Holland shall not claim any other satisfaction for the debt besides the salt rights of Setuval for the said term of twenty years.

"That the value of the salt shall be computed in cruzados, without regard to any other money, since no mention is made in the treaty of any other kind.

"And in case Portugal shall offer to discharge part of the debt by other means, Holland shall reduce the said term in proportion."

2. ARBITRATIONS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

International commissions in relation to rivers.-We have heretofore referred to certain treaties beween the United States and Mexico in relation to the Rio Grande where it forms the boundary between the two countries.' These treaties refer, however, to boundary questions, rather than to questions of navigation; but by a series of European treaties provisions have been made for the regulation of the navigation of international streams by means of mixed commissions.

The "navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it becomes navigable unto the sea, and vice versa," was, by the Peace of Paris of May 30, 1814, declared to be "free, so that it can be interdicted to no one;" and it was provided that at the congress to be held at Vienna "attention" should "be paid to the establishment of the principles according to which the duties to be raised by the states bordering on the Rhine may be regulated, in the mode most impartial and the most favorable to the commerce of all nations." And it was further stipulated that "the future congress, with a view to facilitate communication between nations, and continually to render them less strangers to each other," should "likewise examine and determine in what manner the above provisions can be extended to other rivers which in their navigable course separate or traverse different states."

By the Treaty of Vienna of June 9, 1815, the powers whose states were "separated or traversed by the same navigable river" engaged “to regulate, by common consent, all that regards its navigation," and for this purpose to name commissioners who should adopt as the bases of their proceedings certain principles, the chief of which was that the navigation of such rivers, "along their whole course, from the point where

each of them becomes navigable to its mouth shall be entirely free, and shall not, in respect to commerce, be prohibited to any one,” subject to regulations of police. In order to assure the application of this principle, articles were inserted expressly regulating in certain respects the free navigation of the Rhine; and it was provided that "the same freedom of navigation" should "be extended to the Necker, the Mayne, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the Scheldt, from the point where each of them becomes navigable to their mouths." And in order to "establish a perfect control" over the regulation of the navigation, and to "constitute an authority which may serve as a means of communication between the states of the Rhine upon all subjects relating to navigation," it was stipulated that a central commission should be appointed, consisting of delegates named by 1Supra, II. 1359.

the various bordering states, which commission should regularly assemble at Mayence on the 1st of November in each year. Regulations for the navigation of the Moselle and the Meuse were to be drawn up by those members of the central commission whose governments should have possessions on the banks of those rivers.1

By the treaty between Austria and Russia of May 3, 1815, the navigation of the rivers and canals of the ancient kingdom of Poland was declared to be free "so as not to be interdicted to any inhabitant of the Polish provinces, subject to either the Russian or Austrian Government." It was agreed, however, that a tonnage duty should be levied for the purpose of maintaining the rivers and canals in question in a navigable state, and that commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of regulating this and other matters of navigation. Similar provisions were embodied in a treaty concluded on the same day between Prussia and Russia touching ancient Poland.

By the treaty between Prussia and Saxony of May 18, 1815, provision was made (Art. XVII.) for the creation of a commission to regulate the navigation of the Elbe, in accordance with the general principles adopted at the Congress of Vienna. By the treaty of June 23, 1821, between Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, MecklenburgSchwerin, Anhalt-Bernburg, Coethen and Dessau, and Hamburg, "the navigation of the Elbe, from the point at which that river becomes navigable down to the open sea, and vice versa (as well in ascending as in descending)," was declared to be "entirely free with respect to commerce." To secure this end various stipulations were made, including a provision for the appointment of a commission of revision, whose members should be appointed by the bordering States, and whose object and powers should be "to watch over the due observance of the present convention; to form itself into a committee for the settlement of any differences which may arise between the States bordering on the river, and to determine upon the measures which by experience may be found to be necessary to the improvement of commerce and navigation."

A treaty between Austria, Modena, and Parma, of July 3, 1849, to which the Pope acceded February 12, 1850, declared the navigation of the Po to be free and open to all persons, and committed its regulation to a commission.'

By a treaty signed at Bucharest, December 3-15, 1866, between Austria, Russia, and the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, the navigation of the Pruth was declared to be free and open to all flags; and

1 Among the stipulations embodied in the treaty there was one to the effect that in the event of war breaking out among any of the states of the Rhine the collection of customs should "continue uninterrupted, without any obstacle being thrown in the way by either party," and that "vessels and persons employed by the custom-houses" should "enjoy all the rights of neutrality."

2 The Treaty of Vienna, June 9, 1815, Art. XCVI. provided that the general principles adopted by the Congress in regard to the navigation of rivers should apply to the Po, and that commissioners should be appointed by the States bordering on it to regulate all that concerned its navigation.

provision was made for a permanent mixed commission for the purpose of regulating such navigation.

The river Douro, by a treaty between Portugal and Spain of August 31, 1835, was declared to be free for the navigation of "the subjects of both Crowns." It was provided that navigation dues and the police of the river should be regulated by a mixed commission.

By Article V. of the Treaty of Teschen, May 13, 1779, the rivers Danube, Inn, and Salza were declared to be common to the House of Austria and the Elector Palatine for the navigation of their subjects. These stipulations were confirmed as to the Salza and Saale by the treaty between Austria and Bavaria of April 14, 1816.

By Article XV. of the Peace of Paris of March 30, 1856, it was provided that the principles established by the Congress of Vienna for the regulation of the navigation of rivers which separate or traverse different States should in future apply to the Danube and its mouths, whose navigation was declared to be free, subject to police and quarantine regulations. With a view to carry out this arrangement it was stipulated (Art. XVI.) that a European commission, composed of one delegate each from Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, should be charged with the execution of works for clearing the mouths of the river and the adjacent seas from obstructions. By Article XVII. of the treaty, provision was made for the establishment of a permanent body, called the Danube River Commission, to be composed of delegates of Austria, Bavaria, Turkey, Wurtemberg, and the three Danubian principalities, for the purpose (1) of preparing regulations of navigation and river police, (2) of removing impediments to the application of the arrangements of the treaty of Vienna, (3) of causing necessary works to be executed along the whole course of the river, and (4) of keeping the mouths and adjacent seas in a navigable state after the dissolution of the European commission.

By the Treaty of London of March 13, 1871, the existence of the European commission was extended to April 24, 1883. It was further provided that "the conditions of the reassembling of the riverain commission," established by Article XVII. of the Treaty of Paris, should "be fixed by a previous understanding between the riverain powers, without prejudice to the clause relative to the three Danubian principalities," and that, so far as any modification of the article should be involved, it should "form the subject of a special convention between the cosignatory powers."

By the Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, in order to increase the guarantees of the free navigation of the Danube, it was provided (Art. LII.) that "all the fortresses and fortifications existing on the course of the river from the Iron Gates to its mouth" should be razed and no new ones erected." It was also provided (Art. LIII.) that the European commission, on which Roumania was to have a representative, should be “maintained in its functions," and that it should thenceforth exercise them "as far as Galatz in complete independence of the territorial authorities." And it was further provided (Art. LIV.) that prior to the expiration of the term assigned for the duration of the European commission, the powers should come to an understanding as to the prolongation of its powers, or the modifications which they may consider necessary to introduce," and (Art. LV.) that the regulations respecting the navigation, river police, and

66

supervision from the Iron Gates to Galatz should be drawn up by the European commission, assisted by delegates of the riverain States, and placed in harmony with those issued for the aiver below Galatz.

In order to come to an understanding in regard to these last stipulations, a new treaty was concluded March 10, 1883, between Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, and Turkey. By this treaty the jurisdiction of the European commission was extended from Galatz to Ibraïla, and its powers were prolonged till April 24, 1904, and thereafter for successive terms of three years till a certain notice was given.

But, besides prolonging the existence of the European commission, the treaty also created a new commission, called the “Mixed Commission of the Danube," to consist of delegates of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Servia, and a member of the European commission, for the purpose of superintending the execution of the regulations made for the navigation of the river. This commission is to endure as long as the European commission, to hold two sessions a year, and to make its decisions "by a majority of votes."

Argentine Republic and Chile.--For many years there has existed between these countries a difference as to their common boundaries. In 1881, through the mediation of Messrs. Thomas O. Osborn and Thomas A. Osborn respectively, envoys of the United States at Buenos Ayres and Santiago, a treaty was made for its adjustment; 3 but this treaty proved not to be final. In the first place, the Argentine Government claimed that the commissioners appointed to run the boundary under the treaty made an evident mistake in placing the landmark of San Francisco. Secondly, the two governments differed as to the principle on which the line from 26° 52′ 45′′ south latitude to the Straits of Magellan should be determined, whether it should, as the Chileans contended, follow the watershed, or, as the Argentines maintained, pass through the highest peaks of the Andes. Lastly, questions arose as to the line between 23 and 26° 52′ 45′′ south latitude, in the region known as the Puna de.Atacama, which was occupied by the Chileans during the war with Bolivia, but which, as the Argentines claimed, had previously been admitted by Bolivia to belong to the Argentine Republic.

By a protocol signed at Santiago, April 17, 1896, provision was made for ending these disputes. As to Puna de Atacama, it was stipulated that the boundary should be traced with the cooperation of Bolivia. The landmark of San Francisco, as placed by the commissioners, was to be disregarded. As to the long line from 26° 52′ 45′′ south latitude to the Straits of Magellan, it was agreed that any differences that could not be adjusted

Boundary commissions have been included in this work only where they partook of the nature of boards of arbitration. The survey of international boundaries is always committed sooner or later to joint commissions, but as a rule the functions of these commissions are judicial only in a limited sense.

2 For. Rel. 1873, I. 39.

3 Article V. provided: "The Straits of Magellan are neutralized, and free navigation thereon insured to the flags of all nations. With a view to guaranteeing this freedom and neutrality, no fortifications nor military defenses will be raised that may clash with that object."

by friendly negotiation should be settled by the arbitration of the British Government.1

Austria and other powers: Right of property in the Duchy of Bouillon.oBy Article LXIX. of the final act of the Congress of Vienna, June 9, 1815, it was provided that the sovereignty of that part of the Duchy of Bouillon which was not ceded to France by the Treaty of Paris should be vested in the King of the Netherlands. The question of property in that part of the duchy was, however, left open, to be determined by arbitration; and it was stipulated that for this purpose five arbitrators should be chosen, one each by the two competitors, and one each by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. These arbitrators were to meet as soon as circumstances would permit, and to decide the question finally and without appeal. Meanwhile, the King of the Netherlands was to hold the property in trust, in order that he might restore it, together with the revenues of the provisional administration, to the competitor in whose favor the arbitrators should decide. The King of the Netherlands was to make to such competitor an equitable indemnification for the cession of his rights of sovereignty. July 1, 1816, the arbitrators rendered the following award :3 "In execution of Article 69 of the final act of the Congress of Vienna of June 9, 1815, the commission of arbitrators which met at Leipzig in the beginning of June 1816, to decide the question of the right of succession in the Duchy of Bouillon, has ended, July 1, 1816, its deliberations.

"The possession of the Duchy and the indemnities for the cession of the rights of sovereignty to the King of the Netherlands are adjudged, by an absolute majority, to His Highness Prince Charles-Alain of RohanMontbazon, actual duke of Bouillon. Baron de Binder, minister of Austria; Count de Casteloelfer, minister of His Majesty the King of Sardinia at the court of Prussia; and Comte de Fitte de Soncy, named as arbitrators by the Prince de Rohan, have voted in a manner pure and simple, according to the rights of birth and of family, in favor of the claims of the Prince de Rohan, grandson of the sister of the Duke of Bouillon, who died in 1792. The English jurisconsult, Sir John Sewell, the arbitrator named by the Vice Admiral Philip of Auvergne, the second claimant, declares himself purely and simply in favor of the claims of the vice admiral. Baron von Brockhausen, minister of state of Prussia, recognizes the right of the Prince de Rohan, but under the condition that the latter shall pay to the adoptive son of his great-uncle Admiral of Auvergne a portion equal to six years' revenue of the Duchy.

"In consequence, the question submitted by the Congress of Vienna as to the right of succession to the Duchy is decided by a majority of four

1 Mr. Strobel to Mr. Olney, May 9, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 32.

2

This is apparently the second arbitration, or provision for arbitration, in regard to the Duchy of Bouillon. Article XXVIII. of the Treaty of Nimeguen of February 3, 1678, reads: "Whereas there hath been an antient difference concerning the Castle and the Dutchy of Bovillon, between the Bishop and the Prince of Liege, and the Dukes of that name, it is hereby agreed, That the Duke of Bovillon continuing in the possession he hath of it, the said difference shall amicably, or by arbiters to be named by the Partys within three months after the ratification of the peace, be composed, without proceeding to acts of force.”

This version is from the French text in De Clercq, III. 41.