44 



AUSTRIA HUNGARY. 



tion of the commission up to the Iron Gate, 

 gave Roumania a voice which it has used 

 against Austria, and delivered over to Russia, 

 with the Kilia arm and the Stari-Stamboul 

 mouth, the possible military command of the 

 mouth of the Danube and control of its com- 

 merce. The deepening of the mouth of the 

 Danube by the European commission was in 

 reality detrimental to Austrian commercial in- 

 terests. The stoppage of navigation during the 

 winter months, the shoal and shifting chan- 

 nel in the wide stretch between Pressburg and 

 Gonyd, and the rapids of the Iron Gate, de- 

 prive the Danube of value as an outlet for Aus- 

 trian commerce. Before the improvement of 

 the mouth, Austrian merchants monopolized 

 the markets of the lower valley. Since British 

 and French vessels are enabled to ascend the 

 river, the Austrians have been driven step- 

 by step from this profitable field. In the sea- 

 traffic Austria has lost ground in the same pro- 

 portion. The overland exports to Turkey, in- 

 ciuding Servia and Roumania, increased only 

 16,000,000 florins in the sixteen years from 

 1864 to 1880. Of the imports of all Turkish 

 ports in the ten years ending with 1872, Eng- 

 land furnished 48 per cent., France 15 per 

 cent., Germany 7 per cent., and Austria not 

 7 per cent. In the ten years between 1867 

 and 1877 the trade with Turkey showed a rapid 

 decline. In the former year 13 '3 per cent, of 

 the import, and 22' 1 per cent, of the export 

 trade of the Austrian Empire was with Tur- 

 key; but in 1876 the proportions were 11-6 

 and 18 per cent, respectively, while the tran- 

 sit trade declined 30 per cent. The Austrian 

 tonnage on the lower Danube declined from 

 86,000 in 1879 to 50,000 in 1881, while the 

 British increased from 1 36,000 to 332,000. Of 

 the tonnage which passed through the Sulina 

 mouth in 1872, 30 per cent, was British and 11 

 per cent. Austrian; while in 1881, 63 percent, 

 was British and 6 per cent. Austrian. 



The long-projected railroad connection with 

 Turkey was expected to give Austria the op- 

 portunity to regain the position which was 

 lost through the errors of her diplomatists and 

 the incapacity of her merchants. In 1869, 

 Baron Hirsch, the famous Austrian railroad 

 financier, undertook to construct for the 

 Turkish Government a line of railroad which 

 should extend through the length of Turkey 

 and connect under the most favorable condi- 

 tions with the 'Austrian net- work. The con- 

 cessions provided for a railroad from Con- 

 stantinople via Adrianople and Philippopolis, 

 through Bosnia to the Save, where it would 

 connecfwith the Southern railroad of Austria. 

 Branch roa^ls were to connect the trunk-line 

 with Salonica, Dedeagatch, and Shumla. The 

 Constantinople end was built to beyond Philip- 

 popolis, the Salonica branch constructed, and 

 the Novi-Banjaluka section finished, by 1872. 

 A convention was concluded for the continu- 

 ation of the east end from Bellova to Sophia 

 and Nish, and the extension of the Salonica 



branch from Uskub to meet the Bulgarian sec- 

 tion at Mitrovitza, which it was intended to 

 continue from Nish by way of Mitrovitza, 

 Novi Bazar, ^erajevo, Travnik, Banjaluka, and 

 Novi, to join the Austrian railroad at Agram. 

 Baron Hirsch finished the Salonica road up 

 to Mitrovitza, and constructed the Bulgarian 

 branch to Tirnova. British intrigues and the 

 rival interests of the Austrian and Hungarian 

 states prevented the work from being carried 

 any farther. The portions thus far completed 

 opened up the whole interior of the Balkan 

 Peninsula to British commerce, while Austria- 

 Hungary derived no benefit from them. When 

 the Porte showed an inclination to complete 

 the connection with the Austrian railroads, it 

 was persuaded to divert the line for supposed 

 strategical reasons, and adopt the project of 

 a difficult mountain railway from Sophia to 

 Uskub. The Hungarians were strongly op- 

 posed to the Hirsch project, desiring that the 

 connection with the Continental system should 

 be through Hungary, and the Government 

 went so far as to make surveys for a direct 

 line from Pesth through Semlin and Belgrade 

 to Nish. The territorial changes consequent 

 upon the Russo-Turkish War increased the 

 divided interests and strategical questions. 

 The Berlin Congress, instead of deciding the 

 question of the railroads, left it in an almost 

 hopeless tangle by referring it to the Confe- 

 rence d quatre, making it depend upon the 

 mutual agreement of Austria - Hungary, the 

 Porte, Servia, and Bulgaria. The Austro- 

 Servian railroad convention was concluded as 

 early as April 9, 1 880. In this, Servia bound 

 itself to construct within three years a rail- 

 road connecting with the Pesth-Semlin line 

 and running from the Hungarian boundary 

 near Belgrade up the Marava valley to Nish, 

 and there dividing so as to connect with the 

 Turkish railroads by two branches, one run- 

 ning to the Bulgarian boundary toward Bel- 

 lova, where it would join the Constantinople 

 line, and the other to the Turkish boundary 

 to meet an extension of the Salonica-Mitro- 

 vitza railroad. The work was not completed 

 at the term agreed upon, June 3, 1883, nor is 

 it yet decided where the junctions with the 

 Turkish and Bulgarian railroads are to be. 

 The Conference d quatre, at its sittings in 1881 

 and 1882, debated fruitlessly the questions of 

 the international postal and telegraph services, 

 tariff regulations, etc. A note communicated 

 to the Turkish Government by the Austrian 

 embassador in the early part of 1883, com- 

 plains of the delay in carrying out the decis- 

 ions of the Conference d quatre, and making 

 the extensions to connect with the Servian 

 and Bulgarian roads. It declared that the 

 Porte had not yet determined the route by 

 which the Yamboli line was to reach the Bul- 

 garian railroad at Shumla, and neither accept- 

 ed nor rejected the Servian proposal of the 

 Vranja route for the connection of the Saloni- 

 ca-Usknb road with the Servian system. The 



