Page images

Article: XII. The High Contracting Parties, by application of the principle of equality as regards the free use of the Canal, a principle which forms one of the bases of the present Treaty, agree that none of them shall endeavour to obtain with respect to the Canal territorial or commercial advantages or privileges in any international arrangements which may be concluded. Moreover, the rights of Turkey as the territorial Power are reserved.

Article XIII. With the exception of the obligations expressly provided by the clauses of the present Treaty, the sovereign rights of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, and the rights and immunities of His Highness the Khedive, resulting from the Firmans, are in no way affected.

Article XIV. The High Contracting Parties agree that the engagements resulting from the present Treaty shall not be limited by the duration of the Acts of Concession of the Universal Suez Canal Company.

Article XV. The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not interfere with the sanitary measures in force in Egypt.

Article XVI. The High Contracting Parties undertake to bring the present Treaty to the knowledge of the States which have not signed it, inviting them to accede to it. Article XVII. The present Treaty shall be ratified, etc.

Parl. Pap. Commercial. No. 2 (1889). 4.

In connection with the reservation made by Sir Julian Pauncefote at Paris in 1885, and renewed by Lord Salisbury in 1887, at the time of the submission of the convention for the assent of the powers, it may be observed that Mr. Curzon, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking for the Government in the House of Commons, July 12, 1898, stated that, owing to the reservation in question, “the terms of the convention have not been brought into practical operation." a

June 25, 1898, Mr. Day, Secretary of State, cabled to Mr. Hay, United States ambassador in London: “We desire to send war ships through the Suez Canal. Mention the matter to the minister for foreign affairs; and, while discreetly assuming that no objection will be made, ascertain probable source of objection, if any, and attitude of the Government of Great Britain thereon. Prompt action is important.

Mr. Hay immediately obtained an interview with Lord Salisbury, and, assuming that no objection would be made to the passage of United States ships-of-war through the canal, inquired “whether there had been any modification of the convention of 1888, which would go to place the nonsignatory powers on any different footing from those signing the convention.” Lord Salisbury replied that there had been none, and Mr. Hay gathered from his remarks that he had no idea that any power would make any protest against the use of the canal by the United States, or that any protest would hold if it were made. “The attitude of the British Government,” said Mr. Hay, “is that we are unquestionably entitled to the use of the canal for war ships.")

[ocr errors]

a Hansard, 4th series, LXI. 667.

o For. Rel. 1898, 982.

“I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 438 of the 25th ultimo, in which you convey the purport of your conversation with the Marquis of Salisbury in relation to the passage of the Suez Canal by ships of war.

“Your action in merely referring to the convention of Constantinople of October 29, 1888, in relation to the free navigation of the Suez Canal, as defining the attitude of the contracting parties on the subject, is approved.

“The object of the Department in telegraphing to you was threefold:

“1. It was desired to avoid even the possibility of objection being made to the use of the canal by our ships of war at a time when the need for such use might be immediate and imperative.

“2. The Department, while recognizing the general and unrestricted purpose of the convention of October 29, 1888, was not disposed wholly to rely upon it or formally to appeal to it, since the United States is not one of the signatory powers.

“3. The Departinent was not disposed, by a formal appeal to the convention, to recognize a general right on the part of the signatories to say anything as to the use of the canal in any manner by the United States.

“So far as the Department is advised, Great Britain is the only Government that owns any stock, or at any rate a considerable amount of stock, in the canal, and therefore the only one in a position to assert any claim of control on that ground.

“The Department is gratified with the response made by Lord Salisbury to your inquiry."

Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hay, amb. to England, July 14, 1898, For.

Rel. 1898, 983.

By the convention of Constantinople the Suez Canal is not neutralized. This expression does not properly indicate the international position of the canal. If it were neutralized it would be closed to the ships of war of belligerents. Neither England nor France, nor any other state having possessions in the Far East, as Holland and Spain, would have been willing to concur in a diplomatic act by which the passage of the canal would have been forbidden to the ships of a belligerent state. The delegate of Russia expressed a wish that the Red Sea should be placed under the régime created by the convention, in order to assure access to the canal from the south in all circumstances. The delegates from Italy strongly opposed this proposition.

Bonfils, Manuel de Droit International Public (1894), 273.
The term neutralization has come to be used in a sense less strict than that

indicated by the author, so as to include an arrangement whereby protection is sought to be guaranteed against hostile attack or hostile interruption, while the same freedom of use is sought to be assured in war as in peace. No doubt, however, the leading motive of agreements of neutralization is to secure exemption from hostile attack and a corro.

sponding prohibition of distinctive hostile use. When, by Article IX. of the treaty of Vienna, provision was made for the “neutrality of the Free Town of Cracow and its territory," it was declared in the same breath: No armed force shall be introduced upon any pretense whatever." When, by Article XI. of the treaty of Paris, the Black Sea was “neutralized," the maintenance of armaments upon it was forbidden. In the neutralization of Luxemburg it was stipulated that the city of Luxemburg should no longer be treated as a federal fortress. By a treaty between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, signed at London November 14, 1863, the Ionian Isles were united to Greece and were neutralized. Article III. of the treaty declares that was a necessary consequence of the neutrality to be thus enjoyed by the United States of the Ionian Islands, the fortifications constructed in the Island of Corfu and in its immediate dependencies, having no longer any object, shall be demolished." The treaties of March 30, 1856, November 2, 1865, and March 13, 1871, having effected the neutralization of the Lower Danube and of the works constructed in aid of its navigation, the treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, provided (Article LII.) that “all the fortresses and fortifications existing on the course of the river from the Iron Gates to its mouths" should be razed, and no new ones erected.” The Argentine Republic and Chile, by their treaty of July 23, 1881, declare: “ARTICLE V. The Straits of Magellan are neutralized forever, and their free navigation is guaranteed to the flags of all nations. To insure this neutrality and freedom, it is agreed that no fortifications or military defenses which might interfere therewith shall be

erected." As to the Straits of Magellan, see Abribat, Le Détroit de Magellan au point

de vue international: Paris, 1902. Concerning the neutralization of the Suez Canal, Bonfils cites Twiss, La

neutralisation du canal de Suez, Rev. de Droit Int. VII. (1875), 628;
De la sécurité de la navigation dans le canal de Suez, Rev. de Droit Int.
XIV. (1882), 572; Le canal de Suez etc., Rev. de Droit Int. XVII. (1885),
615; Asser, Le canal de Suez et la convention de Constantinople, Rev.
de Droit Int. XX. (1888), 529; F. de Martens. La question égyptienne et le

Droit int.
See, also, T. J. Lawrence, Essays on Int. Law, 41, 142; Gaignerot, La

question d'Égypte (Paris, 1901), 337 et seq.
As to the neutralization of canals, see Fauchille, Blocus Maritime (Paris,

1882), 184 et seq. 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. (The Avon, 18 Int. Rev. Rec., 165.)


S 370.

The Corinth Canal was opened August 24, 1893. It is about six kilometres long. It is wholly within the territory of Greece, and forms part of its territorial waters. The rights of property, sovereignty, and jurisdiction all belong to Greece. The canal is not directly connected with the great navigation of the Mediterranean. The Suez Canal is of general interest, the Corinth of secondary inter

est. It facilitates the relations of the Adriatic with Eastern Greece, the Bosphorus, Asia Minor, and the Black Sea. The Suez Canal unites all Europe, both Central and Western India, the Indian Ocean, the Far East, East Africa, and Australia.

ils, Manuel de Droit International Public (1894), 274.


$ 371.

A maritime canal unites the Bay of Kiel to the mouth of the Elbe. Its construction was due, not to individual initiative, but to the German Empire, the reasons being strategic rather than commercial. Its object was to establish easier communication between the two German arsenals of Wilhemshaven and Kiel, and to enable the German fleets to avoid the Danish Sound and Belts and escape a passage under the fire of Danish guns. The commerce of Hamburg and of Bremen with the Baltic will, however, derive advantage from the opening of this way of communication. The canal, which is about 98 kilometres long, is not international. Property, sovereignty, jurisdiction, admin. istration and management all belong to the German Empire.

Bonfils, Manuel de Droit International Public (1894), 274, citing Fleury,

Canaux maritimes, Revue des deux mondes, November 15, 1893.
July 18, 1901, Mr. White, American ambassador at Berlin, reported that in

accordance with a request made by the embassy “ permission " had been
granted to the U. S. S. Enterprise to pass through the Kaiser Wilhelm
(Kiel) canal en route to the North Sea, the request having been made
by the embassy at the instance of the commander of the ship. The
embassy subsequently reported, on information furnished by the Amer-
ican consular agent at Kiel, that the canal dues paid by the Enterprise
amount to 400 marks and those by the U. S. S Buffalo to 900 marks,
which, considering the saving in time and coal, would apparently indi-
cate that it was less expensive for the ships to go through the canal
than to round the Danish peninsula. (Mr. White, ambassador at Ber-
lin, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, July 18, 1901; Mr. Jackson, chargé at
Berlin, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Oct. 19, 1901: For. Rel. 1901, 184.)




(1) By right of place. $ 373.

(2) By right of blood. 8 374. 2. By naturalization. § 375.

3. By revolution. $ 376. III. NATURALIZATION,

1. Legislative and conventional regulation. § 377.
2. Voluntary individual action. $ 378.
3. Collective naturalization.
(1) By political incorporation. § 379.

Louisiana (ession.
Florida treaty.
Annexation of Texas.
Annexation of Hawaii.

Porto Rico and the Philippines.
(2) Provisions for individual election. $ 380.

Treaty of Guadalupe Ilidalgo.
Alaskan cession.
Treaty of Frankfort.

Treaty with Spain, 1898.

1. Regulated by Congress. § 381."
2. Committed to the courts. $382.
3. Persons capable of naturalization. § 383.
4. L'sual legal conditions. $384.
5. Declaration of intention.

(1) Usual requirement. $ 385.
(2) Exceptions. $ 386.

Immigration during minority.
Service in Army.
Service in Navy or Marine ('orps.

Special case in Hawaii.
(3) Does not confer citizenship. 8 387.

Judicial decisions,
Executive action.

Cases of Italians.
6. Residence.
(1) Five years' rule. $ 388.

Meaning of “ continued term,"
(2) Exceptions. $ 389.


Service in Army. 270

« PreviousContinue »