270 



DANUBE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF THE. 



ance of delegates from the riverain states, in 

 harmony with those issued or to be issued for 

 the portion of the river below Galatz. The 

 treaty contained an article providing that one 

 year before the expiration of the term fixed for 

 the duration of the powers of the commission, 

 the powers should come to an understanding 

 in respect to the prolongation of its authority 

 or the modification of its constitution. 



The prolongation of the European Commis- 

 sion and its retention of the powers which 

 were intended for the Riverain Commission 

 were mainly owing to the attitude of Rouma- 

 nia. That state was naturally jealous of the 

 anomalous assumption of rights superseding 

 its sovereignty over a river flowing through 

 its territory. It was particularly suspicious of 

 Austria, and strove to exclude its powerful 

 neighbor as far as possible from participation 

 in the proposed Riverain Commission, and to 

 deny her a share in the navigable portion of 

 the water-way, on the ground that within Aus- 

 trian territory the Danube is not navigable. 

 In point of fact, Austria has no important 

 commercial interests and but slight military 

 interest in the waters of the lower Danube. 

 On the middle Danube, however, she can claim 

 a preponderant interest through the privileged 

 and formerly subsidized Austrian Danubian 

 Steam Navigation Company, which monopo- 

 lizes the steam-traffic on that portion of the 

 river. She was actuated by her general Ori- 

 ental interests and by her moral position in 

 respect to her one great river, as much as by 

 her material interests in it, to assert the full 

 strength of her position. As Roumania re- 

 fused to accord her a commensurate share of 

 influence as a riverain power, she used her 

 voice as a great power to perpetuate the Euro- 

 pean control, sacrificing her exclusive riverain 

 rights rather than yield them up to the control 

 of a distrustful and possibly unfriendly combi- 

 nation of riparian states. The maritime pow- 

 ers of Western Europe, who were the real ben- 

 eficiaries of the improvements made by the 

 European Commission, were naturally inclined 

 to assert and extend the principle of interna- 

 tional control and perpetuate the institution 

 which gave complete security to freedom of 

 navigation and the facilities of commerce. 



In 1882, when the time for anew settlement 

 of Danubian affairs was at hand, a serious at- 

 tempt was made to construct a mixed Riverain 

 Commission, composed of delegates from Aus- 

 tria-Hungary, Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria, 

 to which should be committed the adminis- 

 trative management of the navigation above 

 Galatz, in harmony with the regulations of the 

 European Commission for the lower reaches. 

 At that time Austrian and Russian antagonism 

 was more salient than later. The Servian 

 Government was supposed to be subservient 

 to the wishes of Austria, while Bulgaria was 

 nnde* Russian control, and Roumania was re- 

 garded as susceptible to Russian influence 

 through her dread of Austrian domination. 



Austria laid claim to the permanent presi- 

 dency and casting vote in the proposed Mixed 

 Commission. Roumania strenuously opposed 

 this proposition. The Roumanian Prime Min- 

 ister was even betrayed into the official ex- 

 pression of a hostile menace against the Haps- 

 burg monarchy. Great Britain objected to the 

 Riverain Commission, unless a general right 

 of appeal from its decisions to the Euro- 

 pean Commission was accorded. Barrere, the 

 French delegate on the commission, proposed 

 a compromise which was intended to ob- 

 viate the English objection to confiding the 

 management of the navigation of the middle 

 reaches, declared free up to the Iron Gate by 

 the Treaty of Berlin, to the exclusive admin- 

 istrative direction of the riverain states, and 

 also the Roumanian objection of giving Austria 

 the deciding voice. The Barrere avant-projet 

 was to create a fifth member in the Mixed 

 Commision, who should represent the Euro- 

 pean Commission. The delegates of the sig- 

 natory powers in the European Commission 

 were to succeed one another from year to 

 year in the alphabetical order of the names 

 of the countries. Roumania raised an ob- 

 jection to this proposal, viz., that Germany 

 (Allemagne) and Austria-Hungary (Autriche- 

 Hongrie) would by this arrangement control 

 the decisions of the new commission for the 

 first two years, thus enabling Austria's wishes 

 to prevail in drawing up the administrative 

 regulations. 



While Roumania on her part was seeking to 

 shape the course of the diplomatic delibera- 

 tions so as to restrict as far as possible the in- 

 ternational control over her territorial waters 

 and prevent Austria from acquiring a direct- 

 ing influence in the management of the por- 

 tion yet to be improved and made free to all 

 nations, while the maritime powers were inter- 

 ested in extending the sphere of international 

 supervision and control, and while Austria 

 exerted herself to curb Roumanian preten- 

 sions and secure a preponderant riverain posi- 

 tion, Russia embraced the opportunity to bring 

 forward a claim which would perhaps not oth- 

 erwise have been entertained. This was to with- 

 draw the Oczakpv mouth of the Kilia branch 

 from the jurisdiction of the European Corn- 

 mission. When Bessarabia was receded to 

 Russia, her territorial rights were defined as 

 extending to the Thalweg of the Kilia branch. 

 This has been decided to lie along the Kiiia, 

 or southern arm of the Kilia branch. Both 

 banks of the Oczakov arm therefore belong 

 to Russia, while the southern arm forms the 

 boundary-line between Russia and Roumania. 

 The objections to abandoning the European 

 control of this outlet to Russia were twofold : 

 One was, that Russia, by establishing a for- 

 tified naval harbor there, could menace the 

 navigable outlet of the Danube ; the other 

 depended on a technical question in engineer- 

 ing. This was whether, if, as Russia purposed 

 doing, the Oczakov channel were deepened 



