November 27, 1919] 



NATURE 



333 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anottymous communications. "l 



Holland and International Rivers. 



In Nature of October i6 is published an address 

 on "The International Rivers of Europe," read at the 

 British Association by Prof. L. W. Lyde. A large 

 part of the address is concerned with the proposition 

 that Holland is the only European country which has 

 so far failed to accept the salutary principle that a 

 great navigable river cannot be monopolised by a 

 single political unit against riparians— a proposition 

 which Prof. Lyde tries to prove, amongst other things, 

 by an analysis of the case of the Ghent-Terneuzen 

 Canal. 



In order not to occupy too much of your space I shall 

 deal only with that question (although some extra- 

 ordinary remarks of Prof. Lyde's on the Maas and the 

 Rhine invite comment), and only with the most im- 

 portant aspect of it, which is that of the dimensions 

 of the canal in Dutch territory. Prof. Lyde denies 

 the truth of the Dutch assertion that Belgium has 

 enjoyed freedom of navigation on the ground that the 

 dimensions of the Terneuzen-Ghent Canal are too small 

 in Dutch territory. He then gives an outline of the 

 history of the enlargements, which, if his statement 

 about freedom of navigation means anything, should 

 prove that Holland is responsible for those dimensions. 

 Now not only does Prof. Lyde not prove this, but it 

 is contrary to well-established fact. Holland has never 

 put any difficulties in the way of Belgian desires for 

 the enlargjment of a waterway which, as a commercial 

 communication, serves mainly, if not exclusively, the 

 interests of the p)ort of Ghent. Prof. Lyde calls italics 

 to his aid to emphasise that eight years were wasted 

 in the 'seventies before the Convention of 1879 was 

 concluded, which arranged for the first enlargement. 

 Wasted by whom? If one reads up the story in 

 Guillaume, "L'Escaut," vol. ii., p. 439 (the authori- 

 tative work on this matter, published in 1902 by the 

 then Belgian Minister at The Hague), one sees that in 

 1874 already the Dutch and Belgian Governments had 

 reached an understanding, but that the Belgian Par- 

 liament, moved by an agitation which had its origin 

 in Antwerp (where Ghent was feared as a possible 

 competitor), threw over the Belgian Government. 



The Convention of 1895 was concluded, as Guillaume 

 puts it, "ais^ment" ("easily") — that is to say, the 

 Dutch acceded at once to the requests put forward by 

 the Belgians. In the same way, when, in 1902, while 

 the enlargement was still being executed, the Bel- 

 gian experts decided that a further enlargement was 

 desirable, the two Governments agreed almost at once 

 on a new convention in which the dimensions were 

 laid down which the canal has at the present moment. 

 If those dimensions are smaller in Dutch than in Bel- 

 gian territory, it is because the works of 1805 were 

 in 1902 in a more advanced state in the Dutch than 

 in the Belgian part of the canal, so that in the latter 

 they admitted more easily of readjustment. But the 

 dimensions in the Dutch part are those which the Bel- 

 gians asked for, and no other, nor have they since 

 then asked for any further enlargement which Holland 

 has refused. On the contrary, if, as a result of the 

 negotiations now proceeding in Paris, new' works of 

 enlargement are undertaken, it will be found that the 

 Dutch Government has already acquired ground at 



NO. 2613, VOL. 104] 



Terneuzen in order to facilitate the enlargement of the 

 locks. 



Where, in this history, is the justification for com- 

 plaints about obstacles in the free navigation of Ghent? 

 Prof. Lyde says that under international control im- 

 provements would be adopted on their merits — so they 

 have under the existing regime ; and that under inter- 

 national control the successive enlargements would have 

 been completed much sooner^-this is an assertion quite 

 unsupported by any evidence. Prof. Lyde says also that 

 under international control the cost of the enlargements 

 should have been met out of the profits on the traffic. 

 Under the existing regime navigation is quite free, and 

 there are no such profits. But I believe that l?rof. 

 Lyde advocates the establishing of tolls under an inter- 

 national authority. I doubt whether this extraordinary 

 idea would recommend itself to international commerce 

 or to Ghent ! 



Far from being unique in denying a neighbour's 

 right of free access to the sea, Holland has in modern 

 times consistently respected it. There has been 

 nothing "stupid" or "selfish" about her attitude. 

 It is perfectly true that she might have acted very 

 selfishly and still remained within the bounds of 

 legality; if that show-s that the existing legal regime 

 should be amended, it is all the more unfair to blame 

 Holland, who never took advantage of it to harm her 

 neighbour's interests. P. Gevl. 



London, October 25. 



I AM obliged for your courtesy in sending me Dr. 

 Geyl's letter. Most of it is concerned with the 

 dimensions of the Terneuzen Canal, which Dr. Geyl 

 calls "the most important asf>ect of the question." I 

 considered it so unimportant that my only comment 

 on it was : " As the accidental difference in dimensions 

 is a real handicap to Belgium, Holland should have 

 been scrupulous to compensate by all possible courtesy 

 and other facilities." 



Dr. Geyl goes on to say that my denial that Bel- 

 gium has had freedom of navigation is based "on the 

 ground that the dimensions in Dutch territory are 

 too small"! A glance at the address in your issue 

 of Octoljer 16 will prove the inaccuracy of this 

 attempt to divert attention from the actual facts on 

 which I ba^ed my assertion that Belgium had not 

 freedom of navigation. 



To anyone who would care to know exactly how 

 Holland has acted on these international waterways, I 

 venture to say that Kaeckenbeeck's purely legal " In- 

 ternational Rivers " (published by the Grotius Society) 

 is more illuminating than Guillaume's account of what 

 is, after all, his o\vn success as Belgian Minister at 

 The Hague. 



" Where, in this history," Dr. Geyl asks, " is the 

 justification for complaints about obstacles in the free 

 navigation . .?" In Dr. Geyl's history, nowhere. 

 Mine was more discursive and gave precise instances, 

 with dates and references, of facilities being denied 

 and delayed by the Dutch; and I notice on p. 319 

 of the. current R.G.S. Journal, in a legal review of 

 Kaeckenbeeck's book, the words: "Germany [on the 

 Rhine] joins hands with the Dutch in setting up re- 

 strictive regulations against foreigners." One rela- 

 tively trivial case illustrates both the denial and the 

 delay. In January, 1906. the Belgian Government 

 formally asked the Dutch Ministry of Finance to forgo 

 customs formalities — with all their delay and incon- 

 venience — on boats moving only and directly between 

 Ghent and .Antwerp. The Dutch Ministry -replied in 

 January, 1907, and refused. 



The profits on the canal trade are so great that 

 Terneuzen has relatively heavier tonnage than any 



