n d s t i l l . Recovery was slow and i n general the period was one i n which the raw m a t e r i a l based economy s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of world market d i f f i c u l t i e s . Thus, the lack of i n t e r a c t i o n across the boundary created a s t a b l e s i t u a t i o n of an "entrenched" boundary. One example of the lack of f r i c t i o n over the boundary stems from i t s p e c u l i a r l o c a t i o n . The American l i s i e r e , because of i t s lack of land communications and h i n t e r l a n d o f f e r i n g a v a r i e t y of other resources turned l a r g e l y to a f o r e s t r y and f i s h i n g economy based on water t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . ' The land-locked areas of the Yukon t e r r i t o r y and northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia concentrated on high v a l u e mineral production because of the poor and c o s t l y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e . Thus, two d i s t i n c t economics evolved, a water-oriented Alaskan economy and a land-oriented Canadian economy, causing at t h i s p eriod i n h i s t o r y , n e g l i g i b l e boundary f r i c t i o n . World War I I marked a tur n i n g point i n population growth and economic expansion. The r e s u l t i n g increased a c t i v i t y i n the boundary region created some s t r e s s because of the l o c a t i o n and f u n c t i o n of the boundary. Economic expansion from the c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s , and to a smaller extent from southern Canada, i n the form of c a p i t a l investment l e d to the r a p i d development of f o r e s t r y and mineral 45. resources i n the r e g i o n . Both through i t s s u p e r i o r investment p o t e n t i a l , p r i m a r i l y because of e a s i e r access and lack of r e s t r i c t i o n to the American c a p i t a l market, and the m i l i t a r y b u i l d up r e q u i r e d as a r e s u l t of the war w i t h Japan and the l a t e r c o l d war w i t h the Soviet Union, the Alaskan l i s i e r e developed e a r l i e r ; ( p r i m a r i l y a f t e r 1941); northern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y expanding s l i g h t l y l a t e r (approximately 1950 onwards). A glance at the population growth s t a t i s t i c s (Figure 6) shows the steady increase i n p o p u l a t i o n of the Alaskan and Yukon s e c t o r s . In 1940 the Alaskan economy was d r a m a t i c a l l y s h i f t e d to defense a c t i v i t i e s and r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n . In 1939 f o r example, there were 524 m i l i t a r y personnel i n Alaska whereas i n 1941 the monthly average was 9,000, and i n 1958 there were s t i l l 47,000 m i l i t a r y 41 personnel i n A l a s k a . The Yukon d i d not experience the same war boom but the T e r r i t o r y and a l s o B r i t i s h Columbia to much l e s s e r extent, d i d b e n e f i t from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Alaska Highway as the f i r s t road l i n k i n t o the area. The precarious m i l i t a r y and naval s i t u a t i o n i n the North P a c i f i c i n 1941 induced the United States Government to b u i l d the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek, B r i t i s h Columbia to Fairbanks, Alaska. This d e c i s i o n n e c e s s i t a t e d d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Canada to secure rights-of-way through Canadian t e r r i t o r y . Access was granted through an agreement on March 17 and 18, 1942. Under the agreement the United G.W. Rodgers, Alaska i n T r a n s i t i o n (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1960). loopoo 60,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 ipoo 500 200 100 FIGURE NO . 6 POPULATION GROWTH RATES 1921 -1961 BRITISH COIUMBIA CENSUS DIVISIONS; 9o - ATLIN 9 b - TELEGRAPH CREEK, CASSIAR 9c- STEWART SOURCES; 1961 C E N S U S O F  C A N A D A DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS HAWAII A N D ALASKA: A MARKET SURVEY BUREAU OF ECONOMICS A N D STATISTICS-VICTORIA, BRITISH C O L U M B I A . 1921 47. States was to b u i l d the highway and to maintain i t f o r the d u r a t i o n of the war and f o r s i x months t h e r e a f t e r . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the war, the Canadian part of the highway would pass to Canadian c o n t r o l , w i t h the s t i p u l a t i o n that c i t i z e n s of the United States should not be 42 d i s c r i m i n a t e d against i n i t s subsequent use. Because of the nature of the l o c a t i o n of the highway, clo s e United States-Canada co-operation has been maintained to deal w i t h a l l problems r e l a t e d to the continued maintenance and operation of a through highway system from the United States to Alaska v i a Canada. O r i g i n a l l y , Canada was not as concerned as the United States over the importance of the highway, but the concept of a new resource f r o n t i e r has awakened Canada to i t s v a l u e . Northwest Canada and i n t e r i o r Alaska c o n s t i t u t e areas r i c h i n n a t u r a l resources which have heretofore been unaccessible except to the h a r d i e s t prospector and trapper. Their f i e l d s of o p eration have been l a r g e l y l i m i t e d to areas w i t h i n easy t r a v e l d i s t ance of Whitehorse, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John or Fairbanks by f a i r l y p r i m i t i v e forms of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g boat. Now, w i t h a completed highway t r a v e r s i n g t h i s r i c h and h i t h e r t o unexplored area, one of the l a s t of our pioneer areas on the North American Continent i s made a c c e s s i b l e to those w i t h sturdy c o n s t i t u t i o n s and v i s i o n s Although the quotation somewhat overstates the case, the dream which i t e n v isions was l a r g e l y accepted by Americans and Canadians. A s u c c e s s f u l campaign slogan of the Conservation Party i n Canada, i n the l a t e 1950's "the v i s i o n of the n o r t h " , e x e m p l i f i e s t h i s f e e l i n g . Report from the Committee nn Roads, The Alaska Highway (Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1946), p. 11. I b i d , p. 63. 48. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Alaska Highway i l l u s t r a t e s the entrenchment of the boundary, as c a r e f u l n e g o t i a t i o n s were re q u i r e d to s e t t l e highway maintenance and the choice of a routeway. The United States was the dominant partner and assumed both the bulk of c o n s t r u c t i o n during the war and the greater concern f o r i t s upkeep t h e r e a f t e r . This p o l i c y was r e a l i s t i c c o n s i d e r i n g the m i l i t a r y r a i s o n de c r e a t i o n of the highway. Since the war the United States has paved t h e i r p o r t i o n of the highway i n Alaska but the Yukon and B r i t i s h Columbia sec t i o n s remain g r a v e l , a contemporary example of the impact of d i v i d e d sovereignty upon what i s e s s e n t i a l l y a , * • • 4 4 u n i t a r y network of communications. Alaskan statehood i n 1959 a l t e r e d the d i r e c t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l and economic forces i n Alaska. The boundary had always been i n t e r n a t i o n a l , but u n t i l 1959 Canada negotiated w i t h American f e d e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s over common problems w i t h Alaska. Now Canadians could n e g o t i a t e d i r e c t l y w i t h the Alaskan State Government on many i s s u e s , thus g i v i n g both a greater r e g i o n a l emphasis to problems and at the same time c r e a t i n g an i n c r e a s i n g number of j o i n t economic development schemes as Alaskans became more d i r e c t l y , , • , • . 4 5 i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r own expansion. In 1964 Premier Bennett of B r i t i s h Columbia o f f e r e d to pave the Canadian p o r t i o n of the Alaska Highway i f the Yukon T e r r i t o r y would amalgamate w i t h the Province. Although the o f f e r was d e c l i n e d , i t i s obvious that one sovereignty over the e n t i r e Canadian Section would lead to upgrading of the s e r v i c e as a u n i t a r y system. 45 This i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n recent t a l k s between Alaska State Secretary K e i t h M i l l e r and B r i t i s h Columbia Trade and Industry M i n i s t e r Ralph Loffmark over a t a r i f f - f r e e trade agreement covering a g r i c u l t u r a l and n a t u r a l resource m a t e r i a l s . The Province. (Saturday, March 23, 1968), p. 19. 49. This a n a l y s i s of the period since 1903 has b r i e f l y i l l u s t r a t e d the economic growth of the area and the entrenchment of the boundary. Although only a few features of the r e g i o n were discussed, they are s u f f i c i e n t to point out the growing maturity of the boundary landscape. The boundary i s no longer a p o l i t i c a l f r o n t i e r but a demarcated b a r r i e r . Economically, the region i s one of i n c r e a s i n g development, and consequently as t h i s emerging p a t t e r n becomes more complex, the boundary assumes p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more b a r r i e r f u n c t i o n s . Two important a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to the boundary are t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and hydro power; the f i r s t a contemporary problem and the second a p o s s i b l e f u t u r e problem. I t i s these two phenomena which w i l l exert the greatest pressure on the boundary and w i l l i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d lead to a r e a p p r a i s a l of the functions of the boundary. Therefore these two problems w i l l be analysed i n the two succeeding chapters. SUMMARY Several conclusions can be drawn from t h i s a n a l y s i s of boundary s t u d i e s g e n e r a l l y and the h i s t o r i c a l aspects of the Alaskan-B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i n p a r t i c u l a r . The m a j o r i t y of boundary studies are approached by p o l i t i c a l geographers as case s t u d i e s . However, very few t r y to r e l a t e these case studies to a l a r g e r body of theory and i n some way c o n t r i b u t e to the expansion of methodology through t h e i r work. 50. There i s a period between the f r o n t i e r and boundary stages of e v o l u t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary which has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both features and thus r e q u i r e s a separate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The term which has been adopted to define t h i s stage i s "zone of undefined sovereignty." Contrary to p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n Canada during and f o r some period f o l l o w i n g , the n e g o t i a t i o n , the boundary settlement of 1903 was accurate i n terms of the purpose of the o r i g i n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s i n 1825. The Hudson's Bay Company was to be denied access to the Russian c o a s t a l f u r trade and i n s p i t e of some attempts to r e c t i f y the s i t u a t i o n t h i s s e p a r a t i o n has l a r g e l y p e r s i s t e d through many economic a c t i v i t i e s to the present day. The boundary has become i n c r e a s i n g l y entrenched i n the landscape over the l a s t h a l f century, corresponding w i t h a general economic expansion. To f a c i l i t a t e the i n c r e a s i n g s t r e s s on the l o c a t i o n of the boundary, some a l t e r a t i o n of the present functions of the boundary may be r e q u i r e d . CHAPTER I I THE PRESENT IMPACT OF THE BOUNDARY - THE PROBLEM OF TRANSPORTATION This and the f o l l o w i n g chapter draws upon the h i s t o r i c a l -geographic background presented i n the previous chapter to analyze the contemporary boundary s i t u a t i o n . This chapter deals w i t h the impact of the boundary on t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The problems c o n f r o n t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n across the Alaska-B r i t i s h Columbia boundary today have become f o c a l only i n the l a s t f i f t e e n years, corresponding w i t h the growth of popu l a t i o n and economic development i n Alaska and the Yukon. However, as p r e v i o u s l y discussed, problems d i d develop i n 1837, 1876, and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n 1899 when Canadian s u p p l i e s were r e q u i r e d to be placed i n bond at Dyea and Skagway before they were transported over the Ch i l k o o t and White Passes to the Klondike. The technique of bonding goods f o r tra n s p o r t through the Alaskan l i s i e r e has been used since 1899 but i t i s i n c r e a s i n g l y being regarded by many Canadians as an inadequate s o l u t i o n to today's more complex problems. Pressure i s being a p p l i e d on the governments of both c o u n t r i e s to a l t e r e i t h e r the l o c a t i o n or f u n c t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary to meet the contempor s i t u a t i o n . An a n a l y s i s of both a l t e r n a t i v e s w i t h suggested s o l u t i o n s i s the object of t h i s chapter. The problem of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and the impact of the boundary w i l l be approached f i r s t l y w i t h a b r i e f review of geographical and non-geographical l i t e r a t u r e on the s u b j e c t , secondly by an a n a l y s i s of unsuccessful attempts to change the l o c a t i o n of the boundary, t h i r d l y by a d i s c u s s i o n of present attempts to change the boundary's f u n c t i o n s , and l a s t l y by some suggestions as to the s o l u t i o n of the problem. The attempts to solve t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems to date have been p r i m a r i l y based on the assumption of a change i n l o c a t i o n of the boundary. The hypothesis set forward i n t h i s chapter and upon which s o l u t i o n s w i l l be based, i s that a change i n l o c a t i o n i s improbable and that a change i n boundary functions i s the e a s i e s t and e s s e n t i a l l y the only p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Un l i k e h i s t o r i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c research as i n the previous chapter, when a geographer turns to studying a contemporary problem h i s research sources become i n c r e a s i n g l y v a r i e d . Not only must he r e f e r to works i n p o l i t i c a l geography on r e l a t e d t o p i c s but i n s o l v i n g the p a r t i c u l a r t h e s i s problem, s p e c i f i c data sources must be u t i l i z e d . U n l i k e the previous chapter, which reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e i n terms of approach, and the f o l l o w i n g chapter which u t i l i z e s research d i s c i p l i n e s as a framework, the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed i n t h i s chapter i s that r e l a t e d to methods of access to landlocked s t a t e s . A l l subjects d e a l t w i t h on the problem of access through the Panhandle cannot be discussed, but the most important t o p i c s of c o r r i d o r s , f r e e p o r t s and goods-in-bond, and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways are reviewed. C o r r i d o r s H i s t o r i c a l l y , the concepts of freedom of t r a n s i t or access to the sea f o r landlocked s t a t e s , o r i g i n a t e d at l e a s t two c e n t u r i e s ago when the formation of modern n a t i o n a l s t a t e s i n Europe began. Trade and commerce became a part of government p o l i c y and thus r e s t r i c t i o n s against easy access to i n t e r n a t i o n a l markets became a n a t i o n a l concern.''' I n t e r n a t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n of the r i g h t of access to the sea came w i t h Wilson's "14 P o i n t s " i n 1918 when he proposed i n A r t i c l e T h i r t e e n ; "An Independent P o l i s h State should be erected...which should be assured a free and secure access to 2 the sea..." From t h i s p o i n t on, the concept of c o r r i d o r s became an i n t e g r a l part of many stu d i e s i n p o l i t i c a l geography. The f i r s t major work on c o r r i d o r s was Hartshorne's "The 3 P o l i s h C o r r i d o r " , b r i e f l y considered i n the previous chapter (p. 13). Hartshorne decides against the idea of a c o r r i d o r and i t s a b i l i t y to solve an access problem f o r as a c o r r i d o r provides a s o l u t i o n f o r the landlocked country, i t only f a c i l i t a t e s greater antagonisms i n the country through which i t i s cut. He concludes that changes i n t e r r i t o r y are not f e a s i b l e and that f u n c t i o n a l changes i n any i n t e r v e n i n g For a complete h i s t o r i c a l d i s c u s s i o n of c o r r i d o r s and freedom of t r a n s i t , see N.J.G. Pounds, P o l i t i c a l Geography (New York: McGraw-H i l l Book Co., 1963), pp. 239-247. Also N.J.G. Pounds, "A Free and Secure Access to the Sea," Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American  Geographers, XLIX (September, 1959), pp. 256-268. As quoted i n I b i d , p. 240. R. Hartshorne, "The P o l i s h C o r r i d o r , " J o u r n a l of Geography, XXXVI (May, 1937), p. 161. boundary i s the only s o l u t i o n , ( f o r example, r i g h t s of t r a n s i t and m i n o r i t y r i g h t s ) . In the case of the Tacna-Arica dispute between C h i l e , B o l i v i a , and Peru a s o l u t i o n was reached s i m i l a r to that proposed i n Europe by Hartshorne. C h i l e , r e a l i z i n g the disadvantages that being landlocked e n t a i l e d f o r B o l i v i a , i n terms of trade and the long-term resentment that would be created amongst B o l i v i a n n a t i o n a l i s t s , provided i n the t r e a t y concluding h o s t i l i t i e s that C h i l e would b u i l d a r a i l w a y from A r i c a to La Paz and provide B o l i v i a w i t h a l l the advantages of having seaports by g r a n t i n g B o l i v i a customs houses i n 4 both A r i c a and Antofogasta. This arrangement has caused resentment i n B o l i v i a but as C h i l e has remained the most powerful n a t i o n of the 5 two, the t r a n s i t arrangement remains i n f o r c e . As y e t , no p o l i t i c a l geographer appears to have stud i e d the problem of access to the sea f o r B o l i v i a and thus i t i s d i f f i c u l t to draw p a r a l l e l s between the 6 B o l i v i a n case and that of access through the Alaska panhandle. F.N. Del R i o , " C h i l e ' s C o n f l i c t w i t h B o l i v i a and Peru," Current  H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times,XV (December, 1921), pp. 449-453 W.E. Aughinbaugh, " B o l i v i a ' s Claims i n the Tacna-Arica Case," Current  H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times, XVI (June, 1922), p. 408. There are s e v e r a l h i s t o r i c a l references to the B o l i v i a n case, most biased. Del R i o , op. c i t . ; Aughinbaugh, op. c i t . ; C. Castro-Ruiz, " B o l i v i a and C h i l e - P e r u Controversy," Current H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times, XV (March, 1922), pp. 915-917; V.A. Belaunde, Peru's A t t i t u d e on the Tacna-Arica Issue," Current H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times, XVI ( A p r i l , 1922), pp. 17-21; H.G. Doyle, "Settlement of the Tacna-Arica Dispute", Current H i s t o r y , XXX ( J u l y , 1929), pp. 692-694. 55. S i m i l a r to the s i t u a t i o n i n the Yukon T e r r i t o r y and northwestern B r i t i s h Columb i a i s that of landlocked Laos. T.F. Barton, i n "Outlets to the Sea f o r Land-Locked Laos" analyzes the routeways through V i e t Nam, Thailand, and Cambodia which Laos uses f o r commercial exchange. 7 He points out that h i s t o r i c a l l y the Mekong R i v e r has been an important highway f o r a l i m i t e d movement of goods. Today t h i s r i v e r i s used only l o c a l l y and the major a r t e r y of trade i s the r a i l w a y from Bangkok to V i e n t i a n e . However, s i m i l a r to the s i t u a t i o n of the Yukon, Laos i s dependent on t r a n s i t arrangements w i t h her neighbours. F o r t u n a t e l y , the Alaskan State Government i s not as l i k e l y to i n t e r f e r e as those of Cambodia and V i e t Nam i n p e r m i t t i n g trade to pass through t h e i r t e r r i t o r y . Because of the f l u c t u a t i n g p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n southeast A s i a , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see how t r a n s i t agreement could be negotiated and expected to be r e a l i z e d f o r any length of time. A general survey of landlocked states i s undertaken by East i n h i s "The Geography of Landlocked S t a t e s " and one of the t o p i c s he 8 considers i s the s p e c i a l problem of access to the sea. I t i s found that a l l landlocked states.have been given s p e c i a l r i g h t s of t r a n s i t , f r e e p o r t s , and other f a c i l i t i e s to enable them to overcome t h e i r handicap by t h e i r maritime neighbours. However, at various times throughout h i s t o r y r i g h t s of t r a n s i t have been impinged upon by one or more maritime neighbours of many landlocked s t a t e s , l e a v i n g f e e l i n g s 7 T.F. Barton, "Outlets to the Sea f o r Land-Locked Laos," J o u r n a l of  Geography, LIX (May, 1960), p. 206-220. Q W.G. East, "The Geography of Landlocked S t a t e s , " Transactions &  Papers, I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Geographers, No. 28 (1960), pp. 1-22. of d i s t r u s t and the continued need for s p e c i a l guarantees, t r e a t i e s , and general precautions. In h i s a r t i c l e however, apart from r e c o g n i z i n g that access problems do e x i s t and l i s t i n g some examples of c o r r i d o r s , East does not propose any s o l u t i o n s . Related to the subject of access f o r landlocked s t a t e s i s that of access to exclaves, as s i m i l a r problems e x i s t i n both cases. The most important contemporary exclave problem stu d i e d by p o l i t i c a l 9 geographers i s that of West B e r l i n . This example i l l u s t r a t e s access under very r e s t r i c t e d circumstances but t h i s degree of r e s t r i c t i o n i n turn f a c i l i t a t e s the i s o l a t i o n of c o r r i d o r problems for c a r e f u l study. A t r i p a r t i t e agreement i n 1945 between B r i t a i n , America, and the Soviet Union set up d e f i n i t i v e road, r a i l , a i r , and canal c o r r i d o r s to West B e r l i n . In s p i t e of the f a c t that s e v e r a l of the c o r r i d o r s have been obstructed by the Soviet Union i n the past, these problems have not proved insurmountable and West B e r l i n continues to f u n c t i o n as a v i a b l e exclave. Thus, i n accordance w i t h the conclusions of East, although c o r r i d o r t r a n s i t r i g h t s are o f t e n impinged upon they appear as the only s o l u t i o n to an exclave or landlocked problem. Free Ports And Goods-In-Bond An economic device f o r e l i m i n a t i n g customs r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t r a n s - s h i p p i n g goods from ship to r a i l , truck or to another ship i s the f r e e port or zone. A good example i s that port of Hamburg, where goods can be brought i n from a l l over the world, s t o r e d , repacked, The most comprehensive work done on the problem of West B e r l i n i s that of G.W.S. Robinson, "West B e r l i n : The Geography of an Exclave," Geographical Review, X L I I I (October, 1953), pp. 540-557. manufactured and re-exported without customs f o r m a l i t i e s . Landlocked st a t e s o f t e n have a f r e e port or zone w i t h i n a port i n a neighbouring maritime s t a t e where goods destined f o r the i n l a n d s t a t e can be imported, placed i n bond, and transported i n l a n d without paying the customs d u t i e s of the maritime s t a t e . The subject i s o f t e n touched upon i n p o l i t i c a l and economic geography t e x t s , but l i t t l e work has been done on f r e e ports per se. The most thorough work on the subject appears to be Richard Thoman's 10 Free Ports and Foreign-Trade Zones published i n 1956. Using e x i s t i n g f r e e ports i n Germany, Northern Europe and the United States as examples, he analyses t h e i r form, f u n c t i o n , and economic importance. Thoman concludes that unless the r i g h t port functions are evident, a f r e e port i s not economically f e a s i b l e and bonded warehouses are s u f f i c i e n t to handle the re-export trade. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the economic d e s i r a b i l i t y of f r e e ports i n the United States was undertaken by the United States T a r i f f Commission i n 1922.'''''' " A f t e r exhaustive study of f o r e i g n i n s t i t u t i o n s and c a r e f u l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of American c o n d i t i o n s and m e r c a n t i l e o p i n i o n , the T a r i f f Commission (recommended) the p o l i c y of p e r m i t t i n g 12 the establishment of free zones i n American p o r t s . " The f i n d i n g s were only recommendations and no zones were set up u n t i l 1936, when a f r e e zone was e s t a b l i s h e d on Staten I s l a n d . The r e p o r t i s a good 10 R.S. Thoman, Free Ports and Foreign-Trade Zones, (Cambridge Maryland: C o r n e l l Maritime Press, 1956). 11 United States T a r i f f Commission, Free Zones i n Ports of the United  States. L e t t e r from the United States T a r i f f Commission i n Compliance w i t h the Request of the Senate Committee on Commerce. (Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1922). 12 I b i d , p. 19. source of contemporary o p i n i o n on the l o f t y expectations of a f r e e port f o r generating commerce. However, as the record has proven i n s i x United States zones apart from New York, a free port "cannot create commerce, i t can only f a c i l i t a t e the operation of the forces 13 that do create i t " . The usefulness of a free port was examined i n Canada i n 14 1960 when Hubert Kemp analyzed the case of H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a . L i k e Thoman, Kemp came to the c o n c l u s i o n that unless the volume of re-export merchandise i n H a l i f a x warranted the zone, i t would not be economically p r o f i t a b l e and that the Canadian system of bonding and export drawbacks i s s u f f i c i e n t . The above ref e r e n c e s , t h e r e f o r e , deny the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of f r e e ports or zones except i n cases where there i s a high volume of re-export merchandise. The free zone i s only " f r e e " i n terms of customs d u t i e s and such procedures as labour supply and c i v i l and c r i m i n a l law, remain e n t i r e l y w i t h the host country. Transportation Routeways The f i n a l subject for review has been given the t i t l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways, but i n f a c t , i t covers two main aspects of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; shipping and highways. 1 3 I b i d , p. 18. 14 H.R. Kemp, A Free Port f o r Nova S c o t i a . The Case Examined. (Memorandum prepared f o r the Department of Trade and Industry, H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a , November, 1960). 59. One of the f i r s t attempts to analyze the r o l e of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 15 to Alaska was W i l l i a m S i d d a l l s " S e a t t l e : Regional C a p i t a l of A l a s k a . " S i d d a l l examines the l a r g e s t c i t i e s i n Alaska; Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks to determine t h e i r degree of c e n t r a l i t y i n terms of p o p u l a t i o n , communications, and s e r v i c e s . He f i n d s that each c i t y i s a c e n t r a l place f o r a l i m i t e d h i n t e r l a n d but that the c e n t r a l place f o r the t e r r i t o r y as a whole, defined i n terms of the amount of general s e r v i c e s , i s S e a t t l e . A somewhat s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y would be very u s e f u l . S i d d a l l ' s suggestions as to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s are 16 examined f u r t h e r by Hardwick i n 1962. He analyses each method of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to Alaska and concludes that the marine c o r r i d o r w i l l continue to be the key route to Alaska as cheaper marine t r a n s p o r t a t i o n methods are devised ( f o r example, c o n t a i n e r i z a t i o n ) . J . L o t z , i n 1964, discussed the f u n c t i o n of the new Alaska State Ferry system as a marine highway and concluded that although i t i s a passenger system r a t h e r than a commercial routeway, i t can only improve the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of c o a s t a l Alaska. This would appear to confirm Hardwick's e a r l i e r hypothesis. W.R. S i d d a l l , " S e a t t l e : Regional C a p i t a l of A l a s k a , " Annals of  the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, XLVII (September, 1957), pp. 277-284. 16 W.G. Hardwick, "Changing C o r r i d o r s to A l a s k a , " The J o u r n a l of  Geography, LXI (February, 1962), pp. 49-57. ^ J.R. L o t z , "A New Way to A l a s k a , " Canadian Geographical J o u r n a l , LXVIII (February, 1964), pp. 52-55. 60. The problems discussed i n these papers are not only important to A l a s k a , but a l s o to northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y as a large percentage of t r a f f i c moving to and from the Yukon and northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia moves through the 18 Alaskan Panhandle. As y e t , no research has been attempted on c o a s t a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to the Yukon and northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia per se, however, w i t h data becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y a v a i l a b l e , work could be undertaken. I t i s suggested that study may prove Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia to be the r e g i o n a l c a p i t a l of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y , analagous to S i d d a l l ' s Alaskan f i n d i n g s f o r S e a t t l e . The second aspect of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s that of road access. U n l i k e marine t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n which only the port f a c i l i t i e s are important, w i t h some c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d i s t a n c e , highway t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s concerned w i t h the i n i t i a l cost of c o n s t r u c t i o n of the routeway and the continued maintenance. This depends i n turn on t e r r a i n , d i s t a n c e , l o c a t i o n , and p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Thus, before any highways are constructed i n remote areas of northern B r i t i s h Columbia "Fre i g h t movements i n and out of Northwest North America, t o t a l l i n g somewhat more than two m i l l i o n tons, are predominantly waterborne, w i t h only minor tonnages by a i r and by long-haul t r u c k s . Passenger movements, conversely, are mainly by a i r , w i t h a f a i r l y large p o r t i o n of highway, and r e l a t i v e l y few movements by water. Both f r e i g h t and passenger movements have been undergoing change over the past decade, w i t h f r e i g h t being c a r r i e d more and more by bulk cargo barges and van-barges at the expense of large dry-cargo, and w i t h passengers moving more and more by highway at the expense of a i r c a r r i e r s , percentagewise." Alaska I n t e r n a t i o n a l R a i l and Highway Commission, Transport Requirements f o r the Growth of  Northwest North America (Washington, United States Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1961) V o l s . 1, 2, and 3. p. 1-14. Volumes 2 and 3 are a Research Report by the B a t t e l l e Memorial I n s t i t u t e on an Integrated Transport System to Encourage Economic Development of Northwest North America. and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s i s made of many cost f a c t o r s . In planning roads through the Panhandle or i n the North g e n e r a l l y , the governments in v o l v e d are faced w i t h an unresolved dilemma. Is i t the access road which creates the i n c e n t i v e f o r new settlement and i n d u s t r y or i s i t the growth of settlement and i n d u s t r y which creates the need f o r an access road? Most highways i n the north appear to be a combination of both causes. The concept of new road c o n s t r u c t i o n i n the Northwest i s discussed by J . R i e n s t r a , who 19 reaches some tenuous conclusions about the Alaska Highway. The r o l e of the Stewart-Cassiar road as a stimulant to resource development i n the Northwest i s discussed by J . Jenness i n 20 "Federal Roads Programs i n Northwestern Canada". The road w i l l not only provide access to known mineral deposits but w i l l a l s o "provide access to tidewater f o r much of the area east of the Alaska 21 Panhandle, i n c l u d i n g d i r e c t access to a Canadian harbour." Jenness estimates that the cost of moving goods i n and out of northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be cut by o n e - t h i r d . J . R i e n s t r a , "Water Tran s p o r t a t i o n i n the North," B r i t i s h Columbia  N a t u r a l Resources Conference, No. 12 (Published by the BCNRC, 1959), p. 126. R i e n s t r a concludes that the Alaska highway has not sti m u l a t e d the development of any major communities between Dawson Creek and Fairbanks. Because of t h e i r nature as mining communities the towns c l o s e to the highway are not "major" by Fairbanks stand-ards, but they have nevertheless been created as a r e s u l t of the access provided by the highway. J.L. Jenness, "Federal Roads Programs i n Northwestern Canada," B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference, No. 12, (Published by the BCNRC, 1959), p. 111. I b i d , p. I l l F i n a l l y , i t should be noted that four research groups have analyzed s p e c i f i c problems i n Alaska and Yukon t r a n s p o r t a t i o n methods. Wolf Management Services have prepared an e x c e l l e n t "Technical Study of Investment Opportunities i n Southeastern Alaska':' which includes an 22 ev a l u a t i o n of the economic impact of the Marine Highway System. G.F. Parsons has prepared a "Yukon Travel Survey" f o r the Yukon Research P r o j e c t which discusses the o r i g i n s , d e s t i n a t i o n s and en 23 route h a b i t s of t o u r i s t s using the Alaska highway. The Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e prepared an "Improvement Program f o r the Alaska Highway," which analyzes the e f f e c t s that highway improvement would 24 have on the e n t i r e r e gion a f f e c t e d by the Alaska highway. Under the auspices of the Alaska I n t e r n a t i o n a l R a i l and Highway Commission, the B a t t e l l e Memorial I n s t i t u t e c a r r i e d out a study i n which an inventory of the resources of Alaska and northwestern Canada was compiled, followed by an a n a l y s i s of present and planned t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s to compare the two w i t h an aim to improving economic 22 Wolf Management S e r v i c e s , Investment Opportunities i n Southeastern  Alaska. Prepared f o r United States Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . (Washington, United States Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1965). 23 G.F. Parsons, Alaska Travel Survey (Ottawa, Department of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t i o n a l Resources, 1963). Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e , Improvement Program f o r the Alaska Highway, (Ottawa, Department of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t i o n a l Resources, 1966). 63. 25 resource development. The overall view of the report without undue stress on p o l i t i c a l boundaries offers an intelligent method of economic planning in a region where transportation links between Alaska and the Yukon and between these two areas and southern Canada and the United States are very interdependent. Several conclusions can be drawn from this review. 1. Rights of transit rather than corridors appear to be the most widespread and successful method of access to the sea for landlocked areas. 2. Free ports and zones are only successful where port functions are suitable. In other areas bonding and export drawbacks are sufficient to handle the re-export trade. 3. Very l i t t l e research has been done on the geography of coastal transportation and, therefore, a collection of more specific references must be used to determine 26 transport methods, costs, and legal restrictions. Alaska International Rail and Highway Commission, op. c i t . From the research undertaken i t appears that coastal shipping is regulated far more stringently than highway transportation by the federal government. THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE - A CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE BOUNDARY Before a d i s c u s s i o n of the n e g o t i a t i o n s surrounding attempted changes i n the l o c a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary to s u i t present t r a n s i t requirements i s begun, a b r i e f o u t l i n e of outstanding problems f o r Canadians u t i l i z i n g routeways 27 through the Alaska panhandle w i l l be considered. (See Figure 7 f o r the l o c a t i o n of present t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways.) 1. American immigration r e g u l a t i o n s complicate the movement of personnel and customs r o u t i n e s slow the movement of mining equipment from tidewater i n t o the i n t e r i o r . 2. United States labour unions, e i t h e r on the White Pass and Yukon Railway's American s e c t i o n , or handling Canadian ore at panhandle p o r t s , make Canadian operators dependent upon the whims of f o r e i g n labour unions. An example of t e n c i t e d i s the s t r i k e of crews on the White Pass and Yukon Railway at Skagway i n September 1956, b l o c k i n g a l l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n over the r a i l r o a d f o r about a month, i n c l u d i n g the h a u l i n g of ore from mines i n the Yukon. The l i s t of t r a n s i t problems was c o l l e c t e d from a number of sources. The "Panhandle F i l e " of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia; R.S. F r a n c i s , "Why Canada Wants Rights Across the Alaska Panhandle," Canadian Business, XXIX (August, 1956), pp. 90-94; J.R. Bruce, The Economic E f f e c t s of the  P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Alaska Panhandle, Graduating essay f o r Commerce 490, The U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., 1964. 3. The United States Merchant Marine Act compels cargo moved between two American ports to be hauled i n American bottoms, f r u s t r a t i n g the movement of ore by Canadian ships from panhandle ports to say, the smelter at Tacoma, Washington. 4. United States immigration laws permit only Canadian c i t i z e n s to enter Alaska en route to B r i t i s h Columbia or the Yukon T e r r i t o r y , w h i le a great p o r t i o n of t h i s northern labour force i s composed of immigrant, non-Canadian workers, so that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of mining crews must be transported by more c i r c i u t o u s and c o s t l y r o u t e s , ( f o r example, by a i r or road up the Alaska Highway). 5. The expense of c a r r y i n g on business i n Alaska i s much higher than i n B r i t i s h Columbia or the Yukon T e r r i t o r y . During the 1950's the American government poured money in t o Alaska f o r c o n t r a c t s on a cost- p l u s b a s i s , r e s u l t i n g i n Alaskan p r i c e s s o a r i n g to u n n a t u r a l l y high l e v e l s . Hence the cost of doing business i n Alaska f o r many p r i v a t e Canadian firms i s p r o h i b i t i v e . (Costs are p a r t i c u l a r l y high f o r American labour and food.) Three of the f i v e b a r r i e r s l i s t e d r e s u l t from United States domestic l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s and the second and f i f t h point are inherent parts of the American socio-economic system. This d i f f e r e n c e w i l l become more important l a t e r when the v a r i o u s attempts at s o l v i n g the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem are considered. S u f f i c e to say that these problems have aroused considerable concern i n Canadian transport and 67. mining i n d u s t r i e s . Pressure to solve the problems has been outstanding from two groups i n Canada most concerned w i t h transport and mining; the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines and i n d i v i d u a l s i n Canadian p o l i t i c s who represent areas a f f e c t e d by the r e s t r i c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e wish to remove them. In Alaska the subject i s t o p i c a l i n s e v e r a l c i t i e s l o c a t e d i n the Panhandle as any change i n transport routeways through the l i s i e r e w i l l have repercussions on t h e i r economies. The r o l e and problems of i n t e r e s t e d groups w i l l become c l e a r e r as n e g o t i a t i o n s over boundary changes are discussed. Evidence of an e f f o r t to b r i n g about a change i n the l o c a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i s a r e s o l u t i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines of November 1953, r e l a t i n g to "mining and other i n d u s t r i a l development i n the northern h a l f of B r i t i s h Columbia, the Yukon T e r r i t o r y and the Panhandle of A l a s k a . " The r e s o l u t i o n s t a t e d i n p a r t ; Whereas, i f the mineral and other resources i n northern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y are to be e f f i c i e n t l y and economically developed f o r the Canadian people, i t i s e s s e n t i a l deep sea ports i n Canadian t e r r i t o r y be e s t a b l i s h e d so that equipment and s u p p l i e s can be taken i n t o the v a r i o u s mining areas and ores and concentrates shipped out w i t h a minimum delay; and Whereas, at the present time Canada does not possess any. deep sea port north of Stewart, B r i t i s h Columbia, making i t necessary f o r mine operators and other persons to t r a v e l through the "Panhandle" of Alaska to gain access from the Coast i n t o the northern h a l f of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y ; and Be i t r e s o l v e d , that the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines go on record as favouring a meeting at an e a r l y date between appropriate o f f i c i a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, the Yukon T e r r i t o r y , and the T e r r i t o r y of A l a s k a , to discuss the proposal that the T e r r i t o r y of Alaska a l l o w B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon access to the ocean by way of a number of narrow s t r i p s of land or c o r r i d o r s , c u t t i n g through the "Panhandle" of A l a s k a , so that Canada can develop i t s own deep-sea ports and i n d u s t r i e s i n these northern areas, which, i n no way, should i n t e r f e r e w i t h the r i g h t s of people i n Alaska or w i t h e x i s t i n g towns, ports and other important settlements already e s t a b l i s h e d i n that T e r r i t o r y . I t i s f e l t that establishment of these Canadian ports and subsequent development of hydro-e l e c t r i c , mineral and other resources, w i l l b r i n g p r o s p e r i t y to a l l c i t i z e n s of Canada and the United States l i v i n g i n those northern areas.28 As t h i s r e s o l u t i o n was the f i r s t proposal of a change i n the l o c a t i o n of the boundary, i t s i n d e f i n i t e suggestion as to the methods of s o l v i n g the problem i s understandable. From the wording of the r e s o l u t i o n i t appears as i f a change i n sovereignty i s proposed f o r the c o r r i d o r s , although they were to be l o c a t e d i n such places that they would not i n f r i n g e on s e t t l e d areas of the panhandle. (See f i g u r e number 8 f o r the l o c a t i o n of proposed c o r r i d o r s . ) I t i s unfortunate that the term c o r r i d o r was adopted at the time as i t imples a change of sovereignty, which the United States was not w i l l i n g to accept, and a l s o r e c a l l s the t r o u b l e a r i s i n g out of the P o l i s h C o r r i d o r , s t i l l f r e s h i n the memories of both Canadians and Americans. Copies of the r e s o l u t i o n were sent to s e v e r a l heads of government i n Canada and the United States and to other i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . R e s o l u t i o n passed at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Monday, November 30, 1953. "Panhandle F i l e " of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Vancouver, B.C. 70. The American response can best be e x e m p l i f i e d i n the words of Senator B u t l e r of Nebraska i n the United States Senate 29 i n January, 1954. I t i s quoted at length i n order to convey not only i t s content, but the tone of the r e p l y , which i s a good example of the American p o s i t i o n i n a l l succeeding n e g o t i a t i o n s . Before I c l o s e , there i s one problem t r o u b l i n g many Canadians on which I b e l i e v e we could properly be of help to Canada. That i s the question of Canadian access to the P a c i f i c Ocean across the Alaskan Panhandle. I t happens that the Alaska Panhandle extends down the coast, c u t t i n g o f f Canada's access to the sea as f a r down as 54° north l a t i t u d e . That i s an unusual s i t u a t i o n which might w i l l give r i s e to c o n f l i c t and b i t t e r n e s s between any two nations not on f r i e n d l y terms w i t h each other. Every member of the Senate i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the problems that have a r i s e n i n European h i s t o r y when a n a t i o n has found i t s access to the sea c o n t r o l l e d by another, u n f r i e n d l y n a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , no American would be disposed to take advantage of Canada merely because of our s t r a t e g i c p o s i t i o n preventing her access to the ocean. I t i s a s i t u a t i o n where I f e e l we have a p o s i t i v e o b l i g a t i o n to be sympathetic and generous to Canada's need. I am not sure j u s t what k i n d of arrangement Canadians might d e s i r e . I t occurs to me, f o r example, that we might grant Canada one or more f r e e ports at points along the Alaska coast. I can see no o b j e c t i o n to such an arrangement. I do not b e l i e v e we would consider  permanently a l i e n a t i n g any American t e r r i t o r y to Canadian sovereignty. -*u I t i s c l e a r that although the American government was responsive to the aims of the r e s o l u t i o n they were not prepared to consider any a l i e n a t i o n of t e r r i t o r y i n the form of c o r r i d o r s . Canadians d i d not accept t h i s premise and t h i s f a c t continued to hamper t h e i r n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r the next decade. Statement by'the Hon. Hugh B u t l e r of Nebraska i n the United States Senate, F r i d a y , January 29, 1954. Page 6 i n E x h i b i t 3 of a l e t t e r from the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines to Mr. Walter Gordon, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects. February 13, 1956. Emphasis i s that of the author. The r e p l y from the Canadian Government brought the matter to an abrupt c l o s e , as i t refused to recognize a problem e x i s t e d . " I t has not been shown or even s e r i o u s l y argued that Canadian c o r r i d o r s across the Alaska Panhandle would be of any advantage, 31 e i t h e r to Canada or the United S t a t e s . " F u r t h e r , from a speech by the Hon. Jean Lesage, then M i n i s t e r of Northern A f f a i r s and 32 N a t i o n a l Resources. The (Canadian) government has not r e c e i v e d any representations from the governments of B r i t i s h Columbia or the United S t a t e s , and i t does not see any adequate reason to i n i t i a t e any such d i s c u s s i o n s i t s e l f . So f a r as the Yukon i s concerned, f o r which the f e d e r a l government has complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , there are not at t h i s time nor do there appear to be i n prospect any problems of development that r e q u i r e the establishment of " c o r r i d o r s " . A point that should be kept i n mind i s that the " c o r r i d o r " proposal amounts to a suggestion e i t h e r that Canada acquire t i t l e to some United States t e r r i t o r y or e l s e get e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s on United States t e r r i t o r y . Neither p o s s i b i l i t y i s one that i s l i k e l y to be viewed w i t h any favour i n the United S t a t e s . Mr. Lesage was c o r r e c t i n h i s l a s t statement, but he f a i l e d to consider that a c o r r i d o r was not the only s o l u t i o n and that there were avenues open f o r n e g o t i a t i o n which d i d not involve a change i n t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty. On the s u r f a c e , attempts to change American laws a f f e c t i n g Canadian t r a n s p o r t a t i o n through the panhandle, Canadian Press, "Proposals f o r Alaska Get C h i l l y Reception," The Vancouver Province, (February 3, 1954), p. 27. E x h i b i t 5 of a l e t t e r from the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines to Mr. Walter Gordon, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects. February 13, 1956. E x h i b i t 5 from the Canadian Government "Hansard", pages 1855 to 1857, February 8, 1954. (the functions of the boundary), appear extremely d i f f i c u l t but i t o f f e r s a p r a c t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e . C o r r i d o r s appeared as an easy s o l u t i o n and continued to dominate Canadian t h i n k i n g , but they were simply not acceptable to the United States. The p o s s i b i l i t y of an a l t e r n a t i v e to the c o r r i d o r idea was s t a t e d i n a l e t t e r from Senator H. B u t l e r as the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s to 33 the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. I would l i k e to say that there i s no p o s s i b i l i t y of the United States ceding any t e r r i t o r y i n t o the sovereignty of Canada. I would hope the arrangement a r r i v e d at would i n c l u d e the idea of r e t a i n i n g American sovereignty over a l l present American s o i l , but g i v i n g Canada every freedom, r i g h t , and p r i v i l e g e  they could reasonably r e q u i r e . J However, the Canadian Government had s t a t e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n and no f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the problem. The question of accessways again rose i n 1956 when Mr. J.A. Simmons, the Canadian Member of Parliament f o r the Yukon T e r r i t o r y r a i s e d the problem i n the House of Commons. He proposed; "accessways...of 99 years lease or easement arrangement enabling Canadians to t r a v e l over p o r t i o n s of the panhandle to f r e e l y reach 35 and f r e e l y use tidewater port f a c i l i t i e s . " Simmons warned against p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n over the problem as the i n c r e a s i n g economic development i n the northwest would only lead to a more d i f f i c u l t s o l u t i o n when the problem of access became acute. 33 I b i d , e x h i b i t 4. Emphasis i s that of the author. 35 J.A. Simmons, House of Commons Debates ( V o l . 98, No. 61, 3rd Session, 22 Parliament. Thursday, A p r i l 12, 1956), p. 2853. 73. Mr. E.L. B a r t l e t t , the Alaskan delegate to the United States Congress took advantage of the i n t e r e s t created by the proposal of Simmons and came to Canada to discuss the problem w i t h Prime M i n i s t e r St. Laurent, E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s M i n i s t e r Lester Pearson, and Simmons. He proposed that Canada r e c e i v e a c o r r i d o r through the Alaska panhandle i n r e t u r n f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the hydro e l e c t r i c power generated by d i v e r t i n g the headwaters of the Yukon Ri v e r ( i n Canada) through the c o a s t a l mountains down i n t o the Taiya V a l l e y near Skagway. announced In r e p l y , E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s M i n i s t e r Lester Pearson .36 The Federal Government does not think there i s any j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c o n s i d e r i n g the b a r t e r i n g of Canadian water power f o r c o r r i d o r s to the sea through the Alaska panhandle. Canada and the United States already have agreed to di p l o m a t i c d i s c u s s i o n s of the whole boundary waters question and i t should be kept separate and d i s t i n c t from the question of Canadian c o r r i d o r s through the panhandle. He went on to say that the problem of access through the panhandle was not as serious as had been made out. The s i t u a t i o n was s i m i l a r to that of 1953, except f o r the added c o m p l i c a t i o n of hydro power. The development of power and c o r r i d o r schemes along the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d and the problem of hydro power w i l l be examined i n more d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. The Vancouver Province, Thursday, June 21, 1956, p. 3. 74. However, because of i t s importance at this stage of the Canada-United States corri d o r negotiations, the r o l e of hydro power w i l l be b r i e f l y considered. At the time when Canada-United States talks over corridors were in progress, these two states were also negotiating j o i n t development of the Columbia River hydro resources i n p a r t i c u l a r , and a l l boundary waters i n general. The p o l i c y of the Canadian government was not to allow the export of any hydro power, which had resul t e d i n 1955 i n the blockage of the construction of a dam on the Arrow Lakes i n B r i t i s h Columbia by Kaiser aluminum to supply power to th e i r plant i n Washington State, and was currently holding up the development of the Yukon-Atlin-Taku diversion scheme near Juneau. The American corrid o r proposal was an attempt to expedite a change i n Canadian power p o l i c y and was rejected. With the advantage of hindsight i t i s easy to see that the idea of a corridor was only hampered with i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with power development. The concept of an exchange of a corrido r for power was unacceptable to Canada. Before the next stage of negotiations over access i s examined, the American p o s i t i o n i n 1956 on corridors w i l l be discussed to asce r t a i n i f there has been any change from t h e i r 1953 p o s i t i o n . The American p o s i t i o n was stated by E.L. B a r t l e t t i n a l e t t e r to John Foster Dulles, 37 American Secretary of State. J.M. M i n i f i e , "Washington Report - Corridor for Power Swap," Toronto Telegram (June 4, 1956). ...while the land would not be permanently a l i e n a t e d , i t would be considered as Canadian t e r r i t o r y f o r a l l purposes i n c l u d i n g domestic law, t a r i f f , customs, immigration, and so on. I t s i n h a b i t a n t s would be Canadian c i t i z e n s and i t s products would be t r e a t e d as imports from Canada when brought to the United States. As t h i s was as f a r as the proposal went i n the government, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to judge i t s outcome, however, i t i s reasonable to conclude that t h i s proposal would have been r e j e c t e d by the American government as i t i n f a c t i n v o l v e s a l i e n a t i o n of American t e r r i t o r y , conceivably through the l e a s i n g of a c o r r i d o r to Canada. The extent to which Canada would c o n t r o l the leased t e r r i t o r y and the e f f e c t of t h i s type of precedent, would no doubt lead to i t s r e j e c t i o n . Of course, from the Canadian point of view, t h i s proposal i s p r e c i s e l y what was hoped f o r . The problem lapsed u n t i l 1959 when the T e r r i t o r y of Alaska gained statehood status and began to handle i t s own a f f a i r s . In January 1959, the Alaskan d e l e g a t i o n to the United States Congress announced that they were prepared to o f f e r B r i t i s h Columbia a c o r r i d o r through the Alaska panhandle i n r e t u r n f o r j o i n t development of 38 Yukon River power. The c o r r i d o r and seaport to remain under Canadian c o n t r o l so long as Canada permits d i v e r s i o n of Yukon water to the Taiya V a l l e y and v i c e v e r s a . The c o r r i d o r and seaport to be considered as Canadian t e r r i t o r y f o r a l l purposes i n c l u d i n g domestic law, t a r i f f , customs, " B r i t i s h Columbia Corridor-For-Power; New United S t a t e s " I n t e r e s t i n Deal," F i n a n c i a l Post (January 24, 1959), p. 11. The Alaskan d e l e g a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of Senators E.L. B a r t l e t t and E. Gruening. i m m i g r a t i o n , e t c . P r o d u c t s o f the c o r r i d o r t o be t r e a t e d as i m p o r t s f r o m Canada i f and when b r o u g h t o u t s i d e t h e c o r r i d o r to the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The c o r r i d o r and p o r t w o u l d l e g a l l y r e m a i n u n d e r U n i t e d S t a t e s o w n e r s h i p w i t h Canada t a k i n g c o n t r o l u n d e r some k i n d o f l e a s e a r r a n g e m e n t . T h i s p r o p o s a l was t u r n e d down by the C a n a d i a n government b o t h b e c a u s e o f t h e i r s t a n d on t h e e x p o r t o f h y d r o power o r w a t e r f o r h y d r o power-p r o d u c t i o n ( r e f l e c t e d i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s o v e r the C o l u m b i a R i v e r g o i n g on a t t h i s t i m e ) and b e c a u s e the government d i d n o t f e e l a 39 c o r r i d o r and p o r t w o u l d be o f much a d v a n t a g e to C a n a d a . I n 1964 t h e A t l i n D i s t r i c t B o a r d o f T r a d e p r e p a r e d a b r i e f to promote the d e v e l o p m e n t o f n o r t h w e s t e r n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . I t s aims were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f the B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and Yukon Chamber o f M i n e s r e s o l u t i o n s i n 1953. The b r i e f e n v i s i o n e d a c o r r i d o r a l o n g t h e T a k u R i v e r , a f r e e p o r t , and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a c c e s s h i g h w a y s . T h e r e has b e e n no o f f i c i a l r e a c t i o n to t h e p r o p o s a l s f r o m e i t h e r t h e C a n a d i a n or A m e r i c a n g o v e r n m e n t s . The f i n a l p o i n t to be examined i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f a t t e m p t s to change t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e b o u n d a r y t h r o u g h t h e f a c i l i t y o f c o r r i d o r s i s a s p e e c h made by t h e M i n i s t e r o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and N o r t h e r n D e v e l o p m e n t , A r t h u r L a i n g , t o t h e Second Yukon N o r t h e r n 40 R e s o u r c e C o n f e r e n c e . H i s d e p a r t m e n t has c a r r i e d out p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d i e s on t h e p r o b l e m to l a y t h e groundwork f o r a p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n . "No P a n h a n d l e t o C a n a d a : A l a s k a R e p l y , " F i n a n c i a l P o s t ( June 13, 1959) , p . 7. Second Yukon N o r t h e r n R e s o u r c e C o n f e r e n c e , P r o c e e d i n g s . W h i t e h o r s e M a r c h 2 3 - 2 5 , 1966. ( W h i t e h o r s e Chamber o f Commerce) . We learned that the problem of access to the sea i s indeed complex. We considered such matters as the p h y s i c a l character of the panhandle r e g i o n , resource endowment and p o t e n t i a l , settlement and land use, forms which a d d i t i o n a l access might take  and the many p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l problems a r i s i n g ^ out of the existence of the Canada-Alaska boundary. This i s the f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n since 1956 that the Canadian government i s a c t i n g on the problem. I t i s an i n d i c a t i o n that Mr. Laing does not accept c o r r i d o r s as the answer to the problem and that s e v e r a l "forms which ... access might take" are being considered. He goes on i n h i s address to consider a proposed Skagway-Carcross road and the r o l e of the present Haines road. (See Figure 8). Concerning the l a t t e r road, Laing made some observations on 4 2 i t s use. I know that some people have had misgivings about keeping the road open during the past three winters on the grounds that much of the t r a f f i c moving on i t i s Alaskan t r a f f i c . I am sure that no one, i n c l u d i n g the people of A l a s k a , has any i l l u s i o n s about who i s the primary b e n e f i c i a r y of keeping the road open on a s t r a i g h t head-count b a s i s . I b e l i e v e that during recent w i n t e r s , about three United States v e h i c l e s have moved on the road f o r every Canadian v e h i c l e . ... Many of us are wont to th i n k i n terms of more routes to the sea through the panhandle. We f o r g e t , how-ever, that the Haines Road i s , i n f a c t , v i t a l to the Alaskans i n terms of i n t e r - A l a s k a n t r a f f i c . I b i d , p. 220. Emphasis i s that of the author. An i n d i c a t i o n of a p o s s i b l e new trend i n t h i n k i n g on s o l v i n g the problem; that i s , a change i n f u n c t i o n as an a l t e r n a t i v e to a c o r r i d o r . I b i d , pp. 220-221. I think there i s at least some case for b e l i e v i n g that the people of Alaska, and also the United States Government may be more interested in what we may some day have to say about access for, our purposes  i f we can point to an access route which has been  maintained l a r g e l y for t h e i r benefit through  Canadian s o i l . He did not expand further on the l a s t concept but this does indicate some new thinking on the problem. Cl e a r l y any idea of a hydro power exchange has been dropped. It would now appear that a point for bargaining is open to Canadians as the Haines road i s c e r t a i n l y an Alaskan routeway through Canadian t e r r i t o r y and i s maintained for t h e i r b e n e f i t . Thus, as the Minister suggests, i f Canada was to ask that a road be constructed from Skagway to Carcross, the idea could be well received. Of course, improved transportation routes are only a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n to the problem of r e s t r i c t e d Canadian transportation through the panhandle and changes i n the function of the boundary are also necessary. To sum up the question over the f e a s i b i l i t y of corridors to solve the problem of access, the following conclusions are presented to i l l u s t r a t e the i m p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of such a s o l u t i o n . 1. It has been shown i n past negotiations that the Canadian Federal Government i s not convinced Canada needs improved access. Present arrangements of bonding, shipping and immigration regulations, labour and costs are deemed acceptable. Emphasis is that of the author. 79. 2. I f any type of c o r r i d o r or accessway i s d e s i r e d , the exchange of Canadian hydro power for American concessions i s not acceptable. 3. A Canadian c o r r i d o r would e v e n u t a l l y arouse resentment i n the American c i t i e s l o cated i n the Alaska panhandle. Several of the smaller communities (Haines, Wrangel, and e s p e c i a l l y Skagway) depend to a large extent on handling and supplying Canadian goods and i n d u s t r y i n the i n t e r i o r . A c o r r i d o r would deprive these communities of many economic f u n c t i o n s , and as a r e s u l t t h e i r lobbying pressure on the American government could w e l l cause many problems i n maintaining a c o r r i d o r . 4. As s e v e r a l American government leaders have i n d i c a t e d , i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c to expect the United States to cede any t e r r i t o r y f o r a c o r r i d o r . I t i s f u r t h e r suggested that not only i s an o u t r i g h t c e s s i o n of land not acceptable but a lease on a s e c t i o n of American t e r r i t o r y w i l l a l s o be viewed by the United States government as a c e s s i o n of land and thus unacceptable. Before the subject of a change i n the l o c a t i o n of the boundary i s put aside there i s one f u r t h e r aspect of the t o p i c which should be discussed, that i s , the concept of the free port. I t i s suggested that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s concept i n t o the c o r r i d o r problem i s more a r e s u l t of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term than any r e a l i s t i c d e s i r e to use t h i s type of s o l u t i o n . The idea of a free port was put forward i n 1958 by the Wrangell Chamber of Commerce when they suggested to the Alaska I n t e r n a t i o n a l R a i l and Highway Commission that Canada be granted a " f r e e access" road along the S t i k i n e River and a " f r e e p o r t " of approximately one mile square to be e s t a b l i s h e d at the end of t h i s 44 road. Later the o f f e r was repeated by Senator Gruening i n an exchange proposal he put forward i n 1959. The term " f r e e p o r t " has been bantered about a number of times i n the past f i f t e e n years but there has been l i t t l e c r i t i c a l examination of what i s e n t a i l e d i n t h i s device. Mr. L. W i l l i a m s , Secretary of the Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, sums up h i s 46 views: I have heard vague references to ideas of c r e a t i n g a " f r e e p o r t " . When I question persons as to what they mean I get answers which are vague and confusing. My idea of a free port i s one which i s under the c i v i l and c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of a c e r t a i n country owning the s o i l but i n t o which goods can be brought f o r manufacture, export or s a l e without the payment of duty. I f a c o r r i d o r from the Canadian border to deep water, plus a townsite, were to be declared a f r e e c i t y i t would not i n any way a f f e c t the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of goods or persons from one point i n Canada to another. Resolutions of the Wrangell Chamber of Commerce, December 16, 1958. The "Panhandle F i l e " of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. "No Panhandle to Canada: Alaska Reply," op. c i t . , p. 7. Included i n a l e t t e r from Mr. L. W i l l i a m s , Secretary-Treasurer of The Southeastern Conference, (an A s s o c i a t i o n to Develop T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s i n Southeastern A l a s k a ) , to Mr. T. E l l i o t t , Manager of The B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, June 12, 1959. I f a c i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e mouth o f t h e S t i k i n e R i v e r as a f r e e p o r t i t w o u l d have to be under t h e c i v i l and c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f one c o u n t r y o r a n o t h e r and i f under the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , the C a n a d i a n r e s i d e n t s w o u l d have to be a d m i t t e d u n d e r the ( U n i t e d S t a t e s ) i m m i g r a t i o n l a w s . To make s u c h a f r e e c i t y u n d e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f Canada t h e r e w o u l d have t o be a c e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I f goods were s h i p p e d t h r o u g h s u c h a p l a c e one w o u l d n o t have to w o r r y a b o u t t h e r e - e x p o r t and the c o s t o f s u c h a bond w o u l d be s a v e d b u t , o t h e r w i s e , I c a n see a b s o l u t e l y no d i f f e r e n c e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a f r e e p o r t and c o r r i d o r w o u l d remove t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a bond on goods b e i n g t r a n s p o r t e d b u t t h e r e w o u l d be no o t h e r change i m p l e m e n t e d . I m m i g r a t i o n , l a b o u r and l a b o u r c o s t s , and s h i p p i n g r e g u l a t i o n s w o u l d s t i l l be u n d e r U n i t e d S t a t e s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The p o s i t i o n o f the A m e r i c a n government on f r e e p o r t i s 47 as f o l l o w s : A f r e e p o r t or f r e e zone i s a p l a c e , l i m i t e d i n e x t e n t , t h a t d i f f e r s f r o m a d j a c e n t t e r r i t o r y i n b e i n g exempt f r o m t h e customs laws as a f f e c t i n g goods d e s t i n e d f o r r e - e x p o r t ; i t means s i m p l y t h a t , as r e g a r d s customs d u t i e s , t h e r e i s f r e e d o m , u n l e s s and u n t i l i m p o r t e d goods e n t e r the d o m e s t i c m a r k e t . I t i s s u b j e c t e q u a l l y w i t h a d j a c e n t r e g i o n s to a l l t h e laws r e l a t i n g t o p u b l i c h e a l t h , v e s s e l i n s p e c t i o n , p o s t a l s e r v i c e , l a b o u r c o n d i t i o n s , i m m i g r a t i o n , and i n d e e d e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t the c u s t o m s . T h u s , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t Canada c o u l d g a i n l i t t l e f r o m p u r s u i n g the f r e e p o r t c o n c e p t f u r t h e r , and i f as i s e x p e c t e d , the U n i t e d S t a t e s i s d e s i r o u s o f some r i g h t s i n r e t u r n , Canada c o u l d w e l l l o o s e i n any e x c h a n g e . B o n d i n g has worked s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r U n i t e d S t a t e s T a r i f f C o m m i s s i o n , o p . c i t . , p . 1. s i x t y - e i g h t years as r e f e r r e d to i n the h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of boundary f u n c t i o n s , and t h e r e f o r e , a s o l u t i o n to t h i s one problem of many i s conceivably not worth the ne g o t i a t i o n s and concessions r e q u i r e d f o r a free c o r r i d o r . THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE - A CHANGE IN THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY On f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n a c o r r i d o r would appear to solve the access problem very simply and e f f e c t i v e l y compared to a change i n f u n c t i o n . However, as p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d a change i n l o c a t i o n i s impossible to achieve, hence a change i n f u n c t i o n may w e l l prove to be the only s o l u t i o n . I t w i l l r e q u i r e extensive n e g o t i a t i o n i n a v a r i e t y of f i e l d s ( s h i p p i n g , labour, and immigration) but h o p e f u l l y agreement i s p o s s i b l e . I t i s c l e a r through a b r i e f perusal of the problems which have a r i s e n i n the past that coastwise shipping i s the most important f a c t o r i n terms of cost and inconvenience s u f f e r e d because of the b a r r i e r e f f e c t of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary. Therefore, shipping r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l be examined i n d e t a i l and labour and immigration w i l l be confined to a b r i e f summation at the co n c l u s i o n . Coastwise shipping i s a p a r t i c u l a r i l y d i f f i c u l t problem, both because Alaska i s non-contiguous w i t h the r e s t of the United States and, thus, must use many i n t e r v e n i n g Canadian f a c i l i t i e s f o r communication, and because the geographic p o s i t i o n of the panhandle creates the n e c e s s i t y f o r Canadians to use American ports when e x p o r t i n g and importing to and from the Yukon T e r r i t o r y and north-western B r i t i s h Columbia. Both Canada and the United States have l e g i s l a t i o n which f o r b i d s the use of non-national v e s s e l s when t r a n s p o r t i n g goods from one Canadian d e s t i n a t i o n to another or from one American d e s t i n a t i o n to another. In American law, the Merchant 4 Marine Act of 1920 (popularly known as the Jones Law) i s as f o l l o w s : No merchandise s h a l l be transported by water, or by land and water ... between points i n the United States ... e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or v i a a f o r e i g n p o r t , or f o r any part of the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , i n any other v e s s e l than a v e s s e l b u i l t i n and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are c i t i z e n s of the United S t a t e s . Thus, Canadians cannot export goods from the Yukon T e r r i t o r y through Skagway to a United States port i n a Canadian s h i p , but are r e q u i r e d by United States law to use an American s h i p . For example, the " S t r a i t s Towing Company, (a Canadian f i r m ) , i n the e a r l y 1950's had a c o n t r a c t to haul copper ore from northern B r i t i s h Columbia to the only smelter on the P a c i f i c coast at Tacoma, Washington. This ore was mined i n northern B r i t i s h Columbia behind (to the east of) the Panhandle and loaded i n t o large ore barges, to be towed by S t r a i t s to the smelter. However, since t h i s i nvolved a shipment from one American port to another, i t would be i l l e g a l under the terms of the Jones Act. Consequently, the shipments were brought to Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, where the ore was t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o d i f f e r e n t barges before c o n t i n u i n g to Tacoma. The time loss and increased handling charges r e s u l t e d i n increased costs which were p a r t i a l l y passed onto 49 the Canadian mining f i r m i n higher t r a n s p o r t a t i o n charges". United States Code Annotated. 46; 883. p. 108 Bruce, op. c i t . , p. 24. Americans too are r e s t r i c t e d by the Merchant Marine Act. For example, e a r l y i n 1967 some American goods en route from Idaho to Alaska made part of the journey v i a the B r i t i s h Columbia f e r r y system and were consequently seized by American customs o f f i c i a l s i n Juneau as a f o r e i g n v e s s e l was used i n part of the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n from one American d e s t i n a t i o n to another. The Canadian Shipping Act places the same r e s t r i c t i o n s on Canadians using American s h i p s . No goods s h a l l be transported by water or by land and water, from one place i n Canada to another place i n Canada, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or by way of a f o r e i g n port or f o r any part of the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n any ship other than a B r i t i s h Ship. In e f f e c t , t h i s law r e s t r i c t s Canadians from using the Alaska State Ferry system when en route from southern B r i t i s h Columbia to the Yukon. This r e s t r i c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y ignored but o c c a s i o n a l l y , when commerce i s i n v o l v e d , r e s t r i c t i o n s are imposed. There have been many cases of both Canadian and American shippers hampered by the r e s t r i c t i o n s of t h e i r shipping laws. S u f f i c e to say the above examples are t y p i c a l of the problems f a c i n g coastwise Canadian Shipping Act. Chapter 29, Part X I I I , Section 669 and 671. Votes and Proceedings, Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l C o u n c i l , Second Session, 1966. V o l . 2. pp. 481-483. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The r e s t r i c t i v e a f f e c t of the laws are f e l t more keenly i n the c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s - B r i t i s h Columbia-Alaska trade than i n most other coastwise shipping i n North America because of the s i t u a t i o n of the Alaska Panhandle and the s p e c i a l problems a r i s i n g out of Alaska's d i s c o n t i g u i t y w i t h the r e s t of the United States. In a d d i t i o n , because of the r e l a t i v e l y recent economic development of A l a s k a , the Yukon T e r r i t o r y , and northern B r i t i s h Columbia compared to the Great Lakes area, the East, G u l f , and south-western coasts of North America, the problems a r i s i n g i n the former r e g i o n are p r e s s i n g now, whereas s i m i l a r problems i n the l a t t e r regions were s e t t l e d years ago. The most promising f a c t o r i n the search f o r a s o l u t i o n to the shipping problem through a change i n boundary f u n c t i o n i s the precedent e s t a b l i s h e d by s i m i l a r s o l u t i o n s i n other areas. The f o l l o w i n g examples may c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t . 1. H i s t o r i c a l l y , precedent was e s t a b l i s h e d i n A r t i c l e s XXIX to XXXI of the Treaty of Washington, 1871. These a r t i c l e s s t a t e i n essence that goods imported i n t o Canada or exported from Canada may use customs houses i n designated ports of the United States and be conveyed i n t r a n s i t without the payment of duties through t e r r i t o r y of the United S t a t e s . The same p r i v i l e g e was extended to American commerce u t i l i z i n g Canadian ports and t r a n s i t routes. These For f u r t h e r examples of problems see; O f f i c i a l Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, Merchant Marine Act -Transportation of F i s h between points i n the United States v i a  a Foreign P o r t , 1920. ed. G. Kearney, (Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1922), pp. 350-353. D.F. Oman, "Maritime F i g h t Rocks P a c i f i c Coast," P a c i f i c Work Boat, LV (March, 1963), p. 6. United States Code Annotated s e c t i o n 883, Merchant Marine A c t , 1920. Notes of D e c i s i o n s , pp. 112-113. concessions were terminated by the United States 53 government as of J u l y , 1885. 2. U n t i l such time as passenger s e r v i c e s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d by v e s s e l s of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York and the port of A l e x a n d r i a Bay, New York, the Commissioner of Customs i s authorized i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n to i s s u e annually permits to Canadian passenger v e s s e l s to transport passengers between these p o r t s ; such Canadian v e s s e l s h o l d i n g such permits not to be subject to the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 289 (The 54 Merchant Marine A c t ) . 3. That u n t i l June 30, 1957, notwithstanding the p r o v i s i o n s of law of the United States r e s t r i c t i n g to v e s s e l s of the United States the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of merchandise, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , from any port i n the United States to another port of the United S t a t e s , Canadian v e s s e l s may t r a n s p o r t c o a l to Ogdensburg, New York, from other points i n the United S t a t e s , on the Great Lakes, 55 or t h e i r connecting or t r i b u t a r y waters. 4. Notwithstanding the p r o v i s i o n s of the law of the United States ... (Merchant Marine A c t ) , passengers may be transported on Canadian v e s s e l s between Hyder, A l a s k a , and other points i n southeastern Alaska or the c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s , e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or v i a T r e a t i e s and Agreements A f f e c t i n g Canada i n Force Between His Majesty  and the United States of America, 1814-1925. (Ottawa: Department of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s , King's P r i n t e r , 1927), pp. 46-47. United States Code Annotated. 46:289a of Merchant Marine Act, 1920. pp. 34-35. I b i d , Act. August 7, 1956, cl028, 70Stat. 1090. p. 109. a f o r e i g n p o r t , or f o r any part of the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . S i m i l a r laws a u t h o r i z i n g t h i s exception were passed each year from 1947 to 1961. 5. A general a n a l y s i s of the extent of exceptions to the law i s found i n a statement f i l e d w i t h the Committee of Commerce of the United States Senate. The record of Congressional a c t i o n i n t h i s regard shows that coastwise p r i v i l e g e s have been extended to a large number of f o r e i g n f l a g v e s s e l s i n something over twenty p u b l i c and p r i v a t e laws s i n c e World War I I . I t has been claimed that these exceptions apply to smaller v e s s e l s or unusual problems or s i t u a t i o n s . The f a c t i s that the exceptions have covered a wide v a r i e t y of v e s s e l s , large and s m a l l , i n c l u d i n g tugs, barges, f i s h i n g boats, f e r r i e s , passenger ships and lumber, g r a i n and ore c a r r i e r s . They have operated on a l l coasts and on the Great Lakes, and i t would seem i r r e l e v a n t to attempt to c l a s s i f y them, as each represented usual c o n d i t i o n s and s p e c i f i c problems which were recognized and met by e f f e c t i v e Congressional a c t i o n . Each case has in v o l v e d a s p e c i a l type of 57 v e s s e l to meet a s p e c i f i c need. United States Code Annotated, 46:883 of Merchant Marine Act, 1920. p. 109. Excerpts from a statement f i l e d w i t h the Committee of Commerce, United States Senate r e . S.534, February 20, 1963, found i n Bruce, op. c i t . , pp. 19-20. 88. I t i s suggested that the examples c i t e d above, and s p e c i f i c a l l y the l a s t statement, are s u f f i c i e n t precedent to warrant serious n e g o t i a t i o n s designed to remove r e s t r i c t i o n s on c e r t a i n coastwise shipping. Changes must be r e s t r i c t e d to c e r t a i n  exceptions as a general change i n the Canadian and American laws  would have serious repercussions i n other shipping regions and thus  prove unacceptable. The lobbying power of some Canadian and American shippers w i l l play a large r o l e i n n e g o t i a t i o n s . However, i n s p i t e of the above q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , the long term economic b e n e f i t s provided by s e l e c t e d changes i n the law must be the primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n n e g o t i a t i o n s and a compromise s o l u t i o n . I t i s important to point out that approaches have been made i n the past by i n d i v i d u a l s to the American and Canadian governments fo r a change i n the Merchant Marine A c t , but most have been uns u c c e s s f u l . (The Canadian Shipping Act has f a r l e s s e f f e c t on coastwise shipping because the problem i s more often that of Canadian goods going through Alaskan ports to markets i n the c o n t i n e n t a l United States and being r e q u i r e d by law to be shipped i n American bottoms, than the r e v e r s e ) . I t i s suggested that i f e i t h e r government would take the i n i t i a t i v e , the problem would be solved w i t h d i s p a t c h . The f o l l o w i n g example w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t . In 1961 a B r i t i s h Columbia tugboat company requested through the B r i t i s h Columbia Attorney-General's Department and the Federal Department of Trade "that e f f o r t s be made to secure the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the United States' Jones Act to permit the handling of domestic Canadian goods by Canadian f l a g v e s s e l s when shipped through any Alaskan port and when such goods are destined f o r other American C O p o r t s . " The Hyder case (example number 4, above) was c i t e d as precedent. "Although the proposal was acknowledged by both the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments, that appeared to be the extent 59 of t h e i r a c t i o n . " Lack of lobbying power of the company w i t h the governments in v o l v e d and the strength of the United States west coast maritime i n d u s t r y have been given as reasons f o r the f a i l u r e of the proposal. This case demonstrates the n e c e s s i t y of securing government co-operation i n any attempted r e v i s i o n of the laws and as the M i n i s t e r of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development s t a t e d (see p. 76) i n 1966, a review of the problem by the government i s now i n progress. The above example by no means seeks to e l i m i n a t e the suggestion that i n d i v i d u a l Canadian companies cannot make p r i v a t e arrangements w i t h the American government f o r e x c l u s i o n from the Merchant Marine Act i n s p e c i f i c cases, as has i n f a c t been done, but i t i s suggested that i f a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the Merchant Marine Act i s de s i r e d by west coast t r a n s p o r t a t i o n companies, Canadian government p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s necessary. Some r e l i e f has r e c e n t l y been forthcoming f o r Canadian transport companies when the Canadian government gave approval f o r the Alaska State Ferry System to c a r r y Canadian commercial t r a f f i c between Pr i n c e Rupert, B r i t i s h Columbia and Haines, A l a s k a , under a one year exemption from the Canadian Shipping Act. I b i d , pp. 33-34. 59 I b i d , p. 35. At present, the Government of Alaska i s attempting to overcome the r e s t r i c t i o n s of the Merchant Marine Act to f a c i l i t a t e e a s i e r connections to the c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s . Representative H.W. P o l l o c k of Alaska introduced a b i l l i n t o the American Congress i n February 1967, "To permit the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of merchandise between the c o n t i n e n t a l United States and Alaska to be c a r r i e d aboard v e s s e l s of the B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry System f o r part of such t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . " I t would amend the Merchant Marine Act by adding a proviso that the s e c t i o n s h a l l not apply when the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n aboard the B r i t i s h Columbia Fe r r y System i s a part of through t r a n s p o r t a t i o n between points i n the c o n t i n e n t a l United States and Alaska. At present American shippers are forced by the Merchant Marine Act to use more expensive United States s h i p p i n g . The b i l l has r e c e n t l y been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee and i t s recommendation i s considered almost a guarantee that the amendment w i l l pass through Congress. Of course, t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l not a i d Canadian shippers d i r e c t l y but i t i s evidence of Canadian co-operation i n p r o v i d i n g improved t r a n s p o r t a t i o n fo r Americans between Alaska and the c o n t i n e n t a l United States and al s o that the Merchant Marine Act can be amended to f a c i l i t a t e s p e c i a l circumstances. Two le s s c r i t i c a l problems that the r e s t r i c t i o n s on coastwise shipping are the n e c e s s i t y f o r Canadian mining companies or other B i l l No. H.R. 4512. Introduced by Representative H.W. P o l l o c k of Alaska on February 1, 1967 to amend the Jones A c t , s e c t i o n 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883). Correspondence by the author w i t h the United States Department of Commerce, Maritime A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . J u l y 17, 1967. 61 The Province, (Saturday, August 12, 1967), p. 5. The United States Senate passed the b i l l on F r i d a y , August 18, 1967 and now i s to go before the House of Representatives. The Vancouver Sun, (Saturday, August 19, 1967), p. 8. i n d u s t r i a l concerns to use American labour i n t r a n s p o r t i n g goods through the Panhandle, and the American immigration r e g u l a t i o n s which a f f e c t the passage of Canadian immigrants through the panhandle to reach t h e i r places of work. The problem w i t h using American labour a r i s e s when a Canadian company operating i n northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia or the Yukon i s exporting through the Panhandle and the labour supply refuses to handle the goods ( f o r example, a s t r i k e ) . Because the human and m a t e r i a l f a c i l i t i e s are i n United States t e r r i t o r y the Canadian company has no l e g a l power through which to r e c t i f y the problem. Conceivably, the s i t u a t i o n could a r i s e wherein i f Canadian mining competition i n northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia became too burdensome on American producers, the American companies could cause the c l o s u r e of the Canadian producers by arranging w i t h the American dock workers i n the Panhandle to go out on s t r i k e . This type of problem n a t u r a l l y causes Canadian mining concerns to be apprehensive i n i n v e s t i n g i n northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon. A problem e x i s t s f o r immigrant workers because they must have immigrant s t a t u s , a v i s a , and proof of t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to only pass through American t e r r i t o r y w i t h i n a d e f i n i t e p eriod of time, before the American immigration o f f i c i a l s w i l l a l l o w them passage through United States t e r r i t o r y . The s i t u a t i o n creates p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r Canadians seeking access through American t e r r i t o r y to the S t i k i n e and Taku R i v e r V a l l e y s , and forces them to use the more c i r q u i t o u s and c o s t l y Alaskan Highway. Although both these s u b j e c t s , labour and immigration, are broached as Canadian problems, i t must be remembered that both s i t u a t i o n s are faced by American companies and i n d i v i d u a l s i n moving goods and persons from Alaska to the c o n t i n e n t a l United States or the reverse, as Alaska i s a non-contiguous part of the United States and Canadian t e r r i t o r y must be crossed i n t r a n s i t . The s o l u t i o n to both problems i s i n the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar Highway. In many cases, notably i n d u s t r i e s l o c a t e d i n the western Yukon, the l o c a t i o n of the highway w i l l at l e a s t provide an a l t e r n a t i v e should the problem of a labour s t r i k e or immigration d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e . For most of northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, w i t h perhaps feeder roads to A t l i n and Telegraph Creek and expansion of the government dock at Stewart, B r i t i s h Columbia, does provide the most e f f i c i e n t means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n the r e g i o n . The clammer i n the popular press f o r "accessways" through the Panhandle has diminished i n recent years, and i t i s suggested that the near 62 completion of t h i s highway a f f o r d s an explanation. A more recent statement by the P a c i f i c Great Eastern Railway that a r a i l l i n e w i l l be b u i l t from Fort St. James to tidewater at Stewart w i l l perhaps lead to the f u r t h e r growth of Stewart as a northern deep-sea port to have raw m a t e r i a l s (minerals and wood products) as a competitor to Prince Rupert. I t i s doubtful a large back-haul of goods v i a Stewart but o r i g i n a t i n g along the Stewart-Cassiar Highway w i l l r e s u l t . . Canadian Press, "B.C. Increases C a p i t a l i z a t i o n f o r P.G.E. Growth, 1  The Globe and M a i l (Toronto: November 6, 1968), p. 134. Although the new highway may play a considerable r o l e i n the economic development of northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia, i t i s u n l i k e l y that i t w i l l have any s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of goods i n and out of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y , except i f f o r some reason the Skagway route through the American l i s i e r e i s c l o s e d . In terms of the economic parameters determining t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways to the Yukon, the highway l i e s too f a r west, transverses d i f f i c u l t t e r r a i n , and r e q u i r e s a long haul by road before cheaper water transport can be u t i l i z e d . The d e c i s i o n by the White Pass and Yukon Corporation to construct a bulk loading and storage t e r m i n a l at Skagway to s t o r e and t r a n s f e r ore from r a i l cars to deep-sea v e s s e l s e x e m p l i f i e s the economic s u p e r i o r i t y of the Skagway routeway f o r the Yukon. (The White Pass and Yukon Corporation, J o i n t  Press Release (Vancouver: December 4, 1967), p. 2.) This however, does not preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of a d i s r u p t i o n i n the economic system through the i n t e r j e c t i o n of a p o l i t i c a l or economic v a r i a b l e w i t h i n the t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of the United States and the r e s u l t i n g n e c e s s i t y of the Stewart c o r r i d o r as an a l l Canadian a l t e r n a t i v e . SUMMARY I t can be concluded from t h i s b r i e f a n a l y s i s of the present impact of the boundary and i t s r o l e as a b a r r i e r to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n that serious obstacles to maximum e f f i c i e n c y i n coastwise t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e x i s t but i t i s als o obvious that these obstacles can be overcome through n e g o t i a t i o n . The r e a l i z a t i o n of a c o r r i d o r , or any type of change i n boundary l o c a t i o n i s h i g h l y improbable of success and thus changes i n access l e g i s l a t i o n o f f e r the best s o l u t i o n . " I t i s i n e v i t a b l e that a st a t e would p r e f e r to c o n t r o l a c o r r i d o r r a t h e r than to have t r a n s i t r i g h t s , or the freedom to use a r i v e r . While t h e o r e t i c a l l y a l l should be e q u a l l y protected i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, i n f a c t any attempt to c l o s e a c o r r i d o r would be a v i o l a t i o n of n a t i o n a l sovereignty, w h i l e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the r i g h t of passage might be more e a s i l y condoned or excused." ^ 3 However, i t i s the f a c t that a c q u i s i t i o n of a c o r r i d o r e n t a i l s a change i n n a t i o n a l sovereignty which does not make t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e f e a s i b l e , as the United States w i l l never r e l i n q u i s h any t e r r i t o r y . Research has or i s now being undertaken by the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and N a t i o n a l Development, the Canadian Maritime Commission, and the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Trade and Industry and t h i s would suggest that a negotiated s o l u t i o n to the problem of coastwise shipping and access w i l l not be long i n coming. The marine routeways of c o a s t a l B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska are i n f a c t extended highways and therefore not what the Merchant Marine Pounds, op. c i t . , p. 239. This f a c t has r e c e n t l y come to l i g h t i n the A r a b - I s r a e l i dispute over the S t r a i t s of T i r a n . 94. Act and Canada Shipping Act and d i r e c t e d a t . This i s emphasized by the f a c t that both main c o a s t a l shipping l i n e s are car f e r r i e s and are designated "marine highways". As documented, the Merchant Marine Act has been amended s e v e r a l times to f a c i l i t a t e unique cases and there i s every reason to b e l i e v e i t can be a l t e r e d again. The key to s u c c e s s f u l n e g o t i a t i o n from the Canadian viewpoint i s to l e t the American government approach the Canadian government w i t h a request f o r shipping concessions, then through compromise the maximum advantages can be gained w i t h a minimum number of concessions. The f a c t that Canada has f a c i l i t a t e d American access to non-contiguous Alaska (the B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry System, Prince Rupert f a c i l i t i e s f o r the Alaska State F e r r y System, and maintenance of the Haines Cut-off Road) provide a bargaining p o s i t i o n f o r shipping and access concessions from the United States. The suspension of B r i t i s h Columbia f e r r y s e r v i c e from Kelsey Bay to Prince Rupert from August 1967 to March 1968 and the r e s u l t i n g n e c e s s i t y f o r Alaskan Governor H i c k e l to put a f e r r y normally on the Prince Rupert -Skagway run onto a run from S e a t t l e to Ketchikan f o r these months, d i d not improve r e l a t i o n s between the two governments. In f a c t , i f t h i s route proves to be economically f e a s i b l e i t could become a permanent l i n e of access and thus s e r i o u s l y weaken the Canadian p o s i t i o n f o r n e g o t i a t i o n . The recent appointment of Governor H i c k e l to the Cabinet as Secretary of the I n t e r i o r may provide the power and concern needed to begin n e g o t i a t i o n s . I f a negotiated s o l u t i o n to the problem does not succeed and the status quo i s maintained, Canadians have the a l t e r n a t i v e of u t i l i z i n g the Stewart-Cassiar road. The new road, a part of the f e d e r a l government's "Roads to Resources" programme, w i l l a l s o r e l i e v e the exigency i n the problem of access of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y to tidewater. CHAPTER I I I FUTURE IMPACT OF THE BOUNDARY - THE PROBLEM OF INTERNATIONAL RIVERS I t i s the purpose of t h i s chapter to analyze the p o l i t i c a l -geographic problems involved i n the fu t u r e development of the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon R i v e r s , as apart from the present problems i n tra n s -p o r t a t i o n , the question of j u r i s d i c t i o n over hydro power produced on these i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s appears as an e q u a l l y serious problem.''" The l o c a t i o n of the S t i k i n e , Taku and Yukon R i v e r s i n r e l a t i o n to the A l a s k - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary creates s e v e r a l u n i l a t e r a l and b i l a t e r a l problems. The question i s f i r s t approached through a b r i e f review of p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e on boundary waters. The second s e c t i o n i s a h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of some s i m i l a r United States-Canada boundary waters problems i n order to derive some p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c a l g u i d e l i n e s or p r i n c i p l e s to apply to the three r i v e r s i n question. The t h i r d s e c t i o n i s a study of the Columbia R i v e r Treaty as t h i s controversy was the most important and p o t e n t i a l l y analogous i n recent h i s t o r y . From t h i s Treaty f u r t h e r p r i n c i p l e s and precedents are ext r a c t e d to apply i n the northwest. F i n a l l y , development schemes and t h e i r r e s u l t i n g problems on the three r i v e r s are analysed, w i t h a c o n c l u s i o n suggesting the l e g a l and geographical framework of t h e i r development i n l i g h t of what has been learned i n the f i r s t three s e c t i o n s . For a gl o s s a r y of terms used i n t h i s chapter, see Appendix A. An attempt to understand the essence of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law presents many d i f f i c u l t i e s , as there i s no supreme l e g i s l a t i v e body. The United Nations Seminar on the Development and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l River Basin attempts to define i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law as f o l l o w s : The c l a s s i c a l sources of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law are t r e a t i e s , a d j u d i c a t i o n s , opinions of j u r i s t s and p u b l i c i s t s , and the general p r i n c i p l e s of law i n c i v i l i z e d c o u n t r i e s . I f a p r i n c i p l e has appeared i n a number of m u l t i - l a t e r a l t r e a t i e s , so that one can say i t i s regarded as an o b l i g a t o r y p r a c t i c e by the m a j o r i t y of s t a t e s i n the world community, i t could be s a i d that t h i s " p r i n c i p l e has become part of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. A p a r t i c u l a r t r e a t y makes law only f o r the p a r t i e s to i t and only about the subject matter of the t r e a t y . However, the p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i e d i n important t r e a t i e s , such as those d e a l i n g w i t h the Columbia, Danube, Rhine, Indus, N i l e , Rio Grande, and St. Lawrence r i v e r s may provide guidance i n making arrangements f o r the development of other i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r basins and a l l of these precedents c o l l e c t i v e l y may help to l a y the foundation f o r the development of the law of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . 2 These statements by the p a r t i c i p a n t s of the seminar summarized the s t r u c t u r e and purpose of t h i s enquiry i n t o the status of the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon R i v e r s . This chapter i s i n a sense the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a p r e d i c t i v e model; that i s , what the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t expects to happen, given as much data as he can c o l l e c t about i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r development to J.D. Chapman (ed.), The I n t e r n a t i o n a l River B a s i n , Proceedings of a Seminar on the Development and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r Basin. (Vancouver, Canada: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c a t i o n s Centre, 1963), pp. 19-20. date. The f i r s t three s e c t i o n s c o n t a i n geographical and l e g a l data upon which a p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c framework can be b u i l t to attempt to pr o j e c t the fu t u r e development of the three r i v e r s . The co n c l u s i o n combines both the l e g a l framework of e x i s t i n g t r e a t i e s w i t h the func t i o n s of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary to a s c e r t a i n the r o l e of the boundary as a b a r r i e r to r i v e r development. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON BOUNDARY WATERS Boundary waters have long been a concern of many d i s c i p l i n e s , of which p o l i t i c a l geography has been only a minor c o n t r i b u t o r . Consequently, t h i s short review i s d i v i d e d i n t o three parts as determined by c o n t r i b u t i n g d i s c i p l i n e s ; geography, engineering, and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Geography Many geographical papers on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s were used i n the pr e p a r a t i o n of t h i s chapter, however only four have been chosen as examples, p r i m a r i l y because of t h e i r wide range of t o p i c s and of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Karan's 1961 paper " D i v i d i n g the Water: A Problem i n P o l i t i c a l Geography" chooses two examples, the Colorado and Indus r i v e r b a s i n s , to i l l u s t r a t e problems of water d i v i s i o n . The American settlement i s r e l a t e d to i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law but the Indian case i s simply P. Karan, " D i v i d i n g the Water: A Problem i n P o l i t i c a l Geography," The P r o f e s s i o n a l Geographer, X I I I (January, 1961), p.6. described i n i t s own context. Karan concludes w i t h an appeal f o r more p o l i t i c a l geographers "to seek out new examples from d i f f e r e n t and widely-separated areas to i l l u s t r a t e d i f f i c u l t p o l i t i c a l geographical circumstances". His paper "suggests a method of examination from the geographer's strong p o s i t i o n as a g e n e r a l i s t r a t h e r than a s p e c i a l i s t , " and that " i n some areas, and under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , such r i v e r water studies might be the s t a r t i n g point f o r research i n r e g i o n a l p o l i t i c a l geography." ^ Since 1961 few p o l i t i c a l geographers have heard h i s c a l l . An e a r l i e r study, but one of a type which perhaps Karan had i n mind ten years l a t e r i s Khalaf's d i s c u s s i o n of the Lower Colorado R i v e r Basin."* He f i r s t describes the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g of the region and then analyses s e v e r a l problems, such as the S a l t R i v e r P r o j e c t , the problem of water resource development i n the r e g i o n , and a comparison of the Colorado s i t u a t i o n to I r a q . As a geographer, Khalaf s t u d i e s a wide range of t o p i c s i n d e t a i l and l i k e Karan lays the groundwork f o r r e g i o n a l p o l i t i c a l geography. Perhaps the best work on the geography of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s 6 has been done by Sewell. U n l i k e many geographers, he not only describes 4 I b i d , pp. 9-10 J.M. Kh a l a f , "The Water Resources of the Lower Colorado River B a s i n , " Chicago U n i v e r s i t y Research Paper No. 22. (Chicago, 1951). W.R.D. Sewell, "The Columbia R i v e r Treaty: Some Lessons and Im p l i c a t i o n s , " Canadian Geographer, (No. 3, 1966), p. 145-156. W.R.D. Sewell, "Columbia R i v e r Treaty and P r o t o c o l Agreement," N a t u r a l Resources, (October, 1964), pp. 309-331. 100. the problems i n v o l v e d i n r i v e r c o n t r o v e r s i e s but attempts both to point out mistakes made by the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n drawing up the t r e a t i e s and to suggest s o l u t i o n s which he a n t i c i p a t e s a r i s i n g i n the f u t u r e over i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n the opening remarks of h i s "The Columbia River Treaty: Some Lessons and I m p l i c a t i o n s , " Sewell s t a t e s a major premise of t h i s chapter. "Although the arrangement (the Columbia R i v e r Treaty) was intended to deal only w i t h the Columbia R i v e r , i t seems c e r t a i n that i t w i l l be regarded as a precedent i n the development of other i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s i n North America. Moreover, some of i t s p r i n c i p l e s may be a p p l i e d i n the development of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s elsewhere." ^ Many of the " p r i n c i p l e s " which emerge from the Columbia R i v e r Treaty w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n the chapter. The f i n a l geographical example chosen i s W h i t e 1 s " C o n t r i b u t i o n s 8 of Geographical A n a l y s i s to River Basin Development". Using the Lower Mekong Ri v e r Basin P r o j e c t as an i l l u s t r a t i o n , White i s o l a t e s and discusses s i x c h i e f aspects of d e c i s i o n making: the range of choi c e , resource estimates, technology of water management, economic e f f i c i e n c y , s p a t i a l l i n k a g e s , and s o c i a l guides. Each of these aspects i s discussed w i t h c r i t i c a l references to work by other geographers on r i v e r b a s i n p r o j e c t s i n d i f f e r e n t areas of the world. Sewell, op. c i t . , 1966, p. 145. G.F. White "C o n t r i b u t i o n s of Geographical A n a l y s i s to River Basin Development," Geographical J o u r n a l , CXXXIX (December, 1963), pp. 412-436. 101. I t i s evident that geographers approach boundary waters from the standpoint of g e n e r a l i s t s and w i t h i n t h i s overview discuss p a r t i c u l a r f a c e t s of the t o p i c i n which they are i n t e r e s t e d . R i v e r b a s i n development schemes are u s u a l l y researched by a number of s p e c i a l i s t s meeting p e r i o d i c a l l y to discuss t h e i r common problems. Consequently, geographers can best be of s e r v i c e by remaining g e n e r a l i s t s and endeavouring to e x p l a i n these e s s e n t i a l l y r e g i o n a l problems. Engineering U n l i k e the geographers, the engineers' i n t e r e s t i n boundary waters i s concerned w i t h the techniques of water management i n such obvious f i e l d s as i r r i g a t i o n networks, dams, c o n s t r u c t i o n f e a s i b i l i t y , and r e l a t e d f i e l d s . P e r i o d i c a l l y engineers enter the f i e l d s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s or economics to promote large engineering schemes and i n t h i s way d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the research of geographers. One example of an engineer becoming d i r e c t l y i nvolved i n the broader framework of r i v e r b a s i n planning i s Wardle's work on the 9 Yukon and Taku r i v e r s . His research i n t o the r e l a t i v e f e a s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t development schemes on the Taku and Yukon, along w i t h 9 J.M. Wardle, "A Major Power Plan f o r Yukon River Waters i n the Canadian Northwest," Proceedings of the I n s t i t u t i o n of C i v i l  Engineers, ( J u l y , 1957), pp. 441-464. Idem., "A Major Power Plan f o r Yukon River Waters i n the Canadian Northwest," The  Engineering J o u r n a l , (November, 1957), pp. 1638-1646. Although the t i t l e i s the same as the previous reference most of the content i s d i f f e r e n t . 102. t h e i r e f f e c t on the Columbia, has produced v a l i d engineering arguments against some plans. I t i s only through such c a r e f u l research by the t e c h n i c a l branches of science that geographers, economists, lawyers and others can soundly assess t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s to a development plan. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A category i n which most of the work on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r basins appears to have been done i s that of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. As asc e r t a i n e d from the number of references to work i n law found i n geographical l i t e r a t u r e , geographers are on the whole unaware of the large c o n t r i b u t i o n made toward a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s by the l e g a l d i s c i p l i n e . P o l i t i c a l geography i n p a r t i c u l a r must be made aware of the research done i n r i v e r i n e law as the two f i e l d s are very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . Two examples have been chosen from i n t e r n a t i o n a l law to i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r value to geography. Bourne's "The Columbia R i v e r Controversy" i s a review of 10 the Columbia River n e g o t i a t i o n s and t h e i r l e g a l problems up to 1959. Bourne's d i s c u s s i o n of r i p a r i a n r i g h t s , t e r r i t o r i a l s overeignty, and p a r t i t i o n of n a t u r a l resources are as f a m i l i a r to the p o l i t i c a l geographer as to the lawyer. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that Bourne analyses s p a t i a l patterns only as they are r e l a t e d to l e g a l problems, C.B. Bourne, "The Columbia R i v e r Controversy," Canadian Bar  Review, (September, 1959), pp. 444-472. whereas a p o l i t i c a l geographer would view the same t o p i c i n terms of i t s s p a t i a l p a t t e r n as i n f l u e n c e d by l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . S i m i l a r to Bourne's a n a l y s i s of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r 11 i s Mackenzie s d i s c u s s i o n of i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l r i v e r s . To date j u r i s d i c t i o n over i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l r i v e r s has not been c l e a r l y defined i n Canada between p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s , and subsequently Mackenzie seeks to c l e a r l y i s o l a t e the two areas of j u r i s d i c t i o n . Research such as that of Bourne, Mackenzie, and other lawyers, i s very important to the p o l i t i c a l geographer because t o p i c s such as t r e a t i e s and a l t e r a t i o n i n sovereignty are common to both d i s c i p l i n e s . This type of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l research i s common p r a c t i c e to the i n t e r n a t i o n a l lawyer and thus of a s s i s t a n c e to the p o l i t i c a l geographer. I t can, t h e r e f o r e , be summarized from the b r i e f review that p o l i t i c a l geographers have done l i t t l e i n the f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e problems and that a s s i s t a n c e from engineering, economics, law and r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s i s most u s e f u l . Because of the s p a t i a l nature of the subject t h i s a r e a l view does not c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h the approach of geographers from other s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , however, the r o l e of the g e n e r a l i s t or research co-ordinator i s e s p e c i a l l y s u i t e d to geography. K.C. Mackenzie, " I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l R i v e r s i n Canada: A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Challenge," U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law Review, (September, 1961), pp. 499-512. 104. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RIVERINE LAW In North America before the turn of the century, two separate and c o n s i s t e n t trends i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law were apparent. On the one hand, the United States i n i t s i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r disputes maintained a p o s i t i o n of u n q u a l i f i e d t e r r i t o r i a l s overeignty and j u s t i f i e d t h i s p o s i t i o n as i n accordance w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. As the most powerful n a t i o n i n the western hemisphere, the United States found that i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of jurisprudence was looked upon as " i n t e r n a t i o n a l law". I t could d i v e r t and u t i l i z e the f u l l volume of any waters f l o w i n g through i t s t e r r i t o r y , r egardless of i n j u r y caused downstream. On the other hand the United States and Canada came to agree on the p r i n c i p l e of j o i n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l commissions to i n v e s t i g a t e and rep o r t on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e problems, and l a t e r extended the powers of these commissions to include j u d i c i a l 12 and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . The h i s t o r y of water r e g u l a t i o n between Canada and the United S t a t e s , can be d i v i d e d roughly i n t o two p a r t s : u n t i l the end of the 19th century the emphasis was on n a v i g a t i o n ; since that time on i r r i g a t i o n and hydro power. A short c o n s i d e r a t i o n of pre-1900 t r e a t i e s w i l l lead i n t o a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of water r e g u l a t i o n s since that time. J . A u s t i n , "Canadian-United States p r a c t i c e and theory r e s p e c t i n g the i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s : a study of the h i s t o r y and i n f l u e n c e of the Harmon d o c t r i n e . " Canadian Bar Review, V o l . XXXVII (September, 1959), pp. 393-443. 105. Since 1783 there has been a s e r i e s of t r e a t i e s between Great B r i t a i n and the United States and l a t e r Canada and the United S t a t e s . The Jay Treaty of 1794 allowed B r i t i s h subjects and United States c i t i z e n s "to pass and repass by land or i n l a n d n a v i g a t i o n i n t o the r e s p e c t i v e t e r r i t o r y of each country and to c a r r y on trade 13 and commerce f r e e l y u p on....rivers." The Treaty of Ghent of 1814 s t a t e d that there was to be no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n against Americans using the St. Lawrence route to trade w i t h Great B r i t a i n . The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 provided that " . . . a l l the water communications from Lake Superior to the Pigeon R i v e r , should be fr e e and open to the use of the c i t i z e n s of both c o u n t r i e s . " ^ The Oregon Treaty of 1846 gave B r i t i s h subjects t r a d i n g w i t h the Hudson's Bay Company the r i g h t to navigate the Columbia River to the Ocean. There was a proviso i n t h i s Treaty to the e f f e c t that nothing was to be construed as intending, to prevent the United States from making r e g u l a t i o n s r e s p e c t i n g the n a v i g a t i o n of the s a i d r i v e r or r i v e r s not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Treaty. However, American r e g u l a t i o n s were not r e q u i r e d as by 1871 the Hudson's Bay Company had s o l d i t s possessions south of the f o r t y - n i n t h p a r a l l e l and thus the B r i t i s h no longer had any reason to navigate the Columbia. In 1854 a Treaty allowed the Americans free r i g h t s of n a v i g a t i o n on the St. Lawrence, thus p r o v i d i n g access to the Great Lakes by two routeways, the aforementioned and the E r i e Canal which L.M. Bl o o m f i e l d and G.F. F i t z g e r a l d , Boundary Waters Problems  of Canada and the United States (Toronto Canada: The Caswell Company L i m i t e d , 1958), p. 3. I b i d , p. 4. i s e n t i r e l y American. In r e t u r n , B r i t i s h subjects had the r i g h t to f r e e l y navigate Lake Michigan. This Treaty i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s i n c e , on a r e c i p r o c a l b a s i s , i t allowed c i t i z e n s of the United States to navigate the Canadian part of the St. Lawrence and B r i t i s h subjects to navigate the American waters of Lake Michigan. Each party was given the r i g h t to abrogate the p r i v i l e g e granted to the other. I t would thus appear that the n a v i g a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s i n each case was not a case of " r i g h t " but of "concession." ^ The Treaty was terminated on March 17, 1866 as an outcome of i l l - f e e l i n g s between Great B r i t a i n and the United States over i n c i d e n t s a r i s i n g out of the American C i v i l War. To overcome these f e e l i n g s of i l l - w i l l the two s t a t e s i n question signed the Treaty of Washington i n 1871, to s e t t l e a l l causes of d i f f e r e n c e s between the two c o u n t r i e s . Although three a r t i c l e s i n the Treaty are d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h boundary waters, A r t i c l e XXVI i s of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t to the problem at hand. The n a v i g a t i o n of the Rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and S t i k i n e , ascending and descending from, to and i n t o the sea, s h a l l forever remain free and open f o r the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her B r i t t a n i c Majesty and to the c i t i z e n s of the United S t a t e s , subject to any laws and r e g u l a t i o n s of e i t h e r country w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h such p r i v i l e g e of f r e e n a v i g a t i o n . ^ 15 16 I b i d , p. 6. T r e a t i e s and Agreements A f f e c t i n g Canada i n Force Between His  Majesty and the United S t a t e s , 1814-1925 (Ottawa: Department of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s , Kings P r i n t e r , 1927), p. 45. This r i g h t of n a v i g a t i o n had already been granted to Great B r i t a i n i n the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, which was s t i l l b i n d i n g on the United States through i t s purchase of Alaska i n 1867. 107. As i s evident from the examples used thus f a r , i n t h i s e a r l y p e r i o d most t r e a t i e s were concerned w i t h n a v i g a t i o n , as r i v e r s were used f o r l i t t l e e l s e . In most in s t a n c e s , permission to navigate a r i v e r w i t h i n another s t a t e was granted, not as a " r i g h t " but as a "concession" i n exchange f o r some r e c i p r o c a l concession. I t was not u n t i l a f t e r the turn of the century that complications i n v o l v i n g i r r i g a t i o n and hydro power arose. In 1906, the United States and Canada formed an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Waterways Commission to oversee problems a r i s i n g from boundary waters. The Commission made s e v e r a l recommendations, one of which r e s u l t e d i n the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Some of the more important a r t i c l e s are summarized as f o l l o w s : A r t i c l e I I I , IV, V I I I , IX and X, set up the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission and A r t i c l e I guaranteed freedom of n a v i g a t i o n on a l l boundary waters. A r t i c l e I I was the most troublesome p r o v i s i o n as i t was e s s e n t i a l l y a d e c l a r a t i o n of the Harmon d o c t r i n e , i n s e r t e d at American i n s i s t e n c e . A r t i c l e I I . Each of the High Contracting P a r t i e s reserves to i t s e l f . . . t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l over the use and d i v e r s i o n , whether temporary or permanent, of a l l waters on i t s own side of the l i n e which i n t h e i r n a t u r a l channels would flow across the boundary, or i n t o boundary waters; but i t i s agreed that any i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h or d i v e r s i o n from t h e i r n a t u r a l channel of such waters on e i t h e r side of the boundary, r e s u l t i n g i n any i n j u r y on the other side of the boundary, s h a l l give r i s e to the same r i g h t s and e n t i t l e the i n j u r e d p a r t i e s to the same l e g a l remedies as i f such i n j u r y took place i n the country where such d i v e r s i o n or i n t e r f e r e n c e o c c u r s . ^ Canada Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources, The Columbia River Treaty and P r o t o c a l (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1964), p. 8. The Harmon Doctrine i s a term a p p l i e d to a d e c i s i o n reached i n 1895 by the Attorney-General of the United S t a t e s , Judson Harmon, i n a d j u d i c a t i n g a dispute between Mexico and the United States over d i v i s i o n of a large amount of water of the Rio Grande i n the United States to the detriment of Mexican users. " I t i s evident that what i s r e a l l y contended f o r i s a s e r v i t u d e which makes the lower country dominant and subjects the upper 108. I t i s worth n o t i n g w i t h respect to the Harmon d o c t r i n e , 18 the d e c i s i o n i n the case of Kansas v s . Colorado. Kansas took Colorado to court a f t e r Colorado, as the upstream s t a t e , planned, to d i v e r t waters of the Arkansas River f o r i r r i g a t i o n and leave Kansas i n a d e f i c i t p o s i t i o n . Colorado contended that as a sovereign and independent s t a t e she was j u s t i f i e d i n consuming a l l the water w i t h i n her boundaries. In other words, she occupied towards the State of Kansas i n terms of r i p a r i a n r i g h t s the same p o s i t i o n that nations occupy toward each other, and i n the case of water resources her p o s i t i o n was supported by the Harmon d o c t r i n e . However, the court r e j e c t e d the d o c t r i n e o u t r i g h t and Colorado was forced to share the flow of the r i v e r w i t h Kansas i n p r o p o r t i o n to the amount of works constructed by each. Thus the d o c t r i n e of " e q u i t a b l e apportionment" was introduced i n domestic United States water law. A s i g n i f i c a n t step forward was made i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and comity through the settlement of a dispute over the M i l k and St. 19 Mary Rivers i n 1909. As can be seen i n Figure Number 9, the M i l k River r i s e s i n Montana, flows through Canada f o r some one hundred m i l e s , and then turns south to j o i n the M i s s o u r i system. The St. 17 con't 18 19 country to the burden of a r r e s t i n g i t s development and denying to i t s i n h a b i t a n t s the use of a p r o v i s i o n which nature has sup p l i e d e n t i r e l y w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y . The fundamental p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i s the absolute sovereignty of every n a t i o n , as against a l l others, w i t h i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y . " (As quoted i n A u s t i n , op. c i t . , pp. 407-408). From 1895 to the present the United States has adhered to the Harmon d o c t r i n e as a p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law. Kansas v s . Colorado (1907), 206 United States 46. A u s t i n , op. c i t . , pp. 412-414. Mary a l s o r i s e s i n Montana and crosses the boundary, but continues north to the South Saskatchewan R i v e r . The United States planned a d i v e r s i o n of the St. Mary R i v e r i n t o the M i l k River i n order to provide e x t r a water f o r the a r i d areas of eastern Montana. This was protested by Canada, which has already appropriated much of the waters of the St. Mary. In the meantime, plans underway i n Canada f o r a 20 d i v e r s i o n of the M i l k R i v e r r a i s e d p r o t e s t s i n the United S t a t e s . Negotiations were he l d and the f i n a l agreement was incorporated as A r t i c l e VI i n the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, reading i n p a r t : ...The St. Mary and M i l k Rivers and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s . . . are to be t r e a t e d as one stream f o r the purposes of i r r i g a t i o n and power, and the waters thereof s h a l l be apportioned e q u a l l y between the two countries... 2''" Three important p r i n c i p l e s emerged from t h i s settlement -the r i v e r s were t r e a t e d as a u n i t a r y system and thus common requirements of the r i v e r b a s i n were taken i n t o account, the p r i n c i p l e of p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n , and f i n a l l y that of e q u i t a b l e apportionment were recognized i n the d i v i s i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r waters. The l a s t example i n t h i s h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s i s provided by the St. John R i v e r i n New Brunswick. (The i n t e r n a t i o n a l character of the St. John i s evident from Figure Number 10). Developments on t h i s r i v e r have taken place over a long p e r i o d during which questions of the water apportionment have been i n contention w i t h only l i m i t e d progress having been made towards t h e i r settlement. 20 21 I b i d , p. 413. Loc. c i t , Problems began i n 1925 when the New Brunswick E l e c t r i c Power Commission a p p l i e d f o r the r i g h t to b u i l d a dam at Grand F a l l s that would back the water up twenty-nine miles i n t o the State of Maine. The Americans put forward a c l a i m f o r "downstream b e n e f i t s " ; i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , one-half the increased power made p o s s i b l e by storage of water i n American t e r r i t o r y . This was the f i r s t occasion on which the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission was confronted w i t h a c l a i m f o r downstream b e n e f i t s . As events turned out, they were not re q u i r e d to decide the issue as the a p p l i c a n t made a p r i v a t e agreement to compensate the State of Maine. Questions i n connection w i t h the development of the St. John River arose again i n 1950 when the Governments of Canada and the United States requested the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission to make recommendations as to what i n i t s judgment were the best uses of t h i s R i v e r . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the subsequent report considered the ba s i n as a whole, without p a r t i c u l a r regard being paid to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary. (This u n i f i e d approach to the St. John R i v e r b a s i n by the Commission, s i m i l a r to that discussed above on the St. Mary and M i l k R i v e r s , was to have very important i m p l i c a t i o n s i n regard to the Columbia River Basin.) To p r o t e c t the governments i n v o l v e d , the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, anxious to avoid establishment of precedent, sta t e d ...there should be an understanding between the two governments to the e f f e c t that d e c i s i o n s w i t h respect to cases of t h i s type i n the St. John River Basin should not n e c e s s a r i l y be regarded as precedents i n the c o n s i d e r a t i o n and d i s p o s i t i o n of other headwater-benefits s i t u a t i o n s i n that b a s i n or i n other r i v e r basins being p a r t l y i n Canada and p a r t l y i n the United S t a t e s . 2 2 However, as p r e v i o u s l y noted i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n and as we w i l l see a s i g n i f i c a n t agreement cannot avoid e s t a b l i s h i n g u n o f f i c i a l precedent. At t h i s time, there appears to be no i n d i c a t i o n that the reports by the Commission on the St. John R i v e r Basin w i l l be implemented at an e a r l y date. However the concept of a u n i t a r y i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r b a s i n , which i t embraces, was important to the n e g o t i a t i o n s of the Columbia, and w i l l l i k e l y have e f f e c t s on the development plans f o r the Yukon, Taku, and S t i k i n e R i v e r s . From t h i s b r i e f c o n s i d e r a t i o n of boundary water problems what p r i n c i p l e s or trends can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d thus f a r ? 1. The e a r l i e s t agreements were based on the idea of "concessions" to the neighbouring s t a t e and no idea of " r i g h t s " e x i s t e d . This idea was i n t e r p r e t e d p r i m a r i l y by the United States through the Harmon d o c t r i n e . I t became modified through time and the downstream s t a t e could be assured of a "reasonable" flow. 2. No precedent was permitted and each s i t u a t i o n was to be approached as unique. Although t h i s was the o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n of governments, n e g o t i a t o r s had no choice but to look to previous t r e a t i e s f o r guidance. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, Docket No. 63 - I n t e r i m Report to  the Governments of the United States and Canada on the Water  Resources of the St. John River B a s i n , Quebec, Maine, and New  Brunswick (January 27, 1954), p. 56. 3. The Boundary Waters Treaty was created to systematize problems within i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and j u r i s d i c t i o n of i t s a r t i c l e s could vary. (The important test came with the Columbia River dispute). 4. Agreement over the St. Mary and Milk Rivers introduced the p r i n c i p l e s of p r i o r appropriation and equitable  apportionment into the body of jurisprudence on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . 5. The discussions over the St. John River introduced the concepts of a unitary r i v e r basin and of downstream  be n e f i t s . 6. The p r i n c i p l e s stated i n numbers 4 and 5 were tentative at this stage and c e r t a i n l y not accepted as i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. With these guidelines and p r i n c i p l e s i n mind, the Columbia River issue w i l l now be explored to gather further precedent a f f e c t i n g the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon Rivers. THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY The Columbia River dispute was an economic, geographical, l e g a l , and p o l i t i c a l issue. A l l four elements were involved i n the deliberations and f i n a l settlement of the problem. Only the l e g a l , geographical, and c e r t a i n p o l i t i c a l factors with p o t e n t i a l repercussions i n future r i v e r development, w i l l be discussed here. 115. At the outset, Canada and the United States were confronted w i t h the problem of f i n d i n g a common ba s i s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n s . Although a c e r t a i n amount of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law had been e s t a b l i s h e d by the l a t e 1950's, as discussed i n the preceeding s e c t i o n , no p a r t i c u l a r d o c t r i n e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law could solve t h i s unique problem. I t had to be solved across the bargaining t a b l e w i t h the l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p created by the p a r t i e s as a s t a r t i n g point f o r t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s . Jacob A u s t i n , i n h i s "Canadian-United States P r a c t i c e and Theory Respecting the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r s " o f f e r e d as a basis f o r n e g o t i a t i o n s h i s c o n c l u s i o n that . . . i n a c t u a l f a c t the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of the two nations do not r e s t on the general p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, which are i r r e l e v a n t to the matter, but on the d e f i n i t i v e Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 which was agreed to buy both s t a t e s i n order to set out the p r i n c i p l e s which would bind them i n the r e g u l a t i o n of disputes concerning t h e i r i n t e r n a t i o n a l water resources. Austin's statement that the Columbia R i v e r Treaty should be i n f l u e n c e d s o l e l y by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 i s i n c o r r e c t , f o r t h i s t r e a t y was not concerned w i t h e i t h e r e q u i t a b l e apportionment or downstream b e n e f i t s , two of the most important issues i n the Columbia River n e g o t i a t i o n s . The Boundary Waters Treaty i n f l u e n c e d the Columbia n e g o t i a t i o n s only i n respect to i n t e r n a t i o n a l law up to 1909. P r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law e s t a b l i s h e d since 1909 i n t r e a t i e s a f f e c t i n g boundary waters along the 49th p a r a l l e l , the Rio Grande and i n other areas of the world, l i k e w i s e a f f e c t e d the Columbia River settlement. I t i s one purpose of t h i s chapter to 116. demonstrate, 1) that precedent was e s t a b l i s h e d by these aforementioned agreements, 2) which precedent a f f e c t e d the Columbia R i v e r n e g o t i a t i o n s , and the t r e a t y r e s u l t i n g therefrom, and 3) which t r e a t y i n i t s turn e s t a b l i s h e d a p a t t e r n that w i l l i n f l u e n c e the fu t u r e development of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s , s p e c i f i c a l l y the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon. Based on the premise that precedent i s r e l e v a n t , the Columbia dispute w i l l be examined i n four phases: (1) a b r i e f h i s t o r y of events le a d i n g up to the f i n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s ; (2) a summary of the opposing arguments; (3) the a c t u a l n e g o t i a t i o n s ; and (4) p r i n c i p l e s and trends emerging from the settlement of the dispute. Discussions over j o i n t development of the Columbia River were f i r s t begun i n March 1944, when the United States and Canada submitted a "Columbia River Reference" to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. This Reference c a l l e d f o r studies of the e n t i r e Columbia River b a s i n to "...determine whether a greater use than i s now being made of the waters of the Columbia R i v e r system would be p o s s i b l e and advantageous". This Reference led to the establishment of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Columbia River Engineering Board to undertake i n v e s t i g a t i o n of water resources of the Columbia River Basin. In March 1959, the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Columbia R i v e r Engineering Board submitted i t s report of the Canada-United States n e g o t i a t i o n s , which a f t e r some adjustment was accepted as the ba s i s f o r the Columbia R i v e r Treaty of January, 1961. The Columbia R i v e r Treaty and P r o t o c o l , op. c i t . p. 21. With t h i s Treaty of 1961 as a s t a r t i n g point Canada and the United States began four years of n e g o t i a t i o n s to s e t t l e the working d e t a i l s of the scheme.^ A major i n t e r n a t i o n a l area of contention i n the Columbia Ri v e r n e g o t i a t i o n s between the P r o v i n c i a l and Federal Governments was over the d i s p o s a l of downstream b e n e f i t s . Mr. Bennett, the Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, maintained that B r i t i s h Columbia should be f r e e to s e l l to the United States the Province's share of the downstream b e n e f i t s of the Columbia R i v e r development whereas the Federal Government maintained that downstream b e n e f i t s were the cheapest source of power a v a i l a b l e to B r i t i s h Columbia and th e r e f o r e should be returned to the Province. A ban on the export of e l e c t r i c power was maintained by the Canadian Federal Government u n t i l 1962, when, under pressure from the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, the Federal Government reversed i t s p o l i c y of non-export of e l e c t r i c power 26 from Canada. The establishment of the Province's r i g h t to s e l l e l e c t r i c power was of prime importance i n n e g o t i a t i n g the Columbia Treaty, and has set a precedent should a s i m i l a r power export problem a r i s e on the Taku or Yukon Rivers or other i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . P r i o r to the co n c l u s i o n of the Columbia Treaty of 1961, one event had occurred which was to e f f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y both the Columbia River n e g o t i a t i o n s and Canadian water p o l i c y g e n e r a l l y . In 1955 the K a i s e r Aluminum Company had proposed to the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia the b u i l d i n g of a storage dam to re g u l a t e the flow from the Arrow Lakes f o r the purpose of i n c r e a s i n g power i n the American hydro system downstream, which increase i n power was to be at the d i s p o s a l of K a i s e r a f t e r compensating the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. S e w e l l , "The Columbia River Treaty and P r o t o c o l Agreement," op. c i t . , p. 319. But t h i s d i s p o s a l of downstream b e n e f i t s was prevented by the Canadian Federal Government's passage of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l River Improvements Act which r e q u i r e d f e d e r a l approval of works constructed on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . 26 The p o l i t i c a l settlement of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s explained b r i e f l y on page 120 below. The second phase of the Columbia River dispute e n t a i l s a summary of the opposing arguments of Canada and the United States over settlement of r i p a r i a n r i g h t s . F i r s t , the American case on the Columbia R i v e r : 1. The d o c t r i n e of r i p a r i a n r i g h t s should apply, and thus the United States as the downstream s t a t e would r e c e i v e undiminished the n a t u r a l flow of the r i v e r . 2. The d o c t r i n e of p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r b e n e f i c i a l use whereby a p p r o p r i a t i o n f i r s t i n time i s f i r s t i n r i g h t should apply, i t being argued that the United States has been f i r s t i n the use of the water. 3. The d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e apportionment which r e q u i r e s that the b e n e f i t s of r i v e r water w i t h i n an area or system be shared e q u i t a b l y between s t a t e s e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over the system or area, should apply. 4. The United States has, i n i t s t r e a t i e s provided f o r the e q u i t a b l e apportionment of waters i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s ; f o r example, i n the Treaty w i t h Mexico i n 1944 of U t i l i z a t i o n of the Waters of the Colorado, Tijuana, and Lower Rio Grande R i v e r s , the d o c t r i n e of u n l i m i t e d r i g h t s has i n no sense a p p l i e d . The eq u i t a b l e claims of both nations were respected. 5. M u n i c i p a l courts have a p p l i e d the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e apportionment, and have r e j e c t e d , i n i n t e r s t a t e cases, the Harmon d o c t r i n e . 6. The Harmon d o c t r i n e was expressly repudiated by Mr. Clayton, counsel f o r the American Section of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Commission, before the Senate Foreign R e l a t i o n s Committee i n 1945. 7. The Harmon d o c t r i n e i s not a p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and A r t i c l e I I of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n the context of current i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r law. Thus the American argument r e j e c t e d the Harmon Doctrine and h e l d the United States to be e n t i t l e d to p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n and e q u i t a b l e apportionment. 119. Secondly, the Canadian case on the Columbia R i v e r : 1. American downstream r i p a r i a n s should have no c l a i m i n court against Canadian i n j u r i e s to t h e i r downstream p r o p e r t i e s under the B r i t i s h Columbia Water Ac t , as only the holder of a l i c e n c e issued by B r i t i s h Columbia has the r i g h t to the use and the flow of water i n any stream i n the Province. 2. P r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n f a i l s because under A r t i c l e I I of the aforementioned Boundary Waters Treaty i t i s the law of the upstream s t a t e that i s a p p l i c a b l e . 3. Whether the United States accepts or r e j e c t s the Harmon Doctrine, i s not r e l e v a n t . I t i s not t h i s d o c t r i n e , but the Boundary Waters Treaty of which t h i s d o c t r i n e i s part and which has been adhered to f o r over f i f t y years that determines the r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e . 4. Canada i s e n t i t l e d to a f a i r a l l o c a t i o n of "downstream b e n e f i t s " r e s u l t i n g from any increased use of the Columbia waters by the United States through storage of waters i n Canada. In summary, Canada upholds the v a l i d i t y of A r t i c l e I I and her r i g h t to downstream b e n e f i t s . The r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of these opposing viewpoints of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of r i v e r s and the Boundary Waters Treaty n e c e s s i t a t e d four years of n e g o t i a t i o n s . The Columbia River Treaty which had been signed on January 17, 1961, recognized only the need f o r co-operative development of hydro power and f l o o d c o n t r o l . I t was not concerned w i t h the arguments o u t l i n e d above, which had to be r e s o l v e d to conclude the P r o t o c o l to the Treaty. The n e g o t i a t i o n s centered on downstream b e n e f i t s . Both sides r e a l i z e d that they must share the water resources through storage i n Canada and hydro power production i n the United S t a t e s , and that c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the Harmon Doctrine and/or r i p a r i a n r i g h t s to undiminished flow would only accentuate t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e . 120. P r i m a r i l y by threatening d i v e r s i o n of the Columbia i n t o the Fraser R i v e r , the Canadian n e g o t i a t o r s persuaded the Americans to agree to a f i f t y - f i f t y d i v i s i o n of a l l power produced downstream over and above that which was produced before storage f a c i l i t i e s were i n s t a l l e d , and to pay part of the cost of c o n s t r u c t i o n of the storage dams i n Canada. This agreement was between the Federal governments of both c o u n t r i e s , but as the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia was re s p o n s i b l e f o r implementing the t r e a t y and di s p o s i n g of the b e n e f i t s , i t s support was necessary f o r the co n c l u s i o n of the t r e a t y . This support was not forthcoming u n t i l , as s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , the Federal Government reversed i t s water p o l i c y to permit the e x p o r t a t i o n of surplus power, thus making i t p o s s i b l e f o r B r i t i s h Columbia to s e l l i t s surplus power 28 to the B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . F i n a l l y , i n 1964 the problems mentioned above and s e v e r a l other less s i g n i f i c a n t ones were s e t t l e d , and the P r o t o c o l was r a t i f i e d by both the American and Canadian governments. The dams to be constructed can be seen on Figure Number 11. The l a s t aspect of the Columbia River dispute to be considered, and the most important i n terms of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the Taku, S t i k i n e , and Yukon Ri v e r s and i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r i n e law g e n e r a l l y , i s References to these n e g o t i a t i o n s can be found i n s e v e r a l sources. A u s t i n , op. c i t . , pp. 436-437; Sewell, "The Columbia R i v e r Treaty and P r o t o c o l Agreement," op. c i t . , p. 315; and Bourne, op. c i t . , p. 499. Sewell, "The Columbia R i v e r Treaty and P r o t o c o l Agreement," op. c i t . , pp. 320-322. the body of p r i n c i p l e s and trends a p p l i c a b l e to i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r development emerging from the n e g o t i a t i o n s . These can be d i v i d e d i n t o three main c a t e g o r i e s . 1. I t has become c l e a r that where water e x i s t s i n excess of the needs of the source area i t i s a marketable commodity, one that can be s o l d at a p r i c e e s t a b l i s h e d by market demands, j u s t as are wheat or automobiles. (In t h i s case the Canadian Government not only s o l d water to the United States but rendered a s e r v i c e by c o n t r o l l i n g the flow of the Columbia River water across the boundary 29 i n accordance w i t h an agreed plan of o p e r a t i o n ) . 2. Although recognized as a commodity, water can a l s o , because of i t s nature, flow from one s t a t e to another and t h e r e f o r e assume a concept of sharing, which i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y to the p r i n c i p l e of the Harmon d o c t r i n e . Once t h i s premise i s accepted the economic use of the commodity must be negotiated. Such n e g o t i a t i o n s must take i n t o account p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n , e q u i t a b l e a p p r o p r i a t i o n , e q u i t a b l e apportionment and downstream b e n e f i t s . In the case of the Columbia River p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n had to be considered because of the existence of s e v e r a l American dams on the r i v e r ' s lower reaches and t h e i r continued dependence upon at l e a s t the e x i s t i n g flow, and therefore the u n d e r l y i n g philosophy was one of reasonable use. Canada Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources, The Columbia River Treaty, P r o t o c o l and Related  Documents (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1964), p. 180. This concept l e d to that of e q u i t a b l e apportionment, or a d i v i s i o n of the f u t u r e needs, negotiated i n t h i s instance on a f i f t y - f i f t y b a s i s . The United States argued from the viewpoint of p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n because of i t s e x i s t i n g dams and Canada argued from the standpoint of her f u t u r e requirements. The p r i n c i p l e of downstream b e n e f i t s (as the value of the r i v e r flow i s increased by f l o o d c o n t r o l and hydro power production, the s e l l i n g p r i c e of the commodity al s o increased) dates back to the St. John River development of 1925, considered e a r l i e r i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . Determining downstream b e n e f i t s was a c r u c i a l issue i n the Columbia River n e g o t i a t i o n s as the p r i c e was dependent upon market c o n d i t i o n s . The Columbia was s e t t l e d by a f i f t y - f i f t y d i v i s i o n of increased power production and a f i x e d sum f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l . These three concepts are not r u l e s i n the sense o f r i v e r i n e law but they have been accepted as g u i d e l i n e s to Canada-United States r i v e r b a s i n development. The t h i r d category concerns the broad f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. The extended and c a r e f u l l y negotiated agreements i n the Treaty provide a step forward i n the formation of a body of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law on r i v e r disputes. They are not e s t a b l i s h e d as what might be defined as absolute i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, (as i t i s improbable that any such l e g i s l a t i o n e x i s t s ) , but they augment customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law - customary, i n the sense that these p r i n c i p l e s are g e n e r a l l y accepted by most st a t e s as a b a s i s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . 124. Although the Treaty s t i p u l a t e s that i t does not e s t a b l i s h precedent and i s r e s t r i c t e d to the Columbia Basin and the p a r t i c u l a r 30 dams mentioned t h e r e i n , i t i s obvious that i f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission was r e q u i r e d to adjudicate a s i m i l a r dispute on ah i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r ( f o r example, the Yukon R i v e r ) , i t would have no choice but to look to the Columbia River Treaty f o r guidance i n i t s d e c i s i o n s . The Canadian Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s , and of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources s t a t e i n an a p p r a i s a l of the Treaty: The Treaty makes a u s e f u l and d i s t i n c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n to the developing programme of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r b a s i n management and concepts. Here the i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of the Columbia R i v e r Treaty t r i e s to reassemble under the umbrella of r e c i p r o c i t y and reason what i n nature may have been d i v i d e d by boundaries. 3''" That government departments should be vague i n such expressions of p o l i c y i s only reasonable because p o l i t i c a l controversy must be avoided; however, i t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of students of p o l i t i c a l geography to analyze and assess these arguments and p r i n c i p l e s i n terms of the e m p i r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . W i t h i n the g u i d e l i n e s and p r i n c i p l e s gathered from the h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s and the examination of the Columbia i s s u e , an e v a l u a t i o n w i l l now be made of hydro development schemes on the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon R i v e r s , which i n t u r n w i l l lead to suggestions as to the nature of p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c a l problems involved i n the f u t u r e development of these r i v e r s due to the l o c a t i o n and f u n c t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary. 3 0 I b i d » P- 1 1 4 -The Columbia R i v e r Treaty and P r o t o c o l , p. 110. I 125. THE YUKON, STIKINE, AND TAKU RIVERS 32 By the terms of a t r e a t y w i t h Russia i n 1825 and a 33 l a t e r one w i t h the United States i n 1871, B r i t i s h subjects were guaranteed free n a v i g a t i o n of a l l r i v e r s f o r purposes of commerce flo w i n g from Canada through Alaska to the sea. L i t t l e use was made of t h i s r i g h t u n t i l the Klondike gold rush of the 1890's when the S t i k i n e , Taku and Yukon R i v e r s were used f r e e l y by a l l n a t i o n a l i t i e s . Since the d e p l e t i o n of the gold f i e l d s i n the e a r l y 1900's there has been l i t t l e use of the c o a s t a l r i v e r s and the Yukon. However, by the mid-1940's plans began to evolve f o r hydro power development at s e v e r a l s i t e s . The f i r s t step was taken by the Aluminum Company of America when i t put a plan before Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s to develop two m i l l i o n horsepower by d i v e r t i n g Yukon waters through Bennett Lake to tidewater i n Taiya I n l e t , i n Al a s k a , by means of nineteen miles of tunnels through the c o a s t a l mountains. The United States opposed t h i s development by a p r i v a t e company and suggested a j o i n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the plan by Canada and the United S t a t e s , each country being r e s p o n s i b l e f o r developments i n i t s own t e r r i t o r i e s . " 3 ^ 32 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Commission, J o i n t Report on the Survey and  Demarcation of the Boundary between Canada and the United States  from Tongass Passage to Mount Saint E l a a s , Department of Mines and Technical Surveys (Ottawa, Kings P r i n t e r , 1952), p. 195. 33 Tr e a t i e s and Agreements A f f e c t i n g Canada i n Force Between His  Majesty and the United S t a t e s , 1814-1925, p. 45. 34 " W i l l Our Power Dreams f o r the Mighty Yukon Turn i n t o Nightmares?," The F i n a n c i a l Post, December 28, 1963, p. 18. 126. These proposed surveys were undertaken by both c o u n t r i e s i n 1950. I t was then that the Canadian government decided that i t was not i n the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t to permit the d i v e r s i o n of Canadian water to another country f o r power i f i t could be developed and used i n Canada and therefore no f u r t h e r work was done towards a j o i n t p r o j e c t . The next step was taken by Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s , who i n 1952 suggested that Ventures L i m i t e d i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of economic power development wholly i n Canada w i t h Yukon waters. This r e s u l t e d i n the Yukon-Atlin-Taku (YAT) p l a n , which was e s s e n t i a l l y a d i v e r s i o n of the flow of the upper Yukon R i v e r , w i t h adjacent r i v e r s and streams, to the v a l l e y s south of A t l i n Lake, where the power s i t e was to be located j u s t i n s i d e the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and then i n t o the ocean v i a the Taku R i v e r , (See Figure No. 12). The various powerhouses would have the c a p a c i t y to produce approximately 4.9 m i l l i o n horsepower to supply an i n d u s t r i a l s i t e on the Taku River at Tulsequah, which pending adequate dredging of the channel i n Alaskan waters i s the only economic s i t e f o r i n d u s t r y w i t h i n Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n at tidewater. This was s p e c i f i e d i n a c o n d i t i o n l a i d down by the Canadian Government that any such p r o j e c t would have to be planned so that generating p l a n t s , and i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s using the power, would be i n Canada. On August 2, 1954, the B r i t i s h Columbia Government approved an a p p l i c a t i o n by Northwest Power I n d u s t r i e s L i m i t e d , a s u b s i d i a r y of Ventures L i m i t e d , f o r a c o n d i t i o n a l l i c e n c e to develop the sources of water power. As a guarantee that i t would proceed without delay i n 128. the development of the successive phases of the p r o j e c t , Northwest 35 Power Industry L i m i t e d , posted a bond of $2,500,000. A s i m i l a r a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t i n g to the Yukon p o r t i o n of the waters i n the p r o j e c t was f i l e d w i t h the Federal Government, and was approved by the Honourable Jean Lesage, then M i n i s t e r of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources. Several large American i n d u s t r i a l firms appeared i n t e r e s t e d i n the p r o j e c t and f i n a n c i n g was discussed, but i n each instance the company inv o l v e d withdrew i t s o f f e r because of suspected pressure 36 from American a u t h o r i t i e s . A reasonable co n c l u s i o n to be drawn from t h i s a c t i o n i s that American a u t h o r i t i e s d i d not want Canada to go ahead and develop her own water resources. At t h i s time the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s of the Columbia River development were becoming apparent and perhaps the American government was r e l u c t a n t to encourage the development of a 37 r i v a l source of hydro power. The a c t u a l case of the abandonment of "$269,950,000 Power and I n d u s t r i a l Development i n Yukon Area," Roads  and Engineering C o n s t r u c t i o n , (September, 1954), p. 92. " W i l l our Power Dreams f o r the Mighty Yukon Turn i n t o Nightmares?," op. c i t . , pp. 17-18. In terms of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law and r i v e r b a s i n development, the scheme created a dilemma. Canada has the r i g h t under the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to d i v e r t i n t e r n a t i o n a l waters w i t h i n i t s boundaries f o r b e n e f i c i a l use, but i f the Yukon R i v e r waters were d i v e r t e d to the south i n the i n t e r e s t of hydro, the R i v e r would no longer be navigable. This i s contrary to the Washington Treaty of 1871, which as p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d i n t h i s paper, insures that n a v i g a t i o n s h a l l remain open to c i t i z e n s of both c o u n t r i e s , ( T r e a t i e s and Agree- ments A f f e c t i n g Canada i n Force Between His Majesty and the United  S t a t e s , 1814-1925, p. 45.). In s p i t e of the f a c t that commercial t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ended on the Yukon River i n 1955, the Treaty of 1871 i s s t i l l i n e f f e c t . However, i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n on the Columbia River the United States had b u i l t s i x large dams despite the Oregon Treaty of the Taku scheme i s d i f f i c u l t to determine. The reason put forward by the Federal Government and one p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t y i s that the p r o j e c t was not economically f e a s i b l e (although i t could be i m p l i e d from the sources of these reasons that i t was not economically f e a s i b l e because 38 of p o l i t i c a l pressure i n w i t h h o l d i n g investments). The p r o v i n c i a l 1846 which insured B r i t i s h subjects f r e e n a v i g a t i o n of t h i s r i v e r . In only one case was Canada o f f i c i a l l y consulted i n advance. ("A Major Plan f o r Yukon River Waters i n the Canadian Northwest," The Engineering J o u r n a l , (November, 1957), pp. 1645-1646.) Thus the p r i o r i t y of hydro power over n a v i g a t i o n had not yet been challenged and n e i t h e r party knew what the l e g a l complications were, i n regard to the use of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . This p o i n t i s made by two sources: The Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, Federal M i n i s t e r of Energy, Mines, and Resources, i n personal correspondence with the author on February 17, 1967; "So f a r as I know, a l l a c t i v i t y w i t h respect to the former (YAT p r o j e c t ) ceased some years ago f o l l o w i n g f a i l u r e of the promoting company to i n t e r e s t a large s c a l e power user or to f i n d a market f o r any s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of the p r o j e c t ' s p o t e n t i a l power output. The company had hoped to f i n d a market f o r the energy through the production of aluminum. However, w i t h a large part of the world market f o r aluminum loc a t e d i n the United States behind the p r o t e c t i v e t a r i f f b a r r i e r , the company was unable to j u s t i f y economic development i n Canadian t e r r i t o r y on the Taku." Mr. A.F. Paget, Deputy M i n i s t e r of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources, i n personal correspondence w i t h the author on January 31, 1967; " I t would be my opinion that the Frobisher Company abandoned t h e i r plans f o r the development of the Yukon-Taku because of the r e l a t i v e l y high cost of power from t h i s source, combined w i t h the d i f f i c u l t y of p u t t i n g together a m e t a l l u r g i c a l i n d u s t r y that could p r o f i t a b l y use the power. In a d d i t i o n , the Company never resolv e d the problem w i t h respect to border crossings and f r e i g h t terminals which would undoubtedly have had to be constructed on United States s o i l . I have no knowledge that any high p o l i t i c s were involved i n t h i s d e c i s i o n of the Frobisher Company, which I b e l i e v e was wholly based on economics." Government seems to a t t r i b u t e the abandonment of the scheme to 39 p o l i t i c a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s . In a recent report done f o r the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development and the Government of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y i t was recommended that the Yukon-Taiya and Yukon-Taku p r o j e c t s be reconsidered w i t h preference given to the Yukon-Taku p r o j e c t , as power under t h i s arrangement would be generated e n t i r e l y w i t h i n 40 Canada. I t i s then suggested that an agreement could be worked out w i t h the United States wherein a guarantee of a s u b s t a n t i a l block of Yukon-Taku power at reasonable cost could be exchanged f o r a guarantee of f r e e r passage to the P a c i f i c . Such an arrangement was described as "an e x c e l l e n t f i r s t step towards c o - o r d i n a t i o n i n r e g i o n a l development" or as the p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c approach of t h i s t h e s i s i d e n t i f i e s the question, the economic advantages gained by a u n i t a r y approach to watershed u t i l i z a t i o n o f t e n outweighs the narrow advantages gained when the p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n of such a resource i s considered as the dominent c r i t e r i a i n development. 39 Summarized from personal correspondence of the author w i t h Mr. R. W i l l i s t o n , the P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources, on February 16, 1967. "The Frobisher scheme of the 1950's was u l t i m a t e l y abandoned f o r a number of reasons, among which were the i n t e r n a t i o n a l complications of that day." ^ D.W. Carr and Associates L t d . , The Yukon Economy I t s P o t e n t i a l  f o r Growth and Contenuity, The Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development and The Government of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y (Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968), p. 62 and 163. The second scheme of northern development o f f e r e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n here i s the Rampart proposal. In the l a t e 1950's the United States government authorized the Corps of Engineers to c a r r y out f e a s i b i l i t y s t udies at Rampart, on the Yukon R i v e r , i n connection w i t h the proposed b u i l d i n g of a dam w i t h the c a p a c i t y 41 to produce f i v e m i l l i o n k i l o w a t t s of power annually. (See Figure Number 13). Such a dam would i n t e r f e r e w i t h Canada's l e g a l r i g h t to navigate the Yukon R i v e r , a f a c t which was pointed out by the Deputy Legal Advisor of the United States Department of State; "United States a c t i o n on the dam, i f i t would c l o s e n a v i g a t i o n on the Yukon would be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h A r t i c l e XXVI of the 1871 Treaty of Washington". The Corps of Engineers attempted to recognize t h i s t r e a t y p r o v i s i o n by planning f o r trans-shipment f a c i l i t i e s at the dam s i t e but i t i s questionable whether Canada would accept these arrangements without f u r t h e r compensation. This question remains unanswered, however, as the Corps recommended against the p r o j e c t . I t was f e l t that f e a s i b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t depended upon e i t h e r the a b i l i t y to a t t r a c t new electroprocess i n d u s t r y to use the power at tidewater or to export i t to the main g r i d system i n the State of Washington. Both a l t e r n a t i v e s proved too c o s t l y . Information gained through personal correspondence by the author w i t h Colonel C.A. C a r r o l l , Deputy D i v i s i o n Engineer, Corps of Engineers United States Army, on A p r i l 11, 1967. 42 United States Department of the I n t e r i o r , Alaska N a t u r a l Resources  and the Rampart P r o j e c t , (Washington, Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , June, 1967), p. 6. As the Rampart P r o j e c t w i l l not a f f e c t the l e v e l of the Yukon River i n Canada, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 would not be a p p l i c a b l e . ( I b i d , p. 7). 133. The report d i d recommend that the Yukon-Taiya p r o j e c t "appears to be the most favourable Alaska h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o t e n t i a l i t y w i t h respect to power i n t e n s i v e i n d u s t r i e s based upon use of imported m a t e r i a l s " and therefore t h i s arrangement be negotiated w i t h Canada. This p r o j e c t now appears to be the primary concern and " i n l a t e June, 1968, representations were made by the Alaska Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n to a United States Congressional Committee f o r an e a r l y exchange of notes w i t h Canada f o r a j o i n t United States-Canada study of the Yukon-43 Taiya (power) p r o j e c t and r e l a t e d resources." Before the above h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s are appraised i n terms of the regions p o l i t i c a l geographic c o n s t r a i n t s there i s the a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r of precedence to be acknowledged as i t i s a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e i n any d i s c u s s i o n of p o s s i b l e f u t u r e development of the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon R i v e r s . When Canada and the United States seek to s e t t l e a dispute the two governments consider t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n terms of e x i s t i n g t r e a t i e s , which form the framework or basis upon which ne g o t i a t i o n s w i l l proceed. In n e g o t i a t i o n s , each country puts forward relevant arguments i n support of t h e i r p o s i t i o n . These arguments are based on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t r e a t i e s , settlements of s i m i l a r disputes between the two co u n t r i e s and between other c o u n t r i e s , and u s u a l l y , pleas f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l comity. Thus any analogous s i t u a t i o n i n terms of geography (that i s , the s p a t i a l arrangement of p h y s i c a l and c u l t u r a l phenomena), law, economics, or p o l i t i c s which have a r i s e n i n the past are put forward as arguments f o r one side or the other. C a r r , op. c i t . , p. 163. 134. The w r i t e r has found that most agreements between s t a t e s c o n t a i n clauses which negate the agreement i n terms of precedent. The most s i g n i f i c a n t example p e r t i n e n t to the r i v e r s i n question i s A r t i c l e XXII of the P r o t o c o l to the Columbia River Treaty. I t s t a t e s : Canada and the United States of America are i n agreement that the Treaty does not e s t a b l i s h any general p r i n c i p l e or precedent a p p l i c a b l e to waters other than those of the Columbia R i v e r Basin and does not de t r a c t from the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Boundary Waters Treaty, 1909, to other w a t e r s . ^ This point has i n v i t e d comment from Canadian f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s : In the event that there would be an impression that the Treaty e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i n c i p l e or precedent r e s t r i c t i n g Canada's freedom to develop other i n t e r -n a t i o n a l r i v e r s ( f o r example, the Yukon) i n the manner most advantageous to Canada t h i s Item (XII above) states c l e a r l y that the Columbia arrangement does not e s t a b l i s h any such p r i n c i p l e or precedent and moreover, does not a f f e c t the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Boundary Waters 4 5 Treaty of 1909, to other i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s i n Canada. The point which the treaty-making bodies are t r y i n g to e s t a b l i s h by i n s e r t i o n of no-precedent c l a u s e s , stems from one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "precedent". To the people drawing up a t r e a t y "precedent" means a " r u l e " or "law" which must be followed i n l a t e r n e g o t i a t i o n s to which the e a r l i e r t r e a t y has some a p p l i c a b i l i t y . However, i n p r a c t i c a l n e g o t i a t i o n s "precedent" i s considered to be an "example" of what has gone before and what i s l i k e l y to a f f e c t The Columbia River Treaty P r o t o c o l and Related Documents, p. 114. Jean-Luc Pepin, M i n i s t e r of Mines, Energy and Resources, i n personal correspondence w i t h the author on February 17, 1967; and as s t a t e d s i m i l a r i l y i n the Columbia R i v e r Treaty P r o t o c o l and Related Documents, p. 132. decisions i n the future. It i s the f i r s t meaning which governments are protecting themselves against, not the second. Any analysis of future development on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s must recognize by d e f i n i t i o n the importance of precedence in the sense of an "example". Bearing the above i n mind, a p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c a l framework for the development of the Taku, S t i k i n e , and Yukon Rivers w i l l now be suggested, based on the preceeding section of this chapter and comprised of four general conclusions. 1. Although the Harmon Doctrine i s s t i l l i n e f f e c t as set f o r t h i n A r t i c l e II of the Boundary Waters Treaty and could be invoked by Canada to the detriment of any United States development on the Yukon, the settlement of the Columbia River dispute establishes a precedent for the r e j e c t i o n of t h i s doctrine i n favour of the p r i n c i p l e of reasonable apportionment. 2. Although the concept of downstream benefits was acknowledged by the Columbia River Treaty i t cannot be held as precedent for the possible Rampart-Yukon or Yukon-Taiya development unless this i s undertaken as a j o i n t Canadian-United States venture. Should Canada and the United States proceed separately with this development two i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s a r i s e regarding the question of downstream be n e f i t s . If a f t e r the construction of a dam by the United States, Canada should construct a dam on i t s portion of the r i v e r and thereby increase the American output, or should Canada erect a dam f i r s t , and thereby regulate the flow of the Yukon 136. or Taiya Rivers i n such a way that l a t e r American dams produce more hydro e l e c t r i c power than they otherwise could have, i s Canada then e n t i t l e d to downstream b e n e f i t s ? 3. Owing to the Canadian Government's r e l a x a t i o n i n 1963 of t h e i r r e s t r i c t i o n s on the export of hydro power, a r e s u l t of the Columbia R i v e r n e g o t i a t i o n s , i t i s now f e a s i b l e f o r the Yukon-Taku and/or the Yukon-Taiya r i v e r basins to be developed on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l programme. This would b e n e f i t both Canada and the United S t a t e s , as Canada has the p o t e n t i a l power resource and Alaska the growing power requirements. The advantages of co-ordinated i n t e r n a t i o n a l hydro-power development i s obvious. "Co-ordination includes the s e l e c t i o n of the 'best' p r o j e c t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , and c o n s t r u c t i o n of 45 them i n the 'best' sequence." With the completion of the Columbia and Peace River Hydro Power p r o j e c t s , the Taku-Yukon-Taiya source becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y important as the next major sources of hydro power i n the P a c i f i c Northwest. 4. The l o c a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary r e s t r i c t s Canadian i n d u s t r i a l development on the S t i k i n e and Taku as there i s only one s i t e large enough (Tulsequah) fo r i n d u s t r y to l o c a t e i n the r i v e r v a l l e y s east of the boundary. The same problem i s not found w i t h the Yukon M.E. Marts, "An American Viewpoint," B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l  Resources Conference No. 12, 1959, published by B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference, p. 83. 137. River both because of the length of the Yukon R i v e r and the more s u i t a b l e p h y s i c a l t e r r a i n . However, a l l three r i v e r s are confronted w i t h the b a r r i e r f u n c t i o n s of the boundary, the most important of which i s the United States Merchant Marine A c t , which as discussed i n the previous chapter, e f f e c t i v e l y r e s t r i c t s trade between Canadian i n d u s t r i e s i n the Yukon and northwest B r i t i s h Columbia and the United S t a t e s . Therefore, unless a change i s made i n the f u n c t i o n of the boundary to f a c i l i t a t e e a s i e r t r a d i n g access, i t would appear that the best use of Canada's hydro power would be to supply i n d u s t r i e s i n the American l i s i e r e , s p e c i f i c a l l y pulp and paper p l a n t s and p o s s i b l y a smelter at tidewater. At the present time i t seems probable that the United States w i l l be the f i r s t to erect a major dam on the Yukon R i v e r or as a j o i n t p r o j e c t w i t h Canada on the Yukon-Taiya system. With the growing Alaskan and Japanese markets f o r low cost power f o r use i n electr o p r o c e s s i n d u s t r y and w i t h the present recommendations to both the American and Canadian Governments by the Corps of Engineers and Carr Associates r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r an e a r l y s t a r t on the Yukon-Taku-Taiya system, i t appears l i k e l y that developments w i l l be s e t t l e d s h o r t l y . Thus the above problem of downstream b e n e f i t s and precedence g e n e r a l l y could very w e l l a r i s e . 138. SUMMARY Settlement of United States-Canada r i v e r i n e problems over the past two hundred years have created a small body of customary i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of which the most important aspects are as f o l l o w s : 1. A r e j e c t i o n of t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty i n boundary water problems (Harmon D o c t r i n e ) . 2. The beginnings of a u n i t a r y r i v e r b a s i n concept. 3. The acceptance of the concept of downstream b e n e f i t s . 4. The acceptance of e q u i t a b l e (reasonable) apportionment as a b a s i s f o r p r e l i m i n a r y n e g o t i a t i o n s . 5. The c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e of p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n . As discussed, the l o c a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary creates problems i n the development of the S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon R i v e r s . The above g u i d e l i n e s , however, can be used w i t h i n p o l i t i c a l geography to overcome the e f f e c t of the boundary as a deterrant to the maximum use of the r i v e r s . R iver basins such as the Colorado, St. John, Columbia, and Indus have been developed because of t h e i r acceptance by the s t a t e s i n v o l v e d as u n i t a r y systems and boundary problems have been minimized. The United States Government has expressed an i n t e r e s t i n securing power from hydro s i t e s i n the Yukon and northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Government of the Yukon and B r i t i s h Columbia have i n turn expressed an i n t e r e s t i n developing t h e i r hydro resources f o r i n t e r n a l consumption and export. Therefore, i t would appear that i f s i m i l a r arrangements can be made i n t h i s boundary r e g i o n to those made along the southern Canada-United States boundary, a mutually advantageous settlement could be reached. C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t w i l l c e r t a i n l y a r i s e over f u t u r e r e g u l a t i o n of the S t i k i n e , Taku and Yukon R i v e r s , but the use of the above p o l i t i c a l - g e o g r a p h i c approach can lead to a b e t t e r understanding of the b a s i c geographic components i n the question of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r development and c o n f l i c t , and thus f a c i l i t a t e a more thorough view of the problem involved. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Un l i k e most boundary s t u d i e s , those of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary between Canada and the United States e n t a i l few i f any c o n f l i c t s over ethnic groups, language problems, the r e l o c a t i o n of popu l a t i o n , claims to t e r r i t o r y , and other t o p i c s commonly as s o c i a t e d w i t h boundary research i n p o l i t i c a l geography. The antecedent nature of the Canada-United States boundary f o r e s t a l l e d many of the usual s o c i a l problems. However, the unique l o c a t i o n of the s e c t i o n of the boundary stu d i e d i n t h i s t h e s i s c u t t i n g northern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y o f f from access to the sea, has caused many economic problems. The s i t u a t i o n of non-access i s not economically c r i t i c a l , but involves a s o p h i s t i c a t e d problem of maximizing p r o f i t s i n competition between two very s i m i l a r and aggressive economies. Furt h e r , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to s t a t e d e f i n i t e conclusions to the problems of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and hydro power u t i l i z a t i o n because of t h e i r contemporary and dynamic nature; however suggested s o l u t i o n s are p o s s i b l e i n terms of the research undertaken. One of the bas i c causes of boundary problems i s the f a c t that the l o c a t i o n of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary i s g e n e r a l l y f i x e d and that except through r e l o c a t i o n during and f o l l o w i n g m i l i t a r y c o n f l i c t boundaries l o c a t e d decades or ce n t u r i e s ago remain the same today. In s p i t e of the permanent s i t e of the boundary, i t s s i t u a t i o n i s con s t a n t l y f l u c t u a t i n g through socio-economic changes i n the region of the boundary. Because of the reluctance of n a t i o n a l s t a t e s to a l t e r boundaries, the problem of on- the one hand a changing s o c i o -economic m i l i e u , and on the other a s t a t i c boundary can be solved only through changes i n the functions of the boundary. That i s , the degree of e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the boundary as a b a r r i e r to economic and s o c i a l pressures must be a l t e r e d , e i t h e r by i n c r e a s i n g or decreasing i t s b a r r i e r f u n c t i o n s . The above i s e s s e n t i a l l y the problem posed i n t h i s t h e s i s . The A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary evolved over the years 1741-1903, and was f i x e d permanently through a r b i t r a t i o n i n 1903 i n terms of the economic, s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n of that p e r i o d . Present t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways and hydro power development were unforeseen at the time and therefore the boundary functions must be adjusted to meet today's requirements. H i s t o r i c a l l y , i t i s evident that those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining the l o c a t i o n of boundaries have not been aware of the many functions and long-term repercussions of p o l i t i c a l boundaries. In the nineteenth century boundaries were p r i m a r i l y i d e n t i f i e d as the f u r t h e s t extension of the n a t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y of a s t a t e and were regarded c h i e f l y as b a r r i e r s to outside p e n e t r a t i o n . This i s the philosophy which dominated the 1903 boundary settlement. The l o c a t i o n of the boundary was a r e s u l t of the extension of the B r i t i s h and Russian f u r trades i n the eighteenth and nineteenth c e n t u r i e s . In 1903 the r a p i d l y changing economic and s o c i a l patterns of the northwest were not taken i n t o account i n d e l i n e a t i n g the boundary. Since that time c o n d i t i o n s have continued to change and the boundary which was adequate i n a f u r - t r a d i n g economy and s t r a i n e d under a mining economy, i s inadequate to f a c i l i t a t e the contemporary economic p a t t e r n . 142. Any a t t e n t i o n paid by government to the l o c a t i o n and f u n c t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary came only i n time of c r i s e s and there was no e f f e c t i v e attempt to define the l o c a t i o n of the boundary i n terms of i t s impact on the a r e a l patterns which i t i n t e r s e c t e d . In 1903 the boundary was d e l i n e a t e d and thus any contemplated changes i n i t s l o c a t i o n became almost impossible. Since d e l i n e a t i o n took place boundary problems ( s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) could best be solved by a change of f u n c t i o n , however by pursuing many avenues of unrelated adjustments and piecemeal s o l u t i o n s the s i t u a t i o n has not n o t i c e a b l y improved. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 f a c i l i t a t e d the development of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s by c l e a r l y s t a t i n g the terms of reference of the two sta t e s and thus the r o l e of the boundary. However, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n media had no such sweeping guide to f o l l o w and boundary funct i o n s have changed only to meet s p e c i f i c circumstances w i t h l i t t l e c o - o r d i n a t i o n of p o l i c i e s of the two s t a t e s . To t e s t the hypothesis that changes i n the contemporary r o l e of the boundary are necessary, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems caused by the l o c a t i o n and functions of the boundary were discussed. I t was found that the l o c a t i o n of the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary caused many access problems f o r northwestern B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon T e r r i t o r y . Several attempts at c r e a t i n g c o r r i d o r s through the Alaska Panhandle were documented and t h e i r f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t e d to the un-desireable economic e f f e c t c o r r i d o r s would have on Panhandle communities, 143. the r e l u c t a n c e of the United States to cede any t e r r i t o r y , and the unwillingness of the Canadian Government to concede to the United States any hydro power r i g h t s on Canadian r i v e r s . I t i s suggested that the s o l u t i o n to the access problem i s dependent upon changes i n boundary f u n c t i o n s . The example chosen i s that of coastwise shipping and i t i s found that i f s e l e c t e d changes are made i n the Merchant Marine Act and the Canadian Shipping Act, the b a r r i e r e f f e c t of the boundary on t r a n s p o r t a t i o n would d i s s i p a t e . A change i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routeways and r e g u l a t i o n s would a l s o solve the problem of labour supply and immigration r e s t r i c t i o n s . As documented, there are examples of l e g i s l a t i o n exempting c e r t a i n companies from s h i p p i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s . The b i l l p r e s e n t l y under c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the United States House of Representatives ( c i t e d i n Chapter I I , p. 90) f o r a change i n the Merchant Marine Act to a l l o w Americans to use a Canadian f e r r y system i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of what i s p o s s i b l e . Continuing lobbying pressure by the business community can create government a c t i o n toward a broad review of e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n on access through the Alaska Panhandle and a c l e a r statement of government p o l i c y on suggested s o l u t i o n s o f f e r e d by the business and academic communities. Having o u t l i n e d the f u n c t i o n of the boundary i n terms of a contemporary problem, that of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , the f u t u r e problem of the u t i l i z a t i o n of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s , S t i k i n e , Taku, and Yukon was then discussed i n an attempt to i s o l a t e f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n and c o n t r o l of hydro power developments on r i v e r s 144. d i v i d e d by the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary. The a n a l y s i s involves facets of both p o l i t i c a l geography and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, which have been seen to be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , and g e n e r a l l y broadens the terms of reference of the t h e s i s . From t h i s d i s c u s s i o n s e v e r a l conclusions are evident. F i r s t , the mere p o t e n t i a l of these r i v e r s does not mean that "they can or w i l l be developed economically." ^ Factors such as power output, distance from markets, c a p i t a l requirements and operating costs must be considered. " I t i s not p o s s i b l e to g e n e r a l i z e and say because the Yukon has a large amount of undeveloped water power, t h i s w i l l be the i n e v i t a b l e source of supply f o r most of the development of your economy. I t may or may not. Hopefully because of the c o l l a t e r a l b e n e f i t s provided by hydro p l a n t s , and t h e i r long term economy, the answer w i l l be i n the a f f i r m a t i v e . " ^ Second, given that hydro power development on the r i v e r s , e s p e c i a l l y the Yukon, does prove economically f e a s i b l e , i t i s reasonable to expect that the precedent e s t a b l i s h e d by e a r l i e r United States-Canada n e g o t i a t i o n s over j o i n t hydro power development w i l l be the p a t t e r n upon which a settlement w i l l be based. Any p r o j e c t on the Taku River w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be located i n Canada because of the nature of the H.L. Keenleyside, "Economic E f f e c t s of Large Scale Power Development" Yukon's Resources (Proceedings of the Second Yukon Northern Resources Conference, March 23, 24, and 25, 1966, Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce), p. 45. 2 I b i d . 145. r i v e r but the power could be u t i l i z e d i n e i t h e r s t a t e . At present the most r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e i s f o r a dam to be constructed i n B r i t i s h Columbia on the Taku or Taiya R i v e r s and the power s o l d i n Alaska. This plan would e n t a i l e i t h e r that Canada pay the f u l l cost of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the dam and s e l l the power i n Alaska or that the dam be constructed on a c o s t - s h a r i n g basis and the r e s u l t i n g power d i v i d e d along s i m i l a r l i n e s . E i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e would involve a j o i n t development plan. The other a l t e r n a t i v e open to Canadians i s to develop t h e i r own power sources and l i n k them to a province wide g r i d f o r use i n southern B r i t i s h Columbia markets. The Yukon River presents the same a l t e r n a t i v e as the Taku-Taiya except that here the United States has the opt i o n to construct dams on i t s own. This plan a f f e c t s Canada i n two ways. I t i s con t r a r y to the free n a v i g a t i o n clause i n the Treaty of Washington of 1871 i n s u r i n g Canada access up the Yukon River f o r purposes of commerce; however, t h i s clause has been disregarded on the Columbia R i v e r and there i s no reason to b e l i e v e i t w i l l be respected f u l l y on the Yukon R i v e r . I f an American dam i s b u i l t what r o l e w i l l Canadian dams on the upper reaches of the Yukon River play i n terms of downstream b e n e f i t s ? Some type of r e s t i t u t i o n w i l l be necessary, p o s s i b l y a cash or power settlement, s i m i l a r to that i n the case of Canadian dams on the Columbia R i v e r . F i n a l l y , i t i s obvious from the above and from the i l l u s t r a t i o n s discussed w i t h i n chapter three that the best approach to r i v e r i n e development whether i t be hydro power, i r r i g a t i o n , p o l l u t i o n or whatever 146. i s to develop the r i v e r b a s i n as a u n i t a r y system. G e n e r a l l y , piecemeal p r o j e c t s lead to i n e f f i c i e n c i e s i n the optimum socio-economic u t i l i z a t i o n of the resource. River basins a s t r i d e the United States-Canada boundary n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e j o i n t development because of the c r e a t i o n of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission through A r t i c l e s V I I and V I I I of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 i n which the commission must give i t s assent to any p r o j e c t on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r . This t h e s i s has dealt w i t h only three s p e c i f i c problems involved w i t h the A l a s k a - B r i t i s h Columbia boundary, i t s h i s t o r i c a l development, i t s contemporary impact i n terms of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and i t s future impact on hydro power development. Therefore, i t i s obvious that many areas of research are yet to be explored before the t o t a l spectrum of boundary functions i s evaluated. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that t h i s study w i l l suggest the beginnings f o r f u r t h e r research on the B r i t i s h Columbia-Alaska boundary. The Columbia R i v e r Treaty P r o t o c o l and Related Documents, op. c i t . , pp. 10-14. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bancroft, H.H. B l o o m f i e l d , L.M. and F i t z g e r a l d , G.F. Chapman, J.D. (ed) Classen, H.G. Davidson, G. G a l b r a i t h , I.S. H i l l , N. I n n i s , H.A. Jones, S.B. Kemp. H.R. M i l l s , The Hon. D. Nicholson, N.L. Ormsby, M.A. H i s t o r y of the Northwest Coast. V o l . 1. New York: The Bancroft Company. Boundary Waters Problems of Canada and the United S t a t e s . Toronto, Canada: The Caswell Company L t d . 1958. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r Basin. Proceedings of a Seminar on the Development and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l River Basin. Vancouver, Canada: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c a t i o n s Centre, 1963. Thrust and Counterthrust. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Longmans Canada L t d . , 1965. The Alaskan Boundary. San F r a n c i s c o : Alaska Packers A s s o c i a t i o n , 1903. The Hudson's Bay Company, 1821-69. V o l . 1. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1957. Claims to T e r r i t o r y i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law. Toronto, Canada: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1945. Settlement and the Mining F r o n t i e r . V o l . IX of Canadian F r o n t i e r s of Settlement. Toronto, Canada: The M a c M i l l i a n Company, 1936. Boundary Making, a Handbook f o r Statesmen. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1945. A free Port f o r Nova S c o t i a ? The Case Examined. H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a : Department of Trade and Industry, November, 1960. The Canadian View of the Alaskan Boundary Dispute. Ottawa; Canada: Government P r i n t i n g Bureau, 1899. The Boundaries of Canada, I t s Provinces and T e r r i t o r i e s , Ottawa, Canada: Mines and Technical Surveys, Geographical Branch Memoir No. 2., 1964. B r i t i s h Columbia: A H i s t o r y . Vancouver: The M a c M i l l i a n Co. 1958 Pounds, N.G. P o l i t i c a l Geography. New York: McGraw - H i l l Book Co., 1963. P r e s c o t t , J.R.Y. R i c h , E.E. Rodgers, G.W. Rodgers, G.W. Semyonov, Y. Tans i l l , C.C. The Geography of F r o n t i e r s and Boundaries. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1965. The Hudson's Bay Company, 1670 - 1870. New York: M c M i l l i a n Company, 1961. V o l . 3. 1821 - 1870. Alaska i n T r a n s i t i o n . Baltimore, The John Hopkins Press. 1960. The Future of Alaska. B a l t i m o r e , The John Hopkins Press. 1962. S i b e r i a . Trans, by J.R. F o s t e r , Baltimore: H e l i c o n Press, 1954. Canadian - American R e l a t i o n s , 1875 - 1911. Toronto, Canada: The Ryerson Press, 1943. A r t i c l e s and P e r i o d i c a l s Alexander, L.N. Aughinbough, W.E. Aus t i n , J . Barton, T.F. Bourne, C B . Del R i o , F.N. East, G. East, W.G. F r a n c i s , R.A. "Recent Changes i n the Benelux - German Boundary", Geographical Review. V o l . X L I I I . January, 1953, p. 69. " B o l i v i a ' s Claims i n the Tacna - A r i c a Case", Current H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times. V o l . XVI. June, 1922. p. 408. "Canadian - United States P r a c t i c e and Theory Respecting the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r s : A Study of the H i s t o r y and Influence of the Harmon Doctrine", Canadian Bar Review. V o l . XXXVII. September, 1959. 405. "Outlets to the Sea f o r Land-Locked Laos", The Journa l of Geography. V o l . LIX. May, 1960. p. 206. "The Columbia River Controversy", Canadian Bar  Review. September, 1959. p. 444. " C h i l e ' s C o n f l i c t w i t h B o l i v i a and Peru", Current H i s t o r y Magazine of the New York Times. V o l . XV. December, 1921. p. 449. "The Nature of P o l i t i c a l Geography", P o l i t i c a . No. 2, 1937. p. 259. "The Geography of Landlocked S t a t e s " , I n s t i t u t e of  B r i t i s h Geographers. Transactions, No. 28, 1960. p. 1. "Why Canada Wants Rights Across the Alaska Panhandle", Canadian Business. V o l . XXIX. August, 1956. p. 90. Hartshorne, R. "The P o l i s h C o r r i d o r " , Journal of Geography. V o l . XXXVI. May, 1937. p. 161. Hartshorne, R. Hartshorne, R. Hartshorne, R. Hardwick, W.G. Held, C C . H i l l , J.E. Hinks, A.R. Hoffman, G.W. House, J.W. Jenness, J.L. Jones, S.B. Jones, S.B. "Geographic and P o l i t i c a l Boundaries i n Upper S i l e s i a " , Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American  Geographers. V o l . XXXIII. December, 1933. "The F u n c t i o n a l Approach i n P o l i t i c a l Geography", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XL. June, 1950. p. 95. "A Survey of the Boundary Problems of Europe", i n Geographic Aspects of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s . C C . C o l l e y (ed.), Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1938. "Changing Co r r i d o r s to A l a s k a " , The J o u r n a l of  Geography. V o l . LXI. February, 1962. p. 49. "The New Saarland", Geographical Review. V o l . XLI. October, 1951. p. 540. " E l Chamial: A Century Old Boundary Dispute", Geographical Review. V o l . LV. October, 1965. p. 510. "Notes on the Techniques of Boundary D e l i m i t a t i o n " , Geographical J o u r n a l . V o l . L V I I I . December, 1921. p. 417. "Boundary Problems i n Europe", Annals of the  A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLIV. March, 1954. p. 102. "The F r a n c o - I t a l i a n Boundary", Proceedings of the  I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Geographers. P u b l i c a t i o n Number 26. 1959. "Federal Roads Programs i n Northwestern Canada", B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference. No. 12. Published by the B.C.N.R.C. 1959. p. 111. "The C o r d i l l e r a n S e c t i o n of the Canada - United States Borderland", Geographical J o u r n a l . V o l . LXXXIX. May, 1937. p. 439. "The F o r t y - N i n t h P a r a l l e l i n the Great P l a i n s " , J o u r n a l of Geography, V o l . 31. December, 1932. p. 357. Karan, P. " D i v i d i n g the Water: A Problem i n P o l i t i c a l Geography" The P r o f e s s i o n a l Geographer. V o l . X I I I . January, 1961. K h a l a f , J.M. K r i s t o f , L.D. L o t z , J.R. Mackenzie, K.C. Wardle,' J.M. Wardle, J.M. Marts, M.E. Mead, W.R. Melamid, A. Minghi, J.V. Minghi, J.V. Minghi, J.V. Moodie, A.E. Oman, D.F. "The Water Resources of the Lower Colorado River B a s i n " , Chicago U n i v e r s i t y Research Paper  No. 22. Chicago: 1951. "The Nature of F r o n t i e r s and Boundaries", Annals  of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLLX. September, 1959. p. 269. "A New Way to A l a s k a " , Canadian Geographical J o u r n a l . V o l . LXVIII. February, 1964. p. 52. " I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l R i vers i n Canada: A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Challenge", U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law  Review. September, 1961. p. 499. "A Major Power Plan For Yukon River Waters i n the Canadian Northwest", Proceedings of the I n s t i t u t i o n  of C i v i l Engineers. J u l y , 1957. p. 441. "A Major Power Plan f o r Yukon R i v e r Waters i n the Canadian Northwest", The Engineering J o u r n a l . November, 1957. p. 1638. "An American Viewpoint", B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l  Resources Conference. No. 12, 1959. Published by B.C.N.R.C. 12. " F i n n i s h K a r e l i a : An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Borderland", Geographical J o u r n a l . V o l . L I . March, 1952. p. 40. "The P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Gulf of Aquaba", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLVII. September, 1957. p. 231. "The E v o l u t i o n of a Border Region: The P a c i f i c Coast Sect i o n of the Canada - U.S. Boundary", The S c o t t i s h Geographical Magazine. V o l . LXXXI. January, 1961. p. 37. "Boundary Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Geography", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . L I I I . No. 3., September. 1963. "Point Roberts Washington - The Problem of an American Enclave", Yearbook of the A s s o c i a t i o n of P a c i f i c Coast Geographers. V o l . 24. 1962. p. 29. "The Italo-Yugoslav Boundary", Journa l of Geography. V o l . CI. February, 1943. p. 49. "Maritime F i g h t Rocks P a c i f i c Coast", P a c i f i c Work Boat. V o l . LV. March, 1963. p. 6. Pounds, N.G. "A Free and Secure Access to the Sea", Annals of  the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLIX. No. 3, 1959. p. 256. Pounds, N.G. Ran d a l l , R.R. R i e n s t r a , J . Robinson, G.W.S. Sewell, W.R.D. Sewell, W.R.D. S i d d a l l , W.R. White, G.F. "France and Les Li m i t e s N a t u r e l l e s from the 17th Century to the 20th Century", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLIV. March, 1954. p. 51. "The P o l i t i c a l Geography of the Klagenfurt Basin", Geographical Review. V o l . XLVII. J u l y , 1957. p. 406. "Water Transportation i n the. North", B r i t i s h  Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference. No. 12. Published by the B.C.N.R.C, 1959. p. 126. "West B e r l i n " The Geography of an Enclave", Geographical Review. V o l . X L I I I . October, 1953. p. 540. "The Columbia R i v e r Treaty: Some Lessons and Im p l i c a t i o n s " , The Canadian Geographer. V o l . X. No. 3. 1966. p. 145. "Columbia River Treaty and P r o t o c a l Agreement", N a t u r a l Resources. October, 1964. p. 309. " S e a t t l e " Regional C a p i t a l of Alas k a " , Annals  of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. V o l . XLVII. September, 1957. p. 277. "Cont r i b u t i o n s of Geographical A n a l y s i s to R i v e r Basin Development", Geographical J o u r n a l . V o l . CXXXIX. December, 1963. p. 142. Newspapers and Magazines " B r i t i s h Columbia Co r r i d o r - f o r - Power; New United States I n t e r e s t i n Deal", F i n a n c i a l Post. January 24, 1959. p. 11. Halsey-Brandt, C C . "Forget the Panhandle", The F i n a n c i a l Post. November 5, 1966. p. 6. M i n i f i e , J.M. "Washington Report - Co r r i d o r f o r Power Swap". Toronto Telegram. June 4, 1956. "No Panhandle to Canada: Alaska Reply", F i n a n c i a l Post. June 13, 1959. p. 7. "$296,950,000 Power and I n d u s t r i a l Development i n the Yukon Area", Roads and Engineering Construction. September, 1954. p. 92. " W i l l Our Power Dreams f o r the Mighty Yukon Turn Into Nightmares?" The F i n a n c i a l Post. December 28, 1963. p. 18. Government P u b l i c a t i o n s Alaska I n t e r n a t i o n a l R a i l and Highway Commission, Transport Requirements fo r the Growth of Northwest North America. Washington: United States Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1961. V o l s . 1, 2, and 3. (Volumes 2 and 3 are a Research Report by the B a t t e l l s Memorial I n s t i t u t e on an Integrated Transport System to Encourage Economic Development of Northwest North America.) Canada, Simmons, J.A. House of Commons Debates. V o l . 98, No. 61. 3rd Session, 22 Parliament, Thursday, A p r i l 12, 1956. p. 2853. Canadian Shipping Act. Chapter 29, Part X I I I , Sections 669 and 671. Canada, Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources, The Columbia River Treaty and  P r o t o c o l . Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1964. Canada, Departments of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s and Northern A f f a i r s and N a t u r a l Resources. The Columbia River Treaty, P r o t o c o l  and Related Documents. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1964 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary Commission, J o i n t Report on the Survey and Demarcation of the Boundary Between Canada and  the United States From Tongass Passage to Mount  Saint E l i a s . Ottawa; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1952. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, Docket No. 63 - I n t e r i m Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada  on the Water Resources of the St. John River  B a s i n , Quebec, Maine, and New Brunswick. January 27, 1954. O f f i c i a l Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United S t a t e s , Merchant Marine Act - Tra n s p o r t a t i o n of F i s h Between Points  i n the United States v i a a Foreign P o r t , 1920. ed. G. Kearney, Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1922. p. 350. T r e a t i e s and Agreements A f f e c t i n g Canada i n Force Between His Majesty and the United States of America, 1814-1925. Ottawa; Department of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s , King's P r i n t e r . 1927. United States. Report from the Committee on Roads, The Alaska  Highway. Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1946. United States A t l a s Alaska Boundary T r i b u n a l . Map Number Four. Maps and Charts Accompanying the Case and Countercase of the United States. Washington, 1904. United States Department of the I n t e r i o r , Alaska N a t u r a l Resources and the Rampart P r o j e c t . Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , June 1967. United States T a r i f f Commission, Free Zones i n Ports of the United States. L e t t e r from the United States T a r i f f Commission i n Compliance w i t h the Request of the Senate Committee on Commerce. Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1922. United States Code Annotated. 46;883. Merchant Marine Act of 1920. p. 108. Votes and Proceedings, Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l C o u n c i l , Second Session. V o l . I I . 1966. Reports Carr, D.W. and Associates L t d . The Yukon Economy I t s P o t e n t i a l f o r Growth and C o n t i n u i t y . The Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development and The Government of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y . Ottawa: The Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968. Parsons, G.F. Alaska Travel Survey. Ottawa: Department of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t i o n a l Resources, 1963. Second Yukon Northern Resource Conference, Proceedings. Whitehorse: Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce, 1966. Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e , Improvement Program f o r the Alaska Highway. Ottawa: Department of Northern A f f a i r s and N a t i o n a l Resources, 1966. Wolf Management S e r v i c e s , Investment Opportunities i n Southeastern A l a s k a . Washington: United States Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1965. Unpublished M a t e r i a l Bruce, J.R. The Economic E f f e c t s of the P o l i t i c a l Geography of  the Alaska Panhandle. Graduating Essay - Commerce 490, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1964. Kirkwood, T.J. A proposed Plan of Development f o r Northwest  B r i t i s h Columbia. A t l i n D i s t r i c t Board of Trade. 1964. Minghi, J.V. Some Aspects of the Impact of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Boundary on S p a t i a l P a t t e r n s : An A n a l y s i s of  the P a c i f i c Coast Lowland Region of the Canada - United States Boundary. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington. 1962. Other Sources B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, "Panhandle F i l e " , Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. C a r r o l l , Colonel C.A. Deputy D i v i s i o n Engineer, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. Personal Correspondence. A p r i l 11, 1967. Paget, A.F. Deputy M i n i s t e r of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources. Personal Correspondence. January 31, 1967. Pepin, the Hon. J e a n - L u c , Federal M i n i s t e r of Energy, Mines, and Resources. Personal Correspondence. February 17, 1967. United States Department of Commerce, Maritime A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Personal Correspondence. J u l y 17, 1967. W i l l i s t o n , the Hon. R. P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r of Lands, F o r e s t s , and Water Resources. Personal Correspondence. February 16, 1967. APPENDIX A Glossary of terms for Chapter '3 Harmon Doctrine - Water r i g h t s are based on t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty and therefore an upstream state may do as i t pleases with the headwaters of any r i v e r s within i t s t e r r i t o r y . Derives i t s name from the man who f i r s t proposed i t , Attorney-General Harmon of the United States. Equitable Apportionment - River waters are divided equally between the upper and lower r i p a r i a n s . Accepted as the t h e o r e t i c a l basis from which negotiations w i l l derive the actual d i v i s i o n . Prior Appropriation - If the downstream state has works on a r i v e r , then the needs of these works w i l l be considered i n a future d i v i s i o n of the r i v e r waters. Downstream Benefits - If the upstream state erects works to benefit the downstream state then the upstream state i s e n t i t l e d to proportional return from the increased benefits to the downstream state. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104213/manifest

Comment

Related Items