Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-12-25

The treaty of westphslia in i6as consti-
tuted the mouth Of the Schcldt com-
mercfai station between the Spanish prov
inces and the united provinces When the
Spanish provinces were coded TO Austria
by the treaty OF Utrecht i'm l1I3 that pow 81
sought to obtain the opening OF the
treaty OF Fontainebleau. which niafntsin-
ed the closing of the sscteidt to the Rel
eian provinces from Softingen to the sea.
Finally by the treaty OF Paris OF MAJ 80,
1914. the Schcldt was I'm effect opened 10
all nations and exempt from all tolls
The treaty OF April 80. 1899. which defi-
nftely sanctioned the separation OF Bel
gtum and Holland. maintained the free
navigation Of the SchcIdt under the
united police Of the two countries THIS
treaty. however. left the tolls or tax on
navigation In favor OF Holland. These
tolls were abolished by treaty between
Belgium and Holland: dated May L.. 1881.
In consideration OF an Indemnity tss "A
purchase) OF lI,l4i,Sio forms to be paid
to Holland.
The question at issue between the two
governments Is of such importance that
II has provoked the publication OF a pam
phlet under the title OF The Scheldt and
the Permanent Neutrality Of Belgium .>c-
cording TO the Treaties OF 1879 and 1907"
by Lieut. Gen. den Beer Portugael. re-
tired, member Of the council OF state
OF the Netherlands. II Is intended as "A
reply to the criticisms Of the press out
side of Holland
Gen. den Beer Portugacl does not dis
cuss the utility OF fortifying Flushing: he
simply denies that the Netherlands gov
eminent has been subjected to pressure
by the German government
| The general maintains. that Holland has
the right to oppose the passage Of ships
going TO the succor Of Belgium and thu
1t Is a duty Holland may not avoid. lie
insists that the Netherlands government is
bound only by one of the tire aties of 1852.
the one concluded directly between The
Hague and Brussels and by which thcy
recognized the Independence aud per
pctual neutrality OF Belgium. The
thor maintains that the great powers
guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium, but
not that Of the Netherlands.
lie insists that the Scheldt is Meth
erlands river and cites articles los 10 lI1
of the treaty OF NiennE
River concerning the free na,i-
c.l.,IA CATION i'm times of peace
SoAAS'' OF the rivers passinG
through different countries. Now il il
sufficient to recall the circumstances OF
the first settlement of the question of the
Scheldt to fix the error i'm Gen. Portu-
gaels argument.
The day after the revolution Of 1880
King William Of the Netherlands, wish
| ing to use his pretended right to close
the Scheldt. invoked the treaty OK
Munster. The conference at London.
however. exacted the immediate re-
establishment of the free navigation
and raising of the blockade OF the
| river. and King William complied Janu-
| airy 20. 1881.
| There was no intention In the, minds
of the great powers i'm the final act at
Vienna to distinguish between a time
Of peace and time OF war. Ine
Netherlands and Belgium were I'm what
Wheaton terms a state or contest
ton" The powers decided at London
that the Netherlands was not absolute
master Of tho Scheldt.
BY article 8 Of the treaty of January
10, 1889. articles los to III OF the
general act Of the congress OF vienna
are cited to show that the free naviga-
ton of navigable streams is applicable
| to rivers passing through Belgian and
| Holland territory. The free Navigation
OF the Rhine was established by Frame
at the congress of Rastadt in 1872. In
| 1904 the equality of rights OF neighDor-
| ing states was guaranteed me Ion
gress Of Vienna, therefore. only ratlneu
and confirmed what had already been
passed upon. and : Gen. den Beer
| Portugael is in palpable error when lie
declares that the congress OF Vienna
stipulated only the free navigation III
t time &C. OF ave priteS the t text. ~
Gen. Henri Brialmont, distinguishes
engineer, and the sayant jurls coinu''
NJ Ernest Mis-, professor OF ihteIne-
tional law of the University OF Brussels.
both alike have shown conclusiveiy that
IL war should occur and the indepenn,
ence and existence OF Belgium snoula
be menaced 1.-The Netherlands would De
Obliged to remain a simple spectator
10 any aid which the guarantee powers
would carry to Belgium.
y y
The chief argument Of Gen. den Bser
Portugal consists I'm the stipulation OK
the convention concluded at
Peace the second peace conference
of 1907, (Which says: The
1acI' belligerents are held to
respect the sovereign rights OF the
neutral powers. and to abstain IN
neutral territory or waters from
all acts which might constitute.
on the part of the powers toleratins
them, a violation of. their neutrality.
Would the Netherlands then fail to ac-
complish their duties as neutrais in per-
hitting succor to be carried to menaced