1919-1920.-Phases of economic development. -Problem of transportation.-Common carriers.-Roads.-Construction of the Federal railroad. Mining handicapped. Fisheries menaced.-Growth of agriculture and forest products. "The great outstanding problem of Alaska is that of transportation. The public of coastal Alaska is served by three regular passenger and freight steamship lines-two American and one Canadian-representing about 25 per cent of the tonnage operating in the Territory. The Yukon River system is served by one line of river steamers of the White Pass & Yukon Route presumably controlled by British capital. The Kushokwim River is served by a small, combination freight and passenger ship sailing from San Francisco to Bethel, while the inhabitants of the valley itself are dependent upon one small American river steamer. There are a few semicommon carriers operating locally with indifferent success. The Copper River & Northwestern Railroad runs from Cordova to Kennecott, a distance of 196 miles, and is primarily an ore-carrying road, but performs the function of a common carrier. The railroad of the White Pass & Yukon Route extends from Skagway in Alaska to Whitehorse in Yukon Territory, a distance of 110 miles, 23 of which are in Alaska. The Yakutat & Southern Railroad, from Yakutat to the Seetuck River, carries little besides fish. The Government railroad from Seward to Fairbanks is still under construction. . . . [Its progress was handicapped during the World War for lack of labor and inadequacy in appropriations.] This, then, in brief practically covers the common-carrier systems to and within Alaska. . . The Alaska Road Commission, constituted by act of Congress approved January 27, 1905, is composed of three officers of the Army, reporting to the War Department through the Chief of Engineers. Approximately 5,000 miles of wagon road, sled road, and trail have been constructed and maintained by this board since 1905. Of the roads constructed about 400 miles have a gravel surface and are suitable for light automobile traffic. . . . In addition to roads constructed and maintained directly through Federal appropriation or authorization the legislature, at its last session, appropriated $375,000 for roads and trails. . . . Not a great deal was accomplished in actual new construction of the Government railroad in Alaska during the first few months of the fiscal year 1920 because of the lack of appropriation and the uncertainty surrounding it. The original authorization of $35,000,000 was almost exhausted and data was being assembled for presentation to Congress asking for an additional authorization of $17,000,000. This was presented in July, 1919, and after extended hearings Congress granted the additional authorization in an act which was approved by the President on October 18, 1919 (Public No. 59). Of course, during these months the road was operated and maintained as well as possible under the circumstances, and some construction work done."-Report of the governor of Alaska to the Secretary of the Interior, 1920, pp. 11-15.

One of the most important industries of Alaska is mining: gold, silver, copper and coal are found in large quantities. "It is true that mining has never before been so handicapped as at present, that operating costs are practically prohibitive in places, and that transportation could hardly be worse... The winning of some $20.000 worth of gold from placer mines near Juneau in 1880 marked the beginning of the great mining industry of Alaska, the value of whose total product up to

the close of 1919 is $438,161,000. Alaska's developed mineral deposits are chiefly gold and copper. Hence, her mining industry in 1919 was subject to the same depression that affected gold and copper mining throughout the world. This fact explains in large measure why the value of Alaska's mineral output in 1919 is only about $19,620,000, while that of 1918 was $28,254,000.

The outlook of gold mining in Alaska under present economic conditions is not hopeful, yet the continued success of certain larger ventures, like dredging, shows that it is by no means hopeless. Such operations and the mining of bonanza deposits will continue. Alaska still contains large reserves of gold-bearing gravels that can be mined profitably when transportation conditions are improved. No one can foretell whether any more bonanza camps will be found, and therefore the only certain future lies in the development of deposits of lower grade. Therefore the most important event of the year for the future of mining in Alaska was the continuation of the work on the Government railroad and the assurance by congressional action of the money needed to complete the line. It is now certain that in three years there will be a standard-gauge railway connecting tidewater on the Pacific with Fairbanks and navigable waters on the Yukon. To give its full benefit to the mining industry, however, the Alaska Railroad must be connected with mining centers by good wagon roads."-Ibid., pp. 19-24.-The production of coal, which reached a value of $411,850 in 1918, was largely the work of the Alaskan Engineering Commission, which was responsible for 84 per cent of the total output. The copper production has been increasing regularly until it reached 88,793,400 pounds, worth $24,240,598 in 1917. A decrease in production the following year was due to the shortage of labor and ships.

Fishing came to the fore in Alaska life in the 'eighties of the last century, when pelagic sealing had already made serious inroads into the sealherds of the surrounding seas. The catching and canning of salmon, at first undertaken as a rather puny substitute for seal catching, has in recent years become the most important industry of Alaska, being in 1918 three and a half times greater than that of copper, which is next in rank. "Alaska's at present most important industry is seriously menaced. There must be speedy action of sorts taken by the Government or the salmonfishing industry, normally furnishing trade to the United States in the sum of approximately $50,000,000 annually, will be slowly wiped out. In 1919 the salmon pack was only about twothirds that of 1918, but a partial report of the canneries to the Territorial treasurer shows the profits of those reporting to have been considerably over $2,000,000. Present indications are that the pack for 1920 will be less than that of 1919. . . . Due to overfishing both in and outside of salmon streams in 1918, 1919, and 1920, the cyclic return of salmon spawned in those years is becoming, and will become, less and less. As the runs decrease, newly devised and increased numbers of floating and fixed gear further decrease the escapement of spawning fish. . . . The take of seal and fox skins from the Pribilof Islands for 1917 and 1918 will net the Government $6,400,000. In this large amount the Territory participates in not the slightest measure. Under careful governmental supervision the herd, at one time on the verge of annihilation, has increased to about 525,000 animals, which inhabit the waters of Alaska during the summer season."-Ibid., pp. 48-51. See FISHERIES; BERING SEA QUESTION.

The agricultural value of Alaska has only recently been shown-certain grasses, grains, livestock and vegetables being suitable to the climate. Alaska is expected to have as much arable land as Finland, a country which exports agricultural products and also supports a population of 2,500,000. To further agricultural progress, government experiment stations have been established (see EDUCATION, AGRICULTURAL: United States), and an agricultural college has been founded at Fairbanks. Recently two industries related to agriculture have been developed. The breeding of reindeer as a native industry has increased considerably, the reindeer numbering, in 1919, over 125,000 head, of which only about 28 per cent are not owned by the Indians. Within the last year (1920) preparations have been made for the opening up of vast national forests for the manufacture of wood pulp. Alaska's resources in this direction are stated by Chief Forester W. B. Greeley who says that Alaska contains 100,000,000 cords of pulpwood. She has the resources to produce 1,500,000 tons of paper yearly. With reasonable care, under the methods followed by the Forest Service, this output can be kept up perpetually.

1920. Education."The public schools of Alaska are under the direction of the Territorial board of education with the commissioner of education, Juneau, Alaska, as executive head. They are maintained for white children and for children of mixed blood leading a civilized life, and are administered under both Federal and Territorial laws. . . . There are 163 teachers in the schools of Alaska. . . . Schools in the following towns offer four years of high school work: Anchorage, Douglas, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Nome, and Valdez. . . . Alaska high schools are in general accredited at the leading State universities. . . ."Report of the governor of Alaska to the Secretary of the Interior, 1920, pp. 11-15, pp. 64-65.-See also EDUCATION: Alaska.

1920.-Population.-Increase.-Effects of the World War.-"The white population of Alaska, 39,000 in 1910, increased by 1915 to about 50,000. From 1915 to 1918, owing to war conditions, the population declined, but in 1919 the tide set northward again and there was a slight increase, which will probably continue in 1920. The present white population of the Territory is estimated to be 36,000, in addition to about 25,000 natives, some of whom are civilized. The industrial population of the Territory exceeds 40,000. The loss in population during the period of the war was due to (1) men entering the military service, estimated to number 3,000, (2) high wages in the States, (3) the decrease in number of men employed in mining. In 1915 about 9,600 men were employed in the Alaska mining industry as compared with about 4.500 in 1919."—Ibid., p. 104.

ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION.-18671903. Basis of dispute.-Failure of AngloAmerican joint commission to settle question in 1898.-Modus vivendi.-Hay-Herbert Convention, 1903. "When Alaska was acquired from Russia by purchase in 1867, the boundary-line separating that territory from the British possessions had never been marked or even accurately surveyed, though the treaty between Great Britain and Russia, on which the controversy turned, had been made as far back as 1825. The language of this treaty seemed to exclude Great Britain altogether from the coast north of 54 degrees and 40 minutes.... But owing mainly to the expenses of a survey in that deserted region the matter was indefinitely deferred by both governments. There had never been any difference of opinion expressed

as to the general interpretation to be given to the treaty, and the question of marking the boundary was regarded merely as a surveying problem to be settled by commissioners appointed in the usual way and with the usual powers. The discovery of gold in the Klondike district, on the upper tributaries of the Yukon, in Canadian territory, in 1897, put a very different aspect on the matter. The shortest and quickest route to the gold-bearing region was by the trails leading up from Dyca and Skagway on the headwaters of Lynn Canal-Skagway being about 1115 miles from Seattle and less than 600 miles from Dawson. The Yukon, or all-water route, was much easier but slower-the distance from Seattle to St. Michael by ocean steamer being 2700 miles and from that point to Dawson by river steamer 1300 miles. Dyea and Skagway soon became important places, and the population rapidly increased. The Canadians now laid claim to these ports on Lynn Canal, and pushed their outposts down in that direction. Serious difficulties threatened from the conflict of authority over the collection of customs. The general question of the boundary was, therefore, referred to the Anglo-American joint high commission, which met at Quebec in the summer of 1898 for the purpose of adjusting matters relating to commercial reciprocity and fisheries. The commission not only failed to reach an agreement on this question, but it developed here for the first time that the Canadians had set up an entirely new theory as to the interpretation to be given to the treaty of 1825, so as greatly to narrow the American coast strip and throw the boundary line across the heads of inlets and channels in such a way as to give the Canadians access to several deep-water harbors. ... The United States commissioners naturally did not feel authorized to trade off American territory in this way. When this interpretation was set up, it became at once evident that the perma. nent adjustment of the boundary was a matter that would require long diplomatic negotiation Meanwhile there was a steady movement of men and supplies to the Klondike by way of Dyea and Skagway; and the situation of the headwaters of Lynn Canal, where both United States and Canadian officials claimed jurisdiction, was growing serious. Under these circumstances the United States agreed upon a modus vivendi with Great Britain, fixing a provisional line at certain points and accordingly notes were exchanged October 20. 1899; the line thus established gave the Canadians temporary possession of several points which had always been regarded as within American jurisdiction. The main question was left for future adjustment, it being specifically provided that this provisional line was fixed 'without prejudice to the claims of either party in the permanent adjustment of the international boundary. Finally on January 24, 1903, Mr. Hay signed a convention with Sir Michael Herbert, agreeing to submit the question to a limited sort of arbitration; the tribunal was to consist of three Americans and three British members. . . . As the tribunal was finally constituted, no decision could be reached unless at least one commissioner failed to sustain the contention of his own government and upheld that of the other. The American members were Elihu Root, at that time secretary of war; Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts; and exSenator George Turner of Washington. The British members were Lord Alverstone, lord chief justice of England; Sir Louis Amable Jette, lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec; and Aller B. Aylesworth, of Toronto. . . . It was evident from the first that the trial was really before

Lord Alverstone, the chief justice of England; in case he sustained the American contention, there would be an end of the controversy; in case he sustained the Canadian view, there would be an even division, and matters would stand as they stood before the trial began, except that a great deal more feeling would have been engendered, and the United States might have had to make good its claim by force. . . . After a good deal of diplomatic sparring over points connected with the presentation of the cases, the members of the tribunal met in London September 3, 1903."-J. H. Latané, America as a world power, pp. 192-203.

1903. Disputed treaty clauses.-Contentions of both sides.-Decision and award of arbitrators, Oct. 20, 1903.-As stated above the controversy arose over the ambiguous language of the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1825, Articles III and IV of which had been incorporated in the treaty of cession of the territory to the United States in 1867. These articles read as follows: "III. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties upon the Coasts of the Continent and the Islands of America to the North-West, shall be drawn in the following manner: Commencing from the southernmost point of the Island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, North Latitude, and between the 131st and 133d Degree of West Longitude (Meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the North along the Channel called Portland Channel, as far as the Point of the Continent where it strikes the 56th Degree of North Latitude; from this last mentioned Point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st Degree of West Longitude (of the same meridian), and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said Meridian Line of the 141st Degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British Possessions on the Continent of America to the North-West.

"IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, it is understood: Ist. That the Island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia. 2d. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the Coast, from the 56th Degree of North Latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st Degree of West Longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British Possessions and the line of Coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the Coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.

"This language was indefinite in several particulars. In the first part of the boundary described -that is, from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island along Portland Channel to the 56th degree, there was room for doubt as to the side of the line on which the islands at the mouth of Portland Channel should fall; and there was the further difficulty that Portland Channel does not extend as far north as the 56th degree. In the second part of the line described—that is, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the 141st degree of west longitude (Mount St. Elias approximately)-there is no dominant range of mountains parallel to the coast corresponding to the language of the treaty, though such a range was prominently marked on the maps of Vancouver of 1798, and on the maps of other cartographers

prior to 1825. In 1893 a joint international survey of the coast between Portland Channel and Lynn Channel was undertaken by the United States and Great Britain, and in their report the American commissioners testified that throughout the lisière the mountains are composed of numerous isolated peaks and short ridges running in different directions, and that within ten leagues of tidewater there is no defined and continuous range such as appears upon the early maps and charts following the sinuosites of the coast.' As to the third section of the line-that is, from Mount St. Elias to the Arctic Ocean-there has never been any dispute. A number of specific questions were submitted to the tribunal for decision. The most important of these was number five: 'Was it the intention and meaning of said convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast on the mainland, not exceeding ten marine leagues in width, separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the ocean ?' If this question should be answered in the negative, the tribunal was to tell how the lisière was to be measured, whether from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast, or from the line separating the territorial waters from the waters of the ocean or from the heads of inlets and bays. The English contention was that the line should follow certain peaks along the coast and run parallel with the general direction of the mainland coast, cutting through inlets, bays, and headlands. This interpretation ignored the meaning of the word sinuosities, and failed to construe the plain intent of the negotiators. The United States claimed: (1) that the treaty of 1825 confirmed in full sovereignty to Russia a strip of territory along the continental shore from the head of Portland Canal to Mount St. Elias, ten marine leagues in width measured from the heads of all gulfs, bays, inlets, and arms of the sea-that is, from tidewater-unless within that distance from tidewater there was a range of mountains lying parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, in which case the summit of such range was to form the boundary; (2) that the acts of Great Britain subsequent to this treaty, and the universal interpretation given it by governments, geographers, cartographers, and historians, agreed with and confirmed the intention and meaning as above stated; (3) that the United States purchased Alaska, entered into possession of and occupied the lisière above described, and exercised sovereign rights therein, and remained in possession for thirty years without any notice from Great Britain that she claimed any portion of the territory ceded by Russia; (4) that there being no continuous range of mountains between Portland Channel and Mount St. Elias parallel with the sinuosities of the coast, the width of the lisière above described was limited by the agreed distance of ten marine leagues from tidewater. In support of its claims the United States showed from the records of the negotiations leading up to the treaty of 1825 that Sir Charles Bagot, the English negotiator, made effort after effort to secure an outlet to deep water through the lisière, and was finally forced to yield the point. The most interesting feature of the case was the overwhelming array of maps presented by the United States, including British and Canadian, showing the boundary line claimed by Russia and the United States. It was also shown that both the Canadian and British authorities had, by repeated acts, recognized our title to the strip in dispute. The decision of the tribunal was rendered October 20, 1903. On all the