PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 215 



Belgians should pay fur all work done by the Dutch, give an annual grant of 

 some £13,000 for the upkeep of the new works, and grant Terneuzen reduc- 

 tion 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 coricessions were granted, cr/. about the Antwerp-Rozendaal rail- 

 way ; and the complete agreement was signed in 1902. The total cost was 

 £1,600,000, a large proportion being spent on the canal jiart at Terncuzin; but 

 the control is entirely in the hands of the Dutch, with the resvdt that the 

 Belgian part of the canal is both broader and deeper than tlie Dutch part, and 

 the larger Belgian boats even now cannot reach Terneuzen ! That is to say, after 

 all the cost, the concessions, the delay, 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 only reached the Scheldt — a river of little 

 ■use to Holland, but vital to Belgium. 



I wish to press this case, because the two little countries have managed 

 to live together in peace in spite of the serious ' international servitude ' of 

 Belgimn to Holland, and because practically everythiiig that Holland has done 

 lias been quite legal. 



If Belgium has to pay almost the entire cost, she ought to have almost 

 the entire control. The profit on the traffic is so great that Terneuzen has 

 relatively heavier tonnage than any other Dutch port. A considerable part of 

 the cost has been due to the canal having formed part of the Dutch border 

 system, and under international control the total costs would have been met 

 out of the profits. 



Further, I press the point that, though refusals to grant facilities have 

 been very rare, they have occurred, e.g. in 1906-7; and preposterous delays 

 have been almost regular, e.g. a delay from November 11 till the following 

 September 17 in granting permission to dredge a bank. Under international 

 control all necessary precautions and facilities would have been supplied 

 instantly— on their merits. Of course, I am far from wishing Dutch sovereignty 

 to be displaced in favour of Belgian. I want international control in order 

 to displace 'international servitude.' If what Holland has done has been 

 legal, it is high time that it was 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 the 

 Waal 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 have been, first, attempts to enforce a so-called political right of 

 sovereignty against neighbours, e.q. on the ]\Iississippi by Spain, on the St 

 Lawrence by us, on the Amazon by Brazil, on the Zamhesi by Portugal, and 

 then special conventions somewhat 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 continental feature, such as an international 

 nver, surely the particular facility should be admitted luithoitt any special 

 treaty. • ^ 



_ Ihis claim has been specifically put forward on several occasions. For 

 instance, by the Treaty of Paris (1763) we had the privilege granted to us of 



mayigation on the Mississippi to the sea,' and ' to the sea ' meant ' nut on to the 

 sea. When the river passed under the control of the United States, the con- 

 ditions were altered. Spain had granted no such facility to them, and she 

 caimed the pohtical right to block the estuary against them, while Jefferson 

 claimed that they had a natural right to use the whole river, i.e. had such a 



right in equity, in reason, in humanity.' The same question arose on the St. 

 J.awrence. where we claimed the political right to block the lower river against 

 the Uiiited States in 1824. The case is specially important because Adams at 

 once admitted the political right, i.e. the riparian 'sovereignty,' but claimed— as 

 Jeflerson had done— a natural right to use the river itself,' a right which he 



T 2 



