Meuse, and the Scheldt, which are declared in like manner to be free from the point where each of these rivers becomes navigable to its mouth. Similar regulations respecting the free navigation of the Elbe were established among the powers interested in the commerce of that river, by an act signed at Dresden the 12th December, 1821. And the stipulations between the different powers interested in the free navigation of the Vistula and other rivers of ancient Poland, contained in the treaty of the 3d May, 1815, between Austria and Russia, and of the same date between Russia and Prussia, to which last Austria subsequently acceded, are confirmed by the final act of the Congress of Vienna. The same treaty also extends the general principles adopted by the Congress relating to the navigation of rivers to that of the Po." [The Danube was declared free to commerce, under certain restrictions, by the treaty of Paris, in 1856. See further, on the navigation of rivers, Schuyler's American Diplomacy; Calvo's International Law, 4th Ed., I., 451-467; Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty; Englehardt, in the Revue de Droit, International, vol. XI., pp. 363–381. F. S.]1

(b) Straits.

THE SOUND DUES.

(Wheaton's International Law, 3d Ed., 231.)

"The supremacy asserted by the king of Denmark over the Sound and the two Belts which form the outlet of the Baltic Sea into the ocean, is rested by the Danish public jurists upon immemorial prescription, sanctioned by a long succession of treaties with other powers. According to these writers, the Danish claim of sovereignty has been exercised from the earliest times beneficially for the protection of commerce against pirates and other enemies by means of guard-ships, and against the perils of the sea by the establishment of lights and land-marks. The Danes continued for several centuries masters of the coasts on both sides of the Sound, the province of Scania not having been ceded to Sweden until the treaty of Roeskild, in 1658, confirmed by that of 1660, in which it was stipulated that Sweden

1 South American Rivers.-The River La Plata, with its branches the Parana and the Uruguay, was opened to general commerce during the period from 1851 to 1859, and the Amazon, during that from 1858 to 1867. (Schuyler's American Diplomacy, 319--344.)

African Rivers.-By act of the conference of Berlin, 1885, the principles of free navigation were extended to the Congo and the Niger.

should never lay claim to the Sound tolls in consequence of the cession, but should content herself with a compensation for keeping up the light-houses on the coast of Scania. The exclusive right of Denmark was recognized as early as 1368, by a treaty with the Hanseatic republics, and by that of 1490, with Henry VII., of England, which forbids English vessels from passing the Great Belt as well as the Sound, unless in case of unavoidable necessity; in which case they were to pay the same duties at Wyborg, as if they had passed the Sound at Elsinore.

"The treaty concluded at Spire, in 1544, with the Emperor Charles V., which has commonly been referred to as the origin, or at least the first recognition, of the Danish claim to the Sound tolls, merely stipulates, in general terms, that the merchants of the Low Countries frequenting the ports of Denmark should pay the same duties as formerly.

"The treaty concluded at Christianople, in 1645, between Denmark and the United Provinces of the Netherlands, is the earliest convention with any foreign power by which the amount of duties to be levied on the passage of the Sound and Belts was definitely ascertained. A tariff of specific duties on certain articles therein enumerated was annexed to this treaty, and it was stipulated that, ' goods not mentioned in the list should pay according to mercantile usage, and what has been practiced from ancient times.'

"A treaty was concluded between the two countries at Copenhagen, in 1701, by which the obscurity in that of Christianople as to the non-specified articles, was meant to be cleared up. By the third article of the new treaty it was declared that as to the goods not specified in the former treaty, the Sound duties are to be paid according to their value; that is, they are to be valued according to the place from whence they come, and one per centum of their value to be paid.

"These two treaties of 1645 and 1701, are consequently referred to in all subsequent treaties, as furnishing the standard by which the rates of these duties are to be measured as to privileged nations. Those not privileged, pay according to a more ancient tariff for the specified articles, and one and a quarter per centum on unspecified articles.

"By the arrangement concluded at London and Elsinore, in 1841, between Denmark and Great Britain, the tariff of duties levied on the passage of the Sound and Belts was revised, the duties on nonenumerated articles were made specific, and others reduced in amount, whilst some of the abuses which had crept into the manner of levying the duties in general were corrected. The benefit of this

arrangement, which is to subsist for the term of ten years, has been extended to all other nations privileged by treaty."

[The Sound dues became so great a burden to commerce that active opposition to them finally arose both in Europe and America; and the right of Denmark to collect them was warmly disputed, especially in the United States. Denmark therefore, in 1855, suggested a project of capitalizing the Sound dues; and in accordance with this suggestion, a European Congress met at Copenhagen, in the winter of 1856, and concluded a treaty, March 14, 1857, by which these dues were forever abolished, in consideration of a present payment of 35,000,000 rix-dollars. The United States declined to become a party to the treaty, because, as President Pierce said, "Denmark does not offer to submit to the convention the question of her right to levy the Sound dues." And further that the proposition contemplated a political result_" the balance of power among the governments of Europe." The United States, however, concluded a separate treaty with Denmark, April 11, 1857, by which 717,829 rix-dollars were paid to Denmark, in consideration of her agreement to keep up lights, buoys, and pilot establishments, thus avoiding the recognition of the right of Denmark to collect the dues. See Schuyler's American Diplomacy, 306; H. R. Ex. Doc., No. 108, 33d Congress, 1st Sess. and Senate Ex. Doc., No., 28, 35th Cong., 1st Sess.-F. S.]

THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES.

(Wheaton's International Law, 3d Ed., 230.)

"So long as the shores of the Black Sea were exclusively possessed by Turkey, that sea might with propriety be considered a mare clausum, and there seems no reason to question the right of the Ottoman Porte to exclude other nations from navigating the passage which connects it with the Mediterranean, both shores of this passage being at the same time portions of the Turkish territory; but since the territorial acquisitions made by Russia, and the commercial establishments formed by her on the shores of the Euxine, both that empire and the other maritime powers have become entitled to participate in the commerce of the Black Sea, and consequently to the free navigation of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. This right was expressly recognized by the seventh article of the treaty of Adrianople, concluded in 1829, between

Russia and the Porte, both as to Russian vessels and those of other European States in amity with Turkey.

"The right of foreign vessels to navigate the interior waters of Turkey, which connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean does not extend to ships of war. The ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire, established for its own security, by which the entry of foreign vessels of war into the canal of Constantinople, including the strait of the Dardanelles and that of the Black Sea, has been at all times prohibited, was expressly recognized by the treaty concluded at London the 13th July, 1841, between the five great European powers and the Ottoman Porte.

"By the second article, * * * the Sultan reserved the faculty of granting, as heretofore, firmans allowing the passage to light armed vessels employed, according to usage, in the service of the diplomatic legations of friendly powers."

["By the treaty of Paris in 1856, as modified by the treaty London in 1871, the Black Sea was thrown open to merchant vessels of all nations; but the streets are closed to ships of war, except that the Sultan has the faculty of opening them in time of peace to the war vessels of friendly and allied powers in case he deems it necessary for carrying out the stipulations of the treaty of Paris. The United States have never adhered to either of these treaties, and have always maintained that their right to send ships of war into the Black Sea cannot be legally taken from them by any arrangement concluded by European powers to which they are not parties. No attempt, however, has ever been made to exercise these rights. All American ships of war have, while reserving all question of right, asked permission of the Porte to pass the Dardanelles." Schuyler's American Diplomacy, 317.]

(c) Bays.

REGINA v. CUNNINGHAM.

COURT FOR CROWN CASES Reserved, 1859.

(Bell's Crown Cases, 722.)

Held, that a crime, committed on a ship lying in the Bristol Channel, at a point where it is more than ten miles wide, is committed within the body of the adjoining county, and subject, therefore, to the jurisdiction of the courts of said county.

This was an action upon an indictment against the three mates of an American vessel, for feloniously wounding one of their seamen.

The offense charged took place in the Penarth Roads, ninety miles from the mouth of the Bristol Channel. The venue was Glamorganshire the offense took place three-quarters of a mile from the coast of Glamorganshire, at a spot always covered by the tide, but a quarter of a mile from a place which is left dry by the tide.

It was ten miles to the opposite shore. The exact place was between Glamorganshire and an island called the Flat Holms, part of the county of Glamorganshire, and two miles inside that island.

Counsel for the prisoners contended that the offense was committed on the high seas-the Crown that it was in the county of Glamorgan.

The judgment of the court was delivered by COCKBURN, C. J."In this case we are of opinion that the conviction is right. The only question with which it becomes necessary for us to deal is whether the part of the sea on which the vessel was at the time when the offense was committed, forms part of the county of Glamorgan; and we are of opinion that it does. The sea in question is part of the Bristol Channel, both shores of which form part of England and Wales, of the county of Somerset on the one side and the county of Glamorgan on the other. We are of opinion that, looking at the local situation of this sea, it must be taken to belong to the counties respectively by the shores of which it is bounded; and the fact of the Holms, between which and the shore of the county of Glamorgan the place in question is situated, having always been treated as part of the parish of Cardiff and as part of the county of Glamorgan, is a strong illustration of the principle on which we proceed, namely, that the whole of this inland sea between the counties of Somerset and Glamorgan is to be considered as within the counties, by the shores of which its several parts are respectively bounded. We are, therefore, of opinion that the place in question is within the body of the county of Glamorgan."

THE DIRECT UNITED STATES CABLE COMPANY v. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

PRIVY COUNCIL, 1877.

(Law Reports, 2 App. Cases, 394.)

Held, that Conception Bay, in Newfoundland, which is something over fifteen miles wide, and forty to fifty miles long, is a British bay, and a part of the territorial waters of Newfoundland.

This suit was one in which the Respondent Company had obtained