244 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF SCIENCE. — 1916. 



me repeat that the reason for giving first consideration to the senti- 

 mental values in a boundary dispute is the obvious fact, long ago con- 

 firmed by history, that no nation gains in strength by the acquisition 

 of a people latently hostile, and prevented by hereditary or ethnical 

 instinct from any process of assimilation which will cement the bonds 

 of political union. Setting aside, then, the question of international 

 sentiment, we may consider those problems which beset the physical 

 side of the questions, especially the relations and influence of geography 

 and environment on a frontier, together with some few of the most 

 important rules \\ hich should guide first the delimitation, and then the 

 demarcation, of a boundary, and I should like to commence by insisting, 

 as far as I can, on some definitions which seem to be called for, judging 

 from certain reports dealing with boundary matters which I have lately 

 read, and on which I have been asked to express an opinion. The 

 ' delimitation ' of a boundary is not the actual process of marking out its 

 position in the field. That is better understood by the word ' demarca- 

 tion. ' Delimitation is a pi'ocess of defining by means of maps and 

 protocols where a boundary should be demarcated in the field, and it is 

 usually the function of those high political authorities who meet together 

 to represent the interests of either nation concerned and agi-ee, on such 

 geographical evidence as they can get, what either side is prepared to 

 accept. Too often it is assumed that with the delimitation of a boundary 

 the great question at issue is finally settled. If the delimitation is based 

 on perfectly sound evidence, and if the protocols and other technical 

 documents provided for the guidance of the demarcators is expressed 

 both clearly and correctly, the subsequent business of demarcation 

 becomes merely a secondaiy process giving effect in the field to that 

 which has been decided in high conclave. This has seldom been the 

 case in the past owing to a want of appreciation for the necessity for 

 exact geographical knowledge, both practical and theoretical, on the 

 part of the political delimitors, and it has happened that the terms of 

 delimitation have led to far extended disputes and to a process of 

 demarcation which, in one important instance at least, has lasted for 

 more than a century and a half. Another matter on which some 

 confusion of mind has been apparent, even amongst officers of special 

 ability in this form of public service, is the distinction which lies 

 between a frontier and a boundary. If you define this distinction 

 shortly it amounts to this — a boundary denotes a line, and a frontier 

 space. The boundary limits the frontier, and it is the expansion of the 

 frontier which so frequently renders a boundary necessary ; a frontier 

 is but a vague and indefinite term until the boundary sets a hedge 

 between it and the frontier of a neighbouring State. 



There are, in my opinion, certain fixed principles which are 

 applicable to all boundaries no matter where they may be traced, 

 whether among the gloomy forests of the Upper Amazon or the peaks 

 and pinnacles of the Andes, amongst the sun-baked hills of Africa or 

 through the intricacies of the rugged borderland of India; whether in 

 black man's wilderness or the white man's populous and overcrowded 

 provinces; and these principles, which are dependent on physical 

 attributes-, can never be safely ignored. The last half-century has 



