The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-21
What Has Become Of the Suez Rules /?

Our neighbor the American 10 right |
in its opportune suggestion to DR..
DElNBuRs that the future manage
ment and international status Of the
Panama Canal are not among the
questions which the belligerents need
discuss by and by when they begin
TO make their terms OF peace.
In DR.. DERNBrRo's letter to Port
land correspondent, setting forth his
view Of the German ideals and practi
cal conditions Of lasting peace, there
occurred this vague passage:
The aim OF Germany Is TO have the
seas as we'll as the narrows kept per-
manently open for the free use Of all
nations in time Of war as we'll as In
time OF peace. personally
would even go so far as to neutralize
all the seas and narrows permanently
by a common and effective agreement
guaranteed by all the Powers. so that any
infringement on that score would meet
with the most severe punishment that
can be meted out to any transgressor."
BY 1.-The narrows" DR.. DERNBURG
Is understood to mean not only such
natural highways Of commerce as the
Straits of Dover, the Dardanelles and
the straits of Magellan. hut also such
artificial highways as the Suez Canal
and the Panama Canal-we were al
most about to add the Kiel Canal.
|, seems only yesterday that some
Americans were actually disputing rs
Ia the right of this nation to fortfy
tn" Panama Canal: to exercise mill
tary supremacy there: to use il n
our own advantage in case OF a war
In which we ourselves We're party;
and TO close II To the ships OF the
nations we were fighting.
This view of the limitation Of our
military control OF our own canal
was based, OF course. on our adop-
ton, In Article III. OF the Hay
Pauncefote treaty Of 1901, Of the
rules OF the Convention Of CONSTANT
nople governing the navigation Of the
Suez Canal in time OF war as we'll as
In time OF peace.
Our contract was made with Great
Britain. and not with any other ma
ton. Great Britain is the only Power
on earth possessing the right to Ques-
ton our Interpretation Of these treaty
obligations or to call US to account
for an alleged infraction Of the Suez
rules Of neutrality.
This circumstance makes exceed
ingly pertinent the question NJ the
present status OF the Constantinople
convention 50 far as the Britt sh Gov
eminent Is concerned.
The Treaty Of Constantinople. Of
October 20. 1888. was signed ~ most
Of the present belllgerents by all OF
them except Belgium, Servia and ia
pan. 1t was signed by Great Britain,
France, Russia. Germany, Austria
Hungary and Turkey. In the seven
teen articles OF this treaty for the per
manent neutralza tion Of the Suez
Canal some Of the more important
stipulations are these:
I. No attempt to restrict the free
use Of tho canal TO merchantmen and
mcn-of-war OF all nations 10 to be al
lowed in time either OF peace or OF war
2 In time OF war. even " Turkey "a
belH0erent, no act OF hostility Is al
lowed either inside the canal itself OF
within three sea miles from its ports,
3. Men-of-war OF the belligerents
have to pass through the canal without
delay. They may not stay longer thar
twenty-four hours, a case of absolute
necessity excepted, within the harbort
OF Port Said and Suez
4 Troops, munitions and other wal
material may neither be shipped mol
unsh!pped within the canal and It's har,
bors.
g. No men-of-war are allowed to bt
stationed inside the canal
6, Belligerents are not allowed Il
station men-of-war in the harbors OF
Port Said and Suez.
During the present mighty struggl,
-oes England regard the Suez Rule
as alive or dcady
Does she maintain in the letter anC
spirit Of the Constantinople agreemen
the naturalization of the highway o
commerce between the Mediterranean
and the Red Sea-
Vas her canal been continuous,
open for the transit Of German o
Austrian warships;
Would Turkish warship or troo
transport entering the canal at Por
Said he permitted by Great Brltai,
to pass unmolested into the Gulf O
SuezY
Would the banks OF the canal b