which its chief functions have remained unaltered. The Treaty of Paris, of 1814, not only made provision for the navigation of the Rhine, but laid down a general rule that future international meetings should extend these provisions to other rivers which traversed two or more independent States. The Congress of Vienna provided for the creation of a central commission composed of representatives of States bordering on the Rhine, and, in addition, created "Rhine Courts" to settle disputes relating to river navigation. Another treaty was made in 1831 between France, the Netherlands, and the German States bordering on the Rhine which provided for administrative and judicial functions. After the Austro-Prussian War the Treaty of 1868 again set up certain international governmental powers over the Rhine. The general rule laid down by the Treaty of Paris and the Congress of Vienna and applied to the Rhine, has also been applied to the Neckar, the Maine, the Moselle, the Meuse, the Scheldt, the Danube, and other rivers in Europe.1

The most striking case of international government of a river is that of the Danube. Since 1856 the Danube has been subject to

Francis Bowes Sayre, Experiments in International Administration, pp. 131-141.

international control. At the time of the Crimean War the Danube, from its source to its mouth, was subject to the administrations of six independent States. Where navigation was not dangerous and perilous from obstructions and pirates, it was harassed and made expensive by the regulations and tolls imposed by the different States. It was useless for a State at the headwaters of the river to dredge a channel for deep-draft vessels unless the other States dredged the lower parts of the river to provide a channel of equal depth. Navigation at the mouth of the river was particularly perilous. Under the Treaty of Paris of 1856 the European Commission of the Danube was created. Although the Commission was originally created only to deal with problems at the mouth of the river, its power and jurisdiction were enlarged from time to time, so that by 1883 the Commission's jurisdiction extended from the mouth of the river to the head of navigation for sea-going ships. The Commission was composed of one delegate from each of the Powers that signed the Treaty of 1856. Of the seven riparian States, only Austria and Turkey were signatories and represented on the European Commission. In 1914 the Commission was composed of one member from each of the following States-Austria

Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Rumania, Russia and Turkey.

When the war broke out in 1914 the Danube Commission had been functioning for nearly sixty years. It removed obstructions from the mouth of the river and reduced greatly the number of wrecks. It dredged and straightened a channel which greatly shortened the course of the river. It regulated navigation and tolls. It exercised control over the public health. It built and operated hospitals, piers, and other port facilities. It issued loans guaranteed by the signatory Powers to the treaty. The Danube Commission spent more than $8,000,000 in engineering works. Under its government commerce on the Danube reached a volume that makes it one of the most important international rivers in the world. The annual revenue of the Commission, from which it defrayed its expenses, amounted to more than $400,000, and was derived from taxes levied on vessels leaving the river.5

The United States has recognized the justice of the general principle announced at the Congress of Vienna, that navigable rivers which traverse two States shall be entirely

'Leonard S. Woolf, The Future of Constantinople; E. B. Krehbiel, "The European Commission of the Danube," in the Political Science Quarterly, March, 1918.

free along their whole course. The St. Lawrence River for a part of its course flows through the Dominion of Canada. Although both shores of this portion of the river are outside the jurisdiction of the United States, it very early claimed that this "natural right of communicating with the ocean, by the only outlet provided by nature," could not be abrogated. On June 23, 1823, John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, instructed the United States Minister to England to bring the subject to the attention of the British Government. In supporting the American view Mr. Adams invoked the principle declared by the Congress of Vienna. On June 19, 1826, Henry Clay, then Secretary of State, sent similar instructions to Mr. Gallatin, then Minister to England. Clay maintained that the inhabitants on the upper banks of a river had a natural right to navigate it on the way to the sea through the territories of another sovereign. Mr. Clay also invoked the regulations established at the Congress of Vienna, referring to them "as the spontaneous homage of man to the superior wisdom of the paramount Lawgiver of the Universe, by delivering His great works from the artificial shackles and selfish contrivances to which they have been arbitrarily and unjustly subjected." By Article VI of the

Treaty of June 5, 1854, and Article XXVI of the Treaty of May 8, 1871, the right of navigation was established, subject to laws and regulations of Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such right.®

Through Secretary Root and Ambassador Bryce there was negotiated in 1909 a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which was proclaimed on May 13, 1910. By this treaty the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada was created. This Commission is composed of three commissioners from each country, and it is given control over the future uses, obstructions or diversions of boundary waters on either side of the boundary line. The Commission has power to render a decision by a majority vote, and in case of an even division the commissioners are under the duty to make separate reports to their governments.

The Commissioners from the United States were appointed on March 9, 1911, and from Canada on November 10, 1911. The Commission organized early in 1912 and adopted rules of procedure. Since that time the Commission has acted upon numerous applications for the approval of plans for the diversion of

John Bassett Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, pp. 631-635; Principles of American Diplomacy, pp. 130–131.