272 DANUBE, COMMISSION OF THE. 



DELAWARE. 



2. It is unanimously agreed that the nomination of 

 a Bulgarian delegate to the Mixed Commission will 

 be submitted to the approval of the Sublime Forte, 

 and that the consigning of this right in the protocol 

 has the same efficacy as if it formed part of the treaty. 



3. The dispositions of the regulations in their ap- 

 plication to the portion of the river between the Iron 

 Gate and Braila can not be interpreted as restricting 

 the rights of jurisdiction possessed by consuls over 

 the vessels of their countries resulting from treaties 

 between the riverain states and the powers as against 

 the local authorities. 



The plenipotentiaries also unanimously 

 agreed that they accepted the fifth article of 

 the treaty as meaning that the tolls should not 

 go into operation until they were approved by 

 the powers. 



The Mixed Commission. The Barrere avant- 

 projet was the basis of negotiations concern- 

 ing the constitution of the Mixed Commission. 

 In the final action of the conference important 

 modifications in the scheme were made, to con- 

 ciliate the riverain states which objected to 

 the proposal. The order of rotation in which 

 the European representative is to be sent by 

 the European Commission to sit on the Mixed 

 Commission was changed ; and Austria, being 

 permanently represented on the latter, re- 

 nounced her claim to be represented in her 

 turn as a signatory power. Roumania likewise 

 was excluded from double representation. Al- 

 terations were made also in the regulations in 

 their application to the middle course, to meet 

 objections raised by Roumania and Bulgaria, 

 viz., the method of nominating sub-inspectors 

 of the river was changed, and also the manner 

 in which the river was to be divided for pur- 

 poses of management. 



Roumanian Demands. Roumania was far from 

 satisfied with the result of the London nego- 

 tiations. The presence within her territory of 

 foreign executive officers administering powers 

 superseding the authority of the national Gov- 

 ernment, was a source of ceaseless dissatisfac- 

 tion, particularly so because the arrangements 

 were entirely anomalous, as all regulations es- 

 tablished for other international and neutral- 

 ized rivers are administered by the territorial 

 authorities. She, moreover, persisted in her 

 objections to the fictitious position of Austria 

 in the Riverain Commission, and renewed her 

 claim to representation in a conference to de- 

 cide these special questions. Representations 

 were made to the cabinets, in which the follow- 

 ing demands were formulated : 



m 1. The riverain states shall, in addition to the 

 Tghtsm the channel of the river conceded to them in 

 the London resolutions and their right to nominate 

 nver and harbor inspectors, also retain the executive 

 administration of the police and navigation regula- 

 tions ; yet, in order to obviate every irregularity the 

 International Commission shall exercise supervision 

 over the enforcement of the regulations and the ap- 

 pellate and supreme legal jurisdiction over the river. 

 2. Since the commission is not composed simply of 

 representatives of the riverain states, the qualifica- 

 is which entitle the participants to representation 

 shall be denned, to wit, Bulgaria, Roumania, and 

 bervia as riverain states, Europe through a delegate 

 ol the Danube Commission, Austria and Roumania 



being debarred, and Austria individually and on the 

 ground of her preponderant share in the commerce of 

 the middle course of the Danube ; the expenses of the 

 commission to be at the charge of the riverain states 

 alone. 



3. Full participation of Roumania in the delibera- 

 tions and decisions of the conference to discuss these 

 special questions. 



The Roumanian opposition to the London 

 Treaty abated when it was found to be useless. 

 By the time the treaty was ratified, in August, 

 anti-Austrian sentiments were less potent in 

 Roumanian politics, and the jealousy of the 

 Roumanians was turned rather'toward Russia; 

 the Roumanian King visited Vienna, and over- 

 tures toward joining the triple alliance were in 

 progress. 



DELAWARE. State Government. The follow- 

 ing were the State officers during the year: 

 Governor, Charles C, Stockley, Democrat ; Sec- 

 retary of State, William F. Causey ; Treasurer, 

 John M. Houston; Auditor, Jesse L. Long; 

 Attorney-General, George Gray ; Superintend- 

 ent of Public-Schools, Thomas F. Williams. 

 Judiciary, Supreme Court: Chief -Justice, Jo- 

 seph P. Comegys; Associate Justices, L. E. 

 Wales, John W. Houston, and Edward Woot- 

 ton. Chancellor, Willard Saulsbury. 



Legislative Session. The Legislature convened 

 on the 2d of January, and adjourned on the 

 20th of April. On the 16th of January Gov- 

 ernor Stockley was inaugurated. Eli Sauls- 

 bury, Democrat, was re-elected United States 

 Senator. On the 23d the Legislature submit- 

 ted to the Chancellor and judges the following 

 questions : 



1. Is it within the constitutional power of the Gen- 

 eral Assembly, by a concurrent vote of two thirds of 

 the members of each branch thereof, to provide for 

 the increase of the members of the Senate and House 

 of Representatives in the General Assembly, and to 

 apportion the members thereof unequally among the 

 several counties of the State ? 



_ 2. Is it competent for the General Assembly to pro- 

 vide by law for the election of members of either 

 "branch or both branches of the General Assembly 

 from any or every county, from districts created by 

 law within such county, in lieu of the election thereof 

 upon general ticket throughout the county ? 



The Chancellor was of the opinion that while 

 the Legislature could by a two-third vote in- 

 crease the number of Senators and Representa- 

 tives, the counties must be equally represented. 

 If it was desired to give one a greater number 

 than the others, a constitutional amendment 

 would be necessary. The Chief- Justice de- 

 cided the first question in the affirmative, and 

 the second in the negative. Judge Houston 

 agreed with the Chancellor, while Judges Wales 

 and Wootton concurred in the main with the 

 Chief- Justice. The subject was disposed of by 

 the passage of an act proposing amendments 

 to the Constitution for the purpose of increas- 

 ing the number of Senators and Representa- 

 tives in the General Assembly. It proposes 

 that " the House of Representatives shall con- 

 sist of 25 members, 11 of whom shall be chosen 

 from New Castle county, 7 from Kent county, 

 and 7 from Sussex county ; provided, that of 



