past, the right to deliver firmans of passage for light vessels under flags of war which should be employed, as usual, in the service of the missions of foreign powers. 66 By Article XI. of the treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, the Black Sea was declared to be neutralized, and its waters and ports were thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, but formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war," except that Russia and Turkey reserved the right to maintain in the Black Sea a certain number of light vessels for the service of their coasts, while each of the contracting powers was to be permitted to station two light vessels at the mouth of the Danube for the purpose of insuring the execution of the regulations for its navigation. By a separate convention, signed by all the powers March 30, 1856, the rule of the treaty of 1841 with regard to the exclusion of foreign ships of war from the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous was expressly reaffirmed. By the treaty of London of March 13, 1871, it was declared that the principle of closing the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous, as established by the separate convention of March 30, 1856, was "maintained, with power to his Imperial Majesty the Sultan to open the said straits in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly and allied powers," in case he should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the general treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856. "Your despatches to No. 23, inclusive, with the exception of No. 16, have been received. There is no disposition to question the statement of Prince Gortchakoff that the Russian minister at Constantinople, in protesting against the visit of the Wabash to that city, was actuated by a regard to the obligations of his Government as a party to the treaty of Paris, and not by unkind feelings toward the United States. As this Government, however, was not a party to that instrument, it is conceived that it could not, upon the occasion adverted to, or upon any similar one, be expected to act in conformity with the views of any other of those parties than the Sublime Porte." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pickens, min. to Russia, Jan. 14, 1859, In 1868 the President was requested, by a resolution of the House of Representatives, to instruct the minister of the United States at Constantinople to urge upon the Government of the Sultan the abolition of all restrictions and charges upon the passage of vessels of war and commerce through the straits of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus to the Black Sea, and to endeavor to procure "the perfect freedom of navigation through those straits to all classes of vessels." No action appears to have been taken under this resolution beyond instructing the minister to obtain for the Department of State such information as he might be able to secure concerning the obstructions, restrictions, charges, or burdens of any sort to which, by any treaty, law, decree, or custom, ships of war and trading vessels were subjected or exposed in the navigation of the Dardanelles, Bosphorus, and Black Sea. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, min. to Turkey, July 11, 1868, A similar instruction was addressed to Mr. Clay, United States minister In May, 1871, the American legation at Constantinople was instructed that the United States was "not disposed to prematurely raise any question to disturb the existing control which Turkey claims over the straits leading into the Euxine." The United States, it was said, had observed the acquiescence of other powers whose greater propinquity would suggest more intimate interests in the usage whereby the Porte claimed the right to exclude national vessels of other powers from the passage of those straits; but, while this Government did not deny the existence of the usage and had had no occasion to question the propriety of its observance, the President deemed it "important to avoid recognizing it as a right under the law of nations." The position of Turkey with reference to the Euxine was compared with that of Denmark with reference to the Baltic, except that Turkey was sovereign over the soil on both sides of the straits, while Sweden owned the territory on the east of the sound leading to the Baltic. The Danish sound dues had, however, been abolished by the payment of a gross sum by each country proportionate to the amount of its tonnage passing through the sound. Continuing, the Department of State said: "We are not aware that Denmark claimed the right to exclude foreign vessels of war from the Baltic merely because in proceeding thither they must necessarily pass within cannon shot of her shores. If this right has been claimed by Turkey in respect to the Black Sea, it must have originated at a time when she was positively and comparatively in a much more advantageous position to enforce it than she now is. The Black Sea, like the Baltic, is a vast expanse of waters, which wash the shores not alone of Turkish territory, but those of another great power who may, in times of peace at least, expect visits from men-of-war of friendly states. It seems unfair that any such claim as that of Turkey should be set up as a bar to such an intercourse, or that the privilege should in any way be subject to her sufferance. There is no practical question making it necessary at present to discuss the subject, but should occasion arise when you are called upon to refer to it, you will bear in mind the distinction taken above, and be cautious to go no further than to recognize the exclusion of the vessels as a usage." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. McVeagh, min. to Turkey, No. 29, May 5, See, also, dispatches of Mr. MacVeagh, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Fish, Sec. (For. "Your despatch No. 68, of the 30th of November last, has been received. This Department understands that Captain Rhind of the Congress had no authority to apply for a firman for that vessel to pass the Dardanelles. It is therefore more or less a matter of regret that he should have made the application for that purpose through you, and that you should have deemed it your duty so promptly to accede to his request. He is known as a brave, enter-prising and skilful officer. As such it was natural that he should have been ambitious to carry his vessel to Constantinople as a specimen of the naval force of his country. It is presumed, however, that he could not have been well aware of the obstacles to that step, of the precedents upon the subject, and especially of the circular of Fuad Pasha to the representatives of the powers at Constantinople, bearing date the 19th of August, and referred to in Mr. Morris's despatch of the 29th of October, 1868. "The abstract right of the Turkish Government to obstruct the navigation of the Dardanelles even to vessels of war in time of peace, is a serious question. The right, however, has for a long time been claimed and has been sanctioned by treaties between Turkey and certain European states. A proper occasion may arise for us to dispute the applicability of the claim to United States men-of-war. Meanwhile it is deemed expedient to acquiesce in the exclusion." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boker, min. to Turkey, Jan. 3, 1873, "I have to acknowledge the reception of your No. 72, dated the 17th day of December last. The request of the commander of the Shenandoah for leave to pass the Dardanelles was, as you have been informed, unauthorized by the Navy Department and countermanded. The article from the Lerunt Herald, which accompanies your despatch, does not state whether the shot was fired at the French steamer, or in front, as a signal to stop. The United States are not a party to the convention which professes to exclude vessels of war from the Dardanelles; and while it is disposed to respect the traditional sensibility of the Porte as to that passage, the shot which it is supposed may have been intended for a national vessel of this Government might if it had been directed according to the supposed intention have precipitated a discussion if not a serious complication." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boker, min. to Turkey, Jan. 25, 1873, Acting upon a request made by Admiral Selfridge, U. S. Navy, Mr. Terrell, American minister at Constantinople, in November, 1895, asked the Porte for a firman to enable the Admiral to pass the Dardanelles with the U. S. S. Marblehead and visit the Ottoman capital. The application was refused by the Sultan, who expressed apprehension that, if the desired permission should be granted, other powers would seek to take advantage of it, and specially requested that the Admiral should not come to the Dardanelles. Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, Nov. 21 and Dec. 6, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1344, 1383. See, also, Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baldwin, Nov. 26, 1895, 206 MS. "His Excellency Tevfik Pasha has just informed me that the Sublime Your excellency knows perfectly well the earnest and sincere desire of the Imperial Government to do all in its power to strengthen if possible the ties of friendship which unite the two countries, but in this case a certain fact is involved, to wit, that only the signatory powers of the treaty of Paris enjoy the right to have vessels of war permanently at Constantinople at the orders of their respective embassies. Now, the United States Government does not appear in the number of the signatories of that treaty. I am, consequently, sure that your excellency will be pleased to take the foregoing into consideration." (Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, Jan. 16, 1896, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1461.) 5. INTERIOR SEAS AND LAKES. § 135. Interior seas and lakes form part of the territory in the same sense as does the land. An interior sea is one that has no direct communication with the ocean. If it is entirely surrounded by the lands of a single state, such state has over it the same exclusive and absolute right as it has over any part of its territory, and may forbid or permit access to or use of it. The same principle applies to a lake surrounded on every side by the lands of the state. The fact that the water of the sea is salt and that of the lake fresh, is a matter of indifference from the legal point of view. Interior seas are in reality, in spite of their names, merely salt lakes. Interior seas and lakes, enclosed by the lands of two or more states, belong to them in proportionate parts, unless it is otherwise provided. The water itself, considered independently of the soil, is common. There is no question, in respect of interior seas, either of freedom of the sea or of marginal sea, since these ideas exist only in respect of the ocean. The best example of an interior sea is the Dead Sea. As examples of interior lakes we may cite Lake Michigan, entirely American, though it connects with Lake Huron; Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, which are English; Lakes Ladoga and Onéga, which are Russian; Lakes Wenern and Wettern, Swedish; Lake Balaton, Hungarian; Lakes Zurich, Quatre Cantons, Neuchâtel, Morat, and Bienne are entirely Swiss. Lakes Thoune and Brienz are wholly Bernese. The Caspian Sea is surrounded by Russia and Persia, but, by virtue of the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Tourkmantschaï (1828), it is subject practically to Russian control; Russian authorities administer it, and only Russia has the right to keep ships of war in it. The Sea of Aral is entirely Russian. Lake Leman belongs to Switzerland (Vaud, Geneva, and Valais) and to France in divided parts. Lake Constance belongs to Germany (Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemburg), to Switzerland (Thurgovia, St. Gall), and to Austria. Opinions are divided as to Lake Obersee, but it is necessary to pronounce in favor of division; the principle of the meridian line is established by the treaties of 1554 and 1854. Rivir, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 143-145, 230. See, also, Wharton, Com. on Law, § 192; Woolsey, § 61; Holtzendorff, |