contributed very largely, the Sound Dues of ancient usage, levied by Denmark on vessels passing through the sound and the belts forming a passage between the North Sea and the Baltic were abolished in 1857, and the Baltic is also held as

an open sea.

It can be said as an established general rule that if a strait forms an international highway the right of innocent passage for foreign war-ships and merchant vessels exists, even in the case of straits which are less than six miles wide.

Lakes and landlocked seas which are entirely surrounded by the land territory of a single state are, naturally, territory of that state, which has exclusive jurisdiction. Lake Michigan of the Great Lakes of North America is in this category. If a lake or sea is wholly enclosed by more than one state, the waters and jurisdiction are divided accordingly, in the absence of treaties to the contrary.

71. Rivers. As to great navigable rivers lying in their entire course within the territory of one state, they are national in character, and the power of excluding foreign vessels remains with the territorial state. This may be modified by treaty, however. If a seaport is situated on the banks of a river of that kind, of course navigation to that port to foreign vessels is freely conceded. Philadelphia on the Delaware River and New Orleans on the Mississippi are familiar instances of that kind in this country.

The question of the navigation of the Mississippi River has a peculiar history. The treaty of peace at the close of the Revolutionary War, in 1783, provided that the navigation of the Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free to the subjects of Great Britain and citizens of the United States. At that time it was supposed that the headwaters of the river were in British territory, while the river was our western boundary except where it flowed through Louisiana and the Floridas. Hence at the time it was an international river, subject to navigation by British, Spaniards,

and Americans. By the subsequent acquisition of Louisiana and the Floridas by the United States and the discovery that its headwaters were within the limits of the United States, the Mississippi ceased to be an international river, and the right to control its navigation became an exclusive right within the United States.

In 1871, by the treaty of Washington, the rights of navigation were given, in an international sense, to the St. Lawrence River and also to the Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine Rivers. In South America the flags of all nations, as well as those of the coriparian states, have the right of navigation to the Amazon, the Rio de la Plata, and the Orinoco. The great rivers of the continent of Europe, like the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Danube, are examples of rivers in this class also.

The Amazon River, after various changes in policy, has been declared open to merchant vessels of all nations; this includes men-of-war so far as the maritime ports of the Amazon are concerned, but the Brazilian Government, in 1899, stated that, according to the rule of Brazil, the commander of a foreign man-of-war, before ascending the Amazon, must obtain a formal permission from the governor of Para, on a written request made by the proper consul there.

By the general act of Berlin of February 25, 1885, Article II, all nationalities have free access to the Congo and its affluents, including the lakes, as well as to any canals that may be constructed to unite the watercourses or lakes within the territories of the state. This includes the free navigation of the Congo and all of its branches.1

As to these rights of navigation, technically a state possessed of one portion of an international river can exclude the vessels of a coriparian state unless otherwise provided by treaty. Yet, as a matter of comity amounting to an imperfect right, it does not withhold such privilege. "Usage," as Lawrence says, "is turning against the ancient rules. It is now set

1 Stockton, "Manual," p. 88.

aside by treaty stipulations, but in time the new usage founded on them will give rise to a new rule, and no treaty will then be required to provide for the free navigation of an international river by the coriparian states, while in all probability the vessels of other nations will be allowed to come and go without let or hinderance. It is, and no doubt will remain, an admitted principle that the right of traversing the stream carries with it the right of using the banks for purposes incidental to navigation."1

72. Interoceanic Canals.-Ordinary canals within the territory of one and the same state have somewhat the same status as rivers under international law in similar situations and conditions. The Kiel Canal is an example of this nature, being entirely within German jurisdiction, though connecting the Baltic and the North Seas. Germany allows the navigation of this canal under ordinary circumstances by vessels of all nations. Being built mainly for strategical purposes, its navigation is directly and exclusively under the government of the German Empire under all conditions. The first interoceanic canal in operation worthy of the name was the Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean with the Red Sea, and affords a route to the Orient as an alternative to that by the way of the Cape of Good Hope. This canal is in Egyptian territory, which in a titular sense is Turkish, but practically the territory is under the control of Great Britain. The canal itself was constructed under French auspices, and it is worked as a private canal for commercial profit and purposes. Great Britain is a large shareholder and politically, though not exclusively, is greatly interested in it as a route to Asiatic waters and to the great British Asiatic and Australian possessions. Naturally the interest in this route as one of the great sea routes of the world is international, and its status is one of great and general diplomatic concern. Its position and use have much influence in all questions dealing with other interoceanic canals.

1 Lawrence's "Principles," p. 211.

In regard to canals in general, the decisions quoted by Moore, that while a natural thoroughfare, although wholly within the dominion of a government, may be passed by commercial ships of right, yet the nation which constructs an artificial channel may annex such conditions to its use as it pleases."1 This, of course, is modified or restricted by any treaties which may exist or which may be entered into with other states by the state which constructs the canal or controls the territory through which it passes.

A brief history of the diplomacy connected with the Suez Canal is as follows:

By the convention of Constantinople of 1888 the Suez Canal was declared open in time of war and peace to merchantmen and vessels of war of all nations, without distinction of flag, and also that the canal should not be liable to blockade in time of war or peace. This convention was signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. The whole treaty comprises seventeen articles, the substance of Article I having just been given, while the others comprise the following stipulations:

In time of war no act of hostility is allowed either inside the canal or within a marine league from either end. The usual rules as to the stay and departure of vessels of war for neutral ports are in force with the canal. Turkey, though suzerain of the soil, is not permitted to commit any act of hostility within the canal limits. Troops, munitions of war, etc., are neither to be shipped nor landed within the canal or its terminal ports.

No men-of-war can be stationed within the canal, but menof-war can have access to the terminal ports, while no permanent fortifications are allowed in connection with the canal. During the Spanish-American War Mr. Hay, then our ambassador in London, inquired of the foreign office of Great Britain whether there had been any modification of the convention of 1888 which would place the non-signatory powers,

1 Moore's "Digest," vol. III, p. 268.

like the United States, on any different footing from those signing the convention, to which answer was made that there had been none, and as a result in that war the Suez Canal was open to both belligerents, as had been the case in the FrancoGerman War of 1870, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, and since in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904.

In the declaration respecting Egypt and Morocco, signed at London in 1904 by Great Britain and France, Article 6 reads as follows: "In order to insure the free passage of the Suez Canal, his Britannic Majesty's Government declares that they adhere to the stipulations of the treaty of October 29, 1888, and that they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of the canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last sentence of par. I as well as par. II of Article 8 of that treaty will remain in abeyance." These paragraphs refer to a watching over the canal with regard to men-of-war in time of war and peace by the agents of the signatory powers.1

The expression neutralization is often used with respect to the status of the Suez Canal in time of war. But this term varies in use and meaning. It is neutralized in the sense that no acts of hostility can be committed, without a violation of treaty, within its limits or those of the terminal waters. But it is not neutralized in another sense, as it can be used in war time for passage through by belligerents for any warlike expedition whose objective is exterior to the canal. It is not even similar to marginal territorial waters of a neutral, as these waters have no limitations as to time of arrival and departure. Certainly it is not like neutralized land territory, for passing through such territory is denied. It is sui generis, common to all vessels, to whom warlike operations are denied while passing through. It remains to be seen how it will be operated when Great Britain becomes a belligerent against another powerful naval belligerent. In this connection, and it is useful as a precedent for Panama, we must remember that, in 1882, Great 1 Stockton's "Naval Manual," pp. 107-9.