interior and make surveys in the general interest of navigation, but the incident found a ready adjustment in harmony with the close relations of amity which this Government has always sedulously sought to cultivate with the commonwealths of the Western Continent." a The Government of Venezuela, by a decree of July 1, 1893, to take effect from December 31, 1893, closed the Macareo The Orinoco. and Pedernales channels of the Orinoco to vessels in foreign trade, leaving open the Boca Grande. By a decree of June 6, 1894, a violation of the regulations established by the previous decree was made punishable with a fine of 5,000 bolivars, while a recurrence of it subjected the vessel to severe penalties. The validity of the decree of July 1, 1893, was sustained by the high federal court, which, in its decision, declared 1. That, according to universally admitted principles, every sovereign nation, in the exercise of dominion over the national territory and all persons therein, "may permit or prohibit foreigners to come into the country, and in the same manner may open or close its ports or rivers to foreign commerce, neither the other nations nor individual foreigners having any right to claim the opening or closure of such rivers and ports under the plea of injury to their interests." 2. That in regard to "interior seas and rivers" this was the doctrine generally admitted, and that only "in the cases determined by the law of nations might it be exceptionally claimed that certain rivers and seas should be opened either to the commerce of the bordering states or to the general trade of all countries." 3. That the decree in question, which "prohibited to foreign commerce the traffic or navigation of the channels Macareo and Pedernales, reserving both for the coasting trade, assigned the Boca Grande of the Orinoco to foreign navigation and commerce, and prohibited absolutely, without distinction of persons and nationalities, the transit through the remaining outlets and channels of the river," was not equivalent to the closure of ports open to exterior commerce; nor did it "impede the navigation of the Orinoco, but only establishes certain regulations for doing so, it being of no concern to the nation what must be the shape or build of the vessels or their sailing conditions for the purpose of such traffic, these points concerning only those who intend trading with the country through the river channel mentioned." 4. That, although the liberal spirit of comity endeavored to "extend and apply also to rivers the principle of a free sea, it is likewise true that in regard to inland waters, lakes, etc., the shores of which belong exclusively to one nation, no other nation may claim the right a President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899. to navigate these waters, and in proof thereof the liberty of navigating them is always the consequence of agreements or treaties between the nations, made in view of the reciprocal international interests and the mutual conveniences of the countries in reference to their prosperity and civilization." 5. That the decree therefore did "not violate in any way the principles and practice of the law of nations, but on the contrary complies with them and recognizes them in prohibiting to foreigners the navigation in certain parts of the Orinoco, because it specifies the outlets and channels on which traffic is not allowed them, and opens the Boca Grande as the only channel they may navigate, whilst the caños Macareo and Pedernales are reserved for the coasting trade.” The minister of the United States, October 25, 1894, was instructed to urge upon the Venezuelan Government that as an act of friendliness to the United States, as well as in the interest of the commerce of the two countries, it reopen to ships of the United States the branches of the Orinoco now closed to them." Señor Rojas, Venezuelan minister of foreign affairs, stated, December 1, 1894, that the decree of July 1, 1893, which was designed to prevent contraband trade, had been justified by results, and could not be annulled; but that the Government proposed at the proper time to establish near the Gulf of Paria a port for the transshipment of freight destined to places on the Orinoco, but arriving on vessels unable to enter the Boca Grande. For the decree of July 1, 1893, see Mr. Partridge, min. to Venezuela, tɔ As to the case of John H. Dialogue & Son, and their steamer Delta, see For the request for the opening of the closed mouths, as an act of friendli- As to the reply of Señor Rojas, see Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. The text of a decree of the Venezuelan Government of May 14, 1869, and By an executive decree of September 11, 1900, the Venezuelan Government suspended the use of the river Zulia, an affluent of the Orinoco, for commercial purposes. The Colombian legation at Caracas, by notes of September 28 and October 25, 1900, protested against this decree as inflicting a grave injury on the provinces of the Department of Santandar, which had enjoyed, without interruption, the use of the river as a means of communication with the sea. The Venezuelan Government, by a note of November 3, 1900, defended the decree on the ground that it was necessary for preventing the consummation of projected revolutionary invasions and the supply of arms and other contraband articles to persons who were plotting against the peace of Venezuela. The right of Venezuela to close the navigation of the river was denied by the Colombian Government on general grounds as well as on grounds of immemorial right and treaty stipulations. By an executive decree of March 4, 1901, the Venezeulan Government stated that the commercial navigation of the river by bongos and canoes was allowed. The Colombian minister at Caracas stated in a dispatch to his Government, March 10, 1901, that merchants residing in Maracaibo, who were interested in the transit of the Zulia, had informed him that this permission was sufficient for the time being, since there was little water in the rivers and steamers could not navigate it. Uribe, Anales Diplomaticos y Consulares de Colombia (1901), II. 268–289. "A large part of Colombian territory being watered by navigable branches of the river Orinoco, has enabled the Republic to make use of this river as far as the open sea by any of its outlets, with no other obligations than those of observing the police laws that Venezuela might make for internal security and for the protection of her revenues. "This right of Colombia has been confirmed still more now that the frontier limits have been decided, and it is admitted that the territory of our country extends as far as the left bank of the Orinoco. The river there having become international, its navigation is free to both countries." Report of the Colombian minister of foreign affairs, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 200. With reference to an attack made on the American steamer Antioquia on the Magdalena River, March 9, 1864, Señor Dr. Antonio del Neal, Colombian minister of foreign affairs, in a note to Mr. Burton, United States minister, of February 16, 1865, said: “Orders have also been renewed to the States of Bolivar, Magdalena, Antioquia, and Tolima, requiring of their respective authorities the strictest compliance with the law of May 24, 1856, and the amendment thereto of May 25, 1864, forbidding their interference in the navigation of the Magdalena River, in consequence of all that relates to the navigation of the rivers of the Republic which touch the territory of two or more States, or of an adjoining nation, being under the exclusive control of the General Government." a The law of May 25, 1864,' refers to clause 6, article 17, of the constitution of the United States of Colombia of May 8, 1863, which declares the exclusive competency of the General Government to extend to "the regulation of such interoceanic communications as exist or may be opened in the territory of the Union, and the navigation of the rivers which water the territory of more than one State or flow on to that of a neighboring nation." By the general act of Berlin of Feb. 26, 1885, Art. II., all flags African Rivers: have free access to the Congo and its affluents, Congo and Ni- including the lakes, as well as to any canals that may be constructed to unite the water courses or lakes within the territories of the state. ger. The same treaty guarantees the free navigation of the Niger and its branches. Independent State of the Congo, S. Ex. Doc. 196, 49 Cong., 1 sess. 298, . By a decree of the sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo of Karun. In 1888 the Persian Government announced that it had decided, Persian river with a view to extend the commerce of the Empire and promote the agriculture of Kurdistan and Ahwaz, to permit merchant steamers of all nations to exercise the privilege, which had previously been confined to sailing vessels, of transporting goods in the river Karun from Mohammera to the dyke at Ahwaz, on condition (1) that they should not pass above that dyke, the navigation of the river above that point being reserved exclusively to sailing vessels and steamers of the Persian Government and of its subjects; (2) that they should pay the passage dues fixed by the Persian Government at Mohammera; and (3) that they a See dispatch from Mr. Burton, min. to Colombia, to Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, No. 174, May 14, 1860, MSS. Dept. of State. 61 Brit. & For. State Pap. 140. c 53 Id. 290. should not carry merchandise prohibited by the Persian Government nor remain longer in the river than was necessary for the loading and unloading of merchandise. Mr. Pratt, min. to Persia, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. 312, Nov. 5, 1888, enclosing translation of a communication of the Persian minister for foreign affairs of 24 Sefar 1306, MSS. Dept. of State. Grande. (5) DIVERSION OF WATERS. § 132. June 12, 1880, Mr. Evarts enclosed to the United States legation in Case of the Rio Mexico a copy of a letter from the governor of Texas and of its various enclosures, invoking the interposition of the United States in a matter stated to be of vital importance to the citizens of Texas living on the eastern shore of the Rio Grande. The substance of the complaint was that Mexicans engaged in agricultural pursuits on the Mexican shore of the river were in the habit of diverting the water during the dry season into their ditches, thereby preventing the citizens of Texas from getting sufficient water to irrigate their crops. "This," said Mr. Evarts, "if true, would be in direct opposition to the recognized rights of riparian owners, and, if persisted in, must result in disaster and ruin to our farming population on the line of the Rio Grande, and might eventually, if not amicably adjusted through the medium of diplomatic intervention, be productive of constant strife and breaches of the peace between the inhabitants of either shore." The subject was also brought to the attention of the Mexican minister at Washington. The receipt of Mr. Evarts's communication was duly acknowledged, but no further correspondence appears to have taken place. For. Rel. 1880, 752-755, 784; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to At.-Gen., Dec. 5, 1895, 206 MS. Dom. Let. 316. The statement in the letter to the Attorney-General of Dec. 5, 1895, here cited, that no further correspondence appears to have taken place, may be modified to this extent: After more than four years' delay, the Mexican legation presented a reply to the effect that the scarcity of water in 1880 was due, not to diversion, but to the dry season; that the Mexicans in fact suffered more than the Texans; that the scarcity was aggravated by the waste of water on the American side, in Colorado and New Mexico; and that, while there was a dam at Paso del Norte, Mexico, it had been in existence more than 300 years, being as old as the town itself, and no additions had lately been made to it. (Mr. Romero, Mex. min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, Aug. 27, 1884, 34 MS. Notes from Mex. Leg.) By a note of October 21, 1895, the Mexican minister complained that, in consequence of the digging of irrigation trenches in parts of Colorado and New Mexico through which the Upper Rio Grande and |