Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/136

1O2 1918. The Treaty of B rest-Lit ovsk (March 3 1918) and the subsequent treaty between Germany and Finland (March 7 1918) both stipulated that the fortifications on the islands should be removed and not subsequently rebuilt. But the work of demolition was repeatedly delayed. The Finnish Government opposed the Alanders' wish for union with Sweden, but proposed to compromise by making the islands into a separate Finnish province. .The Diet persisted in this policy, and passed a bill for self-government for Aland in May 1920. Meanwhile the appointment of a Finnish military governor caused resentment, which was aggravated (July 1918) by attempts to call the Alanders for military service on the mainland. They refused to obey, at the same time expressing their willingness to serve in the islands under Swedish-speaking officers. Many of the inhabitants fled to Sweden in order to escape service. In Nov. 1918 the Alanders appealed to the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, relying on the right of self-determina- tion. An appeal to Finland at the same time drew an equivocal reply. In Feb. 1919 the Alanders submitted their case to the Supreme Council in Paris. Sweden supported their claim. The Peace Conference declined to deal with the matter, which was then referred to the League of Nations. A commission of three jurists appointed by the League reported (Sept. 1920) that the Council of the League was competent to make recommendations since the dispute did not refer to a matter left by international law to the domestic jurisdiction of Finland. The League thereupon appointed a commission to examine the question.

Opinion in Finland among both Finns and Swedes was strongly opposed to the cession of the islands, and it was argued that to yield to the demand for self-determination of a fraction of the Swedish population of Finland (about one-tenth) would be to reduce the doctrine to an absurdity. At the same time the opposition of the Swedes in Finland to the Alanders' desire might be regarded as biased by unwillingness to lose the weight of their vote and so lessen Swedish influence in Finland. Finland also maintained that her sovereign rights over Aland were not affected by Russian domination in Finland or by subsequent events, and that Finland was not one of the "new" states that arose as a result of the World War; and that in consequence the Aland question was purely a domestic one in which no other state nor the League of Nations was competent to intervene. On the other hand the Alanders showed themselves virtually unanimous in their desire for union with Sweden, to which they were closely allied in race, language and to a great extent in trade, and they maintained that their islands were sufficiently distinct from Finland geographically to give them the right of self- determination.

The commission, after visiting Stockholm, Helsingfors, and the Aland Is., presented its report to the Council of the League at its session in June 1921. On June 24 the Council announced its decision that the islands were to belong to Finland, but that they were to be neutralized from a military point of view and given full guarantees of unfettered autonomy. M. Branting, on behalf of Sweden, said Sweden would bow to the League's ruling under protest, and M. Hymans was appointed to preside at a committee of Finns and Swedes to discuss details of the guarantees.

For a general account of the islands reference may be made to Handbooks prepared under the direction of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office, No. 48, Aland Islands; also Atlas de Finlande, with text in French (1910). The Finnish side of the present dispute is set forth in The Aland Question and.the Rights of Finland (1920). See also Sven Tunberg, Les lies d'Aland dans I'Histoire (1919), and E. Sjaestcdt, La Question des lies d'Aland (1919).

(R. N. R. B.)

ALASKA (see 1.472). The most important events in the his- tory of Alaska in the ten years ending with 1920 were: (i) the extension of surveys and investigations of resources over nearly half of the total area (586,400 sq. m.) 1 ; (2) the change

1 Most of the inland surveys and investigations, as well as a part of those made along the shore line, were done by the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey, which between 1910 and 1920 mapped about 50,000 sq. miles. The Coast and Geodetic Survey charted the general

in the public land policy, which no longer prohibited the utiliza- tion of Alaska's coal, petroleum and water powers; (3) the granting of a measure of home rule to the people of Alaska; (4) the improvement of transportation by the construction of a Government railway from an open port on the Pacific to navi- gable waters on the Yukon river, by the construction of many wagon roads (total roads and trails 4,900 m.) and by the in- stallation of many lights and other aids to navigation (total 547); and (5) the great advance of her copper and salmon-fishing industries, and of gold mining until 1916.

Public Land Policy. The political history of Alaska has largely centred in a struggle for more liberal land laws. In early days it had been considered for the best interests of Alaska to transfer the lands to private ownership as quickly as possible without too close a scrutiny of the means employed. This policy was completely reversed as a result of the conservation movement inaugurated under President Roosevelt. The aim of the movement, as first defined, was to prevent waste of natural resources; but this issue proving too academic to make a popular appeal, it gradually veered to a protest against corporate control of lands and resources. Though supported in the begin- ning by the best element in the nation, it ultimately became involved in the bitter struggle between the Roosevelt and Taft wings of the Republican party. As practically all the lands of the Territory were still owned by the Government, the withholding of the most valuable of these from settlement and development played havoc with her industries. Curiously enough, the most ardent of the conservationists failed to recognize the urgent importance of conserving the salmon and halibut fisheries. As it was, the withdrawal of coal, oil and good timber lands as well as of water powers left the Territory with only metalliferous deposits and fisheries on which to base its industries. A very important by-product of the conservation movement was the development at Washington of a mania for the establishment of reservations in Alaska. In this way there were set aside for various purposes, exclusive of mineral or forest withdrawals, some 40,000 sq. miles. For many years the Alaska conservation issue remained at a deadlock between the executive and legisla- tive branches of the Government. Meanwhile Alaskan in- dustries languished. With an abundant supply of fuel close at hand, she was forced to import coal and petroleum at great cost; her pulp wood was rotting in the forest, her water powers were undeveloped. Only gold- and copper-mining and salmon-fishing increased. Finally during the Wilson administration a leasing policy for coal and oil lands and water powers was established by law. At about the same time the shortage of paper had a liberal- izing influence on the regulations relating to the sale of timber from the national forest. In 1921 the new laws were too recent to allow an estimate of their effect.

Government. The struggle of Alaska to attain representation in Washington, lasting nearly 40 years, resulted in 1906 in the authorization of an elected delegate to Congress. At each biennial election which followed, home rule was the only im- portant issue, until finally in 1912 an Act was passed granting a territorial government. This continued the governor as a presidential appointee, and (unwisely, though in accord with American tradition) provided for a bi-cameral Legislature. The upper chamber, or Senate, consisted of two senators from each of the four judicial districts, serving four years. Sixteen repre- sentatives formed the lower chamber, or House of Representatives, four elected for two years from each judicial district. This equal representation for each of the judicial districts gave the less-populated areas of the interior an unjust preponderance in the Legislature, and in many instances worked against the best interests of the Territory as a whole. Congress in the organic Act expressly retained the right of repealing all laws enacted by the Alaska Legislature. Furthermore, the Territory was denied the right to enact laws relating to the excise, game, fish, fur- features along the entire coast-line and covered about 10% of it in detailed surveys of important harbours and principal routes of navigation. In 1913 the International Boundary Commission com- pleted the survey of the Alaska-Canadian boundary.