Italian villages and horrors of filth in South European Ghettos. But I point out that when these aliens become American citizens, they think they have the right to inflict their home methods upon us and are not disillusioned by our authorities. I have traveled far and wide in Europe, living on that side of the Atlantic for over thirty years, and never anywhere have I seen such slovenliness as we allow in our parks, in our principal streets, at our own particular doorsteps. We take our bathtub as the symbol of cleanliness, and so little understand cleanliness itself that the garbage everywhere in evidence is no offense. We are like our doughboys who in France shrank from the manure heap at the peasant's door and at home are sublimely unconscious of the garbage can at their own. It is high time for us to learn that "cleanliness and sanitation" begin and end not in the private bathtub, but really in the town or countryside we all share in common. Brooklyn, N. Y. SIR: ELIZABETH ROBINS PENNELL. THE RIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT I am interested in the controversy over the Principles of Prohibition, in which the Rev. Mr. McKim challenges the XVIII Amendment. There is a rather interesting political principle involved in that challenge that uncovers the foundation principles on which our government rests, to-wit: The right of the people to place that kind of an amendment in the Constitution. It is a well settled principle in our political science that sovereignty resides with the people. That is: they possess the power to make or to abrogate constitutions, but the power to amend may be limited by prior engagements. THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW cannot perform a more valuable and patriotic service than opening its pages to an authentic discussion of that very important question. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma H. L. TRISLER. [The interesting and important point raised by our correspondent was discussed with much detail and authority in the October number of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, pp. 573-576.-THE EDITORS.] NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW DECEMBER, 1922 "THE FREEDOM OF THE STRAITS" BY ALFRED L. P. DENNIS THE Conference on the Near East has a full docket; in close connection with its decisions is the question as to the use of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Is the United States Navy to be barred from the Straits and the Black Sea? Will precedents which may be created at Lausanne affect American interest in the fortification of the Panama Canal? Such possibilities are involved in the deliberations at which our Government is an interested observer. "The freedom of the Straits" has a simple attractive sound as though it were a victorious slogan of long pent liberty. In fact it is a term encrusted with historical importance and mouldy with international intrigue. Today, in spite of wars and of treaties, the problem of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles remains pregnant with trouble. Its solution is endangered by the variety of the issues at stake and by the venom of traditional rivalries. The blood shed by the thousands on thousands who died at Gallipoli did not wash the way clear to a just and peaceable settlement in the Near East. The result is that four years after the Armistice a definitive arrangement is only just emerging. Unless that settlement is based on sound international principles and with proper regard to the true interests of separate nations, both weak and strong, the peace of the world will remain in danger. Our American interest in the settlement is therefore clear and Copyright, 1922, by North American Review Corporation. All rights reserved. VOL. CCXVI.NO. 805 natural. Indeed the authorities at Washington have already spoken. Secretary Hughes has stated that the American Government is gratified to observe that the proposal of the three Allied Governments seeks to insure effectively "the liberty of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, and the Bosphorus". This Government also trusts that suitable arrangements may be agreed upon in the interest of peace to preserve the freedom of the Straits pending the conference to conclude a final treaty of peace between Turkey, Greece, and the Allies. This recent official expression is in line with a statement made by the Secretary of State in 1868 to the Russian Minister in Washington. Mr. Seward then said that the United States was "in principle and by habit favorable to the largest freedom of navigation and commerce compatible with the rights of individ ual nations" and that we would "favor the removal of the restrictions upon the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles within the limits of international law". Thus the American Government in observing the restrictive arrangements which have been adopted from time to time by foreign Powers with regard to the navigation of the Straits has recognized these regulations merely as of "usage" and not as a "right under the law of nations". In this respect therefore, the policy of the United States has been in contrast to that followed by Turkey and by the great European Powers in time past. If, in connection with the peace conference summoned to settle the affairs of the Near East, the "freedom of the Straits" should be secured by general international agreement, the result would be clearly in accord with our historical national policy with regard to natural waterways which are of international importance. Such a result, however, will not be achieved without severe scrutiny of lines of national interest as well as of principles of international law. The geographical location and the historical importance of the Straits give to any arrangements regarding the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles world wide political and economic significance. The interests which are involved in the solution of the problem of the Straits are entangled with the rootages of peace and war for all the world. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, linking the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, and the Mediterranean have sometimes been loosely called the "Canal of Constantinople". That term, though geographically incorrect, gives clue to the historical issues which cluster about this international and imperial waterway. This narrow passage has not been an ancient boundary between Europe and Asia. Instead it has been one of the chief routes of communication, a maritime highway not only between nations but between entire continents and civilizations. Where Jason and his Argonauts once sailed in search of the Golden Fleece (perhaps as pioneers of the Angora wool trade), now, with the return of order, modern argosies of grain and oil and metalled wealth may renew the healthy life of commerce. The terms for such traffic and the national and naval interests which surround them are vital in themselves. They are made much more difficult by the historical as well as the actual importance of Constantinople, which is both an imperial capital and a port of call. Time and again both diplomats and admirals have had to face the practical question as to whether the rulers of Constantinople by virtue of their situation were to control an international maritime route of immense commercial and strategic importance. The decay of Turkish power has only added to the difficulty of the successive decisions. At Constantinople thronged the interests of the great European Powers, jostling each other and also the claims of the tenacious Turk. As the Sultan became less powerful the threat of opposing Western policies became greater, till in the World War the control of the Straits became one of the supreme issues of victory or defeat. If the Allies had forced the passage of the Dardanelles in 1915 it is probable that the war would have ended in 1916. With what result to Russia and to the Near East, only the gods know. The Turks took up a persistent and calculated position in the days of their military power. Early in the eighteenth century they continued to deny to the commercial vessels of all other nations access to the Black Sea which they officially described as a "chaste and pure virgin inaccessible to everybody". Two hundred years ago Constantinople was a citadel, the implacable guardian of the Straits; today that ancient city is a junction of great lines of communication. The traffic rules have become international agreements and for that reason much more difficult to determine. Such a development explains the character and scope of the present problem. It is the significant story of the gradual victory of the claims for a mare liberum as against a mare clausum, the successful progress of international coöperation for freedom of navigation on the high seas as against the arbitrary monopoly of commerce in waters where territorial claims were dominant. In the sixteenth century the Mediterranean had been practically a Mohammedan lake. Indeed the Barbary pirates still took their toll till early in the last century. The decrease of Ottoman naval power during the seventeenth century did not, however, affect Turkish control of the Straits or of the Black Sea. British and Dutch merchants wishing to trade with Black Sea ports were grudgingly admitted to Constantinople, there to transfer their goods from Christian ships to vessels flying the Turkish flag. These alone could complete the traffic on waters which were then exclusively Turkish. This naval and commerical monopoly remained secure even after Peter the Great had led his armies southward to the capture of Azov in 1696. The Czar tried in vain to use his new harbor for the development of Russian commerce. The Turks were obstinate and vigorously maintained their legal claims with the comment that "when foreign ships gain the right to navigate freely in the Black Sea the end of the Ottoman Empire will have rung". Russian merchant ships could not sail to Constantinople; they must tranship their cargoes to Turkish bottoms at the entrance of the Sea of Azov. Likewise Austrian goods coming down the Danube must be transferred to Turkish vessels. By treaty in 1739 this superiority of Turkish claims extended to the destruction of the Russian forts at Azov and to the prohibition of the construction or maintenance of a Russian fleet in these waters. This situation became intolerable as the economic development of southern Russia rapidly advanced. Under Catherine II a more aggressive policy sent a Russian squadron for the first time past Gibraltar in 1770 to attempt the blockade of the Dardanelles. Here the protests of neutrals helped to weaken this bold attempt to coerce the Turks; but four years later by the famous |