October i6, 1919] 



NATURE 



143 



great nations, least of all with that of the greatest 

 of nations," and that Holland, simply on the ground 

 of her small size, should be robbed of her three 

 estuaries in the interest of Germany. But neither 

 has one an atom of sympathy with the Dutch habit 

 of taking advantage of that small size to behave in 

 a mean and unreasonable way on the assumption 

 that no Power except Germany would use force 

 against such a little people. I would like to illus- 

 trate the position by an analysis of the problem on 

 a canal, for one must include straits and canals with 

 rivers. Their inclusion may involve some difficulty, 

 but in the most serious case the difficulty is already 

 largely solved. I refer to the fanama Canal during 

 the second year of tiie war, when British shipping 

 was exactly half as large again as U.S.A. shipping, 

 amounting to very nearly 42 per cent, of the whole 

 traffic. The total result of the war, however, has been a 

 loss of more than 5,200,000 tons of British shipping, 

 involving a reduction of 13-5 per cent, in our carrying 

 power at sea, while the U.S.A. tonnage has increased 

 by nearly 6,730,000 tons, i.e. an increase of 382'! 

 per cent, in the U.S.A. sea-going- tonnage (June, 

 1919). i, 



Ihe case which I propose to analyse is that of the 

 Terneuzen Canal, and I wish to press it with all 

 possible emphasis, because it shows a typical case of 

 quite natural — and, therefore, almost pardonable — 

 human selfishness, and its supporters are guiltv of an 

 extraordinary blindness to their own mercantile 

 aivantage. 



Ghent is the second port in Belgium and the first 

 industrial town in Flanders. In the days before the 

 separation of the two countries it was connected with 

 Terneuzen, i.e. "open-sea " navigation on the Scheldt, 

 by a canal twenty miles long, of which rather more 

 than half was in "Belgian " and rather less than half 

 in "Dutch " territory, the actual ?ea connection being, 

 unfortunately, in the Dutch territory. 



At the time of the Franco-Prussian War the Bel- 

 gians decided to enlarge the canal, but had to i^msie 

 eight years in obtaining the consent of the Dutch 

 to the undertaking. Even then the consent was given 

 only on the condition that the Belgians should pay 

 for all work done by the Dutch, give an annual grant 

 of some i3,oooL for the upkeep of the new works, 

 and grant Terneuzen reduction of rates on Belgian 

 railways ! Some twenty-five years later it became 

 necessary again to enlarge the canal ; this was begun 

 in 1895 on condition that Belgium again paid all the 

 cost, that the Dutch had the right to close the locks 

 " whenever they deemed it useful to safeguard Dutch 

 interests," and that various other concessions were 

 granted, e.g. about the Antwerp-Rozendaal railway; 

 and the complete agreement was signed in iqo2. The 

 total cost was ijfoo.oooL, a large proportion being 

 spent on the canal port at Terneuzen ; but the con- 

 trol is entirely in the hands of the Dutch ; the Belgian 

 part of the canal is both broader and deeper than 

 the Dutch part, and the larger Belgian boats even 

 now cannot reach Terneuzen ! That is to sav, after 

 all the cost, the concessions, the delav, etc., the trade 

 of Ghent is still hampered and may be cut off at any 

 moment. Of course, the stupidity of the Dutch in 

 thus crippling their own trade is unpardonable ; but 

 what about Belgium? Even then her boats have onlv 

 reached the Scheldt -a river of little use to Holland, 

 but vital to Belgium. 



The case is important, because the two nations 

 have lived together in peace in spite of the serious 

 "international servitude" of Belgium, and because 

 practicallv everything that Holland has done has been 

 quite legal. Dutch officials claim that " Belgium has 

 enjoyed absolute freedom of navigation"; that " Bel- 



NO. 2607, VOL. 104] 



gium has in no way been made to feel that she had 

 to use the waterway of a neighbour to get access to 

 the sea "; and that "Holland has been perfectly right 

 in asking Belgium to pay for improvements on a 

 canal which admittedly ( !) serves almost exclusively 

 Belgian interests." To a Belgian this is mere 

 mockery. And I submit that, if Belgium has to pay 

 almost the entire cost, she ought to have also almost 

 the entire control ; that the traffic is very profitable, 

 the tonnage of Terneuzen being relatively larger than 

 that of any other Dutch town, even Rotterdam ; that 

 part of the cost has been due to the canal having 

 formed part of the Dutch polder system ; and that, 

 under international control, the total cost would have 

 been met out of the profits on the traffic. 



Further, I submit that, although the waterway was 

 , originally not artificial at all, but a distributary of 

 the Lys, navigation has not been free for Belgium. 

 Facilities have been both denied and delayed. Denials 

 have been rare ; but the Dutch refused, in 1907, to 

 forgo customs formalities on cargoes moving only and 

 directly between Ghent and Antwerp, and they have 

 refused to provide fog-signals or beacons at Ter- 

 neuzen. Preposterous delays have been more or less 

 normal. For instance, the request about the customs 

 was made in January, iqo6, and was refused in 

 January, 1907 ; a request for permission to dredge a 

 sandbank, made on November 11, was granted on the 

 following September 17; and another made on July 9 

 was granted on December 2. 



Even the dimensions on the Dutch part of the 

 canal have prevented any real freedom of navigation. 

 These dimensions were originally agreed upon by a 

 mixed body of experts, and accepted almost verbatim 

 by the Dutch Government in 1895. They were 

 niodified in 1902, though the 1902 Convention was not 

 ratified; and, thus modified, the scheme of 1895 was 

 completed in 1910. Now, under international control, 

 it would have been completed much sooner ; all un- 

 necessary formalities due to riparian sovereignty 

 would have been avoided ; all necessary safety would 

 have been immediately provided for, e.g. by dredging 

 or fog-signals ; and all improvements would have 

 been adopted on their merits. In the absence of inter- 

 national control Belgium has been subject, as I have 

 indicated, to serious "international servitude," which 

 has involved her in heavy costs and continual annoy- 

 ances. Yet Holland has, practically from first to 

 last, acted with perfect legality. (I intentionally 

 exclude the undoubted illegality of the closing of the 

 Scheldt in August, 1914, the transport of excessive 

 quantities of sand and gravel for German use during 

 the war, and the free passage through Limburg 

 granted to the retreating German armies.) But if the 

 other things referred to are legal, it is high time that 

 thev were made illegal. 



It has been typical, too. that when the Dutch have 

 granted any facilities, it has been done by a specific 

 treaty, i.e. done as a matter of policy, not of justice. 

 It was from this point of view that they agreed to 

 the Lek and tlw Wnal being recognised as the proper 

 mouths of the Rhine. This emphasis on policy rather 

 than on justice has not, however, been confined to 

 Holland, though she alone still adheres to it. In 

 Europe, in .America, in Africa, and even in .Asia, there 

 hav<» been, first, attempts to enforce a so-called poli- 

 tical right of sovereignty against neighbours, e.g. on 

 the Mississippi bv Spain, on the St. Lawrence by us, 

 on the Amazon by Brazil, on the Zambezi by Por- 

 tu£?nl, and then special conventions somewh.nt on the 

 lines of a treaty of commerce. Such treaties grant 

 commercial facilities, and power of navigation is such 

 a facility; but if the navigation is on a great con- 

 tinental feiture, such as an international river, surely 



