 If the British contention was right, the line should have been drawn further west; if it were wrong, the line should have been drawn much further east.There was nothing in the history of the controversy, nor in the legal principle involved, which could adequately explain why the line should be drawn where it had been.So long as arbitration was conducted on such principles, it could not be regarded as a success, at least by those who believe that arbitration should result in the admission of legal rights and not in compromises really diplomatic in character.