240 POLAR PROBLEMS 



in this connection it certainly does not mean half the sphere. It must 

 rather mean something roughly equivalent to "the American Conti- 

 nents." Geographically, the western hemisphere is usually mapped 

 as commencing at about 20° longitude west of Greenwich and ex- 

 tending to 160° E. This corresponds to the idea of a "western" 

 half, because if the western hemisphere commenced any farther east 

 it would take in part of Africa. But this western half of the globe, 

 as any one may see by looking at an atlas, includes not only the Cape 

 Verde Islands and the Azores and Iceland on the east, but on the 

 west includes all of New Zealand and a considerable expanse of the 

 Pacific beyond the Fiji Islands. Of course what all this means is 

 that the word "hemisphere" is frequently used very loosely, as mean- 

 ing not the western "half" but a large western "portion" of the 

 globe, and it is in this sense only that it is to be connected with the 

 Monroe Doctrine. 



Assuming, however, that the Monroe Doctrine may be invoked 

 in relation to Arctic islands, may it, or should it, be invoked as against 

 Canadian claims east of 141° west longitude? 



In answering this question we should think of realities. The 

 Monroe Doctrine is a national policy established primarily for the 

 benefit of the United States. It doubtless will remain unlimited by 

 any precise geographical formula and undefined by any particular 

 form of words. In more than one sense, Ottawa is very near to 

 Washington. The international frontier between the two countries 

 means more a tariff than it does anything else. To interpret the 

 Monroe Doctrine as meaning that Canada could not extend her 

 domains to the north would be to say that acquisition by Mexico of 

 Axel Heiberg Island would be regarded by the United States with com- 

 plaisance and Canadian sovereignty thereover with opposition. The 

 absurdity of the conclusion dem.onstrates the falsity of the premises. 



As to the islands now known and lying north of the Canadian main- 

 land, the average American would have no objection to the Canadian 

 title. Certainly we would prefer Canadian ownership to any other 

 ownership. We do not regard Canada as a "European Power" despite 

 her membership in the British Empire — a much looser tie to London 

 than it was even a generation ago. The only other possibilities would 

 be something in the nature of terra nullius, an unsatisfactory sort of 

 ownership by everybody, or else ownership by the United States. 

 No public sentiment here would favor either, as against Canada. 



So while it cannot be asserted that Canada's title to all these 

 islands is legally perfect under international law, we may say that 

 as to almost all of them it is, not now questioned and that it seems in 

 a fair way to become complete and admitted. 



The undiscovered lands are another story. We can make up our 

 minds about them when we know what they are. 



