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 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 liver 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 1 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.By 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 Soucy, 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. 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." 3 This version is from the French text in De Clercq, III. 41. voices to one, and the clause proposed by one voice alone is rejected by a majority of three to two. "Done at Leipzig, July 1, 1816. "LE BARON DE BINDER. "LE BARON DE BROCKHAUSEN. "LE COMTE DE CASTELOELFER. "LE CHEVALIER JOHN SEWELL. Austria and other powers: Cantons of Tessin and Uri.-By Article VI. of the declaration of March 20, 1815, on the affairs of the Helvetic Confederacy, embodied as Article LXXXI. in the final act of the Congress of Vienna, the cantons of Argovia, Vaud, Tessin, and St. Gall were required to furnish to the cantons of Schweitz, Unterwald, Uri, Glaris, Zug, and Appenzell a certain sum of money to be applied to purposes of public instruction and to a less extent to the expenses of general administration; and for this purpose it was provided that the cantons of Argovia, Vaud, and St. Gall should furnish a certain sum, and that the canton of Tessin should "pay every year to the canton of Uri a moiety of the produce of the tolls in the Levantine Valley." The execution of these arrangements was to be superintended by "a commission appointed by the Diet." It seems that a decision was rendered August 15, 1816, as to the payment by Tessin to Uri.' Austria-Hungary and Chile.—See Germany and Chile. Chile and Belgium. - See Chile and Italy. Chile and Italy.-By a protocol signed December 7, 1882, it was agreed that the claims of Italian subjects against Chile, growing out of the war of the latter country with Peru and Bolivia, should be submitted to a tribunal of arbitration. By a protocol signed at Santiago October 2, 1886, the time originally fixed for the sessions of the tribunal was extended, for the reason, as the protocol recited, that the Italian arbitrator had been compelled by private business to return to Italy. The departure of the third arbitrator, Senhor Lafayette Rodriguez Pereira, of Brazil, necessitated a further extension of time, which was agreed upon January 5, 1887. By a protocol concluded January 11, 1888, all claims then undecided by the tribunal, to the number of 261, were settled for 297,000 Chilean silver dollars. It was declared, however, that this arrangement was not to be understood as affecting, directly or indirectly, the principles and jurisprudence maintained by the Chilean Government and sustained by the tribunal. No award was made by the tribunal for the destruction of property either at Miraflores or Chorillos, during or just after the battles at those places. The total amount of the claims submitted to the tribunal was 7,576,030.24 silver soles. The amount awarded on claims decided by it was $70,326.31, as principal, and $21,942.36 as interest.2 By a convention of August 30, 1884, it was provided that three claims of Belgian subjects should be referred to the commission under the protocol between Chile and Italy.3 Calvo, Le Droit Int., 4th ed., 2 For. Rel. 1888, I. 186-188, 190. See Sentencias pronunciados por el Tribunal Italo-Chileno, 1884-1888; De Martens, Recueil, 2o série, X. 638; Calvo, 4th ed. III. 455, 466; Annuaire de l'Institut, 1885, 202. 3 De Martens, Recueil, 2o série, X. 638. Chile and Sweden and Norway.—See Great Britain and Chile. Chile and Switzerland.-By a convention concluded January 19, 1886, ratified by Switzerland July 10, 1886, and by Chile October 7, 1886, the two governments agreed to refer to an arbitral tribunal established in conformity with the German-Chilean convention of August 23, 1884, all claims of Swiss citizens against the Chilean Government growing out of the acts and operations of the latter's land and naval forces on the territory and coasts of Peru and Bolivia during the then recent war of Chile with Peru and Bolivia. It was agreed that the claims should be decided upon the same principles and with the same formalities and conditions as the claims of German subjects under the convention of August 23, 1884.1 China and Japan.-A controversy arose between these powers in 1875 in consequence of the killing of a Japanese subject by the Chinese in the island of Formosa. The dispute had reached an acute stage, when it was decided to refer it to Sir Thomas Wade, British minister at Peking, who in due time rendered an award directing the payment of a sum of money by China as reparation for the outrage.2 Colombia and Costa Rica.-By a convention signed at San José December 25, 1880, these powers agreed to submit the dispute as to their common boundary to the King of the Belgians, or, if he should decline, to the King of Spain, or, if he too should refuse to act, to the President of the Argentine Republic. The King of the Belgians declined the post of arbitrator, and for a time the matter remained in suspense. An additional treaty on the subject was concluded at Paris January 20, 1886,5 and the office of arbitrator was accepted by the Queen Regent of Spain on behalf of His Majesty Alfonso XIII. The arbitration lapsed, however, owing to a dispute between the contracting parties as to the time within which their cases were to be presented. Negotiations were afterward undertaken for a new treaty of arbitration. The United States tendered its good offices with a view to facilitate such a conclusion. A report has appeared in the press to the effect that the office of arbitrator in the matter has been accepted by President Faure." Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.-Mr. Strobel, then minister of the United States at Quito, reported in a dispatch of December 18, 1894, that "after the rejection by the Congress of Ecuador of the Garcia-Herrera treaty for the settlement of the boundary question with Peru," negotiations were reopened at Lima; that Colombia insisted upon taking part in the conference, and her claim was allowed; that Bolivia made a like attempt, but was unsuccessful. December 17, 1894, the President of Ecuador was informed that a treaty between the three powers had been signed for the submission of their conflicting territorial claims to arbitration; that Spain was to act as arbitrator; and that the decision was to be made not 1 De Martens, Recueil, 2o série, XIV. 324. 2 See Calvo, Le Droit Int. 4th ed. III. 437. 3 For. Rel. 1881, 711, 870, 1057. 4 Id. 71. 5 Id. 1893, 273-275. 6 Id. 202. 7 Id. 266. Id. 202, 270; 1894, 180, 185. 9 New York Herald, June 18, 1897. |